the military service and reflect rate credit upon himself, his unit, and the united states army. [applause] >> excepting on behalf of her .ather, private pedro cano distinguishedcano himself above and beyond the call of duty while serving with company c, eighth infantry regiment, for infantry division during combat operations during an enemy in germany on december

2 and third, 1944. on the afternoon of the second, americans launched an attack against german emplacements but were repulsed by machine gun fire. armed with a rocket launcher, private cano crawled through a mighty area under fire and successfully reached a point within 10 yards of the nearest emplacement. he quickly fired a rocket into the position, killing the two gunners and five supporting rifleman. without hesitating, he fired into a second position, killing two more gunners and proceeded to assault the position with hand grenades, killing several others in dispersing the rest. when an adjacent company encountered heavy fire, private cano crossed his company front, crept within 15 yards of the nearest emplacement, and kill the two machine gunners with a rockette. with another round he killed two or gunners -- more gunners. on the following day, his

company renewed the attack and again encountered machine gun fire it up he again -- machine gun fire. he again crossed the terrain and killed six gunners. his extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and united states army. [applause] >> miriam adams, excepting on behalf of her uncle, private joe gandara.

he distinguished himself above and beyond the call of duty while serving with company d, second battalion, 507th parachute infantry regiment, 70 airborne division against an armed enemy in france on june 9, 1944. on that day, private gandara attachment came under fire from a strong german force, pinning the man to the ground for a. of four hours. the private advanced alone to the enemy position. firing from the hip as he moved forward, he destroyed three hostile machine guns before he was fatally wounded. his extraordinary heroism at the cost of his own life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and united states army. [applause]

>> excepting on behalf of his brother, private first class salvador j. lara. private first class salvador j. lara distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and in trinity with the second platoon, company l, 180 infantry, 45th infantry division during combat operations in italy on may 27 and 28, 1944. on the afternoon of the 27th, private first class lara let his inflicting large

numbers of casualties on the enemy. having taken his objective, private first class lara noticed the unit to his right was meeting stiff resistance from a well entrenched enemy force in a ditch. gathered three men and attack a wide section of the enemy position, killing four and forcing 15 others to surrender and causing two mortar crews to abandon their weapons. andofficial performance enable his unit and the unit to the right to continue to their objective. the next morning as his company resume the attack, try the first death lara sustained a severe leg wound but did not stop to receive first aid. class larafirst sustained a severe leg wound but did not stop receive first aid. his company received severe casualties after been fired on upon by machine gun. after receiving permission to destroy the machine gun, he

crawled alone towards the nearest machine gun. despite his painful wound and the extreme danger, he rose and charge the nets, killing the crew members. other machine gun opened fire on him but he quickly neutralize this weapon with accurate fire, killing three more of the enemy. his aggressive attack force to other machine gun crews to flee their weapons. after rejoining his company, he continued his exemplary performance until he captured his objective. private first class lara's extraordinary heroism and selflessness are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the united states army. [applause]

exceptinga kennedy, on behalf of her father, private first class william f. leonard. private first class william f. leonard distinguished himself by acts of gallantry above and beyond the call of duty all in the as a squad leader third infantry division against an armed enemy near france on november 7, 1944. private first class leonard's platoon was reduced to seven men as a rigged salt of enemy fire. gas as a result of enemy fire --

reduced to seven men as a result of enemy fire. he led them in an assault as they were fired upon. ignoring both which pierced his pack, e killed two snipers of 50 and 75 yards and engaged a machine gun nest with grenades killing its crew. by anarily stunned exploding shell, he relentlessly advanced ultimately knocking out a second machine gun nest and capturing their objective. private first class leonard's extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the united states army. [applause] >> alice mendoza, excepting on behalf of her husband, staff

sergeant men wealthy mendoza -- v. mendoza. he distinguished himself above in beyond the call of duty the 88th infantry division during combat operation against in italy onmy october 4, 1944. that afternoon, the enemy launched a violent counterattack proceeded by a mortar barrage. already wounded in the arm, he grabbed a submachine gun and ran to the crest of the hill where he saw approximately 200 enemy troops charging up the slopes employing flamethrowers, rifles, and hand grenades. staff sergeant mendoza began to engage the enemy, firing five clips and killing 10 enemy soldiers. ammunition,ting his he picked up a car being an empty since -- a carbine and

emptied his magazine. and enemy flamethrower at almost reached the crest but was eliminated when he drew his pistol and fire. staff sergeant mendoza jumped into a machine gun and placement that had been abandoned and opened fire. unable to engage the entire force from his location, he picked up the gun and move forward, firing from the hip and spring a hail of bullets into the oncoming enemy causing them to break into the confusion. he set the machine gun on the ground and continue to fire until the gun jammed. without hesitating, he began to throw hand grenades at the enemy housing them to flee. after the enemy had withdrawn, he advanced down the forward slope of the foot -- of the hill, retrieved numerous weapons, captured a wounded soldier, and return to consolidate friendly positions with all available man. staff sergeant mendoza's gallant stand salted and 30 german

soldiers killed and a successful defense of the hill. his extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect a ray credit upon himself, and the united states army. [applause] >> excepting on behalf of his first cousin, sergeant alfred b nietzel. he distinguished themselves -- himself while serving as a

section leader for company h, 16th infantry regiment, first infantry division during combat operations in germany on november 18, 1944. that afternoon, sergeant nietzel fought to repel an enemy against his unit. the sergeant employed intense fire from his machine gun and successfully slowed the advance. the overwhelming enemy force continued to press forward. realizing he desperately needed reinforcement, the sergeant ordered the three remaining embers of his squad to return to the company command post. he turned his attention to covering them with fire. after expending all of his ammunition, the sergeant began firing his rifle into the attacking ranks until he was killed by the explosion of anatomy grenade. nietzel's selflessness ifethe cost of his own l

reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the united states army. [applause] >> dr. terry schwab, excepting

on behalf of his father, first lieutenant donald k. schwab. first lieutenant donald k. schwab distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty all serving as the commander of company e, 15th infantry regiment, third infantry division against an armed enemy near france on september 17, 1944. as he let his company across 400 yards of exposed ground, and intense forthof fire sprung without warning from the woods in front of the american force. first lieutenant schwab extricated his men from the attempted ambush and lead them back to a deaf lady position. desolated position.

