family , and as for test said four times that of the last five years, a great place to do business. i'm just hopeful that we can work together for the good of americans. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> if you would like a copy of today's program, go to the website press.org. we are adjourned.

>> utah republican governor gary herbert who is the chairman of the national governors is to see asian. you may have heard john hughes asked him about a story breaking this afternoon. utah republican representative jason chief it's is preparing a campaign for house speaker. say that theyes write the expected bid after chief it's called on kevin mccarthy to apologize for his remarks this week.

that it has damaged hillary clinton's poll numbers, a respected member of the republican conference rights. the overwhelming favorite to replace outgoing speaker john boehner. to nearbyke you live fort lauderdale. hillary clinton will be speaking at a grassroots organizing meeting. >> we can full of politics. the possibility of policymakers, industry innovators.

on book tv saturday night, martha discusses her new book on presidential transitions and is interviewed by the former white house chief of staff. and sunday at noon, we're alive with tom hartman who has offered -- authored several books. texts, e-mails, and tweets. his book, the author explores the events of the april 26 1913 murder in marietta georgia and the lynching of jewish factory member. a sunday afternoon, the 1975

federal energy administration documentary on the supply and demand fossil fuels in the u.s. and a look at alternative energy sources. >> the supreme court is scheduled to begin its new term on monday. earlier this year, a poll was conducted for c-span. you can see from the poll that some of the decisions are more familiar than others. 67% of americans familiar with that. significant -- from a your with board the board of it -- brown the board of education. mark farkas, tell us a little bit about these series. why is c-span doing it?

they lend currency to the current programming. really, since it began, i think this poll really shows that the supreme court is relevant. doing, it we are takes a look at 12 decisions over time that really have currency today. i think it shows that the court does play an important role in society and the genesis of this was ruth bader ginsburg talking to the national constitution center dinner. was talking to them about the case of loving versus virginia. but she said there are two people involved in this case and what the court to be taking a look at, it's not only the

decisions, but people involved in all these cases. a look atto take historic supreme court decisions and the people involved, the personal stories. the people that cared enough to take their case to the supreme court. more background about how these cases were chosen. >> the series begins monday, october 5. the newt comes in for session and each monday night , we will to 10:30 p.m. do 90 minute programs that take a look at these cases. >> and the background that goes into these decisions? there's a lot more than will be shown during this series. it was an interesting exercise. it the supreme court has been

meeting since 1790. were trying to figure out how many courses -- cases they decided. we had a narrow it down to 12. 12 along withh our partners at the constitution center. we talked to constitutional scholars to come up with this list. it was tough. with this list. it was tough because there are a lot of great decisions and important decisions not on the list that this is a good next, different amendments to the constitution, personal stories. sometimes these cases are cases where the court got it right and set precedents followed all the way through today and some of these cases, dred scott, korematsu are cases where maybe the court got it wrong. host: the supreme court kicks off the new term on monday. tell us which case you will be featuring monday night when the series against and why.

mark: one day night, we feature library versus madison, the foundation -- ball bearing versus matzo, the c as the ultif the constitution judicial review which is still being debated today whether the court is stepping into much. ande is a debate going on this shows relevance one the court should decide issues like gay marriage. marbury versus madison establishes that but it is a great case that shows the personal stories behind the cases. there is a battle going on in this between john adams, thomas jefferson, and john marshall, behind the scenes that is the story of this case. it has legal importance but the shows are also personal stories

that are engaging and i think eliminating all the time pwe ark eliminating all the time pwe >> arne duncan is departing according to a senior official. letters sent to the department of education staff, the president says they are tapping john king junior. obama is expected to make the announcement official. the former education secretary,

the chair says arne duncan was one of the president's best appointment. it has a big heart, cares about children, and i have enjoyed working with him. -- i should say again, we will be covering hillary clinton. we will have that live for you on c-span. , this morning's washington journal. kyleur screen, pomerleau, an economist with the tax foundation. we are going to discuss some of the gop candidates' tax plans. here is a little from donald trump's announcement. donald trump: we are going to cut the individual rates from seven brackets to four. simplification. 20%, 10%, and 0%.

if you are zero and you earn less than $25,000 per year, or lessed and jointly earn than $50,000. . and you earnrtant less than $25,000 or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not pay any income tax. nothing. eliminates very strongly and quickly the marriage penalty, a very unfair penalty. it eliminates the amc, the alternative minimum tax. it ends the death tax, the double taxation a lot of families go through hell over. it reduces or eliminates most of the deductions and loopholes available to special interests

and to the very rich. in other words, it is going to cost me a fortune. pomerleau, how significant is this plan? how radical is mr. trump's plan. guest: you can think of his plan in two ways. on its face it looks conventional for a gop tax plan. you cut the marginal tax rates to broaden the base. on the business side he lowers the corporate tax from 35% to 15%. so he is hitting all those pieces. he also mentions eliminating the estate tax, he calls it the death tax. the parallel income tax system in the united states. these are very typical gop. but when you look at it underneath and how all of these pieces work, it gets a little bit more radical in the size of the tax cuts. in fact, when we ran the numbers for his plan, it looks very close to jeb bush's plan, but it ends up being more than twice the size in terms of the tax

cuts. especially what he is doing on the individual income tax. host: one of the things you said , he is closing the loopholes to broaden the base, but at the same time he writes in a recent op-ed in "the wall street journal" that 47 million people would be taken off the rolls completely. the sort ofis hidden part right there. he talks about his 0% bracket. that is akin to a $25,000 standard deduction where individuals can earn up to $25,000 tax-free, $50,000 for married couples. not sure what he is doing with the personal exemption, which makes it a little higher there. he is creating a very, very narrow base at the bottom end. that is very expensive, because not only do people at the bottom benefit from that, but people at the top do as well.

very quickly, here is a look at the trunk tax plan. four tax brackets, 0, 10, 20, and 25%. no income tax for individuals making less than $25,000, or couples $50,000 and under. corporate tax rate cut from 15% -- to 15% from 35%. that eliminates the state tax. when it comes to cutting the corporate rate, we have heard the u.s. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. is that true? slightly true. in the industrialized world, yes. among the largest 34 countries, we do have the highest. the next highest is france, 34.4%. we are at 35 percent. if you loop in the state and local taxes corporations have to pay on their profits, we are up to 39%. not only are they the highest in the industrialized world, there is a sizable growing gap between

first place and second place. the rest of the world, there are a few countries -- especially african countries -- that have a slightly higher corporate income tax. yes, this is one place trump focuses on, but also other gop candidates focus on. democrats focus on this as well. 28%, wants to cut it to although he goes about it in a different way. pomerleau, we hear every couple of months about a large corporation that has paid no taxes, but there is a 35% corporate tax rate. why do we hear they are paying no taxes? guest: this is the difference. it is an interesting difference between average rates and marginal rates. the 35% is what is called the marginal rate. for every additional dollar of profit your, you pay $.35 in tax on that. now, in the past two years, the economy -- we are going back to 2008, 2009, 2010.

this is when those reports started coming out as corporations are paying close to 0%, 2%, 5% of their income in taxes. one of the reasons why is because our tax system is built, that if loses money in a year, in other words is in the negative profits, somehow you have to account for that. the corporate tax allows businesses to carry forward losses, and that allows corporations to deduct those losses. even in 2011 where there may be some profit there, they are taking losses for previous years and sticking them on to make sure that over a long till of time corporations are able to account for losses. if you do not allow corporations to do that, you are overtaxing donald trump wrote this in "the wall street journal" about part of his proposal and could you help explain what this means.

