and so when -- when 702 is related -- you might pick up the information and the government may become aware of information, it doesn't need a warrant there. you have to decide whether 702, any time it touches a u.s. person or some of it stuff you stumbled across almost in plain view. you can have different views whether it's natural for the government to see evidence in front of their eyes or it always needs warrant for the government to have access to that kind of information. and 702 is in the middle. targeted foreign people, communications happening outside the united states and so that's a long way towards not warrantland and if you assume it's all warrants, then they'll be pushed back from people who say usually we don't have to get warrants there. >> i think we have time for one more. sure.

>> glen marcus, national press club. just quickly. nima thank you for bringing the issue up, et cetera, et cetera. so two quick questions, one is -- well first amendment issues freedom addressed in any of the discussions that you all had and there were any specific discussions on how to handle that or did anybody bring impending shield of law that congress has been battling for a while, whether that ever came up although the second part is less important than the first. thanks.

if the government had not collected information that would be first amendment, you will have the same concerns. there's different places that would be more attenuated in that process but ppt 28 disposal this putting the out there to address sort of the foreign community in those questions. >> one other thing. to the extent a lot of these rules are to try to protect our democracy against abuse by over surveillance, that has a lot to do with first amendment whether free speech, whether you can speak anonymously, whether you and your friends can decide what you want to do and then take action politically. first and then the protections are very much in our report as i try to keep a democracy from

getting abused by too much surveillance. >> i hope you'll all join me in thanking this fantastic group for a lively discussion. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any of this conversation you can watch it online at c-span video library

your also today live over on c-span2 donald trump campaign in charlotte, north carolina, where a real clear politics poll shows hillary clinton three points ahead in the polls. his campaign stop five at 7 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> every weekend booktv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. here's what's coming up this weekend. booktv is live from the 28th annual southern festival of books in nashville.

>> tuition and fees are less than half, and sometimes even maybe only 30% of the total cost of attending college. the real hangups students have are the need to pay their rent, to pay for utilities, to buy food. they can't do those things in the same way when they're in college because they need to spend time in the classroom. it's those kinds of things we found trip to a overtime. it really wasn't a tuition and fees. >> go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> house republicans announced they felt a brief an in an obamacare lawsuit involving a multimillion dollar shortfall in a fund that was supposed to cushion health insurers from financial losses. the $5 billion class action lawsuit was filed at the now defunct house republican of oregon. it's one of about a dozen

companies that have sued over delayed payments which they say is crippled their businesses. republicans fear the obama administration will try to use money outside of congressional control from a fund in the treasury department used to settle legal cases. read more at the hill.com. >> a look at the economic proposals of the presidential nominees with advisors to the trunk and clinton campaigns moderated by mark halperin of bloomberg government. >> to welcome everybody. it's great to see everybody again at how amazing at the table breakfast on politics sponsored of course by the peter peterson foundation. we're thrilled to have you here in people like streaming. we are thrilled today to be talking about the economy because an over the past week we really want to be focus on issues that matter. i'm really looking for to a substantive talk today about both candidates and economic policy and not some of the other

things people in my profession have been spent talking about for the past week. mark halperin has got some great guests and it will be fantastic. to take everything off i'm going to welcome to the stage loretta ucelli, executive vice president of the pete peterson foundation. thank you, guys so much. have a great event. [applause] >> thank you so much for coming this morning. my name is loretta ucelli, and i am executive vice president of peter g. peterson foundation. we are a nonpartisan organization, and our mission is to educate and engage americans in the nation's long-term fiscal challenges. and find solutions that help us achieve and maintain a prosperous and growing economy. we believe that long-term debt is a critical issue for the economy. whatever the issue is that you

care about, education, the environment, national security, our ability as a nation to deal with it is grounded in addressing our long-term fiscal challenges. we also believe that debate our discussion and dialogue are critical in this presidential election. and that's why we are very proud and enthusiastic sponsor of events like this with bloomberg politics. we are certainly looking forward to this morning's discussion with a range of policy experts. and with everything going on in the news, i think there's a lot more to talk about as well. i'm sure that mark will take us through all of that. but thank you for joining us, and it is great to be here for this discussion. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage mark

halperin, managing editor bloomberg politics, host of with all due respect, and bloomberg television. >> so we're going to have a big policy discussion today but that's not all we're going to talk about. off mike the question of whose policies are going to be thought about and treated seriously come january is hanging in the balance. i was in lakeland, florida, yesterday at 6:00 covering donald trump, and between the time i left that event to come your and no, a lot has happened that's going to impact this race in ways that are not currently knowable. so ken goldstein, my colleague come as we come up and we'll talk a little bit about what's currently happening in the news. and we will battle in some of that with everybody else but we are going to a discussion of the themes and issues the peterson foundation does so well on and they're obviously one of the few groups i would say that thank god for them, that's always

trying to inject substantive discussions into what's happening. i'm really optimistic no matter who wins the white house or who controls congress that we are going to see a flurry of substantive activity on fiscal issues and economic issues in the beginning of a new administration, new congress. there is a fair amount of agreement of both the right issues to work on. we will talk about all that the first we went to talk going on in the news. i want to do to be volunteers to just watch donald trump's twitter account during the event and tell me anything that goes on. [laughter] because anytime i'm not muttering a discussion like this there some, everything i am saying will be taken over anything can 140 characters or fewer. ken goldstein, a contributor to bloomberg politics and he is a crossed display genius about polling and advertising. and now an expert on allegations

of sexual harassment because that's what we're going to start. thank you. >> thank you very much for having me. good morning. >> so friday morning donald trump was behind. he had a plausible path to a 265 electoral votes. no obvious path to 270 but once you get to do it is 65 you are within hailing distance. since they would have the access hollywood audio slashed beauty. we had the debate in the we that this latest round of allegation. so if you're the trump campaign just talk about, there is very limited public polling bloomberg has a poll out today in pennsylvania that shows will be doing for them but he's been doing very badly in pennsylvania and the electoral college translations do not hinge on pennsylvania. if you are the trump campaign now is it possible to get good data to figure out where you stand, or are things moving too fast? >> and there's also the question

about whether they've invested in the infrastructure to gather that data. but when you were just saying you want a couple people here to keep an eye on donald trump's twitter account while we're talking, mark was not joking. it is to minister i was actually on fire, seems like a lot time ago, i was on that set about to talk to mark when the trunk news broke. people were screaming in my ear and i sat in san francisco, the blue angels are out there and zooming by in car alarms were going off. and unlike what am i going to talk about now i was to talk about the pennsylvania ad buy. you've heard michelle obama say at the convention and hillary clinton said it, when they go now we go high. so when things get crazy, i get boring. >> he's a little boring. >> let me be boring. so at the end of the day, elections are about what the

shape of the electorate looks like and how those different segments perform. it's a little embarrassing as a political scientist, we studied this and spend all this plan and we determine democrats vote for democrats and republican so for republicans. that's the big find it remember that from your intro to american politics course. so when you have two candidates who were so deep in popular, we can talk about how unpopular donald trump is and he seems to be coming left -- less popular. hillary clinton is also the second most unpopular person to ever run for president to be a major party nominee. this race devolved to a generic democrat versus a generic republican. when you have that, democrats have about, depends on what turnout is, but between four and 7% advantage in the shape of electric. donald trump needs to maximize republican loyalty and needs to win indy pendants by

significantly more than mitt romney won independence. so do we think things happen in the last couple days that are going to maximize republican turnout, minimize democratic turnout, make republicans more loyal and get swing voters to swing to trump in a way greater than romney got them? i think the answer to that is unlikely. i think we can see some movements over the last whatever it is, 28, 27 days here that make this a three-point race or four-point race, getting into field-goal range. currently we are not there. even when trump was having a little bit of movement before the first debate and seem to have stabilized things before friday in the second debate, he

was still not ahead. as you said it still would've been an inside straight to get to 270 electoral college votes. >> picking a fight with the speaker of the house was a member of his own adopted party, is it possible that could help them with at least a piece of appealing to independents? may be at the expense of alienating some republicans. >> it depends on what you mean by independent independent also. so independence is this big squishy concept. many of you here involved in politics know that the true number of independent probably like 10% at the most, not 30-35% that you see in most polls. maybe it swings some of those disaffected republicans who were

tea party folks -- tea party folks who don't want to say they're republican so they fall into the independent category. at the end of the day that's not a path to 270, not a path to 50 plus one. >> is the strategy begun at the debate and according to our colleague josh green, going to continue to date of highlighting bill clinton's personal life something that could allow them to consolidate support among republicans to get that piece other than? >> i think that's a possibility. we have not had a lot of public polling. and if i can get to your phone, i can see the text you about the internal polling. so you're just going to move out a way. [laughter] we don't have a lot of public polling. trump is still getting the is still getting to support the ec had let's trump's of getting massive republican support. he is but now it's in the high '70s rather than the high

80s, and that matters. so i think continued focus on the clintons maybe get some that republican support back up to the high '80s but he needs that in the '90s. he needs that turn out to be high, and he needs to be winning independents. there's been a lot of analysis the ever became an expert on white people in the last month, especially like white people in pennsylvania. no one here had have been to western pennsylvania except if you're driving through potential in washington, d.c. became an expert on white people in western pennsylvania. there's not enough of them. is the truth. when you talk about missing white voters in places like ohio, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, there are missing white voters. the problem for republicans is they are mostly dead. the missing white for some 10, 20 years ago. there's not enough who didn't turn out, who are going to turn out in a presidential election.