led them forward into the lethal enemy fire. one halted a second time, first lieutenant schwab moved from man to man to supervise collection of the wounded and organize his company's withdrawal. ade, he rallied his force and successfully worked his way to within 50 yards of the german before ordering his men to hit the dirt. while weapon fire laced around him, he rushed forward alone, firing his carbine at the german foxholes, aiming for the machine gun pistol nests. silhouetted through the mist and rain by enemy flares, he charged a german emplacement, ripped the cover off the firing pit, struck headerman gunner on the with his rifle but, and dragged him back to the line. his actions so disorganized the

resistant that enemy forces withdrew, abandoning their orderable defensive line -- formidable defensive line. hair above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the united states army. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, it is very rare where we have the opportunity to reflect on the extraordinary courage and patriotism of such a remarkable collection of men. we are so grateful to them. we are so grateful to their families. it makes us proud and it makes us inspired. before we conclude the program, i would ask all those who have witnessed this extraordinary day to please rise and give these latest recipients of the medals of honor your warmest applause. [applause]

will you give us the benediction? >> let us pray. almighty god, you have surrounded us with this great crowd of witnesses, encouraged by their good example, a verse appeared and completed a mission that is set before us.

of their unflinching courage and honor, dignity and devotion inspire our service, to strengthen our spirits, that we work for a true and lasting peace. this we ask in your holy name, amen. >> thank you so much. this concludes our program but lee's, -- please, enjoy the white house. we are so glad you could come. i bless you and god bless america. -- god bless you and god bless america. [applause]

>> they crowned on me for crassness. we are moving on to another of our keynote conversations. conducting that is david graham, senior associate editor for "the atlantic." he is going to have a conversation on the state of the economy with chris van hollen, a ranking member of the house budget committee. a hand for david graham and chris van hollen. [applause] >> where you want me? >> i think right here. >> congressman, thanks for being here. let's jump right in. there seems to be this idea that maybe the budget wars are over. as ryan murray suggested, the détente. is that what it looked like from where you are?

what can we look forward to in the next few months? >> first of all, it's great to be here. i appreciate the opportunity. i think you have a temporary truce on the budget wars. the budget agreement that was reached in december carries us through fiscal year when 2014 and 2015. you have an agreement to increase spending on those by 2015 you are back to current law, and that is the sequester with the deeper across-the-board cuts. look at some point we are going to have to resolve those issues. there were concerns we would have another showdown about the debt ceiling.

we were able to approve the debt ceiling without too much forensics. there is some talk, and it is only talk, that the house republicans -- my colleague paul ryan may be considering putting forth a budget proposal that would actually change parts of the ryan-murray agreement. i hope that is not the case because that would route -- would create unnecessary disruption. there is talks they try -- they will try to increase the defense spending and reduce the nondefense spending for 2015. i should be clear, those numbers were very carefully negotiated. if there was a move in that direction it would create unnecessary uncertainty. as of now, a temporary truce and hopefully that will last. >> you were pretty lukewarm on this deal. you said it was not a perfect deal but it was great there was an agreement. how would a change play out,

what would it look like politically and what -- and how with the process go? >> if you have a change in agreement that would show -- that would throw a monkey wrench in the process. the appropriators, the people that actually make the decisions about how to spend and allocate funds within those limits, they have been able to get to work. for years they have not been able to get to work because there has not been an agreement between the house and the senate, between democrats and republicans as to what the overall numbers are. if you were to change the agreement he would throw that up in the air. i do think the agreement was a positive development but it was far from perfect. the president's budget attempt to address some of those issues by saying within the limits he allocates resources and he suggests it would be better for the country if republicans or democrats could get together to

agree to increase our investment in nondefense spending. also increase our military readiness by actually providing $28 billion in additional funds. >> let's talk about the earned income tax credit. many people said it was the greatest possibility for bipartisan. do you see your colleagues going along with that? >> i hope so. she combated poverty and made sure work pays. the idea here is to extend that to childless workers. right now it applies to individuals who are working with families. according to most projections, it would help lift substantial numbers of people out of poverty. i hope we can move forward.

the price tag is over $78 billion. in budgeting the question is always how you are going to offset that. the president offsets that in his budget by reducing certain tax breaks and benefits in other areas. i'm not sure our republican colleagues would agree to that approach or not. >> is the policy agreed or could you imagine siding on the extension itself? >> we will have to seek -- to see. i'm not sure. for example, one question will be what -- will be if and when the house republicans put their budget forward, will they include this extension? that is the first clue on if they want to before this idea. >> how about the minimum wage.

is it fair to say that is a nonstarter? >> we are trying to get a vote on the minimum wage in the house. the democrats have filed a discharge petition, trying to collect signatures to essentially pressure the speaker of the house to bring that up for a vote. we are confident that if it had actually had a vote on the memo wage -- if it actually had a vote on the minimum wage increase it would get a majority vote. so far the speaker has not allowed us to have that vote. i think the votes are there. the question is the opportunity to actually get the boat and let the house work its will. >> we are praying on that theme. something your democratic colleagues sent over -- unemployment insurance. this is something democrats have said is important to the economy and the people.

tell me about the prospects there. >> that is another sore point in the house. one other bill and mentioned -- minimum wage increase, extension for unemployment compensation, and immigration reform are things we think the house should vote on this year. they are all important measures to the country. they can vote yes or no but we should at least have a vote. as you indicated the unemployment compensation extension is not only important to the families who are struggling -- we still have an economy where three people are looking for each job. it is good for the general economy. dr. elmendorf indicated that if you extend unemployment insurance through the end of this year you would save or create about 200,000 jobs by the

end of this year. that is because when people are able to pay their mortgage, pay their rent, go to the grocery store and buy goods, it is good for their local economy and the national economy. people can't make the payments if it just has a negative effect on the surrounding economies. >> we have talked about these concrete policies democrats have put forward. we see a lot of republicans focusing on poverty in a can -- in a new way. paul ryan is probably the most visible in doing that. are they taking this seriously now? is this a new change, is it a cynical ploy? what is really going on and is there somewhere we can agree on on both sides? >> the test of whether or not this is serious will be in the house republicans budget. budgets are an expression of our

priorities, values, what we care about. in the past despite a lot of talk with our colleagues about confronting poverty, the budget have decimated very successful anti-poverty efforts. we all know we can do better on the war on poverty. tens of millions of americans are still below the poverty line. that is unacceptable. if you look at the time from 1967 until today, or 2012 with the latest data, it shows the initiatives that have been taken over that time result in about 40 million fewer americans in poverty. it would be a big mistake to unwind some of the important measures that are in place. we can look at reforms if the goal is to improve and strengthen those programs.