i propose ending the current treatment of caring for interest of hedge funds and speculative partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs. what does that mean to you and i and to businesses? guest: for uni, probably not very much. carried interest is one of those great political talking points and it is true that in some cases carried interest is supposed to be taxed as ordinary income. most of the stuff is invested tax to capital gains. however if we were to eliminate that would hold, and this is the interesting part that goes to the political talking point, a limited in this loophole only raises taxes i a billion dollars per year. $10 a decade, talking about billion or $15 billion in increased taxes. in the context of the trump

plan, that is in context with his $10 trillion tax cut. it goes back to the politics of it. it makes a great target, but it is not meaningful in the context of his reform. host: another candidate who is come out with a comprehensive tax plan is jeb bush. here he is speaking about it. [video clip] >> we need to grow at a far faster rate. 2% is fine for people who have made it, particularly with monetary policy. people'sting a lid on aspirations. 6 million more people living in poverty today than the day that barack obama got elected president. a high-growth strategy requires, first and foremost, a dramatic reform of our tax code. what we have for most desperate post a simple find the rates -- 10, 25, 58 -- expanding and doubling the exclusion so low income earners will not pay simplifying the

code to put a cap on deductions because there are thousands and thousands of these credits and inductions that i think create -- do not create the kind of environment for somethin. everything else would be part of the cap. we would eliminate local and state exemption taxes. statest think high tax should be subsidized. that system for personal taxes will create an environment where people will be saving more. all people will get a tax cut of some kind. host: in "the wall street journal" yesterday, kyle pomerleau in the lead editorial side of the tax foundation you work for. bush's plan which has gained enemies and credibility because of specificity, gets far more economic thing for each dollar of tax cut. the tax foundation estimates that the bush plan would lift gdp by 10% above where it would be otherwise. how so?

guest: the important margins of which the bush tax plan improves the economy is a lot on the business side. this is a lot of the typical gop stuff from the business side. he is lowering corporate tax from 35% to 20%. taxs reducing marginal rates on individual income, and looming state tax. these are all progrowth measures. one thing that he does let the trump plan does not do is go to full expensing of capital investment. the sounds really arcane, but what this is is allowing businesses to fully deduct the expenses in the year that they are made. if a business is to build a factory or a piece of machinery to expand, they get a deduction for the full value of that. under current law, they have to take the price of a factory and

deduct it as much as over 40 years. that increases the cost of that investment and makes it less worthwhile. you may not see that factory ever be created. with full expensing, it reduces the cost of investment and leaves a lot of economic growth. host: jeb bush has proposed full expensing. guest: he has proposed full expensing. host: we talked about these two guys, but what about the other gop candidates who proposed a tax plan? guest: there have been two proposals -- one of them is senator rubio. he has proposed one must senator mike lee. cut built it as a big tax for the middle class. it has a lot of features that gop plans happy lower marginal rates, lower corporate rate -- but what is different about the itio and lee plan is that and ask a large child tax credit

.f $205 for tha that is the piece there. there is senator rand paul's plan. he goes to what is called a flat tax whichodified flat .s a 14.5% flat tax on income the converts the corporate tax to what he calls a business transfer tax. you can think of it as another word for a value added tax. he converts the corporate tax to a value added tax. the individual income tax is a flat 14.5% tax. this tax also, by definition, has full expensing. rubio's plan also has full expensing. those plans are going for the growth aspect as well. ump's plan, the gop plans have been so far progrowth because a business tax reforms, specifically. think. host: the tax foundation has

estimated 10% growth with the bush plan. had he criticized or critique the trump plan so far? guest: we looked at the costs and benefits of the plan could p's plan cost side, trum cost $12 trillion if enacted today. compare that to bush's tax plan and that tax plan cut taxes by $3.6 trillion. that is more than three times the cost of trump's plan. because there are cuts, there are growth aspects there. estimate around 11% higher gdp that otherwise over about a decade. in the 10th year, gdp will be 11% higher than otherwise. mp plan, it is difficult to be certain with that given the fact that the tax

cut is so large. without spending cuts to offset that, the debt will increase substantially and that may drag growth a little bit. what about the democrats? far, the democrats have not released any fundamental tax reform plans, but you have heard noise from both hillary and bernie sanders. they're looking at different individual proposals. bernie sanders has a number of spending proposals that he has attached some tax reform ideas too. not necessarily eliminate the cap on social security payroll tax, but start $250,000 and above subject back to the payroll tax. he is also talked about a financial transaction tax. as a general rule here, democrats don't really -- they have not really put out fundamental plants that look to

reshape the entire texico. host-- texico. host: kyle pomerleau is our guest from the tax foundation. dan is calling in from ohio on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i believe that if you look at the tax code that it is so massive and complicated. daycan call the irs on one and they will give you one answer. if you call back the next a and talk to somebody else, they are going to give you a different answer. we need simplification. rates, ao lower the limited the loopholes so that everybody is paying the fair , and then the part that nobody talks about is that the government needs to spend less money. if you say these tax plans are going to bring in less money, ok. people who do not work at all that make no income get a tax refund. what business do you have taken my money that i work hard for

and giving it to somebody who doesn't work and then talking we don't have income that is bringing in more money to government? the government needs to spend less, not more. and that's the bottom line. let's go ahead and lower the tax rate for everybody. and if you do not work, why would you get a tax refund? let the government spend less money. host: let's hear from our guest. terms of complexity, you sound almost just like the republican presidential candidates talking about how complex our code is and how it needs to be simplified and the fundamental plants out there so far a limited a lot of the parts that are considered very complicated. the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax, some of the proposals have gone after some of the garry cobb located in a national features of our tax -- they complicated international features of our tax code. that gop lot

candidates agree on. the second point is spending. that's a very important point. candidates gop presidential plans have cut taxes in some way. they're looking at a world in which the government takes in less revenue. spending in some way needs to be restrained in order to make those revenues and expenditures matchup. plan, that would be $3.6 trillion at least in a reduction in spending over the next decade. i'm not entirely sure what his spending plans look like, but as for the trump plan, that would $10 trillion to $12 trillion in reduced spending. while that may be possible, that does not team totally feasible to meet -- seem totally feasible to mute because of the discretionary spending that government does you woul. host: we talk about dynamic

scoring from time to time, which is a washington term. what does it mean and how does it play into the tax plans? guest: dynamic scoring is the next frontier into looking at how tax policy actually behaves not only revenue wise, but you are flipping revenue switches and bring more and less revenue, scoring or looking at the economics of taxation not only looks at how it affects revenues firsthand, but how it affects incentives in the economy. if you lower marginal tax rates for a worker, you may work more, thus the economy may expand a little bit more and the tax base may expand a little bit more. this may recoup some of the revenue, definitely not all of it, but this is a way where we can account for the story of stuff. it is an important step that we can take to analyze the full impacts of tax reform. host: i want to get your reaction to this "usa today"

lead editorial on wednesday. tax cuts make oil. taxly-sider advocated big cuts in louisiana and kansas, for example, promising explicit growth. instead, job growth in both states has lied the national average and the lost revenue blue big holes in the states budgets, leading to destructive cuts in education and other vital programs. an analysis last year by the nonpartisan congressional research service found little relationship between tax rates and economic growth. said that claims that economic growth significantly reduces revenue lost to tax cuts do not appear to be justified by the evidence. guest: there are people out considert are supply-siders that may overstate the case a lot. for instance, when there is a

debate going on in kansas about the tax cuts, they cut income taxes substantially. made that case to be tax cuts, depending on what they are, do have some influence on economic growth. some more than others. if you look at taxes on capital, capital is much more mobile. you can save or not very easily. the tax on that activity is much more sensitive. income taxes and especially taxes on wages are not very sensitive. it all dep axes you're cutting, how your structuring your tax cuts. by no means do these plans, especially on the gop side, pay for themselves in any way or come close to this. look at donald trump's tax plan -- $12 trillion cut. when accounting for the economic , you are only seen 10 chilean dollars. there is a $2 trillion gap there. it does not come close to revenue neutral. there is no reason to believe that under any circumstances

that very large tax cuts are going to pay for themselves or come close to paying for themselves. it all depends on the size of the tax cut and how you're cutting taxes. that thetor tweets and trump and bush plans are the definitions of insanity, repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result. jim is calling in from jacksonville, florida -- democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: we are just being scammed. what corporation do you know that pays 39% of what individual pays 39%? for mr. romney was running president, he had to give away money in order to get back to 14%. damne same time, he took a $79,000 deduction for a horse. getting rid of the death

tax to give money to their heirs. years and the0 justated from $1000 a year by sitting the death tax. look at how much money he saves. the whole thing is a scam. if the american people vote for this, they are fools. host: jim in jacksonville, florida. kyle pomerleau? ways: there are certainly in the tax code and a lot of these plans try to get at that that marginal tax rates and average tax rates do not really match up. the reason is for what they are calling loopholes and a lot of these reductions. a lot of these plans, of course, get rid of them. you also bring up another important concern about what is called in washington "this traditional analysis -- distributional analysis." when you have a tax plan, who gets larger cuts than others?

