effect students' lives in these areas. >> and to think about what it is like to be an american to me is to fight for social, economic and environmental justice. our planet is in dire peril. our country is in unprecedented turmoil. i think we need to fight every day for those more vulnerable and for our environment and to ensure that the world we have today is at least as good for our kids and grand kids as it is for us today. >> voices from the road on c-span. joining us for the first time on this program, representative andy barr, republican from kentucky. he serves the sixth district and on the subcommittee on oversight and investigation when it comes to financial services. good morning. >> good morning. >> you're the ranking member of that subcommittee. >> right. >> and there is an issue rising from that concerning taxation of financial services companies. can you explain that for us? >> so we have heard from our

democratic counter parts that they will be proposing -- and i think a bill may have been filed -- to impose a tax on financial transactions. and the stated purpose of this legislation is apparently to get at high frequency trading and to i guess disrupt high frequency trading, but also i think to raise revenue. it's just a revenue raising proposal i think to pay for some of the green new deal and the medicare for all proposals, some of the big spending proposals coming out of the new democratic majority. they argue that this would raise upwards of over $770 billion over ten years. in truth, not only do i doubt that to be the case because of the disruption in economic activity, this would make america much less competitive and it would punish savings at a time when we have a personal savings crisis in this country. and we don't need to be taxing middle class savings.

we need to be rewarding and encouraging middle class savings. >> and so the high frequency trading, explain how that works? and there were concerns that maybe that causes fluctuations in markets and things of that nature. >> again, that is the stated purpose of the tax. really i think the real reason behind the tax is just to raise more revenue for more government spending, the green new deal and other proposals from the new democratic socialist wing of the democratic party. i would note that many of my democratic colleagues, representative foster, representative meeks from new york have expressed concern about this proposal precisely because they recognize the perhaps unintended consequences of this financial transaction tax which would be to punish middle class savings. 50% of americans invested in equities are middle class savers, 401 ks, pensioners, workers, middle class workers

who are saving for retirement. according to some analysis, this transaction tax would require middle class workers to work an additional two years in order to achieve the same retirement savings and retirement security that would be required if they didn't have this transaction tax. what happens is when an american invests in a mutual fund, this transaction tax would be imposed on every trade of every stock, every bond, every derivative. as a portfolio manager would rebalance a mutual fund as is required to adequately diversify and to obtain the returns that are needed. every time a trade would happen, there would be this hit, this tax. and that would eat into the returns very, very quickly. so ultimately, this is really not a way to get at high

frequency trading. it's really an attack on middle class retirement savings. >> our guest with us until 9:00 when the house comes in, if you want to ask questions it is 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats. is there a republican alternative to concerns about high frequency trading and what to do about it? >> i think that is a legitimate policy question. high frequency trading i think should be dealt with by the security and exchange commission. there is purpose to these trades and there is an argument that high frequency trading provides necessary liquidity for our capital markets. we do enjoy in the united states the deepest most liquid competitive capital markets in the planet. that's because we do have active free markets.

we need to preserve and protect that not just for retirement savings and savings for college and creating access to savers to the markets so that they can achieve their financial goals, but also for capital formation in order to provide the liqu liquidity and capital for small business formation and for entrepreneurs and homeowners. it is vital that we continue to preserve the features of our capital markets that make it dynamic and attractive for investors not just here in the united states but globally. we want our capital markets to be a destination for capital and our financial transaction tax would not raise the revenue that proponents are advocating because what it ultimately would do, that capital flees. that capital will go to other markets around the world. we want the united states to maintain its position as the preimminent destination for

capital. >> this is from charlie in florida. democrats line your arm with our guest representative andy barr, republican of kentucky. good morning. go ahead >> caller: i just think high frequency trading makes it an uneven playing field. people get to take advantage of the highs and lows a lot faster. everybody in the market gets their trades put in last and they miss the highs and lows. and you are talking about their 401 ks and stuff. well, they end up just flat lining because the hedgefund guys get all the fluctuations and take advantage of the fluctuations that go on. and the tax needs to be gotten back into the government to help support things like the new deal. the progressive ideas are great. the crony capitalism type of thing that supports the reelection of you guys every year just because you won't increase taxes on people, it's got to end. you have been ruining the country since 1980. give it up.