>> so let's talk about the mystery of the republican party's place with the electorate. a lot of handwringing if they lose the presidential, the popular vote six out of seven. and yet lots of states have republican governors including a lot of blue states that control both chambers of commerce, lots of state legislature. let's take wisconsin. how could a state that elects scott walker its government three times basically a very conservative guy with policies that are opposed by labor unions and lots of groups on the left, how could that state be an impossibility for the republican party at the presidential level? >> that's a really interesting question. not that your other ones were not as well. even in a high turnout state like wisconsin you have a million more people voting in a presidential election year than in a midterm election year. i think it's and to studied by nerds like me is the difference

between the composition of a midterm electorate and a presidential election electorate. remember my big brilliant -- democrats vote for democrats and republican so for republicans? democrats have a six, seven, 8% advantage in party id in a presidential election actually, and in a state like wisconsin republicans it's even even or republicans have a percentage point advantage. so the republicans have lots to figure out at the presidential level, but at the midterm level democrats need to figure out how to get those drop off voters. young people, nonwhite out to the polls or you will continue to see republicans that legislators, republican governors, which also been impact on the us congress because they are the ones drawn the lines for the congressional election as well. >> tell me what you think donald trump's floor and ceiling of the popular vote are right now. >> i think the floor is 37, 38.

and the ceiling is 42, 43. so a very narrow range. >> forty-three, he can't win is basically what you're telling us. >> even if you have and i think hillary wins by five. >> if he gets down to 37, does that mean the republicans lose the house are not necessarily? >> when things go crazy people talk about there's got to be away for not a wave and they talk about that way too early. when these things happen, mark and i first met at abc many, many, many years ago. i think we met in a midterm election. when crazy thing start happening is the last week and when you're like that race is competitive. so i think would be difficult for the democrats to take control of congress, but if you see a complete explosion, we've

already had an explosion, a complete explosion of the trump campaign, it may bring some seats into play. what's been really interesting is the republicans are holding on in some of these senate seats. i would not have thought i would have a conversation with you today where, i can't imagine ron johnson wins in wisconsin but charles franklin has him within two. >> are pulled in pennsylvania to shows donald trump losing badly, double digits in pennsylvania, or close to double digits and yet pat toomey is within the margin of error as well. >> has taken allow out. >> explained that that could be. at a time when people, if it isn't ticket splitting up the rob portman the other 15? >> at a time when people say there's not ticket splitting, there's ticket splitting. and then tweak democrats vote for democrats and republican so for republicans. listen, if i was the republicans i think which are going to see

in ron johnson is is basically an start airing ads where we will lose the presidency but if you want to check on hillary clinton you need to vote for me. either way because i can't not talk about ads, pay attention to where those ads are going in senate races. i had written off wisconsin for ron johnson. club for growth within the with 750,000 to $1 million. they must have had a poll that showed that was consistent with what charles is saying. >> okay. we scratched the surface but that's all we're going to get today. thank you very much. >> thanks for having me. >> ken goldstein. [applause] >> we are going to move on now. we will talk about policy and economics, and a first person to join appears peter navarro, a business professor at university of california-irvine and economic adviser to donald trump presidential campaign. thanks for coming. i'm going to start off by asking

you about the news but on this level. you are a guy who cares about ideas. to support a candidate who you think will be the best president. when you see stories like we've seen last night, allegations made, how does that make you feel? >> i love the headline of the post today. did you see that story? >> which story speak with you haven't read the post? e-mails, wikileaks. i don't know how you can start a conversation about what's going on without the bigger story of the wikileaks. we will see a constant stream of e-mails that are going to basically undressed hillary clinton before the voters of this country, and expose her as a corrupt, incompetent official who is micromanaged by people inside her organization. week elites are beautiful. let me give you an example. we will talk about the economy today. one of my things as an economist is trade. the 2012 south korean deal, this

was all hillary's baby. she went around asia as secretary of state promising the american people that that deal was going to create 70,000 new jobs. the peterson institute by the way was part of the think tank apparatus that gave birth the analytics for that. what do we know now? we know that that deal cost 95,000 jobs, mostly in the swing states of ohio, indiana, illinois. out exports did not move a bit. that needle did not move, but our imports went off the charts. we doubled our deal with south korea. wikileaks, this is beautiful. it's like we've got john podesta's e-mails, write, and our foreign policy advisers warning or not to touch the south korean deal in public because it would quote drive them nuts.

this is what's going on at least from the trump campaign looking at that. it's corruption versus allegations, and you've got to talk about it. the peterson institute. i love being here because the peterson institute has been the leading think tank on globalization and they have been wrong every time. before they've even if the peterson institute, there've economist and 1983 told us not to was going to give us 200,000 jobs. what did we do? we lost 850,000 jobs and our deficit with mexico went from zero to $60 billion a year. the peterson institute told us that china going into the wto was going to be a good you for america. we lost over 50,000 factories, over 5 million manufacturing jobs. and the last 15 years our average and median household income has increased by what?

zero. and our growth rate has gone from 3.5% which we entertained 1947-2001, the 1.9 present to you lose one percentage point of gdp growth. that's 1.2 million jobs you don't agree. you do that for 15 years, you're in trouble. now the peterson institute is telling us that trans-pacific partnership is going to provide us the same kind of goodies for the american people. we are not buying this at the trump campaign. the american people are not buying it. in the swing states they are not buying it. the e-mails are really revealing about this. this whole thing about how hillary clinton speaks, okay, let's suppose you folks are donors, corporate donors and i'm hillary clinton. i'm telling you i'm for the tpp and until they do i'm for keeping the regulations so that will not hurt you. then i go out on the stump and i tell people just the opposite. that public voice versus the

private voice. it's in the wikileaks. i was debating austan goolsbee in springfield ohio two weeks ago. austan goolsbee was obama's advisor. in 2008 when obama was running against hillary, he went to believe it and gave a speech promising that he would repeal nafta. he promised he would repeal nafta. does that sound familiar? that's what donald trump says he is going to do. at the same time, goolsbee was sneaking into the canadian council in chicago telling the canadians that, don't worry, we gotcha covered. that's just maneuvering. >> i'm listening to everything you said i'm not being facetious but what to bring you back to my frustration and move onto some of the and move onto something and move onto some of the things you just said. justice and is dedicating time to try to help donald trump get elected, how do you do we get to read those are the headlines about allegations? >> it's not my lame.

