france because they controlled territories from here at different times. red, yellow, a black, and white flag. those native american colors symbolize the four directions of the compass. >> and hear about the lewis and clark encounter with members of the lakota sioux on the misery -- miissouri river. sunday at 2 p.m. on c-span3. our cableth affiliates and visiting cities across the country. >> we talked about the 2018 federal budget and how it relates booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. maya macquineas is back at

our desk. explain where the budget goes from here and why this is important to the public and tax reform effort. guest: it is very important to the tax reform effort. hassinger budget is important for running a country and it should be noted to anybody that we have passing the budget now after the fiscal year has begun. this is late in the process and i think that speaks to the problem that we often miss these deadlines. people hear this more than they would want to, but if you want to use the term reconciliation, that's a process that allows the senate to pass something with 51 votes instead of 60. in order to have reconciliation, you have to pass a budget. months late, the house and the senate are passing various budgets that include reconciliation instructions that

are different and the next step is they both pass them and have to reconcile them. meaning they come up with one budget that will lay out how much you are allowed to either save through tax reform or in this case probably added to the debt through tax reform in the reconciliation instructions. should i explained the differences? host: please. guest: right now the house has revenue neutral tax reform that requires $200 billion in savings and on paper, it would get to balance. the senate budget is quite different. it does not reach balance and it's something republicans have wanted to do for a long time, but the budget has such a big gap in the tax numbers because it allows 1.5 trillion dollars in revenue lost by tax reform, which would mean tax cuts. that means they can't get to the balanced budget and of all the spending in the next 10 years, the republican budget is asking for $1 billion in savings. i pointed that out because it is a pidly amount compared to what

republican said they wanted to save it -- to save. host: can they not vote until the reconciliation process happens and when is that going to be? guest: that is right. they are developing frameworks and details of tax reform. we have been seeing that, getting a sense of what the bill would look like. they will not be able to move it forward legislatively and vote until the budget is done. they still have to work out differences between the house and the senate and during that time, people are working on tax reform and filling in the details and testing it with the public and see what they do and do not like. the ultimate vote won't take place until the budget resolution has been passed. host: a reminder for our viewers . it seems like a long time ago details of the tax plan were released. it was just last week. the key provisions -- it would

collapse several income tax rates to 3% -- to 3. increase standard reduction, the child tax credit, repeal the minimum tax and the state tax and reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%. adopt a territorial tax system. that is just the big shirt -- the key items from this tax reform -- the big picture, the key items from this tax reform plan. host: we are certainly supporting tax reform. is this something we are supporting? we are not sure yet. the details make a difference. we are a nonpartisan organization that cares about fiscal responsibility and the growing economy. tax reform, which i think is something pretty much everybody can agree the country needs. -- very fewiry

people that say the tax code is perfect and don't touch it. it is incredibly obligated and stands in the way of a growing economy. the distinctions -- the differences will be when they fill in the details. what we will be looking for -- and i think this is an important point about tax reform, does this make the debt worse? one of the goals of tax reform is to help grow the economy and help bring near record levels of national debt down back to more traditional levels. if this adds to the debt instead of makes the debt better, we would not be supporting it. host: i want to get into more details, but also invite viewers to join the conversation. republicans it is 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. asependents, 202-748-8002 folks are calling and to follow up on that, a release from last week. you studied the broad outlines of the plan. the tax framework could cost

$2.2 trillion with the release that put -- got out after the plan was released. what are the big drivers in this plan? what is the big ticket item? host: the problem has been the leaders --guest: the problem has been the leaders keep dangling the goodies. we are going to double standard adoption, -- the actions, the -- standard deduction -- all things that grow the economy. one of the things we found in outside studies is tax reform that makes the deficit worse is much worse for economic growth and then tax reform that makes paideficit better or is for. if your goal is to grow the economy, you want to offset the cost. the problem that is understandable because politically nobody is willing to talk about hard things and that is a frustration because it involves paying for things.

nobody said how they are going to pay for this. host: a lot of supporters say it will be paid for by larger economic growth. mildly, thet it numbers they are talking about are nonsense. people are putting out gross estimates pulled from the sky and we would all like to have massive amounts of growth. part of the purpose of tax reform is to grow the economy. if you look at the tax reform efforts of the past and what we have seen him how much different tax reforms are likely to grow the economy, the numbers that are being tossed around are multiples of what is realistic. that is because people are unwilling to say what we would do to offset the cost. tax cuts do not pay for themselves. do groware smart, they the economy. in order to pay for themselves, a tax cut of one dollar would have to generate five dollars to six dollars of economic growth.