start taxing the people that need to be taxed and get the country back on a financial foothold that will last forever instead of running a $22 trillion worth of debt. >> thank you, caller. charlie, thanks for your comment. first of all, i don't think the american people pay too little in taxes. if anything they pay too much in taxes even when the passage of tax cuts and jobs act. the revenues have never been higher including after the passage of the act which was targeted not only to make american businesses more competitively globally but also to provide middle class families a little bit of relief from the burdens of taxes. we think that the american people should keep more of what they earn as opposed to growing government in washington, d.c. but to the point that you're making about high frequency trading creating distortions, i don't necessarily disagree with you. i think that is a legitimate policy question for the

securities and exchange commission and the financial services committee in congress. and we want to make sure that investors, particularly retail investors and middle class americans, do not feel like the system is rigged. we need investors to have confidence in the transparency and accountability of our financial markets. i think it is all together appropriate that the security and exchange commission look at the regularatory regime to make sure there a transparency and that people know that high frequency traders are not rigging the system. it shouldn't be dealt with through this anticompetitive transaction tax proposal which is nothing more than a revenue grab and attack on middle class retirement savers. what we should do is look at regulation that creates transparency in our financial markets so that retail investors have confidence that the system

is fair. >> from texas, independent line, john, hello. >> caller: hi. this whole notion about everything for wall street and nothing for main street has to come to an end. people like your guest on this program right now, they are neoliberals. everybody should look up neoliberals, those who support a freand unregulated market and untaxed market for the rich, that is not true conservatism and never has been. they are neoliberals and they promote a system in which everything is for the rich and powerful and nothing is for main street at all. and it has to come to an end. >> then what's the conservative position? >> caller: the banking system enslaves everybody. these people are literally traitors to society. >> okay. made your statement. you can respond to it. >> what i think we all need to recognize is that free enterprise and capitalism has been the greatest source of prosperity and freedom and

upward mobility that the world has ever known and the united states is a prosperous country and we have opportunity and upward mobility because we have robust free enterprise in this country. it is precisely when the government interphenes in our financial markets where we see poverty, where we see poverty exacerbated, where we see americans not having the opportunity for upward mobility. americans need access to credit. they need access to capital. they need access to financial markets where they can save for college, for their kids, for retirement or to buy a home. and when we make our financial markets less competitive, when returns are not as great, then that means middle class americans struggle to get ahead. and i think not only do we need to allow americans to keep more of what they earn in terms of rewarding work through tax cuts, we also need to make sure that financial regulation is properly

tailored and is calibrated in a way that creates economic growth. we have economic growth in this country right now fortunately at over three percent economic growth last year, wages are up, unemployment is historically low precisely because of the tax cuts, because of the fiscal policies the last congress putd into place and in part because of the financial deregulation that was passed in a bipartisan way in the last congress. >> so we show the debt clock a lot on this program. we talk about the debt a lot of people would associate that number to what is going on with the tax cuts. you don't make shows connections? >> not at all. in fact, the federal government is bringing in more revenue today with the tax cuts than the government was before the tax cuts precisely because of the economic growth. for everyone percent increase in gross domestic products, the federal government is taking in over $350 billion more in revenue on an annual basis. and the congressional budget office has recalibrated the

score on the tax cuts after seeing that economic growth has ensued as a result of it. why are we still seeing trillion dollar deficits every year? it's because of unreformed mandatory spending that continues to get away from the country because politicians in washington continue to refuse to make the decisions to reform our mandatory spending programs. so tax cuts are a variety part of economic growth which is in turn a vital part of fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget. you obviously need some taxes to bring revenue and to pay for government services, but when the government confiscates or taxes too much, then you're suppressing economic activity and guess what? that means there are less taxpayers therefore the government is not bringing in as much revenue. so economic growth through tax cuts is a really important part of balancing the budget. >> the federal reserve and i think the cbo expressed some concerns about sustainability of