you want to talk about those things? we've got bill clinton who abused interns, who rape women and the woman basically who enable that and punish women. if women in america want to vote for the clinton-kaine, that's what you got the what do we have what donald trump? we've got words and we got false allegations. do we want to go down this road at greenberg? i would read talk about economy. we can do this if you want. >> one question and respond to user their false allegations. i'm just wondering, did you ask donald trump if their false because i'm new to talk about economics. we want to have an election about the issues. let's talk about the economy, foreign policy, immigration, health care. every time i come to places like this or get on the radio or tv it's like they're ask me questions that are outside my lame. i'm going to stay in my lame and tell you, let's go over all those quotes. >> donald trump has talked about

trade quite a bit but he's also said he is for trade agreements. so tell me if he got the kind of trade agreements he would want passed and signed, explain how quickly and in what ways that would affect economic growth in this country, how that would work. >> our mission is to get back to 3.5% growth rate and we think we can do it. >> how much of that would be through simply the trade? >> probably about half, half of that, then there's, a fairly detailed conservatively estimate report that we went through the benefits to growth from tax cuts, reduced regulation, modest, energy and trade. when we -- >> have would be trade? >> roughly, yet. but here's the problem. when you ask me that question, what we all do in this world, particularly analytics is we

silenced off. it's like let's just look at tax policy, energy policy. think about the synergies and interactions. on tax policy if you cut the corporate tax from 35% whic whis the highest in the world among developing countries down 215%, what does that due to the trade equation? what it does is it changes the incentives from ford to gm to stay michigan rather than go to mexico. what does that do to the gdp? it increases non-residential fixed investment which boost a gdp growth rate but if you also have your production facilities in michigan, you also are selling into the american market which helps your trade deficit rather than go into next up is on back to the american market. when you say which of these contribute to which parts of growth, it's a synergistic. >> what country in what time period pursue that trade policy that led to faster growth? spew let me show you how this

would work. let's do the numbers. if you think about we have trade deficits with its around to a small hand of country. germany, japan, south korea, china, mexico. the approach that trump strategy takes is to recognize first of all that the problems we have, the reason for deficits with each of those countries, is different. i'm going to answer your question. china is achieving problem with mexico is a trade deal problem -- cheating. what we want to do surgically is negotiate bilaterally with each of these countries and say look, for example, germany, japan, south korea, by a little bit more of our petroleum products. that will help us. use our bargaining power. it's like when you're a big business and you have small vendors, you negotiate better. that's the whole thing. we are cutting back trade deals and we have think tanks telling

us they are good deals, and you wind up getting what we've got which is -- >> which other country pursued that strategy? >> they all do. germany, if you look, europe has got trouble. they grow slower than we do so you can't talk absolute terms. you've got to talk in relative terms. in europe gets overregulated. they have no when you're the energy resources we have. they have what we call in economics a lower potential outlook and other structural growth rate. the problem is we are underperforming but every country out there besides us which is taking advantage of our markets are engaging in a mercantilist statement kind of approach to reducing their trade deficit and selling products to us. we are not doing that. we are just saying, come on into our markets and it's okay. >> we've got a president whose approval ratings are in the 50s, and the 50s speed is remarkable, isn't it?

with the worst economy since world war ii. >> he would look at the top economic proposal is everything to talk about on energy, trade, the affordable care act are all bad ideas. so talk about how donald trump if elected would work with 40 plus for democrats in the senate and public opinions to make those things a reality. >> i think he would be great at that. that's the art of the deal. let's think about what the obama and clinton administration have offered us. really she makes no bones about this on the stump. she is going to raise taxes. no economic textbook tells you that's going to help us grow. she's going to continue with the increase in regulation that the obama administration has done, particularly on energy. nobody tells you that that stimulated the they are responsible, obama led for the tpp just like clinton did as a democrat against labor for china into the world trade organization.

i don't know what the game is. what i do know is it took us over 230 years to run up a debt of $10 trillion. it took barack obama eight years to double that. it's a missed diagnosis. it's the idea that whenever we have a problem we can solve this 13 since the most. what did they do? they ran the fiscal stimulus am a whacked out our federal reserve balance sheet by printing a bunch of easy money, and that is now working. the reason is they misdiagnosed the structural problem associated with sending our factories and investment offshore, and running massive trade deficits that bad arithmetic and definition pakistan. >> should the kind of have a federal system, a policy in place that has universal health coverage? >> i don't think so. look, the drug plan, and that's my opinion. what donald trump has promised

is to get rid of obamacare. obamacare, barack obama was a coward when he didn't obamacare for this reason. there were two things. let's go back to that debate. there were two things he had to college in the nation. coverage and cost containment. the hard-won was cost containment. the easy ones was coverage. just wave a wand and say let it be done. he waved that want and then let it be done. he didn't deal with cost containment and now the whole thing is imploding. that people who are getting hurt worse by the thirtysomethings and the late twentysomethings who are caught in that vice. let's make no mistake about that. that was bad policy and bad politics speak to the other and osha democracy has universal coverage. what's the right call regarding coverage for the federal government speak with not my lane. obamacare is gone and we will start over because that's not working. by the way, when canada, when canadians need good care, they

come across the border, right? when they need good care they come across the border. >> is donald trump has the republican house and say he has the republican senate if elected, what's a realistic deficit reduction goal over the first -- >> that's a great question to one of the problems that we have in analytics of all this is that all these think tanks that are hostile to his just look at the tax cuts. we have very positive offsets. if you've got big deficits the way washington thanks, here i am, is if you're a democrat is raise taxesor if you republican it's cut spending. but if you increase your growth rate by just one point or one point -- >> reduction. >> that's what we're going to do. >> let's talk macro numbers. he takes off as if he in january 2017. what you would we have 3.5% growth? >> probably by the end of the

year two. we want to eliminate the trade deficit wednesday in a year or two. that's doable with good deals. day one moratorium on all new regulations that don't threaten public health and safety or not congressionally mandated. and we have all agencies do a review and try to cut by 10%. we are not going to suppress our coal, or and natural gas industries anymore. and through these kind of synergistic policies, we can grow. the idea that -- >> 3.5% growth after year two. so what kind of path to deficit reduction doesn't put us on in a trump administration? >> our plan is revenue neutral. the tax foundation said that we lose $2.6 trillion dynamic from the tax cuts. that's normal. you've got to cut taxes, revenues will go to the analysis i did which is a consumed one shows we pick back up

2.4 trillion, combined with spending cuts makes this revenue neutral over the ten-year period spirit that doesn't sound like deficit reduction didn't. >> look, we're going to have a plan that grows and be revenue neutral over 10 years spirit if donald trump is a two-term president you are saying -- >> think about this. think about this. it will be on a much larger gdp, so the effect of deficit goes down dramatically. that's a standard find in economics. [inaudible] >> we want to grow in a revenue neutral way, create 25 million jobs and get things going. what's the alternative? hillary clinton is told you what she's going to do. she will continue obama. the best you can do, make no mistake about this, everyone in this room, the best you're going to do with hillary clinton is 2%, and probably worse. there's no way you go past that with rate and tax increasing regulation, capping the oil,

natural gas and coal industries and running stupid trade deals like south korea. >> the last time we ran surplus was in the '90s. is there anything about what bill clinton did regarding fiscal policy and economics that you think is worth copping to try to bring down the deficit? >> the clinton years were blessed by the most inventive exploration of technological innovation that we've ever seen since the invention of the steam engine. those were golden years and everybody remembers them fondly. you made a bunch of money and give you got out of the stock market in 2000, you kept it. that had little to do with anything the government did. [inaudible] >> there's a big debate on that. i go through this in my courses and there's a big debate about whether herbert walker bush actually said that the clinton recovery by resisting making some call to stimulus or not --

keynesian. you can probably give credit to both of those administration for what happened, but the real credit doesn't go to them. it comes to technology. make no mistake about what happened in those eight years. it was remarkable. >> but again would you attend in thing to bill clinton in terms of policy? >> what i would attribute to bill clinton is this. he made the worst decision of an american president in history on the economy when he pushed for china to get into the world trade organization. because our life, our world changed after that. you can just look at the data. 1947-2001, 3.5% growth. since china came into the world trade organization, with 300 billion new workers into the workforce, 300 million new workers over the 15 year period, dumping, cheating, just, i mean it's been difficult. whatever you want to attribute

to bill clinton in the '90s, he undid everything 10 times over. >> did george bush do anything to make that better? >> i think the best president we've had in terms of economic growth that trump emulates is rating the if you look at what happened -- >> did george w. do anything on china? >> no. but reagan is interesting. let me say this. reagan came into office, and here is a horrible situation in the '70s which a least some of us in this room remember. and by year three to eight of his administration he was hitting on 4% growth every year. >> still pretty high deficits. >> yes, but again our gdp was growing so relative to our gdp. you always have to bring that back into consideration. i think what the american people are concerned with now is growth and jobs and the fact that we can do it in a revenue neutral