that is one important aspect of some of these tax plans because they go after marginal income tax rates, seem to favor those at the top more than those at the bottom. if cuttingration is those taxes benefits those at the top so much, that must mean that under current law they are paying the most as well. when it comes to across-the-board rate cuts, that is the result that you would expect. , i'm note pomerleau hurt anyone defend the complexity of the tax system, of our tax code. how has it grown to be so complex and is there a solution? can it be changed? guest: that is a very good question. i'm not entirely sure how. as an economist, i would love to have kept it very simple and straightforward and focused only on raising revenue and not a lot of different social policies and economic policies built in.

but i think that is what happened. over time, since the last tax reform act, we have put things in the tax code that could be akin to spending policy. we have put in child tax credits , tax credits for energy, certain deductions for certain economic behaviors. those complicate the tax code. i think that is one the reasons why we are seeing this. more ofhas been used as an economic tool then i revenue raising tool. host: as an economist, how are shattering would it be if we went to a flat tax or we went to the jeb bush plan or the donald trump plan? when everything changed -- would everything changed? e? guest: we would see a lot of great simplification and marginal provisions. they would go away. it would be a lot clear how the

tax system would work, especially what is under the flat tax. it is easy to understand the tax system when you're marginal tax rates and average tax rates are pretty much the same. it would not be earth shattering, but i definitely think it would be a great simplification. to likemoving something a jeb bush tax plan would look like the current tax code, but would have a lot simpler features. host: alton tweets and, all these proposals sound interesting, but their passage depends on congress. which candidate is most persuasive in congress? guest: that's very true. congress is having trouble figuring out small things like the highway trust fund. so it is difficult to see how that aurrent congress lot of these major reform proposals would be pushed through. it is still great to be able to talk about them and sort of pushed the debate on tax reform because it is something that

doesn't happen and it is great that candidates are talking about this. host: carl, chicago, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you guys doing? to i needlittle time to make two or three points. i've been looking at this historically about progressive cuts during the 1940's. we had basically funded all of world war ii. after the end of the war, we built the world and all japan and still the number one economy in the world could when reagan came in to 1980, that ushered in trickle-down economic sphere 35 years later here on the same show "washington journal," notice that it did not trickle-down. benefited from trickle-down economics. a lot of the stuff is just theory that doesn't work. when they had the tax cuts for

butness, they got tax cuts, they do not want to bring income on the taxes. they keep the money outside the country. a lot of this is just theory that has been shown not to work. like i said, 35 years of reaganomics, trickle-down economics, 90% of america got butkus. we did not get diddley. i would like people to understand that basically what we are doing economically is saying, we want business to not have to pay more of this country anything socially or economically. all we want them to do is just go out and make all the money they can for themselves and they do not have to do nothing for this country. host: carl, what do you do in chicago? caller: pardon me. host: what do you do in chicago? caller: i'm retired. host: from? caller: i used to be a

chauffeur. interestingave very points. the first part that you talked about brings up a lot of different things. over a long. eriod of time, not only has taxation change, but the global economy has well. it's hard to point to broad trends about wages and equality and point specifically at the tax code. if you look at the texaco back in the 1970's and 1960's, marginal rates were very high, but the ability to sell to income was much greater. tax rates are very low. is where theat alternative minimum tax came from, back when they were very high rates. people were very concerned that millionaires were paying very, very low rates could this is back when the to. this is back when the top marginal rate was 40%. tope are more things than

marginal rate at play here talk about businesses paying tax. no business actually pays tax. entityal -- a fictional does not pay tax good it is people who pay taxes. corporations are group of shareholders. they pay tax. a group of consumers pay tax. also, the workers bear the burden of the tax as well. as an economist, i like to remind people of this. when we talk about taxation, we should always remember that at the end of the day that only people pay taxes. host: jonathan is calling a from leesburg, virginia on her independent line. our guest is kyle pomerleau of the tax foundation. caller: kyle made some good points. i do like thinking that i'm a democrat on the social side of republican on the economic side. i'm a low conflicted. -- a little conflicted. the tax proposal that donald trump brought up his social.

you know the bush tax cuts still have federal dollars paying for it? it's like the republican party wants to do -- spend less money. i feel like that would just drive up the deficit even more so. i just want to know if you think it's a good idea to do that or -- i don't know. i want to hear what you have to say. guest: a very important point. a lot of politicians on the campaign trail, what the democrats or republicans or green party, like to promise the good stuff and then leave out the compromises. on the gop side, we talking a lot about tax cuts because that is something that we can improve the government in that way. however, a lot of these tax cuts lose revenue. in a way, they're costing the government. it's better to think about losing revenue.

in order to match that up, the spending side has to shrink a little bit. so yeah, it is something candidates have to think about that in the past when tax cuts have gone through, spending has also increased rather than decreased. that is a very important point. host: what about the concept of everybody paying a so-called fair share? donald trump's plan blows that out of the water. guest: a lot of people cares about that where at least everyone pays at least something. the pending on where you asked left all right, some people believe it is the top paying nothing and some others say the bottom is paying nothing. the reality is that under current law there are a significant number of tax filers that do not pay any individual income tax. this is at the bottom end of the income scale. a lot of people say that is not such a great thing because they

do not sort of share the burden. they do not care about government spending as much. that is the issue that i think you bring up there. host: the top 10% of all taxpayers -- what percentage of taxes do they pay? guest: i believe it is close to 90%. host: 90%? guest: you're talking about top 10% of income earners are paying 90% of the individual income tax. under current law, the individual income tax is highly progressive. that means that there is a group of a few people who are paying most of the individual tax this . this is what the whole taxes and. there are payroll taxes paid payroll taxes paid evenly as well. it's a pretty flat tax the coast to wages and shareholders. the total system is still progressive, but the individual

system is very progressive. host: if the corporate tax rate were lowered, with that logicallyt encourage more investment in the united states? guest: yes, the way to think about this is that you have a corporation out there wondering should i invest more or a bill that extra factory and higher the additional thousand workers necessary to work that factory? they're going to look at their cash flow and they going to take into account the taxation on that additional investment. if the tax rate is 35%, they may look at that and be like hmm, even after this deduction and credit i get from washington state, i'm still negative and not getting enough of a return because of that high corporate -- 35% plus a local tax rate boosting up to 39%. lowering that tax rate reduces the hurdle rate of return that

after taxes i do not have to have such a great rate of return on that one investment. maybe i'm going to do that investment. with a lower rate, you will see the marginal investments pop up. an additional factory, ,urchasing additional machinery giving workers a pay raise -- that's have to think about this sort of stuff. host: is one of the downsides to immediate expensing the fact that after a year a company could leave that factory and say, i got my money's worth come off , off i go? guest: i've not thought about that. i do not know if that is actually a concern. if they up and go, there are no longer earnings return on that factory. that's a cost to the business. it's hard to imagine a company saying, i'm going to spend $1 billion on this new investment,

take the deduction, which is a deduction just to get costs, the money is out of the door, and sunk cost.ell, now it's like throwing money out of the window. i do not imagine that a corporation is go to do that, especially where we see that corporations are very profit driven. why would they want to do that? host: steve tweets and, do you hold to the principle that government should get revenue from consumption and sales-value-added taxes? guest: as an economist, i like consumption-based taxes so it does not have to necessarily be a sales or value added tax. the advantage of a consumption tax is that it does not hold a lot of these consequences for investment. under the classic income tax, investment, especially saving in investment, has a little harder than consumption.