what i hope we can do is move into the realm of reality and think about what reasonable growth and build that into what we are talking about i. on this program and making the point that the cost would be paid for through larger economic growth. here is what he had to say when we talked about your estimate about the cost of this republican tax plan. [video clip] thene analysis from bipartisan committee for a responsible budget said the initial analysis said the plan would add $2.2 trillion to deficits over the next decade. >> a couple things. when you talk about cost, it tells you what a politician or a group that called themselves bipartisan -- it means left, talks about the cost. when we have our taxes cut, most americans view that as a pay increase. it's not a cost. based in people

washington, d.c. that think all the money should come in here and if they don't get as much money they are expecting, it's a cost. the friends of government -- the tories were called the friends they arement -- today the friends of government and when taxes are produced it's a cost -- no it is not, it's a pay increase for the american people. host: maya mcguiness. macguineas. guest: first of all he said left -- the thing about fiscal responsibility is it has nothing to do with the size of government. you can be a big government fiscally responsible person or a small government fiscally responsible person. i think it is a principle we

should be able to agree on. the problem is oftentimes fiscal responsibility is used as defense. 130 talks about it to keep the other party from an acting the resolution -- enacting the resolution date pursue. resolution may pursue. if you want a smaller government and lower taxes, you don't get that by lowering taxes, you get that by cutting spending and we are very open and supportive of cutting spending. unfortunately it is one thing we haven't heard about much at all. hegrover really wanted what said he wanted, he would put out a pledge that says no new spending. we continue to have a government that spends more and more because they don't want to pay their bills and they want to pay for fewer things. that means anybody that supports that has to be willing to say to our kids this is why we are passing tens of trillions of dollars of debt to you because

we had a lot of things we did and we were not willing to pay for them. we desperately need tax reform. you can offset the cost by point $5id of the one trillion in tax loopholes a year this country has -- by other revenue sources or by cutting spending. if we do it by adding to the debt, that will undermine the very purpose of tax reform. host: the committee for a responsible and federal government. maya cguiness -- machuineas is here for the next couple minutes taking your calls. mayar: my is actually -- is actually a very good person in this matter. i want to thank c-span for the markup. in the budget committee, grover about what heing

said about people who live in washington. i thought he lived in washington and is constantly on the television speaking as he did about no new taxes and yet somehow he is there in gc trying to lobby things. i think maya actually represents a long-standing kind of reality conversation, as she stated. as republicans have always spoke about not increasing the debt. we now saw from the budget markup yesterday, all of the senators on the republican side -- that was lucas strange, that purdue man, lindsey graham, the chair -- all of those are men. they primarily are from southern states who received defense budget expenditures in terms of their economy -- without that

kind of defense authorization which they also are increasing in spending. you speak about the fact that spending is, in fact, where we need to create clarity for a real discussion. could you speak to us about how it is -- the first question. if in fact this budget that they are creating -- will that in -- inhe past without reconciliation. host: let's handle that question first. guest: thank you for watching c-span and the budget markup. it is near and dear to my heart to know that people watch those. you learn a lot about the different members and their positions on fiscal issues when they are going through the process on the budget. i agree with you that i have been really quite surprised how many -- and republicans and democrats have different views

of government and i think they are totally legitimate. if the lack of consistency i find hard to understand and i am seeing a lot of folks who have worried about the deficit and that for a long time and they want to fix it through spending and mandatory reforms and now they have the majority and they are passing a budget that doesn't do anything to control spending on the senate side and does make the debt worse because it allows so much lost revenue and tax reform without offsetting the cost. if you want $1.5 trillion in lost revenue and a smaller fromnment, cut $1.5 spending. that is a possibility. i am disheartened to see how quickly people stopped worrying about the real situation and i hope the senate budget as it is will be something the house has to decide whether it will take it in that format or stick with the format it has, which is revenue neutral tax reform and