way over 10 years when hillary clinton can't provide any of the growth and -- >> as you a lot of washington oriented groups score your plan not the way you do and they say in fact you increase the deficit through your plan. what assumptions are they making that are different than yours? >> well, let's start with, there's the good, the bad, and the ugly. let's start with the ugly. we get hillary clinton in cleveland talking to a bunch of high school students saying the independent moody's analytics basically scored a trump plan, create a recession. she specifically named mark zandi. she told not to high school students and applied that he was a republican to give him credibility. fact checker.org got all over because that's repeated lies. he's a big donor to the democratic party into her. there's a credibility issue. that tax policy center is coming

out with a score today as is aei the aei and the pac some patience is our plan looks great. tax policy center says it looks bad. ideology comes into play. what they don't do, what they don't do, they don't do two things in direct answer to question. first of all they don't dynamically score the plan. that's critical. we live in a dynamic world. secondly, and one of my missions has been over the past month is to get people to do the analytics can evaluate the whole plan. if you've got tax cuts taking revenues down, okay, but if you've also got energy regulatory and trade reform taking revenues up, let's look at the whole picture. >> thank you so much for really a pleasure. appreciate it. [applause] >> i was at a slightly different perspective now from jared bernstein who has been an

advisor to the clinton campaign formal and also former chief economist to the vice president. jared bernstein, please come up and join us. >> thank you for coming. >> thanks for inviting me. >> let's start you on use of day. we will replace the water. >> that was not a political statement at all. >> you or someone you would like this election to be about policy differences between the two candidates. the clinton campaign says we shouldn't talk about personal things the it should be about policy and yet they spent a fair amount of time talk about donald trump's temperament, not a bad issue and policy differences. would you say both campaigns are guilty of clinically want to talk about policy but not? >> i wouldn't put it that way.

i think both campaigns are actually talking more about policy than you might think if you just can open the front page. i thought the last debate policies came up more than i might've expected given what was reverberating around the news and social media. but i do think issues of temperament are relevant, particularly issues and i think that's particularly germane in this campaign when trump has really elevated this issue that it's not so much what i would call the policy framework, changes it in a quality, changes in globalization, changes in bargaining power and unions at all the kinds of policies i think about labor standards. it's not all of that stuff that's holding down middle-class incomes and wages. it's the other. it's the most him, the mexican, the immigrant. i think it's patently wrong. i think it's deeply divisive and it diverts from a series policy

discussion that i've been involved with for 20 plus years, and as a member of the obama economics team, was really trying to into being in that space. so that's the part that i think is kind of damaging. >> let me ask you what other questions outside the lane and then the go to economics. regardless of whether wikileaks -- john podesta's e-mails from russia or not, is it do you think proper for news organizations to take these denote the report on the osha the posture be these are john podesta private e-mails, we shouldn't report on? >> that's a really hard question. so let me see. i think it's really important to confirm that what you're seeing is what you really com, is what they're telling you that you're seeing. before people released that kind of information they need to make sure that it's true.

but the fact is we are learning some important stuff from things that people didn't want to be publicized, and i'm not sure that that's of is it a bad thing but i really don't -- >> in this case the clinton campaign is care of enforcing yes, these are accurate document. you are saying since the clinton campaign as income from these are the e-mails as written original they shouldn't be reported on? >> i can't speak to the clinton campaign because i haven't followed that. i think they should be reported on it till we know what we're looking at. i've had a real problem with things, things that come out to everybody about the advent turnout to be false or planted it's not that hard to do that sort of thing these days so that rubbed me the wrong way. >> you all didn't notify me there was a donald trump tweet 26 seconds ago. i saw this on the look but i'm not going to talk about that. >> that's not news. >> the current administration,

unemployment has come down, part has come down, there's some positives with this big number we talked about with peter previous of economic growth, the importance of more robust growth to solving all the challenges can energy content element reform, deficit reduction, health care to all of it would benefit in terms of trying to break the gridlock because of your estimates are that more palatable. what has gone wrong over the last eight years quick stipulating you inherited a very tough situation, but what has gone wrong that we're still stuck at 2% growth? >> first of all it's a great question and i'll answer it but let me just disagree with one sort of subtle part of that question that are important to distinguish. it is not come into age of income and wealth and wage inequality, with great imbalances in power in bargaining power, it is not a correct assumption to assume

that if the economy grows quickly that the middle class and the poor will be better off. one of the characteristics of noninclusive unequal growth is that too much of a gdp growth kind of does an end run around the middle class. economic growth for too many people in the middle class is a spectator sport. you read about it in newspapers but you don't experience it. as you crupi pointed out that is beginning to change in ways that are really important and economically terms of economic policy, extremely germane to the debate we are having. because against the reference, the fact that mean household income in real terms group 5% faster, 50 percentile can't abide with this wasn't as reported as much of the income of the 10% household, low income household grew 8%. 20 percentile, 6%. this is precisely, i worked a lot on this issue at full

employment. how a tight labor market, we are down for the benefit of low and middle income workers. pick this up as i see what i would predict that when the economy begins to die not in we are not, this is not a rosy scenario this is everybody is getting from everybody assigned to everybody as far from fine. a year or two of positive growth does not make up for decades of stagnation but don't get me wrong. but it is very much the predictable outcome of a tightening job market which delivers more bargaining power than of low-wage workers. on growth you to look at a couple of things. economic growth is largely a function of productivity growth and the growth of the labor force. the growth of the labor force is slowing because of old people like me are aging boomers are retiring. what issue is just a function of demographics and it's baked in the cake to the fact that productivity growth has slowed and that goes back pre-obama, pre-great recession phenomena.

the fact productivity growth has slowed is by far most economic problems are i have a set of ideas that i think would help, many of which are quite closely linked to have the clintons investment agenda but i'll tell you what would hurt. what would hurt would be to deport 7 million working people. we've had a problem with the slow growth of the labor force. i heard peter talking about mark zandi and you can't indian market we want but all he did was run transplant through a standard marco -- microeconomic model. what he ended up with was a recession. and main reason he ended up with a recession was because he assumed trump is able to deport significant chunk of the labor force which trump continues to say he wants to do. that's terrible economic policy and very much recessionary. >> 75% of the country things were on the wrong track. serious reasons for the my belief from talking to people is

some large amount of that is because 2% growth which is unevenly distributed, people are not optimistic about the future, their kids future. if the election is on the democratic policies of the last eight years and is an intricate task donald trump says 3.5. a senator to ask another democratic president present some difficulties but a lot of continuity, how can we expect hillary clinton in a just and growth rates that are more like 3% and 2% speak with it is a good question and i think the constraints into macroeconomy are such that when president kennedy starts in our geeky to three or 3.5 you should leave the room because there's nothing there. i haven't heard hillary clinton any thing like that. what bipartisan is her policies will ensure that more of the growth continues to go to middle and low-income people for things like increasing the minimum

wage, through debt-free college, through investments in families being able to balance work much better than arthur medical pay and family. most recently, and this is the real innovative policy, making sure the child tax credit reaches down to the very lowest poor people who are excluded from another business or idea to expand the child tax credit and have it start kicking in at 1 dollar of earning rather than 3000, educate get 45% rate. right now it's up 15% rate. those are all great ideas but if you're saying will only get the comic from two to 3%, the answer is no president has the ability to do in a way that would convince any reasonable economist. it just doesn't work that way. we don't understand what enough the fact is that dampened productivity growth. if you ask, we do understand the demographic pressures. if you're asking whether hillary clinton policies increase the

growth rate from the answer is yes to it's a matter of basis points. basis points are -- by the way, the main way that would occur in her planning money is through investments in public goods through infrastructure investment the i'd like to talk about that. >> more government spending, so as i know she's not proposing any cuts in spending that i know of, correct? >> i don't -- there's none that i can think of. >> no reduction in spending to some increases on a variety of programs. paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy and some institutions, right? >> yet, but they key is better tax, institution is just a group of people. they taken about 250,000. >> go back to the growth thing which is so important to solving a lot of problems, particularly just on capitol hill. you were saying while this policy would increase of growth, there's no specific goal and to

witness the increased very much. >> i don't hear hillary clinton saying i can get to three or 3.5 -- >> you have looked at her policies. you're saying it's not a goal of those policies that people should optimistic about that growth would go up. >> that's not what i said. substantially, yes. i don' don't believe, it's whata beginner question. there is no set of policies that, let's be realistic if we can. i know there's a lot of silly talk, peter talks about and peter is a print with a lot of what he says on the trade deficit by the way but there's a lot of ridiculous talk about i can get to three, 3.5 back during the primaries. somebodies therefore, i think jeb bush said for and something else that 60 that is economically illiterate. what is true is that hillary clinton's plan in mind you can boost the productivity growth rate, which again is a good chunk of that equation. productivity growth plus labor

force growth. she can boost the productivity growth in r&d which are critical and there's bipartisan support this is something that might interest some of the folks in the room to a joint as they saw it i think realistically happen in the first 100 days, the answer is hillary clinton infrastructure plan to let me say one other thing. not only can your plan boost the productivity side of the equation through investment in infrastructure and r&d, too varies widely there's a strong and that elasticity right now, but her work-family balance paid family medical leave and the cdc extension, can boost the labor supply side of the equation. in my view, trump would kill the labor side supply side of the equation i don't think if you listen to mark zandi, it does anything to the productivity served ably hillary clinton's possible at the grocery. on the listed entities going to get to 3.5% or 3% or whatever. i give it will improve.