last year's republican budget slashed medicaid, which is already a health program that has the lowest cost per capita increase of any health programs from a whether it is the private market or comparing it to the medicare. they would essentially cut that $800 billion over a 10 year period. this is a question of what is your budget -- what does your budget do you? not what you say. paul ryan is a friend of mine but we have disagreements on these policy issues. i think they fundamentally misdiagnosed the problems. his recent comments suggests this is a lack of motivation, that people just do not want to work.

there is a culture of not wanting to work written think the problem -- a culture of not wanting to work. i think the problem is a lack of opportunity and i think it is important we identify the key issues here. if you slash important programs that provide some basis of security, it will be worse. >> we see the report on the war on poverty that argues all of these programs haven't really worked. there are too many things going on, the pocket he rate hasn't fallen nearly enough, and we haven't made a dent -- poverty rate hasn't fallen nearly enough, and we haven't made a dent in poverty. >> if you look at that report is an inventory of different policy initiatives over a. bank -- over a period of time. it is a catalog of different programs. the opening statement begins with a false premise, and that is that we have not made any

progress. the council of economic advisers did a very exhausted of -- very exhaustive report in january. what they found is that we have seen a 40% reduction in poverty compared to where we would be with how these measures have been put in place over time. the premise that we have not made any progress is simply false. if you start with that premise you say let's get rid of these programs as opposed to look for ways to improve them. i don't think you can improve the food nutrition program by cutting $140 billion out of it. i mentioned medicaid, which is an important health care program for seniors and also for lower income families. that is already on a shoestring. there are already low

reimbursement rates. to take almost $1 trillion out of that program would simply be at death knell. >> there were things you liked, you mentioned the gingrich loophole, the kerry loophole. republicans seem less fond of this plan. is there any hope of this going forward? >> the interesting thing about the tax plan is the people who put on the running shoes the fastest and running away from it were speaker boehner and republican colleagues. i give dave camp credit for putting something concrete on the table. there is lots not to like him to david kamp plan. what he did was make the point many of us were making over the last years. it is harder than you think to

bring down rates in a deficit neutral manner, in other words by eliminating certain tax benefits, tax expenditures. for years the house republican budget has said we are going to drop the tax rate from 39% down to 25%. we have pointed down repeatedly during these budget discussions that you cannot do that without actually increasing the tax burden on middle income americans. we think the map shows that. i think dave camp has proved that. if you look at his plan, you actually have a top marginal tax rate. he also put a lot of provisions in there to try to make it deficit neutral in the last 10 years. he has the bank fee and think

tax in there. he has a lot of other provisions in there. he has made the point a lot of us have made, which is this is harder to do than you think. i should also point out that even with everything he did to try to make it deficit neutral, most people believe it will significantly increase deficits in the second 10 years. he because he moves forward through various changes, going from 401(k)s to iras, it moves revenue into the next 10 year window. that revenue that will come in the second 10 years is no longer there with increased deficits. lots of big questions. >> when he gives up the gavel, will this create a template going forward? >> i think the different components of that are certainly

things that are going to be in play and discussed. if and when we are able to move forward on a company of tax reform legislation, these are ideas that are out there. i'm sure when we have a discussion on the budget this year in the house budget committee we will have a healthy discussion of some of dave camp's proposals as well. there is one area in the tax reform universe that is at least overlapping in principle. that has to do with corporate tax reform. if you look at the president's proposals, dave camp proposals, while they are different there are some important principles. there is some overlap in the way they deal with international taxation.

interestingly both proposals use some of the income captured as part of corporate tax reform to increase the transportation trust fund, our infrastructure investment. we haven't mentioned that i would say that has to be an important national priority. in the past year there is not enough revenue coming into our federal transportation trust fund to do the work that needs to be done around the country. all new projects, all new funds for projects will come to a halt in september if hungers does not get its act together. of there are some things -- if congress does not get its act together. >> for years republicans have been talking about the budgets president obama put forward and there is not a lot of movement on that. what will it take for some sort

of change? >> this is something that worries a lot of us. we need to come up with a long-term plan for our national infrastructure investment. right now, as with so many other things in congress, we are on a week to week and month to month short-term horizon. the key issue comes down to funding for the transportation trust fund. either you essentially borrow the money from the general fund and dedicated revenues. if you don't replenish those and come up with a mechanism to expand those resources, then you are borrowing from the general fund. there are a number of proposals to deal with this.

if our republican colleagues don't put up that idea than they should put out another idea on how to pay for. if they want to pursue dave camp's proposal that's fine. >> you mentioned doug elmendorf, who was up here. he has not been especially kind to democrats. reports have suggested there'll be a negative impact on employment. it seems to have stalled political momentum. do you worry about what the cbo projections have been saying? >> i want to salute dr. elmendorf because he has a tough job being the umpire of who calls the balls and strikes. there will be times where one party or another does not fully agree with this assessment.

if members of congress could to make up their on projections you can imagine -- as crazy as the budget process is now it would get that much worse. when dr. elmendorf pointed out the economic recovery helped save millions of jobs in this country, republicans did not like it. there is some of his analysis that democrats may not always love it. on the two issues you raised i did want to point out the fundamental misunderstanding that surrounded one of their proposals. if you go to work for your employer you get a tax break. your employer gets to provide you with health care tax benefit.

people who go to work with employers who provide health insurance are essentially getting a tax subsidized health insurance. that kind of tax benefit was not accessible for people who do not go to work within employer. we have a system where we can purchase the health care in the exchange. everyone acknowledges we have a lot more work to do you you can access a tax benefit -- work to do. you can access the tax benefit and that frees up more choices for people. i want to be clear the cbo assessment with respect to employment said in the out years, as people have more choices they may select not to work as many hours were selected to work at a particular job that they were working because that

was their only way to access health care. it wasn't that they were going to be thrown out of their jobs, it was they have the ability to access the tax credit elsewhere. we can talk about the minimum wage issue as well. they projected in the year 2017 you would have 500,000 fewer jobs. this year if we extend unemployment insurance we would have 200,000 additional jobs. if you adopted immigration reform you would see job growth that would dwarf what the project in the out years. finally the minimum wage also is going to benefit over 20 million americans directly and then millions more. it is just wrong that in our country you can work full-time

and still be below the federal poverty line. i think it is a value we should adopt as a country that if you work full-time, 40 hours a week, you should not fall below the federal poverty line. >> one strict political question, what moral support are you offering your successor? >> steve is doing a terrific job. it is a hard job. i think as we go into the november election cycle, what democrats would like is for them to be able to punch through some of the specific proposals with respect to the economy. early education, minimum wage, on those policy issues every one

suggests it will be a strong support. there is so much polarization, so much focus on dysfunction. we are just going to work hard to get the best job. midterm elections are huge issue on both sides. >> good morning, my name is daniel plummer with daniel plummer incorporated. we are a business and internet strategy company. is congress doing anything to address the student loan debt? specifically legitimate program that what awaits the debt for any service.