under a conception tax, you only hitting economic activity one time. the benefit of saying that this is a consumption-based tax and not necessarily a sales tax or value added tax, which could be regressive in nature, you can make in income tax consumption-based by allowing people to do deduct savings and return savings from progressivend had rates. so conception taxes are not only economically sufficient, but they can be progressive as well. there are a lot of proposals that could be progressive taxes. host: myron in north carolina. please give your question for kyle pomerleau of the text for tax foundation. caller: the 90% at the top paste 90% so that's fair enough. the corporate tax rates compared to other nations, the other formula not placed in his their

defense funding. most of the nations that have low corporate tax rates, their defense budget is 4% and less. ours is 20%. we have multiple bases around the world. the shipping lane is patrolled 90% by the u.s. navy and they are getting a free ride on our defense budget. 2%-3% tariffly a on these countries because they are getting a free ride on defense. we are the number one country in the world shouldering responsibilities and these other people -- they could lower those lattes andave the they could give social services and have universal health care. over here, we have to fight for scraps for the middle class in the lower class. the corporate tax rate -- i'm

getting confused. i'm done. [laughter] .ost: all right, myron guest: your first point about the top 10% on ends about 90% of the income. it is still progressive so it's my flat tax. it is not an equal 90-10 there. as for the foreign policy stuff, i am by no means foreign-policy i can whatsoever, but comment on corporate tax rates around the world . one thing is that corporate tax rates in other countries are lower, but that is not because we are subsidizing those lower corporate tax rates. that is because other countries have moved towards what i was previously talking about -- consumption basis. choosing to have value-added taxes to raise a

significant amount of the tax through noon -- revenue. a love people point to the fact that these countries have high of gdps and percentage and one of those reasons is the value added tax. they do not need to rely on the corporate income taxpayer another additional point here should we raise the same percent from the corporate gdp tax as other countries in the industrialized world. it is not as though corporate tax is raising a lot. it is raising just as much as other countries'corporate tax rates. host: dfw library and tweets and, did the kid on spring just do a romney? corporations are people, my friend? guest: corporations are not people. they are pieces of paper in a filing cabinet probably in delaware. the important point i'm making is that they do not pay taxes simply because they are pieces of paper file somewhere in delaware.

that work atple these corporations that end up shouldering the economic incidents of these taxes. host: charles, fort collins, colorado, independent line. kyle pomerleau of the tax foundation is our guest. caller: this whole tax thing is so confusing and it's kind of insane and a in a way. one thing i've noticed and study in the kenyan asset of taxes is economic multipliers. the tax rateswhen are 70% or 80% when fdr had like was going our country -- you mentioned in the 1960's that there was a 70% marginal rate. becauseere going good the government had money to reinvest in the people like shovel ready jobs for every d was worthste

like one dollar some descents and gained money. the republicans say that doesn't exist and it is all just bs and we need to go back to milton friedman supply-sider i'm really confused to the effective rate -- 17%? i look at history when it was over 40% or 50%, that is when the country is really firing on all cylinders coul. host: charles, we're going to leave it at that first point. a very interesting point guest. guest: tax revenue as a percent of gdp today is slightly higher than tax revenues as a percentage of gdp in the time. that you are talking about. it is not necessarily the amount of revenue that the government is raising that is determining these economic factors. as i previously mentioned, there are a lot of things

going on that influence the economy as a whole could you cannot trace it back to tax revenue as a percentage of gdp. may -- is not just how much revenue we raise as a nation, but how we raise it. if we raise revenue as most european countries do the consumption taxes, that is much more efficient and better for the economy. keynesiane teen multiplier, that may aggregate when you change taxes, but in the long run, the best way to think about tax policy is the influences that taxes have on prices in the economy could over the long run, that's what matters. in the short run, there may be ups and downs from shifting money here and there. in the long run, we're just talking about having a high marginal rate influences the

amount of capital in the amount of labor available in the economy. host: the bureau of labor statistics has released the monthly -- or the weekly unemployment rates. here it is. this is the monthly. september, the unemployment rate remains unchanged nationwide at 5.1%. 142,000.d -- kyle pomerleau, any reaction to those numbers? guest: i do not follow this as closely as a lot of people do. i am one of the tax economist. of a tax economist at the unemployment rate is low and we are adding jobs, not mr. lee at the fastest pace. in the past, we have added jobs faster than that. there have been underlying numbers that have not changed much over the last few years. labor force participation is a little low. historically, there are two factors.

one is that people are dropping up for economic reasons and number two is that people are retiring naturally. our labor force is smaller than it was, even though our unemployment rate is improving. a little good, a little that there that there. host: david in arkansas. your our final caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i lo i love c-span. i'm an attorney, but i've always loved economics. there are two questions i have. the studies of economics have been going through adam smith, milton friedman, and through freedom to choose. hyatt, friedman, and john

maynard keynes with all different philosophies. you have studied this all your life. now seems to me that after all this time, there has to be some finite rules that you could write down maybe 10 things or maybe five things that if you were to say, these things happen we would have good tax policy and if they do not happen , he would have that text policy. i have another question. short onare time. --believe that that leave it at that. when you search a tax code, you to look at how it affects people's behavior. higher marginal tax rates influences people's willingness invest in work. in order to reduce the incentives that you create that

may be negative in the economy, it is best to think about creating a tax system that is broad-based and has low marginal rates and raises a sufficient amount of revenue for what the government needs for the spending priorities it has. finally, h robert woodson, a conception tax hurts the poor and benefits the rich. guest: if it is flat, you can make it for aggressive. consumption taxes are in a way where the rich and up paying a lot. it all depends. sales taxes are certainly considered regressive. and income tax that is based in consumption allows people to deduct the amount of savings. that can be structured in a highly progressive way. is theax foundation.org website should you have analyzed all the plants that are out there, correct? guest: correct. you'll find the analysis revenues and economic impact of the for tax reform proposals out

there so far. host: how a nonpartisan are you? nonpartisan. we look to educate taxpayers about good tax policy and the burden of government and that is taxation. host: d come at it from a conservative point of view more liberal point of view? guest: not really. it is nerdy and boring, but we are looking at just the numbers and the economics. what does economics have to say about ta >> a live look of the u.s. capitol. the house and senate are done for the week. work this afternoon that jason launchz is preparing to a campaign for house speaker. ."at is from "politic they write that these i

suspected they comes after kevin mccarthy is asked to apologize for his statements this week that the benghazi committee has affected hillary clinton's poll numbers. mccarthy remains the overwhelming favorite to replace outgoing speaker john boehner. nextlection happening thursday, october 8. also from washington this afternoon, education secretary arne duncan stepping down from the administration. the president is suspected to make the official in news conference, coming up in about half an hour. we will have that live on our companion network, 3:30 eastern on c-span two. momentarily, we will take you live to hillary clinton. she will be speaking in davie, florida. coming up shortly, we will take you there live. in the meantime, part of this morning's "washington journal."