200 billion -- $200 billion in cuts. that makes sense and it will be interesting to see how they work out the differences because the one thing is they all want to get tax reform done. i share that goal. as i think i will repeat over and over, the whole -- the hard choice that is difficult to do it right, politicians don't like doing them. how do we broaden the top -- tax code to get rid of those loopholes? to be frank, those are the things that we love. they are our tax breaks. the one they are discussing on the individual side is a state and local the duction -- deduction. if you live in a high tax state and pay state and local taxes, you are not having to pay federal taxes on the state and local taxes -- they aren't getting the same tax break. it is a subsidy for well off states. homee same token, the

interest mortgage deduction, incredibly popular. everyone sitting in their house is starting to get nervous, but we do need not -- do not need to subsidize mortgages. it's against the policy of trying to get home ownership the people into homes for the first time and focus on getting -- making sure those subsidies go to people with million dollar mortgages or vacation homes. we can look at the way we don't tax health care costs the same as wages -- called the health-care exclusion. something people on the right and left talked about curbing. i would really like us -- see us look at all these tax breaks and consider which we can get rid up and as much as we are willing to get rid of, we can bring the rate down. for democrats, mississippi, curtis is waiting period -- is waiting. wonderfule is a

woman, but she needs to be much higher. the way she is explaining this, it doesn't matter if it is democrat or republican. you can't say one thing and expect results in the other. raising taxes is just going to make the economy worse. i really like you, maya, and i hope you keep the great work up. host: thanks -- guest: thank you, that is a nice call. i think growing the economy is one of the biggest objectives right now. we have some real challenges and the biggest challenge is we are getting older. as a society, we are aging so more and more people are moving into a con -- retirement. is shrinking and

more and more people are retiring, that takes a hit on economic growth and it affects all of us. it affects the standard of living and wages. i would argue that what this country needs to do is put in place a comprehensive economic growth plan that is going to have a lot of things that democrats and republicans agree we should do. they will strongly disagree or on how to do it, but at least they should disagree we need to do it. and from the congressional budget office and others that put estimates on this would include tax reform, figuring out how to age more productively. you can move into retirement more gradually and putting in place a debt deal, spending more money in ways that make sense. right now we are not investing enough in public investments, infrastructure, education -- lifelong education, worker training. there's a lot of things we should be doing that would slowly bump up growth bit by bit.

i think there are ways both parties could come up with the best ways to grow the economy and let's hash out the details of how to put them in place and work together. i know that doesn't seem doable right now. work together on an economic growth plan and i would add, importantly, where the gains for growth are shared more equally. we have been seeing the gains for growth have been concentrated at the top and i'm talking about figuring out how to inshore that when we grow the economy, that translates into higher workers -- wages for workers. host: from new jersey, bill, independent. caller: good morning. two suggestions. the first suggestion would be, we should do away with income taxand have a nice sales and if we did that, you could help the poor people by saying there is no sales tax on used merchandise and the rich people would pay a bigger sale --

portion because they pay more money and the middle class would spend the money they earn. you are doing away with tax on the higher people -- tax on the rich people, more money. just tax them on what they spend and you don't have all these arguments back and forward and loopholes, you don't have any of that. my second comment is with regard to the national debt. we should start a national lottery and payoff the national debt. have one or two or three winners every day and in my mind, it will come out to about $50 million a day that the federal government would make and the citizens of the country would make. if you gave out $50 million a day to the people of this country, can you imagine how that would grow the economy and how people might start businesses, buy property, by other things that they would pay sales tax on that money. host: bill, thank you for the

suggestions. guest: two big ideas. sales tax is a form of consumption task -- tax. i agree with you figuring out ways to tax consumption would be go for the economy. i like something called the progressive consumption tax, a tax on consumption. you don't tax what you save, but it has progressive rates, so the tax would be higher the more you spend, which would mean it would be progressive and distribution could be similar to what we have today. i think the question really all -- in all of this is how much congress can bite off. they are talking about something very significant with improvements structurally and we will see if they are able to get it done. something even bigger like you or i are talking about with a consumption tax or also a carbon tax which could help with the energy environment and revenue, i think those big changes probably aren't in the cards for

the immediate future. i that we will talk more about them in the coming years. no matter where we are with the tax reform bill, it's unlikely it is consistent with a plan that is big enough to address the national debt and it will have to come back to tax reform. on your other idea, i applaud anyone thinking big about how to pay down the debt. i have a similar idea because we are throwing out ideas on the debt. i keep thinking if we had a national goal towards balancing the budget by a certain year or the better one would be getting the debt as a share of the economy down to a certain level, right now it is 77% of gdp. that is twice what it has been historically. we need to bring it down. what if we started with the goal of getting it to 60% gdp? if win we hit the goal we could take the additional tax revenue that would be bigger surpluses and give it back to people in dividends, kind of an american dividend plan, it's a little i think we need

something to get the country to rally around. we had a school, we want to get the -- a goal, we >> people who like brain 001% are and the point the rich. are these tax reforms going to affect the .001% thank you. great question. those are the details that are not filled in yet. i wish i had the answers for you. there's a lot of talk about

increasing a top income tax bracket for the very well off. we don't know where any of these different brackets would phase in. your point is a really good one consolidationalth and the income gains that have gone recently haven't just been to the top 1%, they have been, but they have been more so to the small faction within that top 1%. it is very hard to get tax policy targeted to make a few hundred people pay more in taxes. i think there is a more unified sense than there has been taxeen the two parties that reform isn't about helping people at the top. i'm sure they have different distributional goals, but i don't think people are looking to create a tax reform where the bears -- where the very richest people -- i think they would probably recognize they don't need tax rates right now -- breaks right now.

i might be wrong on that. it is hard to craft something that pulls out 1% versus a fraction of 1%. it's a good question and we just don't have enough details on how the different tax brackets or if there are certain taxes -- how it will be allocated. host: a few minutes left with maya macguineas. deborah has been waiting on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to state to the point of unrealistic expectations for growth. i think there is a residual 2008 where 2000 to individuals were able to get credit very easily and because of that, they were able to spend large amounts of money on consumer debt and consumer products and it was a boom for the building industry. as we all know, we got ourselves into a lot of trouble by making

it easy to get too much money without enough responsibility. thank you. .uest: great calls this morning great point. we have seen that in so many ways and the economy that we have kind of been bubble hopping. the one that has driven the economy for a long time has been , whether af bubbles stock market bubble, tech bubble, consumer debt bubble. create want to do is more of a sustained growth situation than hopping from one bubble to the other because there is the risk of the bubble will pop in the question is how we deal with that. i worry we have a government debt double and that our government is fueled by borrowing at the debt level excessively. the goal is not to fuel the government by consumption as it is by investment. a lot of things we want to think about to promote investment and enhance profitability will be

important for sustained growth. i worry when people say we need spending more to grow the economy. a lot of people are overleveraged. bubbles will always be part of the country and there will be ups and downs. a more even keeled sustained growth -- approach would be all in our best interest. host: before you go, i want to ask you about the debt ceiling. we had rendon boyle who called debt ceilingng the -- that it only creates fiscal crises on a couple months or years' i wrote a piece for the washington post a couple weeks ago about this. i am in the middle. i think the debt ceiling has been used in a dangerous way in recent years where people have threatened to default, which should be inconceivable. are going towe

sacrifice our own economy and weaponize our own economy. that is not how you run a country. i'm worried about watching people take the debt ceiling to the ultimate limit where you're not going to raise it, which means it is a default. i would not like to see us get rid of the debt ceiling without replacing it with something. it is the only check we have on the debt. if you look at the plan for the next year, we have a plan to overw $10 trillion or more the next decade, that is our countries plan. i would posit that is a dangerous plan. without some kind of restriction on borrowing, the result is that politicians tend to borrow more because it is easy. we need to reform the debt ceiling so that you are taking a vote to increase the debt, that should be when you have to increase the debt ceiling. if we end up having a tax reform ,ill that increases the debt

the people who support that bill should have to vote to increase the debt ceiling than because that is when we are entering into those commitments. a breakthere should be the glass option. the president or the leadership should have the option to raise the debt ceiling if congress does not go along with them. there should be automatic savings that go along with that. let's reform it, let's not get rid of any constraint, because right now there are a lot of economic challenges we have. continuing to borrow indiscriminately so that the growth of the debt is higher than the economy is not a recipe for success and i would like to see limits on that. caller: one last call from georgia, an independent. i would ask the guest where she balls on the living wage debate.

the government subsidizes walmart because walmart does not want to pay minimum wage which raises all of our taxes. guest: i do not have a strong position because i think their arguments both ways. i am not a fan of the minimum wage as i am the eip see. i think we can make policies tax grow the economy, reform is going to have a positive affect on growing the economy, and we need to make sure that translates to higher wages. question, important think a lot of work in this country needs to go into how we are making capitalism work better and more broadly. there are some answers that sound good like increase the minimum wage, which would work in some places and not work in other places. i would like to think more deeply how we ensure that all americans gain when the economy is gaining. that is a bigger topic for another day that it is an

important one. host: maya mcguiness works as a committee [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] reports of tension between secretary of state rex tillerson and president trump. the cato institute on this week's deadline or daca recipients. writergazine senior talks about his recent article on how sport centered into a multibillion-dollar industry. watch c-span's "washington journal," join the discussion. >> this weekend on c-span twos

book tv, saturday at war: 30 the history and debates surrounding the second amendment, in his book "the second amendment." a look at books on education and reform. cathy davidson, author of "the new education." how to solve the problems of global property -- global poverty, and climate change. for the complete schedule go to book tv.org. >> next a discussion about the politics and security environment in libya.