is congress working to reform a lot of the credit laws passed in the past 12 years with high consumer interest rates? >> this is a huge issue for the country. i think we are up to a trillion dollars in student loan debt. we are also an economy we want to make sure that in order for people to have the chance to compete in go ahead they can go to college. affordability should not be a major obstacle. there are three areas where the federal government has moved. we have increased the size of payments. this is another difference. the house republican budget would significantly cut support for the program. we worked to keep down the interest rates of the subsidized federal student loans. they were going to double to 6.8%. we were going to keep them lower.

the third case directly addresses the question you raised, which has to do with the ability to repay. there are a number of opportunities for people now, either through public service or other kinds of service that they can see a reduction on their loan payments. there are also safety nets or fire breakers that if your income is below a certain point then you can pay off your student loan over a much longer. -- much longer period of time. even though support for federal student loans has gone up, so has tuition. it has been difficult to try to develop a system that ties federal student loan or grant assistance to the question of the tuition being charged

universities. we are looking at that but it's hard. some universities may be increasing their tuition just because they want to expand operations. during the economic turn down, because there were less resources coming in to state coffers they cut that their contributions to universities and universities had to struggle to increase their tuition in order just to maintain current service. there are lots of moving parts here. we would invite anybody who has an idea on how you can tie federal assistance to some student accountability. it is a tricky area. in terms of the other credit programs, i'm not sure exactly which ones you may be referring to. we have been looking at a number of reforms of various programs,

at least in the house and other areas. i can follow up later. >> we have time for one more question. >> just a follow-up to the prior question, i'm not suggesting this is a father-son chat. what do you see in the new pew poll numbers that changing attitudes in the oncoming generation and what effect might that have on the competition of house of representatives over the next six to eight years? >> changing social attitudes as as they bleed into political convictions. >> that is a very good and very tough question. it is hard to predict how this will impact our politics going

forward. i think you see a mix of attitudes among young people. one is on a lot of the social issues. they tend to be generalized and more socially liberal. when it comes to gay rights, when it comes to a number of the other issues like that, i think that you are going to see a continuing trend. if you look at that issue is one good example we see incredible changes in the country in a very short time. i think that is driven by younger voters and the next generation. i'm not sure yet how all their attitudes will sort of shape economic policy going forward. there are lots of questions about where the younger generation will ultimately gravitate to politically.

the coalition of young voters was important to president obama's election. also 2012. not as much energy and enthusiasm, but a significant voting block. thoseestion is whether trends among young people will continue. there is a fair amount of evidence that people tend to stick with their choices of political parties. wrote their lives on average. -- throughout their lives on average. it is a good question. a lot of people are spending time and effort trying to get an answer. a big part of campaigning these days is trying to harness the information available.

social media. all the data out there. to get a better idea of how voters are thinking, not just young voters but across the board. >> thank you very much, congressman. i appreciate it. job.rrific the one question he wanted to ask but didn't get to -- what would lbj do today? >> let me take a second to answer that question. the answer is yes. but in terms of congress. i think the president has been dealt a tough hand. that is my personal view. we went through a litany of issues where we were trying to get a vote in congress. if we can get a vote, i think we could move forward. he cannot make them. >> thank you

this is half an hour. about me say a few words grover norquist. he was president of americans for tax reform.

dubbed by 60 minutes as the most powerful man in washington. how many of you watch stephen colbert? if you do not watch it, turn it on. cold air had grover on many occasions here and he had him on ad grover on many occasions and he had him on. take all of the grandmothers and put them in a container underground and we will smother the honey. unless you agree to raise taxes, we are going to let the fire ants out. he says, would you give in and raise the taxes? grover said we have got the memory and the photos. we will rest well. grover was in my office. he stopped in on one occasion. he had this big black case. on top of that case, i happened oath that was a paper

sheet. it was signed by stephen cole stephen colbert. imagined to have that case with all of your secrets in it sitting in my office for at least a day and a half. i did not even tell you i had it. i thought i would auction it on ebay and see what i could get. without further ado, please derrick thompson with grover norquist. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. one of the themes of the last session was long-term thinking. it was sort of scattered. we'll from the short term to the daveterm starting with camp's plan for tax reform. he had been talking about it for a long time.

my understanding is that a lot of members of the republican party have said they cannot support something that raises taxes by this much in a financial institution. what do you see is a positive and a negative? >> the positives are the lower rates. 35% and five percent average at the state level. we are at 40 compared to europe which is 25%. a dentist down toward the 25% average. -- it isost the local a step in the right direction. the obama administration and harry reid have both said they won at least $1 trillion over a decade in any tax reform. they want it to drive the tax increase between one and $1.4 trillion.

what we ought to be doing is leaning in instead of going to the full extent -- expense. --you get it on expend something when you spend it. would buy machine, it appreciate over a year. there are some missed opportunities. this was always a discussion draft. we should not be unhappy that it is not more than a discussion draft. >> it has been such an issue in washington. is talked about all of the countries. people have been fighting about the minimum wage. they say it is a mandate that employers have to pay people a certain amount. on the other end is that earned income tax credit. republicans seem to be saying maybe we would play with the earned income tax credit a little bit. maybe we could alleviate some of the problems of inequality, that we see by making these families

a little bit richer. how do you see the benefit of the earned income tax credit? >> when you asked to write the check for people, this is not a tax credit. we've asked to spend more money, obama has kind of spent money that wasn't nailed down. the argument that we are all focused on income inequality, the government is capable of fix.has -- the president wants to fix. if he wanted to the minimum wage he could have done this in your 1 and your 2, when he had the super majority. he did not want to. this burning concern that he has is not true. they talk about this because we have had 50 years of the war on poverty, the government could

not make people not poor. they don't want to talk about the last five years, but we have shoved away jobs by spending a lot of money. so now there is a new metric, which is making everyone in the country poor, and still have less income equality, that government is probably capable of doing. i am not sure that you want to do it, but you could make everyone poorer. and more equal. >> what you think of the earned income tax credit, is this useful against income inequality? >> i would not use the tax code in that sense because it makes you spend money -- make it clear what you are doing and have a vote on it. and there's a certain amount of fraud, to go after that -- when they want to come in and be serious and have multiple checks going, then you could begin that conversation. until they're willing to do that, no. >> a lot of people talk about

how frustrated they are with the act that nothing can be done in washington. he brought up the good point that in 37 states you either have an entirely democratic majority or entirely republican majority, and the house and the governor level. possibly useful way to compare the trajectories of these dates -- states going against each other. you draw any lessons from that? >> absolutely. in washington you have the house and the senate that want to go different directions. people will talk about the good old days of bipartisan compromise, by telling you how old they are. because it is true that 30 or 40 years ago the republicans would get together with the democrats and they would argue about today's topics. all fights in washington dc work bipartisan. going up to nixon. during reagan's nice -- lifetime the two-party sorted themselves out.