>> with more specificity, where picasso, we've got a speaker by from majority leader schumer and president clinton every says there will be tax reform and build the infrastructure. there may be some deal, some repatriation. talk about -- >> we must be in d.c. because we're talking repatriation at 9:30. >> for those in the room with chuck schumer and paul ryan and hillary clinton, and they say put on the table for us a grand bargain that involves taxes, whether it includes individual or not but corporate taxes, and infrastructure. what would that look like? >> great question. i would say it would be in infrastructure program, hillary clinton talks about 275 billion program, 250 indirect investment in roads, bridges, mass transit, in broadband, and schools which i just love this idea our stock of public schools need serious

investments, often energy-saving areas and so 25 billion to cap was ever such a bank which could be leveraged up numerous times. how do you pay for it? so i think that the idea of some sort of broad grand bargain tax reform isn't likely to go anywhere because of the resistance to tax increases that have been so pervasive in this town and, frankly, this tax is one thing becomes kind of a unicorn for me. i think it's more of a distraction than anything real because everybody means something different by. the corporate side of the code is a hot mess and that's something everybody agrees but it would seem to be we really could perhaps find some compromise to a good place to start is with some kind of a repatriation that was attached

to a reform of international or corporate taxation to the thing you don't want to do and you to do and who i have decided to call it a blanket by the colleague, and this woman is like the expert and all the different flavors of repatriation. you've got to read our latest paper on that if you're into this kind of stuff because really goes through the details. she's the world's foremost scholar on different types of repatriation. if you do a tax holiday, that's a lousy idea. chuck schumer agrees that's a lousy idea. that's the idea that you allow companies to prey create earnings at a favorable rate, and surely voluntary and that's it. that's different pages to get to bring earnings back at five, eight, 10% according to the scorekeeper, that's a big money loser. all it does is it trained these corporations to do more and more the fruit of their foreign earnings. that leaves you with a couple's

repatriation which is a bad idea but the best idea is repatriation tied to some sort of international tax reform. i like president obama's i do which is you repatriate at i think 14% rate, at the same time that you plug in a 19% minimum rate on foreign earnings. that's the best i abducted fund the heck out of there one time you type and infrastructure. productivity enhancing infrastructure. >> tongue as we ufo bikes agree. >> one area we robustly agreed on and i think it's great is expanding the earned income tax credit to reach childless adults but this is something paul ryan has talked about and by the what i remember in the camping marco rubio talk about an expansion of the child tax credit that looks like what we've been talking about. ..

their poverty reducing so expanding the e itc is an itinerary we regret. i don't know if you said you didn't know, i would say because structure idea would have some appeal because we know we want to reform this mode. i have good friends who are, good republican friends, that's true. some of whom harangue me and say these are business people. why are we doing infrastructure investment? historically it's been a bipartisan thing i have more questions but thank you very

much, it's nice of you to join us [applause] >> thank you. our last panel here, last question and fresh water is coming. it's going to be joined now by two folks, billy bachelder, director of law and public policy at nyu, former director at the white house national economic council and doug while he can who is president of the american action forum and former chief economist of the president economic advisor so if you would welcome him up please. >> thank you for coming i appreciate it, good to see you. let's start with you and just tell me what you thought about the conversation so far . whether you agree, disagree, optimistic, pessimistic. >> i think i will pass on that one. not my area of expertise. i only heard part of the discussion so far but i think

i agreed with a lot of what jared just said that i heard in terms of what are some of the long-term drivers of growth, what are the things that hold the most promise including expanding the eitc for child workers, young adults struggling to enter the labor force. >> secretary clinton during the transition ask you how you would answer it. should i be thinking about economic proposal that would win paul ryan's support or should i be thinking about things he would reject and wear him down ? >> i think there's going to be a compromise and if i were her i would think about what are good policies and paul ryan appears to be someone who has substantive too. they have different views on what's in the economy but trying to find common ground, trying to find a better accommodation of what you believe will have the strongest impact on inclusive growth with what he would is

probably what i would advise. >> and you are in support of the candidate. >> i am. >> are you in support of the donald trump kenzie ? >> i am not. >> john mccain. i'm still there. to me, this is truly a policy point, this is an incredibly disappointing campaign. to my eye, the democrats, on this platform in particular have given up on growth. there's nothing in that that's going to genuinely affect long-term productivity growth and the things we need to move from a two percent economy back to the american economy that we deserve and can achieve. so i find that very troubling. i hope that new entitlement programs would promise to pay for the rich and that's it. >> berries argument is that certainly some of the programs with increased productivity, the eitc .

>> that's not going to affect productivity. it might get a one time bump in labor force participation. that's not going to affect long-term productivity growth. >> i find that disappointing and trump talked about growth but his policies are frankly a hot mess and don't really add up in any coherent fashion. so you look at the us economy right now, to me the most compelling feature of it is that unlike the postwar period when we had 35 years that the american dream was visible to people, it's now 70, 75 years and the american dream has disappeared over the horizon and there's neither of these candidates that address that anyway. >> let's talk about the affordable care act and a vote by show of hands, there's a couple voting in front of everybody that can close your eyes. raise your hand if you think

the affordable care act was on track to control healthcare acts . raise your hand if you think it is not on track to control healthcare costs. >> i asked that question of almost every group i and to vote a lot, i'm not kidding, who controls costs. what has gone wrong at least the perception of people, academics, even people in the obama administration that this is not on track to control costs but one of the two prime control that it has. >> i think if you look back to 2010 before it was enacted we actually have lower health care. >> you raise your hand? >> i'm not sure being up here. >> you think it will control healthcare costs. >> i think it has made real progress in controlling healthcare costs.if you go back to where it was enacted we have lower care care percentage than we had to projected from that time plus we have 20 million more people to buy health insurance. >> it's more of a political question but why is it no one seems to think that except

for people in the administration? >> i am more of a policy analyst than a political prognosticator. >> shouldn't people in the economy, people in the healthcare industry business owners, they say it's not on track to do that. shouldn't they be feeling that in the real economy if it's in a happening or on track to have them? >> i haven't seen pulling of the broader public in this room. i think it's a unique example. i think if you did broader polling, i'm sure what you would see but you often find the public understating problems that evolve over time. i think what is important are what are the real effects and so far to me, we had a very positive trend in terms of controlling healthcare costs. yes, it would be able to hold them even more but the fact is the aca has been very

powerful. >> as i understood as it was being enacted, one of the primary ways it would control costs were the payment advisory board,members have a name for that that does not exist so isn't that the fact that that's not there kind of a problem in the original architecture must . >> i don't think we've gotten to the point where that's supposed to go into effect yet but a lot of the cost control has come through payment reform in the medicare system for example so that's not exclusively the way you achieve cost control. >> how would you score the affordable aftercare act as something controlling costs now and in terms of businesses and government? >> is not controlling healthcare costs and it never was going to. if you look back to the debate at the time, there were two sections in the delivery system and expanding coverage, it was very expansion heavy, the exchanges cover people and it was very light on genuine attempts to do a delivery

system. you had some accountable care organizations, medicare savings programs, these are all sort of features that were supposed to be important and they've all been mocked at best and largely failures. that's surprising because it wasn't really a genuine effort to control healthcare costs anyways. >> i got to ask you what you think about answer. >> i asked what you think healthcare costs would have been better since 2010. >> it's been on parsons 2010 and it's certainly not an aca related phenomenon. >> we are in a place where it's partial to the session, lots of other things. i think the aca did put the health sector, probably the plan on notice that people cared about how much spending was going on. the basic attitude in the area where people are worried about being at financial risk for big costs is real. i think seeing some important transformations but they're not driven by the aca in a way we could have cemented those positions.

the real progress if you look at premiums, it's been in the x employer-sponsored market. g, they are only going three, four percent. that's something the aca didn't touch. the places it touched are the broader areas, exchanges and medicaid programs are uneven and it was never the program, should have been affordable so i don't think it deserves any real credit for the change in the face of spending. >> let's say it's a secretary clinton presidency, paul ryan is the majority leader and you to our chief staff people for the negotiators. make changes in the affordable care act which would happen, talk amongst yourselves, where are the areas you both would look to on the plus side where you would look to see here's ways where speaker ryan and president clinton could agree to change the program. is there a common ground where you would say let's

start doing the numbers, anything? >> i'm not a health care expert, and a tax expert so i could not go into the details of that but i do think it would add some compelling proposals to the higher costs . >> veterinary you think. >> medicaid and so forth. because of the supreme court case there are some holes in coverage that were not tended by the act that need to be addressed, those are the areas i would look at. >> the reason i give that answer is because this state idea whether it's childcare cost or healthcare cost for college costs, the strategy is give people money to buy more of the stuff. >> that's not a strategy i like on a macro position but if she's president she's going to have to expand. >> this is what she's going to want, he's going to keep these changes from melting downfurther and there in bad shape . she expands from 3 to 1, 521, get rid of special military, expand. and what you can do in the

margins help from them up and i think in exchange, what the republicans want what is a real focus on medicare as the delivery system reform mechanism. they pay a lot of bills in the country, people practice for medicare and other patients so if you drive a delivery system through medicare, medicare advantage program republicans would want to focus on but it's the bridge to the future of premium support and use that as a vehicle to try out the different coordination for delivery systems across the country, grassroots and its aggressors (, that would be something that could talk about. we get medicare reforms, they get entitled care reforms and she get the expansion. >> republicans as you know have been out of line to raise any taxes over the past several years. a president clinton making a proposal on her domestic agenda involves as garrett

said , what she says are fully paid for by rated by certain taxes. if the house of representatives and house speaker ryan won't raise any taxes, what happens for domestics? >> i think there are a couple of possibilities here and i'm optimistic about. one is infrastructure coupled with taxes. there have been long-standing proposals for combining two of those. and including proposals by former chairman can't that would couple revenue raised from business tax reforms to pay for infrastructure. so there are instances where republicans voted for targeted tax increases in the context of financing infrastructure, one could argue about whether the bank with tax reductions should be considered for or not for raising taxes but right now the republican party appears to be what in imploding, given this presidential campaign.

>> they control the house and senate, governor from massachusetts, governor from wisconsin. >> there are lots of republicans, in very stable position. there are still a lot of controversies about this presidential campaign so i think there's a question after the campaign of if secretary clinton wins, what kind of republican party the republican party wants to be and you know, one question is was the republican party begin to think about immigration reform again mark would they begin to think about how to attract female voters and think about things like healthcare. perhaps they will but i think it's an open question that there if secretary clinton wins, >> you accept the democratic argument of the set secretary clinton that immigration comprehensive reform, that that's good for the economy? >> the fundamental fact is

the reforms compilation, in the absence of immigration, we shrink integration and we get very old. the flipside of that is everything about our future is dictated by our immigration decisions so immigration is a dual opportunity to assess the economy on a path in the future and i think republicans are shortsighted not to take an opportunity. >> i want to go back to gdp growth. jared seems to see that we clinton my face growth of three percent, it's not realistic. a lot of republicans and some democrats say you have to get to at least three percent. this three percent growth, is this something hillary clinton should be talking about were that's not really a big hitter? >> i think hillary clinton is focused on accelerating growth in the economy and the estimates are that some proposals would result in a recession, some specifically

lowergrowth because of immigration proposals and in part because of other things. >> what you say immigration growth would never happen . >> under trump. well, i would hope that it's not but we are sort of confronted with what he's been proposing. >> i know she's for higher growth but is it whether she enunciated as i'm going to get us to three percent growth or not, is that you think a result of her policies, is that an important goal? >>absolutely and i would add the word inclusive . we shouldn't try just for a growth per se but growth that most of middle-class america and low income people can sustain and a lot of the investments she's talking about whether it's in healthcare or the expansion of the childtax credits, whether it's in education ,

that there is extensive evidence into a long-term improvement if you look at the child tax credit. similar expansions have resulted in long-term improvement in child health outcomes, education outcomes, those are all things that drive growth in the wrong turn. >> so senator mccain, obviously and defense spending is a huge part of the budget. where would you say the debate is within the republican party on whether rhetoric, of president obama how about the military should be increased defense spending or not? >> i think there's a lot of agreement that it should be defense spending. the only disagreement has been willingness to also increase nondefense discretionary spending part of that. the budgetary fact is that the largest part of the spending program, is the medicaid, affordable healthcare act has steadily been crushing and pushing out

of the budget the nondefense discretionary so that national security infrastructure, education, all the things the government steadily pushed jobs and they codify that with the budget selectmen tabs, that's got to be undone and i think they recognize that but the trouble is to undo it you have to deal with the entitlement programs to look at presidential's, they are both saying no. they're both saying i'm not going to cut social security and medicare, hillary is saying expand these things. >> i don't hear paul ryan or mitch mcconnell talking about putting entitlement programs either. >> no. i don't think we've seen a serious discussion about this in a couple of years but the reality is that barack obama will leave behind a budget that's on autopilot will go into $2 trillion deficit and that 60 percent of that is the interest on previous borrowings, we are going into an unsustainable budgetary system, no one has promised to fix it.

both trump and clinton have promised not to make it worse, that's it . >> if clinton is elected she says we've got all these domestic policies out there, tax policies, spending policies. where would these leave me after my first term on the deficit, what would you tell her, what is your analysis of where that would lead the country? >> the congressional budget office has estimated this and if you include her money that she has supposed to set aside for business tax reform, finance restructuring, she does not increase the deficit where as trump would increase it by $5.3 trillion.>> and it's not a deficit goal or should she adjust that for deficit reduction? >> over the long-term were going to have to have some deficit reduction but thus far are deficit reduction efforts have been very heavily weighted towards spending and a lot of the drivers of long term aging of the population and demographics set that.

>> i look at my policies she says and look at what i said about that reduction and it's important that i gauge in deficit reduction in my first term, i want to change my policies. what would you tinker with for change dramatically to get to meaningful deficit reduction?>> we need to look more atthe revenue side . >> if she said i want more deficit reduction you would say raise taxes even more? >> i wouldconsider it, yes . >> which ones should we limit that you would want to raise under that scenario? >> i think you could potentially go higher. the very hot top then individual income brackets. there's a recent study in the economic literature of the times that there are no reasonable evidence, convincing evidence that raising the rate on high income people will actually result in real economic

growth or just for example in the timing or realization of income but i'm not sure that yougenerate a lot of distortion by raising taxes on more wealth . >> you put the individual rates higher than she's proposing, could you raise meaningful money for deficit. >> absolutely. >> how high would you have to raise it? >> we have to sit down with a spreadsheet. depends on whatyou're reduction target is. >> if anything, you don't see a downside to doing that . >> no. i think there's always a trade-off but what we've done so far in deficit reduction has been weighted toward the spending side and we need to do more on taxes. >> most of your presidents ran on boilerplate obama,

killing the affordable care act. they had taxes of one sort or another, marco rubio had some original ideas though they were criticized by some republican activists.did you see in context of the presidential nomination, would any of the congressional candidates have had any ideas that you said that should be front and center on fiscal policy? >> i thought something jared mentioned about the tax credit for single learners, i think that's important for people to focus on. the house agenda targeted a new strategy. i think that has to be at the center of the republican party going forward. the basic reality is that for three elections in a row, the economics of mccain and romney and trump, they've almost fallen on deaf ears, people are not interested and they're going to have to wake up. i think we're focusing heavily on the inequality and genuinely that's an important issue, something we will have to worry about and i like rubio because when rubio is thinking twice, it wasn't a collection of things, he said i want growth and family. he had values embedded in it. that's important.