three percent. would you share those concerns and what does it do for the tax cuts in. >> we monitor this in the financial services committee. the chairman of the federal reserve gives his economic outlook. his economic outlook remains very positive right now despite some head winds, slow down in global growth in china and europe, the trade uncertainty and other factors, monetary normalization that we are seeing interest rates that rose last year. the fed has taken a pause on that. but despite that, the federal reserve is still putting forward a positive -- overall a positive outlook on the economy. why? because the tax cuts are not a one-time sugar high especially permanent changes in the corporate tax rates and the provision to make 100% expensing. that's why we have seen capital expenditures increase and

investment in businesses increase. that means more jobs. that means better productivity. those are reforms we need to make permanent to continue this long expansion sdwl let's hear from massachusetts. republican line colleen >> caller: thank you very much for being today's guest. i agree with everything that you are saying. i am 70, and i have had to take that four percent mandatory take from my pension. and a third of it goes to the government. you are so right. the government regulation in pensions and income are way too high. i should be getting most of that money. i should not be putting it back into the government. and one other thing, as i get some of this money, the government takes away from my

social security and increaseathize amount that i have to pay for medicare. and then if i get pushed up into a higher rate where i pay an even higher income tax, i have decided not to even put money into the stock market. i'm trying to take money out of there so i'm not having to pay as much back. >> thank you, caller. >> thanks, colleen. you exactly right. you shouldn't be punished for a lifetime of work and savings. you have done the right thing and the government shouldn't punish that. the government should encourage that. we have a personal savingings crisis in this country. it is estimated by the fed that 50% of the american people if they had to come up with $400 within two weeks couldn't do it. it's coming at a time when social security is as a percentage of what is required to replace income from work when

you retire is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage. as student loan debt increases in this country, that is putting off retirement savings for young people and compound interest means you need to start saving when you are young in order to meet your retirement goals. you are absolutely right. there are some reform proposals in the weighs and means committee that would increase some of the thresholds or the limits that would make retirement savings payoff a little bit more through our tax code. i think those are good ideas to encourage savings and provide retirees with greater flexibility to take out savings without penalty. >> you mentioned the weighs and means committee. what do you think about the effort to get the president's tax returns? >> i agree with the republican leader kevin brady and the letter he sent to secretary mnuchin that certainly the weighs and means committee and

congress has brought oversight responsibility over administration of the tax code, in federal tax law there are privacy provisions, as well. and a phishing expedition or witch hunt is a dangerous precedent. it is a dangerous precedent. what i would say to my friends on the other side the aisle that are seeking the president's tax returns is show us the legitimate legislative purpose for doing so. if this is just about attacking the president for private activities before he was president or trying to score cheap political points, that is inconsistent with the law f. there is a legitimate legislative purpose i think oversight is all together responsible and appropriate. i think the legislative branch regardless of who is in the white house or regardless of the party, we should have robust oversight and should have a

check and balance. congressional oversight, i say this as the ranking member of the oversight subcommittee, a legislative oversight is not unlimited. there has to be a connection, a nexus to a legitimate policy purpose. so i think the burden is on chairman neil and the democrats on the house weighs and means committee to demonstrate what is the legitimate legislative purpose for obtaining the president's personal tax returns which have no connection with his official responsibilities. >> here from south dakota. >> caller: good morning. you say it is the cause of just spending. you guys get 750 billion for the service and so forth. pretty soon you will be wanting to cut social security. and actually, about half the

people that got money in the stock market and most of them are the richer people. it sounds to me like you are just going after social security before too long because you don't want to cut the funding to the military. and then tell me something about capitalism. how does capitalism work with health care. you have insurance companies that send you to certain spots -- have a good day. >> thanks for the questions. on the first point about social security, it is actually the reverse. republicans in congress want to protect and preserve social security. and i think the greatest threat to social security are politicians in washington predominantly liberals who want to put their head in the sand and do nigh that there is a problem. there is a problem with social security and with medicare. they are unsustainable. don't take my word for it. it's the trustees of social security and medicare that tell us that if we don't make some important reforms to those