is "washington journal" america by the numbers segment. we look at the statistics that are involved in forming our nation. today, we are going to look at the u.s. census bureau's new report out on income, poverty, and health insurance. this is one of the census bureau's largest reports of the year. joining us is jennifer cheeseman day of the u.s. census bureau and jim tankersley of the washington post. he covers economic policy or that newspaper. , one of theey things i wanted to start with here is the uninsured rate, from 2008 22014, of americans when it comes to health insurance. 14% to 10%. it does not seem very significant. caller: to the contrary -- guest: to the contrary, it is a

huge significance. the biggest drop we have seen year-over-year. there is probably a pretty big reason, the affordable care act. like this is the first really large instance that we are seeing now year-over-year of the obamacare health care law getting coverage to people who did not have it, which was the design of the law. there are a lot of other things about the law that are controversial, but in this particular instance, is it improving expanding health care coverage for americans who did not have it? absolutely it appears to be going on and is a huge element for lower and middle income americans. host: jennifer cheeseman day, is this one of the larger drop you have seen in your studies? caller: it is. on slide six, you can see we have two measures of uninsured here. one is the current population, the lower line, and the longer running survey is the american community survey. decline in therp

percent uninsured between 2013 and 2014. after a fairly stable period since 2008, when we started measuring in the american community survey. startedwhen we measuring in the american community survey. we have been collecting population in the current population survey but we had a questionnaire change in 2013. but in the long-term, we have never seen such a change from year to year as we have in this last period. host: has this number been pretty steady at 14%, 15%? we seewe have, but as between 2008 and two thousand 13, it is very study. host: prior to that? guest: you do not see year-to-year changes, historical changes like this. very small changes typically. things trending up or down, but you don't see a sharp change.

either there is some kind of economic shift or there is a demographic change or just momentum changing, or you have a policy change. for instance, you see with a demographic shift, people entering the age of 65 and older, baby boomers moving into that, so you see the number of people receiving medicare are going up. you are seeing that and will continue to see that. but that does not happen in such a sharp change as you see here. tankersley, real median household income, 1967, 2 2014, in $2014, 1967, $44,000. in 2014, median household income is $53,000. guest: there are two big stories in these numbers. i write a lot about this and this is just a very disturbing trend in the last several years

and over the last 25. the shorter-term trend is that we had a recession, people lost a lot of income, which is what happens in recessions. it ended, and what tends to happen is that incomes go back up, but that has not happened. we have an economic growth, almost 5% unemployment, and even with all that, median household income has not but -- bunched, which means the typical american household is earning the same, adjusted for inflation, as when the recession ended, actually less. that is a very anomalous recovery from recession. put that in the context of the last 25 years, we are in 1989 levels basically. that is not the america that wereamericans thought they in, that is not the economy we all thought we had. we had a lot of growth, close to 80% growth in the economy, real growth in that time, and yet, 25

years no change in the median household income. host: and every blue line you see in the chart is a recession or downturn in the economy. figure, itok at this is constant dollars, but didn't $44,000 in 1967 by a lot more than $53,000 today? guest: the way you should think about it is, that is not actually $44,000 in 1967. that is -- if today's prices have been around in 1967. people do have more buying power today than they had in 1967. that is a good thing. on a percentage basis, that is really good. hand, over 50er years, it is not. look at the growth from 1967 until basically the end of the 1990's.

increase. very big then the recession of 2000, a weak recovery there, followed by another recession, combined to wipe out all the gains basically of the clinton years, and we are back to the start of the george h.w. bush years in terms of progress. host: we are talking about the census bureau's income, poverty, and health insurance report for 2014. we have divided our lines by income level. under, --e 50 and to 100,000 -- --you make over $100,000 we want to do divided this way to get a different perspective on the issues we are talking about. we have looked at health

insurance, household income, and a third category his poverty. poverty rates by age. jennifer cheeseman day, this is what struck out to me, the drop in elderly poverty. guest: if you compare this year to 2013 estimates, there is no change in poverty, no change in the three age categories that we show on the graphic. but if you look at over the long 1959,and it goes back to when we started collecting poverty estimates, you can see a real shift in the three age groups that we have here. 1959, the population, 65 and older, had the highest poverty rate at 35%. the lowest party rate was four people at&t oh 64, with children in between at 27%. over time you have seen a shift. 625-year-old poverty rate

declined during this period. today about 10% in poverty. compared with the children under 18 at 21, double their poverty rate. children under 18, the blue line. currently 21% of children under 18 are living in poverty, or at a poverty level. but that was 27% in 1959, correct? years,64, your working 17% in the poverty area in 1959, 13% today. these three figures added together, multiply it, divide it, what is the poverty rate in the u.s. today? total poverty rate is 14.8%, which represents about 46.7 million people. host: what was the poverty rate

overall in 1959? guest: i don't know offhand. host: jim tankersley, analyze these figures for us. guest: it shows a couple of things. over time, it shows the enormous progress we have made in reducing elder poverty. have hade recently, we a real spike in child poverty, which is a problem, directly attributable to the recession and its aftermath. we are starting to see that come down a little bit. reporter, this is just income. it does not include the benefits you get from the government that helps you live in poverty. what this shows is we have had, since 1980 basically, rough luck try to get the market to work better to deliver higher incomes for people. all the efforts of the government has made to pull people out of poverty, the so-called war on poverty, has not resulted in higher incomes being delivered to people working.

think that is a big take away here. something that you will hear a lot about in the presidential campaign, republican candidates in particular, have been critical on the war on poverty as being ineffective and proposing market-based solutions to deliver better outcomes to people, as opposed to government spending programs. day, jennifer cheeseman from year-to-year, there has been significant drops in these poverty rates. what has affected those? do you look at what is affecting these rights? part, wer the most like a poverty and we have a measure in the current population survey. we go out in the spring and as people about their well-being of the prior year. we have been collecting since the late 1950's in the current population survey. it gives us a great tool to see year-to-year changes, and

especially changes over the long term. take some calls. we discussed income, health insurance rates, and we have looked at party as well. billions picked for -- bill in pittsburgh, on the 50000 and underline. caller: here i go again being first off. i wanted to be responsive to the discussion. the one point that interests me of income recovery after this recession. i wonder if your guests could discuss the question of what jobs there are to do? i am calling from pittsburgh, formally the steel industry. host: are you employed? ? caller: no, i am retired. i was a lawyer. host: that sounds like a policy

question and i don't think we will have the census bureau answer that, so we will turn it to you. caller: it's an interesting question about the economy now and we see fear of manufacturing jobs, as bill was talking about, a larger trend in the economy, and more service jobs. more things in restaurants, people working in retail. in general, we are hoping the economy can start soon. we seem to be hoping every month, to see more higher in service jobs. shift of manufacturing to services in general is a long-term structural shift. in this recession, recovery from a hopeon, there had been from the obama administration that we would have a lot more high-paying manufacturing jobs. so far, we are well short of the president school for that job creation. , on ourna, san diego over $100,000 line. californiaas born in , back in the 1950's.

i went into the security industry. i have seen life from just about every perspective, doing poor people security systems to wealthy actors security systems. i remember back when i was a kid running around in the 1980's, i was making a dollars an hour. i have watched immigration absolutely destroy this country. it drops everything. down.ps all the wages it has more poverty everywhere. we have got to stop this immigration. we have to stop all of it. every person you bring into this country, it stagnates wages. it has to stop. if it doesn't, our country is doomed. host: what kind of work do you do, are you retired now? i am not--caller:

retired. i'm am 59 and i climb ladders. i have to keep working on my pension. i do security and surveillance systems. i have done them for everyone you can think of. for movie stars on tv, rock stars, actors. everybody you have seen on tv. and i have done it for poor people. i see life from a huge perspective. i know exactly what is happening in this country. you have to stop emigrating people into this country. linda cheeseman day, do you look at immigration as a factor in these rates at all in your studies of the census bureau? we do collect information about nativity, whether someone was born in the u.s. or not. we do look at income and poverty and health insurance by nativity. host: do you find varying rates of foreign-born and us-born?