one wants a more constrained view of the government, one wants a expanded view, and they are heading different directions. one wants to go east and one was -- wants to go west. what would compromise look like? nixon wanted bigger government, and we have revised between bigger and much bigger credit each guy would go back to his corner and say you know, i got us a really good to have more -- goo deal. goo- good deal. we were always compromising for bigger government. which was not the direction that we want to go. now we have one party that wants to go to less government, once that wants to go to bigger government, and they're not going to agree. each one can say no to the other. to give you some idea of you could quantify this.

congressional funds that invest when congress is out of session and goes into cash when they are in session. the reason they do this is that for 30 years, when congress was in session, the stock market was up about 1.6%. when they are out of session it goes up 17%. 17 bytes better when congress is not sitting because you could wake up in the morning and something bad had happened. it gives you some sense of the advantage of good law. the markets are paralyzed whenever congress goes into this situation. the state level, with opposite of gridlock. 24 states have republican governors and

republican house and senate thanks to the redistricting. republicans have held those legislatures for a decade. the democrats were asked, would you like one landslide or two, and they said two. so they got two landslides that lasted for four years, and one landslide that asked for 10 years. not just in washington where we tend to focus on congressional redistricting, but for state legislatures is probably even more true. the democrats redistricting did -- to make illinois and california and bulletproof for democrats, and the 13 days that have both legislature and governor. the republicans have 24 states. republicans have half the population live in another state. the democrats have a quarter of

the population living in their states, at a quarter of a places like becky and i over the legislature is divided. 13 states, democrat-controlled state going as quickly as they want. 24 states becoming texas or hong kong. they are moving in very different, some more rapidly than others. every single democrat state raises taxes, and all the republican state's top cut taxes unless several years. you see several differences on how they treat public-sector unionism. crisis of taxes and spending, markets for tax reform, by 2050, to get all 50 state to abolish the state income taxes. nine have no income tax now. north carolina and kansas, republican governors, both houses, have announced that we are going to zero. they got about a quarter of the way there so far. watch aerosonic of what oklahoma

got weird word to see more movement more quickly. and then we can judge. if you think that more government spending and higher wages make people healthier, wealthier, and were successful, and the economy will be better cover than he can do it all loads loads of good enough to wake washington -- will be better. they can do that. you do not have to wait to washington. >> filibuster proof majority have they want to reform the corporate tax code they want to fix obamacare. they seem to be troubled by the same gridlock that troubles the administration. to worrying about the changes that you want me to the way that the national government treats the national economy? >> we have a senate and house race in november.

it looks very good for the republicans, with the number of senate the that are held why democrats that are engaging. -- are indeed your. -- in danger. in 2016, there are a number of seats that you worry but in illinois, perhaps, which is one intent but it which is not only republican territory. 51 is not what you're looking for, 54, 55 is what you're looking for. the house will strengthen going forward. the replica guns have repetitive it is for -- the republicans have better candidates than the democrats, much more than 10,012 -- 2012 and we were sloppy about running for senate. not being disrespectful to anybody's personal faith, i would refer to go with the scaling or something. episcopalians or

something and get elected. [laughter] >> you said greater than 50%. what percentage would you give? what factors do you think are behind the republican wave that is coming in november? >> the democrats who are sitting in republican states. west virginia is technically a blue state, democratic governor, democratic house, democratic senate. the house, yes. the senate, 50/50. republican.l go so will louisiana and north carolina. south dakota. left one of the seven out -- alaska. alaska republicans have to make

sure they pick one and not have a third-party and then they get the win. those are the seven you need to get to cross the finish line area but now the republicans are pulling ahead in michigan, so -- in the senate race. we have serious candidates in new hampshire and in colorado that are both in play. of those together and you start to worry about georgia. could you define warlock for the audience that may not be -- [laughter] >> one of the candidates had decided she was a witch, which was good enough to defeat the sitting republican. but wasn't good enough to get across the finish line in the general election in january.

-- in delaware. she is a lovely woman, probably not a witch, she was probably making that up. [laughter] >> as optimistic as republicans are about 2014, changes a little bit because especially on the left there is a lot of days in the clinton machine if she does announce the extremely formidable race. take us through the top candidates for the republican party for 2016 and what the strengths are? >> this field is so much superior to 2008 and 2012. you really had one of two people who are running for president of the others were running to be a radio talkshow host or marriage counseling. or to sell books. they were buying a lottery ticket because maybe they would win a primary, and then the press would come and they would

get attention. and then they would raise money, and then they would get a campaign together, and they would get a campaign manager and all the things that should have happened two years earlier for a grown-up campaign. this time away aren't we have six people who are either standing on the stage already, could step up on the stage and no one would laugh them off of it and ask what you are doing. five governors, one senator. start with chris christie, he has had some challenges, and maybe he does not make it, but he rights himself, he will be a serious person and a good raise the money, he has the capacity and the name to both raise money and run, and a narrative of successes in terms of reforming a deep blue state. scott walker was a constant

attorney blue state red. they reformed the pension rules there, they report that union rules. every year they have to have an election if the union wants to keep going. they cannot take your money out of your paycheck, they have to come and ask you for it. teachers are making $50,000 in cap and that was taken out of your paycheck by the city or the school board, and given to the union, and he never sought. not since you and your pocket until the union guys come and say can i have $1000, and you're allowed to say no. oddly enough, several do. he has dramatically changed the saint -- the state. and every republican has made a contribution to him when the unions tried to recall him. he is the only governor that defeated a recall and got reelected.

then you go down to rick perry, he faltered last time because he should not have taken pain medicine before debates. that said, he spoke with the conservative legal action conference, and the establishment press for saying he is agreeably articulate. he is when he is not taking pain medicine. he is a very successful governor for 14 years. there is a real narrative there. the governor of louisiana got an ethics law that minnesota would have been pleased with passed in louisiana. he got school choice for those kids. parents have that right as soon as schools are available for everyone who wants to take them up on that. he may well run.

jeb bush was governor for eight years, perfectly competent regular republican governor. he would be a candidate who could step up to someone would have to fall over for him to step up, but he could do that. and then rand paul, who starts with 15% or 20%-based both and all 57 states. there you have a real opportunity as a senator. it other senator, it is very different -- very difficult to pass this bill. >> it is increasingly that they don't pass bills. [laughter] >> you can give speeches, but if you can compete with the guy who could wake up tomorrow morning who could do something edges on the front page of a major newspaper and the sugar is

awfully difficult to compete with that. >> you said christine, walkabout. , bush, paul. is there a top three? real progress there. he could next year year asn exciting, scott walker did back in 2011. that could put him up front. other than that, i do not see a governor that would work within that would do the kind of a mage

-- amazing backflips where i know these guys are interesting, but look at this kid. moving to the elections of the future, it was a poll that came out. a look at some of the trends among millennial's. first, they tend not to identify as labels. they have a mostly independent. the gap for those who voted for obama versus republican candidate in 2012 and 2000 and eight was the largest of the last four years -- 2008 was the largest of the last four years. this of the most diverse generation in american history and the generation behind it. 71% said they want a bigger government with more services. this is a slight majority. these are filibusters.

party have ablican serious demographic graphic to look forward to? sure. it need to look at the demographics in two different ways. democrats think of race and gender. there are ways to look at the number of self-employed people in the number of government workers versus private sector workers. people who have stock. which is why there is talk about the health savings accounts and individual retirement accounts. the democrats answer everything with cops, teachers, and employment -- those under government employment. it makes you lower likely to be a democrat or republican. you can add into that the other things you can change.

you add to the other things that you could change. this is why the demographics shift. you look at the u.s. 25 years ago. homeschooling was illegal in just about every state. had it legal. they know the modern democratic party wants to take that away from them. -- add that to parents have a voucher in several states. we are building out schools and structures that allow people that choice, but they go to a different public school were the one they go to now might be nicer to them when they walk in and say i have 5000 -- i have $5,000. i want to know how you're good to treat make it this year versus last year. what do you think?

could go to another school. think of how you're treated when you walk in to buy a car versus the department of motor vehicles. i do not think the democrats ever come back in the states for school choice has been won. come backbor did not in great britain until they fundamentally changed their view . remember when thatcher allowed them to buy houses and you could own it? and people did. the bolsheviks ran against them, and they said they will steal everybody's houses, and this will be great, and they got wiped out. they got wiped out in those areas where people would have said those are labor voters not when you -- not when you threaten my kids or my house or the education. 30 years ago there was very

little concealed issue. people allowed being able to carry a gun on them in their purse. today they have concealed carry permits. the person who has made that decision is a different human being than the one who says that we have a government, and if something goes wrong they will draw a circle around me and this will be helpful. the person says i will be in charge of myself. try to take that away from people, try to take that away from people -- that's what the democrats always get in trouble when they talk about gun control because they do not understand their threatening something that you -- that people consider important. we can, by expanding liberty, and that is where half the country that lives in red states are doing all of these expansions of freedom, and the immigrants are voting against that, and we would not want you to have that, and if we ever get

back in power, we will take your dues out and you will never see it, and you do not produce a no, and we will go back to the way it was. that is not a real sales pitch to go to people. once you give people more liberty you changed the nature of who they are as voters. i am not sure that the challenges that you mentioned continue out. we are not the same person at 40 as we were at 20. that said, i think a lot of republican party needs to be much more aggressive in being pro-immigration and we need to be taking all the smart people from around the world and when they come here to get a phd, i'm not in favor of not letting them leave, but i'm in favor of encouraging them to stay, and stealing their airplane ticket home. we want all this talent.

there's a lot of people in a lot of jobs that we need more people. the reason that we are the future and china is not because we are allowed to have kids and a lot of immigration. >> we have one more question. make it great. right there. good luck. >> john cummings. a writer. i know you just promoted liberty and individual responsibility. how do you feel about corporate responsibility? companies, who through negligence or error, dump chemicals into a river and declare bankruptcy, how can our economy deal with situations like that that does not just fall on the government to bail them out? >> you want to have reasonable loss so that people who pollute the neighbors property paid for damage they do, just as they were in a vehicle.

real damage can be done. i think it is very important that we ask individuals and businesses to be responsible for real things they do. which is why tort reform, where the trial lawyers have been getting rich going after people force the that the guy who owned the house before them did the some of the stop where you the guy with the deep rockets, again texas has passed a great number of reforms in terms of that reform that have dropped the cost of notable care in the state, more doctors are moving into texas as a result. louisiana is about to pass the same collection of rules. i think getting those reforms so that the billionaire trial lawyers who have been abusing the systems is the thing we need to tamp down.

it is killing the tech sector, being very unhelpful. let's reform those so that we can focus on cases of real criminal activity. by individuals, or people can collectively in some company. >> we have time for one more question. the guy with the beard? >> guys with beards get to go first. [laughter] new rule >> you have taken it to an extreme, sir. >> sunshine press. i'm wondering if he could set forth what metrics would make an

economy better that is -- what is the purpose of all of these policies? how would you measure that the economy is better here than there? you pointed to some states where the democrats are predominant. do you look at life expectancy? education levels? how can you tell if the economy or economic policy is better or worse? >> you want to have metrics, if you do not have metrics, you end up with all sorts of problems. i talked to the budget guy when bush came into office. i asked what metrics are you going to use? percentage of gdp? total number of full-time employees of the federal government? what is the metric you're going

to have to maintain the cost of government. and he said we should do something like that, and they never did. it wasn't on the list of things to do to measure the size of government. what are you trying to get to? the per capita gdp is one measure. people decide to be monks or warlocks or something, and they do not care about that. some people would rather have more than less. few people are quitting jobs and few people are moving. in a vibrant, dynamic economy, where people are leaving their jobs because they're someplace else to go to, they move because there is something to move towards. when you look at all the bad numbers not the employment levers, the number of people numbers,employment

the number of people who left the workforce, we are not moving as much as we used to, we not eating jobs as -- leaving jobd -- jobs as easily as we used to. you do not want people handcuffed to a job. generally, there are measures, and that is useful. we have done some fine work on earned success by what translates into happiness. winning a million dollars does not, surprising, make you happy. people will make a lot of money, but because of lack of the draw they do not get to be happy because they're not sure they have earned it. earned success correlates with happiness. happiness through money is

probably easier, when you have money as the metric. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> a big thank you to grover norquist. what is our funniest guy? >> washington, d.c.'s funniest celebrity. >> stand up here for a minute. grover competes every year and most years he wins. he has drafted me in from august through september. >> you have some extra time. >> i've gone back to watch who has one in many of these cases. these won in many of cases. grover won last year for impersonating dick cheney. and my strategy this year will be to impersonate grover norquist. we loo

>> the heritage foundation hosts a discussion on the federal reserve. you can see it live starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. will hold a news conference after a federal open market committee meeting. coverage at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. congressional budget office director doug elmendorf spoke at the atlantic economic summit. this is 25 minutes.