i'm a big fan of the house task force tax reform for the same reason. it's an emphasis on growth because we need a better growth and i think were going to have to think hard about the social facts. the next president will have a recession. i don't know what year, we don't know how bad going to be. odds are, they start start to have to thinking about inflating the economy, buying insurance against that recession. >> you think it's inevitable? where we are in the cycle? >> to date, the structure of the economy, it's sort of a two-part economy. the house sector going with three percent and the business sector and everything else, it's really not that good with the exception of the most recent durable goods orders, that's in the character for a while, either the business sector has to look at the household sector and say things are okay, let's hire more rapidly, and more money or in

on investments or take a look at the business sector and say that in the future and they're going to cut back. but i don't see this kind of even economy growing for much more sustainable. >> secretary clinton is proposing different policies than president obama and president obama did inherit a weak economy. if you could turn back the clock, are there different choices he could have made to seem more robust over the eight years? >> it's tough with the congress that we had. there are certainly policies that would have increased growth even further. whether it's getting us proposals for thechildless worker you see an active, whether it might have been a larger stimulus initially in response to the recession , there's a whole bunch of education investments, childcare investments that would generate economy and promote growth in the long term and i said going back to

your previous question that even if you adopted secretary clinton's proposals that are deficit neutral, they are in my opinion would stimulate growth and you would end up producing the debt in the long term as a result of that but the question is, is there something more that president obama could have done with this congress, i'm not sure. i think he pushed hard for important priorities and got some of them and acted and some of them blocked . >> on the proposal, i think it's constructed to look at the evaluation which everyone touted. if you check out immigration reform, there's no growth there. all the job growth comes from immigrationreform, that's the median family income declines, even in their estimates . the beneficial policies of clinton so it's not inclusive growth because of good market performance in the underlying economy, it's only inclusive if there's a large middle class. >> how do you know this? >> read the report. >>. >> i assume you disagree with that conclusion. >> that's exactly what the report says, you look at the

table, it says we're going to create $20,000 over the next eight years, what is immigration reform do? 600,000 new jobs. >> fine. that's the policy. and if you look, median family income in the table, it's some decline. >> i think one of the issues in general is macroeconomic estimates where they do not include all of the taxes are going to drive growth. a lot of them have to do with one of the positive effects of adding more people to go to college, of having higher quality childcare. how far is that going to happen. >> this is the next president. i'm all for education reform but 18 years until it does. >> if were worried about long-term growth, we should be worried about growth. >> i'm worried about short-term, in the next eight years. >> no longer long-term. >>. >> on the scintillating topic on infrastructure because i

think everybody had their tax reform, that's going to be state parts, both candidates are talking about major infrastructure. closing more than her, what are some of the best practices we've learned from the stimulus bill and other major research spending that we have to spend it more efficiently so you're building things that are useful for society and are in wages? >> i'm more a tax expert in infrastructure so i won't focus more on the aspect of how you're going to pay for this. we've got a business tax code that is working and we need to think about forming both international side and domestic side but right now we have sort of the worst of both worlds of the international side where we're just throwing investments, we're encouraging money to stay offshore when if we had a world wide system as some have proposed we would at least eliminate that lockout. >> you're the infrastructure spending czar under orion schumer clinton feel. >> trump mcconnell ryan deal. >> what do you do to keep it

from being, what you do to make it maximizer choice? >> don't promise things quick. one of the seems to shovel all of that and don't over promise. it's a measure of gdp epics that you will get because there's a lot of infrastructure thatvaluable . fix the roads and commute more easily. >> they have phenomenally productive infrastructure investments out. in chicago they required but not to reward money, they throw it away. i'll say no more. >> thankthanks to you both.

and thanks also to kenneth goldstein. thank you all for coming and for the peterson foundation for continued to host these breakfasts what we can talk about twitter and about policy. thank you all. have a good day. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> road to the white house coverage later today as donald trump campaigns in charlotte, north carolina. resembles collected by real clear politics this month children trailing hillary clinton by about three points. that's life at 7 p.m. >> watched c-span's live

coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday night. live debate preview from university of nevada las vegas starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. the briefing is at 8:30 p.m. eastern in the 90 minute debate is at 9 p.m. eastern. stay with us following the debate for your reaction including calls, e-mails and facebook postings. watchewatch the debate live or on-demand using your desktop, phone or tablet at c-span.org. lucinda live coverage on your phone. download it from the app store or at google play. >> following an invitation from the state department the organization for security and cooperation in europe discussed its plans observed in the from the presidential election. >> good afternoon. i'd like to welcome you and thank you for joining us this afternoon for this press conference to open the election observation mission by the osce officer democratic institutions

and human rights to observe the november 8 general elections here in the united states. presenting the information about our mission today on the podium with me this afternoon our ambassador audrey glover, the head of the mission, radijoje grujic who is an election observer with the osce office, and my name is thomas rymer. i'm the spokesman. there will be time for questions from the media this afternoon after presentation of the work of the commission by ambassador glover. with no further ado i would hand the floor to audrey. >> thank you very much, tom. excellent, a very warm welcome indeed to this press conference. delighted to see you here and very pleased to see you have an interest in what we are doing.

let me introduce the people who are with me on the panel. on my left is thomas rymer who is a spokesperson in warsaw and now my left is radijoje grujic who is also from the warsaw office and in his fourfold of countries which he is involved with is the united states. we are very pleased to have you. thank you. i think it might be helpful if i explained who we are, why we are here. i want to begin be doing what we are here and how we're going to go about it. we are from the odi, the osce which extends from vancouver down to which the estates of america is a member. we are here at the invitation of state department of u.s.a. to observe the upcoming general election. i'd like to stress the use of

the word observe. we watch the electoral process without interfering in any way, but we report on what we observe. i would also like to point out that while we are absorbing these elections here, american observers of participate in election observation in the country on behalf of the odi. recently in belarus and russia in early in the waning and montenegro. the timing of the invitation enabled us to observe the electoral process before, during and after the elections in accordance with our mandate. it's important to remember that an election is not just a one day event. what comes before and after an

election is asking for as what happens on election day itself. by inviting us in this timely manner, the u.s.a. has fulfilled its osce election commitment and a set a good example to other participating states in the osce. and osce, odi needs assessment mission, visited the united states in may this year at the invitation of the state department. to assess and recommend rather to employ i related activity for these important elections and if so what type of activity would meet the identified needs. commission recommended that there shall be an election observation mission with a core team long-term observers and short-term observers your these

are the seventh elections that the odi/hrd has observed in the u.s.a. since 2002. and we've enjoyed good cooperation in the past with the authorities here, and we, of course, look forward to doing the same in the coming weeks. we have already been received by the state department and the national association of secretaries of state. we would like to extend to them our thanks and appreciation for their cooperation to date. we in the core team will be based in washington, and we comprise 12 experts from 11 osce participating states. they include a legal analyst, to political analysts, sorry, to election analyst, one election analyst, npd analyst, the coordinator for the long-term and short-term observers, and

operations expert, procurement expert, a security expert and a financial expert. and last but by no means least my deputy. at a later stage will be joined by statistician and the parliamentary liaison officer. also we are at all times supported by the osce core staff. we will be joined by 26 long-term observers in weeks time who having been briefed it will be deployed across the country in multinational teams of two. the stos will arrive a few days prior to elections. and they, too, will be briefed year and deployed across the country to officer of the activities in polling stations on election day. we will be also be joined just before election day by a delegation of the osce

parliamentary assembly. i should like to make clear that we have arrived here with out any preconceived ideas or fixed agendas. we are here to observe the election in accordance with the long-standing and well established odi/hr election methodology as we have done on previous occasions that we have observed elections in the u.s.a. we will assess the election against the osce election commitments which is set in the osce copenhagen document of 1990. which all the participating states of the osce have pledged to observe. together with other international standards relating to elections and with national and state legislation your we

will as always let the facts speak for themselves. our mission will follow the whole electoral process. i should also like to make clear that we are fully interested in the electoral process and do not have any stake in the political outcome. as we always say, the implementation of the law is as important as the law itself. and implementation is dependent on the political will to uphold the law. the nation will issue one interim report before the election on the 24th of october, and we will hold a press conference on the day after the election. at which it will issue a statement of preliminary findings and conclusions. there will also be a final report published about eight weeks after the completion of