guest: today we yes, we do. i don't have those numbers in front of me. host: roger tweets in, has the affordable care act affected the poverty rate one week or the other? guest: the poverty rate between last year did not change. at the same time that the health insurance rate went down. host: charlie is calling in from new jersey. to $100,000. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am calling in -- just to give you some facts. i think obamacare is just killing the health insurance industry. there might be more people that were not covered that are covered now, but they are , so theynder medicaid were not paying before, they have no insurance, and now they

technically have insurance but are still not paying. i want to bring up an example by my nephew. he makes $85,000 a year as an engineer. he has three kids. his wife is pretty sickly but not sick enough to be on disability. she just has a long-term job. i just recently visited them in the hospital. he was worried about his insurance. andas a $10,000 deductible weeks. $690 every two basically, he is putting out $18,000 between the $10,000 that he has got for deductibles, and then his payments every couple it comes out to about

$18,000 out of his pay. and then when that is all paid, he still has 20% of the bill to pay for another gap. how can you possibly survive when you have any kind of sickness? host: that is charlie in new jersey. mr. tankersley. guest: this gets into the deeper issues that are raised by the affordable care act. caredability and access to , it is wanting to have coverage, it is another to have has age that you feel portable payment options for you and they want enough spectrum of the kind of payments you want, independent services you want. on the other hand, i do want to take on one of the things you said earlier. it is not just medicaid that has been expanded. census numbers are clear. it is also people buying

insurance often individual marketplace, which we have not seen a lot of. guest: that's correct, if you which shows the change from 2014 to 2015 by health insurance, the overall change with health insurance, on the right-hand side, the second bar down, those with health insurance, 2.9%. then we break it up underneath that by the type of health insurance that they had. ,ny private plan is the first dark green line. the second one below that is the direct purchase. people who receive direct purchase are buying health insurance either directly from the insurance plan, or they went through the marketplace exchanges. host: as a result of the affordable care act, and over 2% increase in people buying health insurance. guest: that is correct.

almost 3%. however, employer-based, which is where most people get their , most peopleough get it there, about 55% receive their health insurance that way. we did not see a statistical change between last year and this year. dropped just a tad. guest: was not statistically different. then we go to government insurance plans, which is the next set. that increased by 2%, driven mostly by expansion of medicaid. some medicare increase. jim tankersley, why the medicare increase at 2%? guest: under the affordable care act, states get incentives to expand medicaid so that people with higher incomes than before are eligible for it. not every state did that. supreme court said they did not have to. the states that have expanded the eligibility have seen a

large increase in the number of people who are on medicaid. that has translated into, on average, much larger increases in people with insurance in the states that expanded medicaid, than those that did not. host: joyce is calling from camden 10, missouri, under $50,000. agree with everything that previous callers have said, manufacturing has gone overseas. the people we are bringing in from india and other countries are working for lesser ranges than previous employment rates, and immigration is killing us. you said mexico or latino immigration, one point something children. here in my area it is an average of four or five. parents come here illegally.

they have no education and work at menial jobs which cannot afford -- they cannot even afford themselves, and then they start having children. stairstep children in groceries here. i was in my grocery store the other day and watched people sending money back to mexico. anyway, these people go on welfare and medicaid because they cannot afford insurance any other way. my family, with children, their premiums have gone up astronomically, and at the -- deductibles have gone up astronomically. they cannot afford it. they make too much to go on medicaid. you talk about incentives. incentives are paid for by taxpayers out of tax money. we cannot afford to take in all of these people. they are going to be bringing in hundreds of thousands of syrians . and we are going to be taken care of them medically,

financially, housing, and everything else. becausey is suffering of the huge dr. bowles and copayments, and monthly premiums. we are suffering while we are trying to help everyone else who is not a citizen. joyce in missouri, we got the point. mr. tankersley? guest: i would say joyce is reflecting the anger and frustration you see in the american electorate now, in a particular part, particularly in the conservative base. this is a big factor behind the rise of donald trump's polls. i would also say the economic literature on this is much more mixed than the callers have reflected so far. for a simple reason. immigrants that come in do not just take services and do not just drain money. they also generate economic activity. are research questions about their effects on wages,

even in the literature that is most sympathetic to what the callers are arguing, they find the effects are largely confined to the lowest educated americans, the ones whose wages are suppressed by immigrant workers. in general, non-native born workers -- americans work more, at a higher rate, than nativeborn americans, and do generate economic activity, too. but when you have not had a raise in 25 years and you are frustrated by health premiums going up, you can ask bluefly look around and see other people who you feel are a drain on your resources and be upset even i think that is clearly what is happening in the country, in particular, in the conservative base. host: marie in the bronx, over $100,000. caller: hello, it is maddie, actually. host: thank you, ma'am. did that graph take into

account all of these females who are refusing to get married through the government, to report their marriage, their very rich husbands are making tons of money that they are not claiming. these kids have cars, nice sneakers, they are living better than my autistic kids. host: are you talking about the poverty rate? yes, the poverty rate of children. i have seen an influx in my neighborhood a lot of these mexican women who own homes, they have everything i have. my husband is busting his asked to work and paying more and more for health care and we are barely making ends meet. host: jennifer cheeseman day, how do you measure poverty in the u.s. once more? guest: we go out in the spring each year and ask people about

their earnings and income and we collect a variety of different kinds of income, ask about a variety types of income, and then we determine from their what percentage of people are in poverty. everybody in our survey is asked, a representative survey across the united states. this is the same server that goes out every month and collects information for the unemployment rate. in the spring, we have extra questions about income. host: how do you collect the income rate? guest: we ask people what their earnings were, what kind of interest they have. host: is it the same group of people that you are asking about poverty? guest: yes, people in the current population survey, which is not in the field all the time, and we rotate people in and out of the survey. host: how many people participate in that? west: in the measures collect, usually about 100,000 households. thoseand you also ask

same 100,000 households about their health insurance. guest: correct. host: i want to show another chart, again from the census bureau's report on income, poverty, and health insurance rates. a very confusing title, but tell me if i'm interpreting correctly. in 1967, 43% of females worked outside the home. today, 61% work outside the home. is that correct? guest: that is not correct. this is confusing. what this is looking at is the percent of people who are working, how many are working full-time. of those that are working, 43% of women in 1967 worked full-time. the remainder worked part-time. you can see with the males at 69% in 19 627, today and 74. host: this is just working population. guest: of the present working,

who are working full-time. all year round, 40 hours a week or so. you can see, it is a much steeper incline. host: 61% of all women working our full-time. 74% of all men working our full-time and what is the significance of these numbers? guest: both of these numbers went up in the past year by 1% which shows the labor force is more engaged, more people working full-time. host: jim tankersley, what is the significance of these numbers? guest: people are working more in america, and yet, still not getting ahead. this is one of the things -- when we think about a household or family income, over time, you can see an increase over the last quarter-century or 30 years, but if you break it down into the amount of hours worked, you find the extra hours worked outpaced the extra income people

have gotten. it is a great thing for the economy that so many women have entered the labor force, particularly because women are attaining skills at a higher rate than particularly when compared to japan which has not seen that trend, but for all of that extra work and the next a benefit that women are bringing to the labor force by entering it, a typical household is not seeing the returns you would hope for. host: this is the census bureau poverty,ncome, insurance coverage, medium income, 2014 according to the --sus bureau, $53,000 $700 $53,700. overall, about 14%, 46 million people of poverty rates by age, the elderly are 10%, the working years folks, 13.5% and under 18,