[applause] hello, everyone. thank you for sticking around. doug, thank you for joining us. i think we will have a lot to talk about. i wanted to start off, the whole event is about the economy. are you surprised by where we are at this point?

>> we have been surprised at the pace of economic recovery. theye looked at crises -- found that those recoveries are very prolonged. relative to the postwar u.s. experience. we put too much weight on the postwar experience. on the rapidht monetary policy response and fiscal policy response. thought that that would be recovery, a v-shaped

but a quick u-shaped recovery. in the past several years, we have markdown our projections for economic growth. we think there is still considerable slack left in the economy left in the labor market. we have been watching the structural factors that have slowed the economy. a big chunk of that is due to the age and the population and the move of the baby boomers into retirement. a significant chunk of it stems from the weak economy.

our view is that the economy will return to full employment. that will come from a healing of the underlying economic problem's. the fiscal drag will not be in place this year. we do think that there are stronger ways to expect the economy to rebound. we have been wrong before about that. what a we have learned prolonged process it is to work off the excess of a housing boom . >> have you changed anything internally at the cbo?

if you feel you were wrong in the way you view the economic recovery? >> i'm not sure we changed anything. carefully at the successes and failures in our forecasting process. it is not that we were unaware, but i think we misjudged the underlying resilience of the u.s. economy. it is tricky to know sometimes. expiration of big tax cuts. adjusting for the differences and fiscal policy comes close to the consensus. forecasting is very hard.

>> one thing that i was struck -- theour latest output unemployment rate is still very high through an election year. what do you think that will mean for the labor market, for unemployment to remain so high? estimates, there are r 6 million more people who will be working if the unemployment rate went back down to its pre-recession level. and the labor force to thepation was back cyclical weakness. that has big economic cost. large versatile

cost for those people and their families. particular, we had a rate of long-term unemployment, the share of people who have been out of work for half a year or more -- it has been extraordinarily high and it has come down now a little from where it was at a peak a few years ago. people who have been unemployed for a long time have had greater hardship. they find it more difficult to get back into the labor force. some of that seems to be a deterioration of their skill or not keeping up with changes in how work is done, that also some of that seems to be a stigma that attaches to people out of work for a long time. people can send in resumes that are identical except for some of those who are unemployed for a short period of time.

those who are unemployed for a long. of time -- period of time had a much shorter chance of getting called in for an interview. it is hard to get back into the labor force. we think a number of them will not. some of the labor force has taken up disability insurance, part of the social security program, and are likely to stay on that program or moving to the social security retirement program. others have stopped reporters from reporting on the conflict in the labor force. the consequences of having unemployment so high for so long are really profound. for now we will have a long, long shadow. it is what has tended to happen in other economies that have experienced financial crises.

the latest work i am aware of will collect a very large experience from across the world. this sort of crisis takes six to eight years to get back to the pre-crisis level of output per person. the u.s. is now back to the pre-pro -- to the precrisis levels. it doesn't mean that it doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment in an economy that should be growing. the costs are very high. >> what was your reaction when congress failed to reach an agreement to extend emergency long-term unemployment benefits? >> as you know, cbo does not make policy recommendations. that is very important because policy choices depend not just on the analysis of the consequences but how one weighs those consequences, what values one applies. there is something special about our values. it is of to our elected leaders to make the policy judgments.

our job is to help congress understand the consequences. we have set a number of time that extending unemployment insurance benefits will provide a boost to the economy because that money will go to people who will be highly likely to spend it. that would boost the demand for goods and services and the demands for workers and so on. there are consequences of extending unemployment turns -- unemployment insurance benefits. there would be people who would look for work less vigorously than they would otherwise. we have laid out the consequences of that and offer the congress and number of times menus of possible ways of providing some fiscal stimulus to the economy. >> i want to talk about the politics of the cbo. the agency has come under fire recently.

particularly from the white house. with two reports you put out, one was on the effect of the minimum wage, which the white house aggressively came after. and then the affordable care act. what sort of pushback have you gotten from officials and congressional democrats over these reports that did not necessarily buttress a lot of the political conversation in the crosswalk to have. -- conversation democrats want to have. >> we don't get private pushback from the administration does i have no private conversation with anybody in the administration. i think that is appropriate. we don't really get private pushback from members of the congress when they are unhappy about us. public they provide pushback.

[laughter] >> on twitter, all over the place. >> lots of different ways. the essence of cbo is to do an analysis without carrying who will be made happy or unhappy about the results. it just isn't a factor in what we do. congress is paying us to do objective analysis, to do analysis that draws on the best thinking in the analytic community and among practitioners, whoever we can consult for information to do our budgets and analysis. we chat to a lot of people for substantive feedback. we give no heat as to whether certain results of ours will get a lot of attention or not. get favorable andntion from some people unfavorable from others. that just comes with the territory. shortly after i started my job, five years ago, i was taken to lunch by a former director of the cbo. everyone has their stories to tell. i wondered whether i should go back to the office and just get

on the metro and go home again. [laughter] the stories are really something. when you hear the whole collection of them over lunch. it is the essence of what my predecessors did and what i did. most importantly is what everybody at cbo does. everybody comes to cbo knowing that this is a place where we will to really high-quality objective work, where our own value of judgments and policy situations are, do not enter the situation. -- the conversation. in me orgth was not the other directors that cbo has had. it is in the entire organization in the culture of the place, it is all most 40 years old. when we've really some studies and they get some attention, sometimes they get less, people are happy or unhappy. people will call to testify, send tweets, or write letters. that's ok, that's their role.

our role is to work on the analysis for the next project. >> you ever worry about cbo's of -- ability to maintain a nonpartisan environment or its mission in such a partisan environment moving forward. >> i don't worry about the ability to do objective work. that is so ingrained in the organization and the people there. i worry about the perception of our objectivity. i think in an environment that is as highly partisan is washington is, especially now, things can be viewed through partisan lenses. they can be viewed as subjecting -- suggesting partisanship, even isthey particular estimate not viewed as partisan. we can talk about why we estimate the effects of this proposal and not that proposal. why did you write it this way

and not that way? why did you really sits on this day of the week and not that day -- release it on this day of the week and not that day of the week? -- why did you release it on this a of the week and not that day of the week? we are doing it in a way that demonstrates objectivity. i don't worry about the analysis been objective, i worry about the analysis being right. the topics are very complicated. our energies are devoted to trying to take the best available evidence from published research, from conversations with petitioners, from people running state governments and administering federal rules, and trying to combine all that knowledge to produce the most accurate estimates we can. we have a terrifically talented and dedicated people. i am very proud to be a part of it. we worry about that. trying to do as good of a job as we can in that way. >> i want to talk about the

budget wars that consumes washington and a lot of my life, your life, for about two years. what was your reaction to the budget compromise that democratic senator patty murray and republican congress meant -- congressman paul ryan came up with in december? do you think that was adequate in tackling the issues everyone has been fighting about for two years? >> when i testify to the budget conference committee in november, i said near the end of the testimony that given the budget challenges we face, the big steps are better than small steps and the small steps are better than no steps. and i added no steps are better than backward steps. have to be careful. [laughter] the agreement that chairman murray and chairman ryan came to the was endorsed by the congress was the appropriations bill. they were small steps toward better budget policy, not

endorsing the particular actions that were included. but getting a company of people to agree on something that allows the government to be funded and move ahead was very constructive. the fundamental fiscal challenges that we face remain. the fundamental fiscal challenges come from growth in spending for social security and a major health care programs. the government as a whole is not getting bigger relative to the size of the economy. in our projections under current law, all federal spending apart from that for social security and major health programs will be a smaller share of gdp by 2020. then at any point in at least 70 years. but social security will be more expensive relative to gdp.

then they have been on average in the past. that comes from the aging of the population. there'll be one third more people receiving social security benefits a decade from now than there are today. coming partly from rising health care costs per person, not as rapid and increase but still rapid enough to push up health care spending. the third coming from expansion to subsidize health insurance for lower income americans. with those three factors at work handful of a large program is becoming more expensive. we have a choice as a society to scale back our programs. we can raise tax avenue to its historical average to pay for these programs. or to cut back on spending even more sharply than we already are, even more sharply than the lowest gdp in seven years.

-- 70 years. we haven't decided at the society how we are going to -- what we are going to do. some combination of those three choices will be needed. as we continue to do work we present to congress a volume of options for reducing deficits. there are lots of ways to proceed but they tend to be unpleasant one way or another. we have not decided how much of that unpleasantness reflected. -- to inflict on whom. >> everyone on the hill is exhausted by the budget wars. the american public is exhausted by the budget wars. the annual deficit really dropped. when do people need to start worrying about these questions of government spending you just

brought up? >> we have been saying in the five years i have been at cbo, the deficits would be particularly high for a while and then decline. they would decline because the economy recovers, even more slowly, we also have a deficit decline the cause congress passed legislation in 2009 to provide stimulus to the economy. in effect that legislation would wane. our projections have shown for it while that deficit would come down from the roughly 10% gdp in 2009 four something in the two percent to three percent range, which we still project to happen this year and next year. deficits start to rise again

because of these underlying factors, which are happening. those underlying factors will show through very clearly. the current level of the deficit is roughly the average episode of the gdp we have had over the last 40 years. -- deficit of the gdp we have had over the last 40 years. the challenge is not the deficit in the short term, it is the deficit rising to capture that. in particular, a very high level of debt is now 70% of gdp. that is way above word was for most of the postwar. it can slow emulation of capital and the growth of wages and incomes. -- slow the accumulation of capital and growth of wages and incomes. with the high level of debt and

growing deficits, the reason action today would be beneficial is because we want to make changes in programs for retirees or changes in the tax code. it is better to make those with a warning. one wants to set changes in motion early, even if the full effect will be felt for many years. >> we're going to take some questions from the audience. there are people with microphones. if you just want to raise your hands -- we have a question over there. go ahead. >> good morning. my name is tom with marconi pacific am a we are a technological consulting firm. i have a question about technological driven deflation, and i'm wondering if cbo has done any work in that area, looking at the effects of the internet, driverless cars,

machine to machine technology, sort of the next generation and how that is going to impact employment or unemployment. and if you could connect that to the last panel with the lack of economic results as a that of economic -- of economic growth as a result of family -- >> we have not looked very carefully up the questions you have raised. they are important issues. we have a limited number of things we can tackle. our projection of growth and productivity is close to the average of the last couple of decades. we are not looking for any particular pick up or slow down.

there are cases people have made about why there may be at particular close-up or slow down. we think in terms of wages that there will be some return of wage growth as the labor market tightens the next several years. as you know the share of national income going workers has been on a gradual downward trend. it has fallen quite remarkably since the boom. we think that will take up to some extent but not go back to what it was in the past. we have federal reserve targets -- >> i think we have another question right here. >> good morning. there are two issues that come to mind. the fact we keep hearing entitlement when it comes to

social security. and people who paid and that while they were working. how do you address that as an entitlement when americans have done this? and how do you focus on tax policy when americans incomes are going down and we continue to subsidize exxon mobil. >> one of the options we offer congress in the fall for the deficit is to change the tax treatment of companies that are extracting resources, like exxon mobil. we don't take a position about that, but that is one of the possible ways of moving forward. on social security generally don't use the word "entitlement." it has different connotations to different people. a lot of people have paid social

security taxes on the expectation they will respond. -- get benefits and retirement. -- in retirement. the argument that people have come to expect certain things and are counting on certain things to be there for them is exactly the point i mentioned about how one wants to change those programs and then giving people a lot of warning about how those changes are coming, it would be especially important. >> one quick question i want to ask you, your term is up in january 2015. you have been a valiant soldier for a while now. you have in in this job for a while. are you interested in serving another term or what else would you be interested in doing?

>> i love my job. i have had a chance to work on some interesting questions with some terrific colleagues. >> that is not answering the question. [laughter] >> i know. and i am focused on what we are doing in 2014. i have no plans beyond the beginning of 2015, when my term expires, and i am making no plans and we will have to see what happens when we get there. >> thank you so much. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> a big round of applause for doug elmendorf. the question i would ask job -- ask doug is does your job suck? it must be a complicated thing when you are trying to tell the truth to both sides who do not want to hear it. that must be the most interesting thing. you don't have to answer that -- >> i love my job.