the electoral process, which will contain recommendations to be considered by the authorities if it is thought necessary. these recommendations will indicate ways to which the osce odi/hr would like to work with the authorities and will provide assistance to the electoral process your each of these reports of public documents will be available on the osce odi/hr website. it is important to understand that our role is to observe the electoral process and report, but not to interfere in any way. neither are we politicians. we are election professionals. we are not interested in the outcome of the elections, as i've already said, but rather that the process is transparent

and conducted in line with osce commitments such as equality, fairness and impartiality. secrecy of the ballot. in addition, our interest is that the results are counted and announced in a correct and transparent manner. of overriding importance for us is that all the voters have confidence in the integrity of the whole electoral process. for this to be able to happen, voters must be able to make the real and informed choice between candidates campaigning on a level playing field. voters must have equal and universal suffrage, to be able to cast their vote freely in secret, and safe in the knowledge that their votes will be counted correctly and

tabulated. our role is to provide a technical assessment of the process. it is within the role of society, political parties and the government to decide how to use our findings and recommendations. i am very pleased to have had the opportunity to present our mission to you, and we are of course committed to the transparency of our work. this is a very good opportunity for you to know what we are doing, and i would be very interested now to take any questions should anybody have anything they would like to ask. >> thank you, andre. if i could, the first part of the, if you question just raised your hand to if i could ask you please before you ask the question just to give your name and the media you are representing. [inaudible] >> my name is carol.

i worked for the "washington post." could you explain why sony more monitors and observers this year compared to previous years? and what states and types of polling places you have to go to part and i have another question after those. >> the needs assessment mission assess that it would be necessary to have 100 long-term observers. and we've only been provided by the participating states with 26 long-term observers. they also said there should be 400 short-term observers. we don't have the complete number yet for short-term observers, but it probably will be less than 400. the reason why we have this particular number is because it was suggested it was necessary by the needs assessment mission.

but there have been before in previous election missions in this country, there have been long-term observers. the first time there are short-term observers but in the past there has been a request for 100 long-term observers for previous elections. and as far as i know that number was never reached for any of the elections. >> what is the difference between long-term and short-term? i don't understand the significance of -- >> and long-term observer is somebody who will be coming into the country a week after we are here. we have 26 long-term observers who will be arriving next sunday. and as i said in my few words i just mentioned, that they will be briefed year and deployed throughout the country. and the short-term observers are here and they're called short because they have a less amount

of time. and they will be coming into the country just before the election. >> do they play a different role speak with the short-term observers tend to be looking at, exclusively because of the short time they are here, at polling stations on election day, whereas long-term observers being here longer would be making contact in the areas where they are deployed with the local elected administration, political parties, et cetera. so they do have different roles spewing so i gather you don't know where you're going to send you don't know how many people you out speak with exactly. >> one more question. i promise this will be a. could you discuss a little bit about how come if you think this election is any different than any previous american elections? and what you might do since you say you're only there to

observe, if you see either fraud or somebody suspecting there's fraud, interfering with a legitimate voter, what would your poll worker to speak with to answer the second part of your question first, as i explained we are not policemen. so we don't intervene or interfere in any way. we will observe and we would record if we saw anything untoward happening. and the first part of your question was about this election. we have only just arrived at our mission has only just started, so it's very difficult for us to speculate at this point in time to what extent this election might be different from any other elections in this country. but in any event we don't deal in speculation. we only deal in facts. we will be here a bit longer and we will come up with our

assessment. >> on correspondent for news network. i understand you've expressed some concerns before in regards with the limitations, the fact new laws requesting id, id for the voter. too many people, low income people were not able to afford the amount of money to invest in these pages. if any concerns that could result in less opportunity to exercise the right to vote? >> well, of course as i said we are observing the whole of the electoral process. part of that process of course includes voter registration and voter identification.

it is of course will be issues which we will be following up very close interpreter and the time that we are here. >> do you know if there were, some of the concerns you have before prevail? or do you think they have done something to correct this problem's? >> what we always look at as well is that any previous recommendations we have made have been implemented, and how that implementation actually works in practice. so that will be something else to which we will be looking very closely. >> you mentioned you just arrived here, but i'm sure you know the circumstances of this election, internal and external. the world, the role of the u.s. has been very important worldwide, and the economic

situation, the human rights and some other facts inside are making this election very important. do you believe that maybe somehow for this kind of elements involving this election this could be different, divide the country or not allow too many people to vote? >> well, those would all be rather hypothetical questions. as i said already we don't deal in hypothetical questions. we just deal with facts, and so we will be looking for all aspects of the electoral process, and then we will come up with our assessment. >> hello. i am from univision. i understand more or less eight states specifically allow for

international monitors to be present at the polls. have you heard back from any other states ask how many states are actually going to be able to visit? >> well, the situation is not entirely clear, and this is something we will obviously need to clarify before election day because we obviously don't want to be breaking any state rules and regulation. >> could you give any indication as to come have you heard back from more than eight states for is about a restricted to those eight states? >> we are still in the process of looking at the situation because it's not terribly clear in some states whether it is possible to observe polling stations on election day or not, and we are trying to clarify this before we start our deployment. >> european television.

following up on the question before, do you want to go to florida? and second, how is this nation different than -- mission -- missions in other countries like russia were to happen parliamentary elections recently? >> well, to answer your second question first, every osce tremblant election observation mission follows exactly the same methodology. so we other election with the assistance of lbos and sometimes stos. but that is the methodology we use and setting the whole electoral process against the commitments of the osce. every state, every country tends to different election laws, of

course but we assess them, what happens in one country in the same way we assess what happened in another country against the osce commitments. and that's our way of operative. that's our methodology. so really there's no real difference between one country and another, although the laws in countries differ may make the result different. but our methodology is the same where ever we go. and where we're going to be deployed at the moment, we are not sure of deployment plan is still being worked out. [inaudible] >> well, we tend to want to always have a balanced coverage of the country. there's no point in going to certain states and just, you know, observing there. want to have complete coverage of the country and see what's

happening everywhere. and this is what we really want to be very careful that we achieve with our deployment plan so we are still working on it. >> i think we have time for a couple more questions. yes. >> hello. i'm with tv -- japanese tv station. if a candidate generally speaking alludes in the campaign season to possible electoral fraud or redeemed, is that something you keep in mind before the election? and do you see those comments as helping the electoral process or hindering it? >> well, when you have allegations of vote rigging, there are allegations and we consider it is very much up to the authorities in country concerned to look into that. each were not our job because as i say we are not as i said, we

are not policemen so it's not our job to investigate such an allegation. so it's very much up to the country concerned. we would of course observe and pay attention and assess to have that country deals with that particular problem. >> i think one more. >> what do you think of one particular candidates, one candidate in particular making a call for citizen observers to come out? that's already been made. what do you think about the question that -- >> i would've thought it's quite a natural thing for a candidate to ask voters to come out and vote for them. i think probably our only concern would be if there was any inducement in any way for any threat if they didn't. but i mean, i would've assumed it's a pretty natural thing for any candidate to ask people to

vote for him, otherwise how would he have a chance of being elected? >> just to clarify, were you speaking about citizen observers or voters? >> observers. our compass specifically asked for volunteers to come out to the polls and be on the look out for anyone trying to cheat. >> well, we would have to see what happened in that instance in practice. if he's asking for volunteers, obviously that's slightly different from asking for people to vote for him. but we will have to see how that works out in practice. >> okay. again, i want to thank you for being with us this afternoon for this press conference. we do have a press release that we will provide the basic information for a mission. you can pick it up on the way out today, and i wish you a wonderful rest of the afternoon.

[inaudible conversations] >> before the final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump we are looking back to past presidential debates. this saturday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span, the 1984 debate between president ronald reagan and former vice president walter mondale. >> we must understand that we are a democracy. we are a government by the people. and when we move it should be for very severe and extreme reasons that serve our national interest and end up with a

stronger country behind us. >> i will not make age an issue of this campaign. i am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience. [laughter] >> in the 1988 presidential debate between vice president george h. w. bush and massachusetts governor michael dukakis. >> you have a president that will work with the congress and in are good people. you can bring the deficit steadily down, building economic growth, build a good strong future for america, invest in those things which we must invest in, economic developer,