20 1% in the poverty arena. coverage -- let me find the right chart, significant drop and this is the real headline for this report. significant drop in the number of uninsured in the united states. much you both very , were from washington today that education secretary arne duncan plans to step down. " reports that he has testing, and hallenge the divisive, cou

land. core's the president is planning to make the announcement official in just about 30 minutes. we will ever a on c-span two. here on c-span, we hear from hillary clinton. near forte speaking lauderdale. we will have her comments life, when they get underway. in the meantime, back to a portion of this morning's "washington journal."

guest: we did a historical study looking at the 1965 immigration act. basically 59 million immigrants have come to the country in the last 50 years. not all here. there are about 43 million of those that are still here. population growth has increased since 1965 and it has had a profound impact. host: and tell us about the law passed in 19 625? -- 1965?

these laws were directed specifically can southern europe and eastern europe and asians basically were not allowed to come at all. american immigration was basically very limited. it was largely to remove the discriminatory aspects of it. it had a much bigger impact on the country then i think the framers of that legislation envisioned in that they did not envision the large waves of immigration from asia or latin america that had ensued. why did that law come into being? why was it passed? guest: it was basically a civil rights issue. that is, we had passed this civil rights act, we had passed a number of anti-discriminatory, antidiscrimination acts, and we

had this very discriminatory immigration law in place and it was an appropriate at the time. host: let's look at some of the charts that came with your report. one of the slides that we set aside this morning. we are going to hear from you was -- you as well. otherwise, we have a normal line linesd by -- our normals divided by political affiliation, you will see that on our screen. projected toborn hit record milestone by 2065. you have this chart here beginning in 1965, 9.7% of -- sorry, i am should that is where i should wear glasses, 1850, only 7% of

americans were foreign-born? am i correct in reading that? guest: you are correct. host: that number strikes me. guest: it is lower than current standards, it is high compared to what it was 50 years ago. .8% only in 1965, 4 8% only were foreign-born? guest: yes, and that is quite a low number for the country, and yet today, the 50's in the 60's are viewed as the normal. -- as the normal period. 1920, somewhere between 30% or so of the population was foreign-born and we are right in that range today. host: and it is projected to go up 17.7% if laws don't change?

guest: there are a lot of what is goinger to happen over the next 50 years. host: who is going to make up that next 17.7%? 2065 ishat happens in that at that point, asian americans who were living here will surpass hispanic immigrants in numbers, but asians and hispanics will account for two thirds of the immigrants living here in 50 years. host: so nobody is going to have a majority? guest: that is the immigrant population. if we just look at the total population, no one will have a majority. the white population, the white non-hispanic will be at about 46% in 2055. -- 2065. host: when you did this research, did these numbers

surprising? surprise you?-- thet: what surprised me was number of immigrants who had come to the country in the last 50 years because we had roughly 45 million immigrants living order tof now, but in ,rrive at 45 million immigrants a lot more had to have, because some leave and some die. host: does the 59 million since 1965, does that take into account also illegal immigrants? yes, we have made our own estimates of the size of the it authorized -- the unauthorized immigrant populations, but the analysis gets a little complicated to try and separate ,he flows into those pieces

especially coping forward because you then have to make assumptions about enforcement and a variety of other things, so we just treated all immigrants in these estimates of projections as one group. host: what are some of the policy implications of this increase of foreign-born in the u.s.? will talk a i little bit about that but i will first have to say that our organization does not make policy recommendations. it does not take positions on policies. host: right. guest: well, the places that the him again -- that the immigrants have an impact is -- ♪

>> good afternoon students, faculty, and guests of brown college. -- i have beent given the esteemed privilege to introduce mrs. hillary clinton. [applause] allow me to tell you a little bit about myself. i was born and raised in florida like many of you here today. i come from a proud household. [applause] now when i was younger, i never took much interest in whoever -- whining for president, whoever was running for president, because if the person was democrat, my family would receive my vote regardless. it wasn't until my 12th year of

my ap when i met government teacher, mrs. smith. to taught me what it means research the candidates who are going to be influencing the policies, that are going to influence and eventually decide what is going to happen within the future. so with that i can proudly stand here and say that i choose hillary! [applause] crowd: hillary! hillary! hillary! reasons thateveral you should vote for hillary clinton. she believes in a country where everyone has a fair shot, regardless of their race, their gender, or their circumstances

that they were born into. she is a proponent of reform that makes this country great and continue. she is for student loan reform which -- [applause] is for students just like you and i to get an education without paying for it for the rest of our lives. above all else, she will keep this nation safe and strong. [applause] in 2008, we the people made history and elected the first african-american to hold office as president of the united states. [applause] i was too young in 2008 and again in 2000 12, to help elect barack obama as president. but i have good news. i turned 18 this past november and now have my chance to make history by voting for hillary clinton who, with our help, can become the first female president! [applause]

crowd: hillary! it isies and gentlemen, my honor and privilege to present to you my choice to be the democratic presidential nominee and our next president, hillary clinton. [applause] you!ry: thank thank you so much! whoa! didn't he do a great job? i have to tell you, i am so pleased to be here at broward college. are 30,000 students here and i want to thank darnell for introducing me. [applause] himary: i am so grateful to for what he said about his choice and i thank all of you for being here to help us get organized in florida so we win

and win the election in 2016. --hink congressman ted joyce ted deutch is here and i want to thank all the officials. to talkciting for me about this campaign and to really raise a lot of the issues tot are important, i think, the country botch future and really to all of you. but i also want to thank you for doing what darnell is doing, and that is registering to vote, being active in the campaign, working to elect your candidate, hopefully me, and -- [applause] talking to everybody can about why this election is so important. you know, there are a lot of issues to talk about. i want to say that my campaign is focused on making sure that

the economy works to raise toome that provides jobs everybody willing to work hard and do your part. [applause] i am excited about that because i believe and i say this because i know the facts back me forthe economy works better america and americans when we have a democrat in the white house. [applause] hillary: and certainly, you can look at all of the statistics, they go back a long way. unemployment is lower. incomes are higher, even the stock market is higher and in fact, when a republican is in the white house, you are four times more likely to have a recession. now i don't want to go all the

way back to the beginning of our country to prove this, but let's just take the last 35 years. fiveve had five repent -- presidents, three republicans and two democrats. i am privileged to know two of those democrats. economichem inherited problems from their republican predecessors. now in my husband's case, there was a little matter of the national debt being quadrupled in the last 12 years. from george washington, to ronald reagan, there was a lot of stuff going on, and then two terms of ronald reagan and one term of george h.w. bush and the entire debt was quadrupled and the deficit had gone way up. it look like there were problems, recession every problems as they say in the economy. my husband took a look at that

and after he got elected, he told me it is so much worse than they told us. someone asked him, what do you think you uniquely bring to washington? he paused and said arithmetic. [laughter] hillary: we are going to get this to measure up again and at the end of eight years, we had 23 million new jobs and most importantly incomes went up for everybody, not just people at middle, people in the working people, poor people. we ended up with a balanced budget and a surplus. well, along came another republican president and they went back to the failed policies of trickle down economics, didn't they? years, the end of 80 deficit was back up, the debt was back up, and we were facing the worst financial crisis since the great depression. took their eye off

the financial markets and the mortgage markets and you know what happened. now shortly after the 2008 election, i got a call from president-elect obama. he asked me to come see him in chicago. i didn't know why. turned out he wanted me to be secretary of state. [applause] excitingwhich was very and a big honor, but when i got there, it was just he and i. he goes to me, it was so much more worse than they told us. you know, i've heard that before, and indeed it was. we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. the auto industry was tottering on the brink of collapse. all of those jobs all the way down the supply chain. and the president-elect said, we've got problems around the world and we've got the problems here at home to get this economy out of the ditch. now that is why i said, you go deal with the secretary of state issues and i were to focus on

-- he said, you go deal with the secretary of state issues and i am going to go focus on the economy. so that's what i did. to have amnesia and they forget that it was their economic policies that put us in that big ditch. now we have dug our way out. we've recovered 13 million jobs. we have had good growth rate this last quarter. so we are standing but we are not yet running again. my i am not running for husband's third term or president obama's third term, i am running for my first term, but i am going to do what works for the economy of the united states! [applause] hillary: we've got to get wages up again. people have to feel that their hard work is actually producing something for them and their families. no obviously, we have to raise the minimum wage.

onody who works full time minimum wage should be mired in poverty, but we have to do more than that. we have to do more to actually incentivize profit-sharing so when people work hard and their work produces profit, those profits are shared not just with the ceos but with the workers who actually help to produce them. [applause] got a wholei've economic plan that is focused on raising incomes. that is my mission when it comes to the economy. i want to also see us create some really good jobs for people again. how are we going to do that? one of the ways we are going to do that is we are going to combat climate change by transitioning to clean energy and you businesses know, if anybody should be supportive of this, it ought to be the people of florida, because you all are on the front lines of all of these weather

related events. to be don't have pessimistic about it. let's just be determined about it. something to really already moving towards renewable clean energy. i spent a lot of time in iowa, as you might guess, and they are already getting 30% of their electricity from wind. massachusetts,m which is not known as a sunny state like florida, and they ranked number four in the country in solar power. i am hoping that florida gets on track. when it comes to wind, when it comes to solar, when it comes to advanced biofuel. say, well,ple who that might hurt the economy, or the republican candidates, when they are asked about climate change, they say, well, i am not a scientist, my response is, why don't you go talk to a scientist and actually hear what they have to say because -- [applause]

hillary: -- this is an economic opportunity. it shouldn't be seen as a drag but as a way to lift our sites and do what we should do and actually create jobs, businesses, and make money doing it. now i've got two main take goals. as president, i want to see us by the end of my first term to install a half the billion more more solar billion panels and i want to power every home in america. i'm excited by this challenge and i want everybody to really think about what you can do in your home and in your is this and working in your city and in your state and at the national level. something else we're going to do to create jobs is i want to have what we are going to: infrastructure -- call an

infrastructure bank. we have bridges that are falling apart. we have sewer lines, water lines, gas pipelines, we have a lot of work to do in this country, and it is good work. we are ignoring it. now i know probably some of you are probably from new york. [applause] hillary: a state i was privileged to represent in the united states senate and you know, a lot of our infrastructure is 72 even 150 years old. evenof the poem -- 70 or 150 years old. exploding.m are even you may read about that from time to time. we got to pay for it in one way or another. it.e got to get ahead of if we are serious about growing our economy and increasing incomes, and we finally, once

and for all, must make sure that women get equal pay for equal work. [applause] know, that's right. let's break that a glass ceiling, but let's break it in every workplace in america. [applause] hillary: nobody who works should be disadvantaged. and i get letters all the time from women who are really frustrated. they are helping to support their families or maybe they are the subtle supporter and they tell me their stories and they ask what to do and how they can be treated fairly and equally. i want to make this point. woman's issue because women are disadvantaged, that it is a family issue and an economic issue. we will grow our economy more if we actually do what we should be doing anyway. now republicans are always saying, whenever i talk about this, there she goes, playing

the gender card. the lie will tell you, if advocated for equal pay for equal work is playing the gender card, deal me in, because that is a hand i will play. [applause] hillary: now because the economy is the central focus of what i want to do as president, everything else kind of ads up to that. education, for example. we do to make sure that what we must to improve elementary and secondary education and i think the best thing to begin is why actually listening to and respecting teachers who are in the classroom. [applause] they are the ones who are there with the kids all day, they are the ones who have the ideas, they are the ones who should be first in line and they are around any table i i'm at to help me figure out what we should do.

we can't get the setup and we don't have her -- have early childhood education. inse few years of education the early years of a kid's life sets them up. now look, i have this amazing grandchild. we read and talk and sing to her all the time. my kids say, you know, her first words are going to be enough with all the singing of the talking, but we do it because we know that it literally builds brain cells. 80% of your brain is physically formed by the age of three. i wanted every kid to have the same shot, the same chance to be successful in school. we need a universal prekindergarten program and we need to start with kids who have the biggest challenges, who have the biggest disadvantages and obstacles to overcome so that every kid has a level playing

ofld to climb that ladder opportunity. in no, i think every person should have the same right to live up to his or her god-given potential, and i think talent is -- so i want to make sure that our smallest citizens have a chance. we are going to make college affordable again. [applause] and we are going to give all of you the chance to refinance your student debt and bring down the costs you are paying. it is just not right. can refinance your mortgage or your car payment, why can't you refinance your student debt? i don't believe that the federal government should be making a profit off of lending you monday

just to pursue your education -- lending you money to pursue your education. you know i am a big fan of community colleges and i'm going to do everything i can to make sure that we implement president obama's plan to make community college free so that you can afford to go. [applause] hillary: now when it comes to health care, i am going to defend the affordable hair -- affordable care act, right? i'm going to defend it because it is working, nearly 18 million people are getting health care and young people get to stay on their parents' policy until they are 26, which is a very big help to a lot of the families that i meet with. but you've got to bring the costs down. way tooocket costs are high. they are skyrocketing. so i have put forth a plan to bring them down. now a lot of drug manufacturers

it washappy with me but kind of interesting that when i rolled my plan out it was the very same day where a guy who had been a hedge fund manager and took over a company decided to raise the price of a life-saving drug from $13.50 a pill to $750 a pill. that is a 5000% increase. we can't sustain the. we have -- can't sustain that. make it possible for medicare to negotiate with drug companies to bring the price down. just think about this for a minute. theayers, uni, we play for for the fda which discovers of a drug is effective, and that we pay the

highest prices for those drugs. if you are in canada, you get a negotiated price, if you are in europe, if you are in australia, that not here in america. maybe some of you are from northern the -- northern new york. and i was senator, i would see people in busloads crossing the border to buy the drugs at a lower cost. we cannot continue to pay the highest price for the drugs that we help to develop them. we have got to rain this in. i have got a plan to do that. let me say that when you think about the affordable care act, it is distressing to me that florida, amongst some other states, refused to expand medicaid to cover more people. thatct, i am looking here in florida, as many as 650,000 people could have gotten coverage under medicaid. fewer people without insurance

means fewer people who get preventative care. more visits to the emergency room. it makes no sense economically. would --at florida [no audio] -- and they said no. no two savings a note to fairness. as they said no and refuse to expand medicaid, people are suffering. peoplelarly working poor , people of color, people who are disproportionately left out. it makes no economic sense, let me tell you. it makes none. the states that have expanded it, they are actually seen a lower insurance rate increases, and they are not seeing as many

emergency room visits and other and other expensive problems. so i am not going to let the republicans kill the affordable care act. they try to repeal it 54 times. i will certainly stand in their way, but i want to improve it. that is why i'm going to tackle a lot of prescription drug costs on there. there are three other issues i want to talk about. we are having a caregiver crisis in this country and it is only going to get worse, alzheimer's, autism, people need care. i bet some of you are or somebody in your family is. we give so little help. we need respite care. we need quality affordable day care. let's finally help the caregivers get the care they need to take care of their loved ones. [applause] secondly, we have a substance abuse epidemic in america.

meth, otheroin, prescription drugs, and people are dying. tolose 18-22 veterans a day suicide. a lot of them came back and they didn't get the care they needed but they got handed a bunch of pills and they got hooked. so our job has to be to figure out how to get more prevention, more treatment, more support, so that people can get into recovery. now, 23 million people who are addicted, only one in 10 can get any coverage. so i also think that we've got to do more to have purity with mental health. untreated mental health is an expensive problem and a lot of people and up in prison because they have mental help -- mental health problems that are not treated. so these are expensive and heartbreaking problems.