programs especially for young people, that the government will break its promises to future generations of retirees. that's not fair. we don't want that. social security is a contract. it's a contract between the government and the taxpayers. and the taxpayers have made investments in social security through their payroll taxes over the years and the last thing we want is that when young people retire the government to take their promises and not be able to pay those social security benefits. i think the greatest threat to social security is solvency and future generations of beneficiaries is for us not to reform social security. i think if we take action with social security and medicare now, sooner rather than later, be honest with the american people that there is a problem, that there is a solvency problem with these programs, we can preserve the benefit structure of those programs for current retirees and near retirees right now and we can change the way

the system works for young people who are just entering the workforce right now and for future generations of americans in a way that will allow the federal government to keep its promise ws when they retire. point number two about capitalism and health care is because we don't have free markets functioning properly with health care. the excessive intervention by the government in health care has created the massive distortions. i'm for a safety net. i think medicare and medicaid are appropriate programs to take care of the disabled people who cannot work and the elderly. absolutely. but the way those programs will function properly is if you have a robust private health insurance market place, a competitive private health insurance market place that compensates providers and reimburs so there is an incentive for doctors and nurses and hospitals to participate in those government programs.

we have a shortage of providers in this country right now. obamacare and some of the other inoventions in the public market place have exacerbated the shortage of health care providers precisely because there is too much government and not too little. >> you extended an invisitation to alexandria ocasio-cortez of new york. >> she serves on the financial services committee. she was advocating for her green new deal. i took the opportunity to invite her to kentucky where we have lost over 8,000 coal mining jobs over the last decade because of the war on coal, because of the overregulation. and i think that it is always good for all of us to have an open mind about things. when you put out a proposal, a costly proposal of socialism, i think it's incumbent upon any member who offers such a plan to learn about what the real world implications of that would be. so i invited her to come to

kentucky and meet some of the struggling coal miners and families whose paychecks are being diminished and losing jobs as a result. i said this, i applaud her passion. she is clearly genuine in her concern about climate change and some of the environmental impacts of fossil energy that she sees. but my only point is that we should not just be -- we should be climate thinkers not just advocates for essential planning. we should think about the cost and benefits. the reality is moving to a plan is like moving to a zero emission economy. only 17% right now is renewable energies. and our goal should not be to promote green energy. our goal should be to promote the most abundant, affordable, reliable energy and innovate.

unleash free enterprise to the extent we have a problem with climate change, why do we think another thousand pages in the federal register will change the weather? technology, innovation, that is how the united states has aulds sauvld problems. >> has she formally accepted? >> she has. we followed up with her office and confirmed that she has interest. >> when do you envision this taking place? >> hopefully in the next six months or so. learn about the things they are doing to actually provide carbon capture and burning fossil energy in a more clean way. i think that once she sees that and she sees that these paychecks are dependent on fossil energy, she might have a different idea about how we

really address the environmental issues. and that is to develop these technologies and then export u.s. technology to china, india and lesser developing countries. >> our guest serves the sixth district of kentucky. he is representative andy barr. thanks for your time this morning. your first visit. >> great to be with you. coming up this weekend on book tv, saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern we are live in annapolis, maryland for the annapolis book festival. on sunday on in depth financial author nomi prins joins us for a live conversation about her books and career. and then on after words investigative reporter vicki ward examines the careers of jared kushner and ivanka trump in her book. watch book tv this weekend on c-span 2. once tv was simply three

giant networks and a government-supported service called pbs. then in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea, let viewers decide all on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policy make frg all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of the power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has clearly changed. there is no monolithic media. youtube stars are a thing. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. its nonpartisan coverage is a public service by your cable or satellite provider. on television and online c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind.