future bart chilton sat down with bartlett naylor president of public citizen art first asked him for his take on the judge's decision here's what he had to say. the judge denied the request of the anguish for a temporary restraining order on the ability of nick know of a need to become the acting director of the see it p b i think it's up to the courts presuming this will be appealed to make the final decision i think the argument is that the statute that created the consumer financial protection bureau provides for a succession plan in the absence of the director and that would be the. the woman in this case lee and anguish there is a complete there is a default law federal vacancies act that provides that in the absence of such a clear statute then the president can name somebody that is confirmed by the senate and that's what the president did with mick mulvaney for planning purposes let's just assume that theoretically at least mick mulvaney stays at the c.f.p. be for the forseeable future he clearly hates this thing a president trump says the agency is a sick joke so what do you

bruce bartlett, the president, we heard him talking in the campaign clips of the forgotten people, the forgotten men and women of this country. the middle class and he's going to massively lower their taxes. that's what he said in the campaign. >> well, it's true that the middle class is suffering but it's not suffering from over taxation. taxes on a family of a median income about as low as they have been in the history of the america. they need higher wages and there's absolutely nothing in this legislation that is going to cause that to happen. the report that the white house put out saying that cutting the corporate tax rate will magically lead to higher wages is just complete and total nonsense. all tough do is go to bls.gov, look up what happened to wages the last time we cut the corporate tax rate in 1986. we lowered it from 46% to 34%. a big reduction. wages fell for ten years after that legislation. >> and, bruce, that's president reagan's corporate tax rate cut. >> that's right. >> that was the rate that he thought was reasonable under the circumstances and the chomss you mak

bruce bartlett, you know the math.proven to be a pretty fair minded arbitor of what the republicans are up to. is it accurate to say this really is another shot at obamacare through different means? >> oh, i don't think there's any doubt about that. the action today is ample proof of that. i think it's very important for people to understand that the budget that the republicans adopted a few weeks ago to permit them to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion also contains $4 trillion of cuts in social security and medicare. so, it's -- people need to understand that a big part of what's paying for this tax cut are future spending cuts that they have not yet named. and i would also point out that yesterday the congressional budget office pointed out that because of existing law called pay-go automatic spending cuts will take place the minute this legislation takes effect and $25 billion will be cut out of medicare in fiscal 2018. and for many years to come and that's already in law. >> yeah. i mean, that's a great point.

as bruce bartlett, architect of supply side economics, said, it's not true. that this trickle-down economics pays for itself, it's not true. it's nonsense. and he went on to say, it was b.s. in the full extent of those words. this tax scam won't create jobs. it won't raise wages. it will only spill the -- fill the coffers of the donors and the fat cats it. will add trillions to the debt and stick our children with a bill that you cannot pay off. none of us will probably be around by the time the full impacts of the hemorrhaging of the debt in the second 20 years of this bill will require big tax increases. look to the kansas example. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will still continue to pause. the gentlelady will still continue -- ms. pelosi: mother of five boys -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will it be to pause. the members made a valid point. the chair will get the house in order

. >> joining us now, david leonhart for "the new york times" and also joining us is brute bartlett.stant deputy secretary of the treasury treas president jorjts h.george h.w. truth matters." david in your recent column, you said that there should be a different name for the tax bill. you pro posed the name paul ryan's 2017 tax increase on middle class families. please explain. i thought it was a tax cut. >> i don't think that's the name the senate or the house is actually going to use. there are a few reasons why it's a tax increase on the middle class. there are two core ones. the first is that the bill gives very little to the middle class. as you covered, this is a bill designed to help very affluent people, getting rid of the estate tax. is there are very few things for the middle class. many people end up net worse off because of losses of things like tax breaks for college interest, for adoption, for medical expenses. so something like a third of middle class families will end up with a tax increase under the bill. but it's probably going to be a tax increase on the other two-

bruce bartlett, part of the supply side economics leadership, as well as the trickle-down economics, never said it would pay for itself. anybody says it does, it's not true. he said. it's nonsense. he even went on to say it was b.s.. another thing they say, the things they say that just aren't true. and -- oh, they take the name of ill bradley and dick ephart in vain and even president ronald reagan. this is what they did. no, this isn't what they did. they had over 400 people to testify, 30 hearings over a period of a couple of years. and worked in a bipartisan way to iron it out so that it would have sustainability. and that's the only way you get a good tax bill, is if it's bipartisan and sustainable. in any event -- this is a moment of truth for the american people. and we want the truth to be known. with that, i yield back to the

. >> reporter: chop plastic surgeon scott bartlett says most children with the syndrome usually need several reconstructive surgeries. logan most recently had surgery to create a new ear. >> we judge people whether we say it or not we judge people by their outward appearance. >> reporter: in the movie after 27 surgeries, he goes to school for the first time. but they are not, augie like many children different gets bullied. it is something logan's parent s worry about. >> kid come up and ask why does lee different or he looks funny. >> reporter: in the movie lessons about judgment and acceptance, augie becomes a hero. >> after plastic surgery. >> it takes a lot of work. >> reporter: logan has had six surgeries and many more planned is speech delayed and needy vices he wears on a head band to hear but his brain is just fine and like many little boys his age he is fascinated with trains, trucks. >> fire trucks are number two report report logan's parents are thrilled about the movie wonder hoping it helps people better understand their son and others like him. >> i hepp people will loo

bruce bartlett, the president, we heard him talking in the campaign clips of the forgotten people, the forgotten men and women of this country. the middle class and he's going to massively lower their taxes. that's what he said in the campaign. >> well, it's true that the middle class is suffering but it's not suffering from over taxation. taxes on a family of a median income about as low as they have been in the history of the america. they need higher wages and there's absolutely nothing in this legislation that is going to cause that to happen. the report that the white house put out saying that cutting the corporate tax rate will magically lead to higher wages is just complete and total nonsense. all you have to do is go to bls.gov, look what happened to wages the last time we cut the corporate tax rate. we lowered it from 46% to 34%. a big reduction. wages fell for ten years after that legislation. >> and, bruce, that's president reagan's corporate tax rate cut. >> that's right. >> that was the rate that he thought was reasonable under the circumstances and the compromises you mak

bruce bartlett, who had been part of jack kemp's supply side economics agenda, proudly so, he said to us, this whole idea that this trickle-down economics pays for itself is not true, nonsense and he went in to use a term, b.s. except he said the words. there are other economists who espouse trickle-down economics or who considered on the conservative side of the ledger who will tell you the same thing. the facts do not support what they are saying. and for them to try to sell a bill of goods to the american people, that this meager -- give with one hand, take with the other, and let us give $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to corporate america, in addition to tax advantages that shift jobs overseas and let them deduct their state and local, and with all of the money that that sucks out of the system, sucks up from the middle class into the wealthy, and the wealthy corporations is going to pay for itself? please. please. when we had the majority, we had pay as you go. here's what they have. the middle class pays as the wealthy and the corporations go. and go with jobs overseas. thank you all

in the first one, bartlett versus strickland, the court -- the five republican meems t-ed up a -- members t-ed up a new standard that they mentioned but didn't act on. when it came to the home run pitch, shelby versus holder, they created this new theory that very conservative judges like posner, that basically it stands on thin air, has no basis whatsoever in any real legal theory. they knocked the part of the voting rights act out that requires states with a wretched history of abuse of minorities and democrats voters at the polls to get preclearance from the department of justice or from a court before they can go in and change their state laws to scare people or keep people away from the polls. well, with that knocked out, guess what? all these legislatures across the south went straight to work. they passed law after law after law to deny people access to the polls. and over and over again, the courts that reviewed those and the appellate courts that reviewed the district court decisions found that the laws had been intentionally discriminatory, that the legislature had intended to k

problems with the people on bartlett street. the solution is not to do anything on valencia street or mission street and then everybody on the side streets will be okay. or you can do what we've done, this body did, come up with a look-back period. you may recall, engineering report was required. that's the former parking lot for new college. it now has the patio out there. and you will see a sound wall around it. there are operating requirements as to when to close. how to keep it clean. how to be neighborly. and there's a look-back period a year later. community was personal -- permitted to come back and see if it worked or didn't work. it's in existence today because it worked. i would suggest to do the same thing this evening, to come back with conditions that the community would be happy with and to have a look-back period a year later. i've spoken to two of the speakers from cap street and they seem to be friendly to that. i hope you will take that into consideration and i wish matthew the best of luck in think position. >

force and the destructive power of the federal attack that had been organized by colonel joseph bartlett. commander from hand to come in new york. indeed, many of the confederates marveled in their postwar accounts openly, honestly about the array of enemy troops opposed to them who easily folded up the confederate flanks and send them clamor he back up the mountain. mountain, the onslaught continued. rebels did everything they could to hold off the inevitable, engaging and hand-to-hand fights , with the very men they had overrun years before. brigade.ersey they took more than 80% casualties. legion,he great cop's they did the same thing on the 16 georgia as new yorkers in pennsylvania's closed on the confederate flank. the gray and the butter nuts scrambled one by one, running for their lives. nearly 900 confederates killed, wounded, missing, or captured. the losses on the confederate side mounted -- amounted to 40%. wasbattle of south mountain finally over. engaged nearly 50,000 men and inflicted some 5000 casualties. 2700 of them confederate. in a gloomy council of war help that eveni

. >> reporter: scott bartlett says most children with the syndrome usually need several reconstructivegeries logan mess recently had surgery to create a new ear. >> we judge people whether we say it or not, we judge people by their outward appearance. >> reporter: in the movie after 27 surgeries, augie goes to school for the first time. but they are not, augie like many children different gets bullied. it is something logan's parents worry about. >> kid come up, ask why does he look different or looks funny or where is his ears. >> in the movies lessons about judgment and acceptance and au gie becomes a hero. >> it is after plastic surgery >> logan who has had six surgeries and many more planned is speech delayed and needy vices he wears on a head band to hear but his brain is just fine. like many little boys his age he is fascinated by trains, trucks. >> fire trucks are number two. >> reporter: logan's parents are thrilled about the movie wonder hoping it helps people better understand their son and others like him. >> i hepp people will look past outside and look at the inside and se

president reagan was seen as the head of the trickle down economics but one of the former advisers bruce bartlett wrote an op ed and called i helped create the gop tax myth and trump is wrong tax cuts don't equal growth. the cutting taxes is wishful things and so is most cutting and said there is no evidence a tax cut would spur economic growth and pointed to the bush tax cuts for evidence. do you think the left has any hope of amplifying that message or is trickle down too ingrained in americans across america. >> and let's hope it is not too ingrained because it is nonsense as the piece is pointing out. there is no evidence that it work worked during my my father's administration. there are factor that's created the rebound in 1982 after the recession in 1981 for instance. and we've run this experiment ore and over again and on the state level in california and kansas. in california they raised taxes on the wealthy and they spent money on social services and their economy is booming. it is now the number five economy on earth. california. and kansas on the other hand, did the laugher curve expe

as bruce bartlett, architect of supply side economics, said, it's not true. that this trickle-down economics pays for itself, it's not true. it's nonsense. and he went on to say, it was b.s. in the full extent of those words. this tax scam won't create jobs. it won't raise wages. it will only spill the -- fill the coffers of the donors and the fat cats it. will add trillions to the debt and stick our children with a bill that you cannot pay off. none of us will probably be around by the time the full impacts of the hemorrhaging of the debt in the second 20 years of this bill will require big tax increases. look to the kansas example. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will still continue to pause. the gentlelady will still continue -- ms. pelosi: mother of five boys -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will it be to pause. the members made a valid point. the chair will get the house in order

bartlett had some strong words. and i quote, that's a lie, it's always been a lie there's not one iota of evidence that will support this argument. wages fell after 10 years there's another part of what's happening now that's concerning to me. it's clear that after passing the huge trickle down tax giveaways and increase in the deficit by 1 $1/2 trillion. the next step will be to use the newly created debt as an excuse to cut medicare and medicaid. in 2012, our former senate colleague promised the people of kansas that giving huge tax giveaways to large corporations and the wealthy would super charge the state's economy. unfortunately it did not. the state of kansas bond rating fell, they were 48th out of 50 in job growth, and they had a $900 million budget shortfall which caused some communities to cut schools to four days a week in order to balance their budget. the people of kansas revolted, early this year a coalition of republicans and democrats in the legislature reversed most of the tax giveaways. middle clas

that's never really been the argument of the original supply siders including bruce bartlett, an architect of jack kemp's tax cut proposals. he stated there is no evidence that a tax cut would spur growth. the most honest take from president reagan's chief adviser. he freely admitted what the original supply siders have always said, permanent tax cuts can, at best, recover about a quart of lost revenue through economic growth. mr. carasso, if i could ask you, is mr. feldstein's finding consistent with the evidence of past tax cuts? >> okay. his findings that what the original supply siders said, permanent tax cuts at best recover about a quarter of the lost revenue through economic growth. >> the literature, there is a range of responses, but it is generally quite low. in the i think probably -- generally i think under 25%, 30%. >> the same question, and i'll just tax reform in the '60s. '81 tax cut. same answer, i assume. >> yes. i think a lot depends on how the tax cuts are designed. it really depends on the provisions but generally the responses are nowhere near 100% replacement of the

i want to bring in bruce bartlett. former deputy assistance secretary for economic policy under the george h.w. bush administration. he's the author of a great book calmed "the truth matters: a citizen's guy to separating facts from lies and stopping fake news in its tracks" why i want him in on the conversation. an op-ed, republicans are pushing the tax cut at break-neck speed because they know they'll lose next year and in 2020 as well. the tax cut once enacted will bind the hands of democrats for years to come forcing them to essentially follow a republican agenda of deficit reduction and prevent action on a positive democratic program. the result will be a steady erosion of support for democrats putting republicans back in power within a few election cyc cycles. wow. saying it's kind of a trick? not going to win, put the, saddle the democrats with a bad plan and it will get republicans elected? >> yeah. i've been focusing nate my research on the double impact of the tax cut on spending, because i think this is not

and i think about you and people like reese bartlett, who -- bruce bartlett, for moderate to people who are sensitive conservatives, who are willing to look across the aisle and look for solutions to problems. when i hear people like the last caller say there is no ethics and politics, i think the problem is she is looking at the shiny object and not looking at those people who go to work every day and who actually tried to find solutions to problems and who are willing to work with their political counterparts across the aisle and do not think of them as the enemy. it is really frustrating to me to hear people talk about donald trump as being some sort of savior who will blow up things and train the swamp. when you listen to them talk, it is almost -- i lived in japan for a lot of years. it is almost like state-sponsored shinto. the idea that donald trump is some sort of anointed figure, some messiah who will save the day. if you are really looking for somebody who will blow things up, why would you choose a guy who has spent his entire career cheating people? host: thanks. guest: than

joining me is bruce bartlett.ce, we were on lawrence o'donnell's show the other night when he said this was the most draconian tax increase on ordinary americans and the biggest tax cut on the rich ever in history. do you agree with that assessment? >> that's exactly correct. certainly there have been large tax increases on everyday americans, especially during world war ii. but at the same time taxes were increased even more on the waem thin -- wealthy. there's never been a tax cut in american history in which taxes were raised on the poor to benefit the wealthy. in fact, i don't know of any other country that has done anything remotely like this. >> is there any economic justification for permanently lowering the corporate tax rate and increasing taxes on low income americans? is there any economic justification for it? >> there's a perfectly good justification for fixing the corporate side of the tax code, but it absolutely must be done in a revenue neutral manner by getting rid of corporate tax loopholes not b

. >> finally, grover, when we're trying to draw analogs to the reagan era, bruce bartlett was asked whethere cuts are in the fine tradition of ronald reagan, he said that's just a lie, too. i know because i -- [ bells ringing >> no. reagan began to take the corporate rate down in '86 but the democrats insisted on lengthening the appreciation schedule and that hurt the economy. we're doing two things, taking the corporate rate down permanently and going to full and immediate business expensing. on the individual side, the good news is the democrats can say anything they want but this bill will be passed before christmas and the american people will be able to see their taxes cut. and that's a problem for the democrats politically. >> certainly the calendar that the gop has in mind. austin, grover, thank you, guys, for helping us understand a complex issue on a busy day. >>> the home builders are going to be part of this equation because the mortgage interest deduction is something they have been paying close attention to diana ol ek is watching that. >> good morning, the home builders moving

that has never been the argument of the original supply-siders including bruce bartlett. he stated a month or so ago there is no evidence that a tax cut would spur growth. he freely admitted the original supply-siders have said permanent tax cuts at best recover one quart -- one quarter of revenue lost. if the finding consistent with the evidence of past tax cuts? his findings recovering one quarter of the lost revenue. -- therek there is a is a range of responses but it is generally quite low. generally under 25-30%. correct the same question -- tax reform in the 60's. the 81 tax cut. same answer. >> yes. a lot depends on how the tax cuts are designed. generally the response is nowhere near 100% replacement of the funds expended. 2003. 2001, >> these were across the board. reductions in rates and expansion of credit. the child tax credit was expended. much -- what they did to stimulate the economy, they did not pay for themselves. a number of studies show the opposite. >> secretary mnuchin seems to think it. his specialty is banking and or closures. chairman brady is say

bartlett had some strong words. and i quote, that's a lie. it's always been a lie. there's not one iota of evidence that will support this argument. in fact, he said wages fell for ten years after enactment of tax reform act of 1986. and there's another part of what's happening now that is very concerning for me, mr. chairman. the recently passed afterpassing the huge trickle down tax give aways, an increase in the deficit by $1.5 trillion the next step will be to use the newly credited debt to cut medicare and medicaid. almost one and a half trillion dollars in cuts is in the budget. there's another example of this supply side approach. in 2012 our former senate colleague sam brownback promised the people of kansas for huge tax give away and the wealthy would super charge the state's economy. unfortunately, it did not. the state of kansas bond rating fell. they were 48th out of 50 in job growth and had a $900 million budget shortfall that caused some communities to cut schools to four days a week in order to balance their budge et cetera. t the people of kansas rev

bartlett who worked for george bush -- excuse me -- roinled reagan who said tax -- ronald reagan who said tax cuts don't work. i may not be here when we can find this out, this is going to be far above $1.5 trillion in additional debt. and my children and my grandchildren and my great grandchildren will be exposed to paying that bill. it is a shame, mr. speaker, that we do not have extensive hearings on this bill. in the house and in the senate. my judgment is the senate doesn't expect to have hearings on this either. they are just going to try to jam it through, mr. speaker. and that's not good for this institution, but, much, much more importantly, it's not good for the present generation or generations to come. but we'll debate, mr. leader. i know you're passionate about the substance. you are very knowledgeable about the substance. we talked about it in private. i admire the passion that you have and the information that you argue. i may differ with your information, but we'll have the opportunity to debate that, i think, next week and the week after. mr. mccarthy: may i respond?

bartlett had some strong words. i quote -- that is a lie. it has always been a lie. there is not one iota of evidence to support this argument. in fact, he said wages fell for 10 years after a tax reform act of 1986. another part of what is happening now that is very concerning, mr. chairman, the recently passed republican budget resolution makes it clear that after passing the huge trickle-down tax giveaways, an increase in the deficit of at 1.5 trillion dollars, the new step will be to use the newly accumulated debt to cut medicare and medicaid. in fact, almost $120 of cuts is in the budget. -- 20 colleagueur senate promised the people of kansas that giving huge tax giveaways would supercharge a safe economy. unfortunately, it did not. the state of kansas bond rating fell. 48 out of 50 in job growth. a 900 main dollars budget -- 900 million dollars budget shortfall which caused some schools to cut school to four days a week. a coalition of republicans and demonstrates in the legislature reversed most of the tax giveaways. middle-class families were sold a bill of g

that's never really been the argument of the original supply siders, including bruce bartlett, who was an argument of the tax cut proposals. he stated just a month or so ago, in reality, there's no evidence that a tax cut would spur growth. the most -- perhaps from president reagan's chief economic adviser and sort of the guru of trickle-down. he freely admitted what the original supply siders have always said. permanent tax cuts can, at best, recover about a quarter of the lost revenue through economic growth. so if i could ask you, is mr. feld stein's finding consistent with the evidence of past tax cuts? okay. his findings that -- what the original supply siders have said, permanent tax cuts at best recover a quarter of the lost revenue through economic growth. >> yeah. i think there's a -- the literature -- there's a range of responses. but it's generally -- it's generally quite low. it's in the -- i think probably -- generally i think under 25, 30%. >> and then the same question. and i'll just -- tax reform. in the 6 oh to 81 tax cut, '86 tax cut, same answer, i assume. >> yes. i

bartlett sated said, quote, that's a lie. it's always been a lie. there's not one iota of evidence that will support this argument. in fact, he added that wages actually fell -- actually fell -- for ten years after the tax reform act of 19896 was enacted. the bush tax cuts didn't benefit middle-income families in the long term. the reagan tax cuts didn't benefit middle-income families in the long term. what they did was cause the deficit to explode. that's the facts. we all know what happened next. republican colleagues pointed to the huge deficits, president bush said now we need to privatize social security, cut medicare because, oh, my gosh, we have big deficits. thankfully democrats put an end to that plan. well, another distinguished republican president once said, there you go again. and that's true. the recently passed republican budget resolution makes it clear that the next step after this is to cut medicare and medicaid. in fact, the budget already allows almost $1.5 trillion to be cut from these programs. but don't take my word to for --