cook: eric watson from bloomberg. mr. watson: your tax plan does raise taxes on some middle earners, and as been discussion on the right about the child tax credit. can you explain a little bit why that makes sense, and do you think senator rubio, should he announced for president, can win the nomination based on this? senator lee: ok. as for the first part of the question, here is what we are trying to accomplish there. in addition to other features of the tax plan, we are trying to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and the parent tax penalty. the child tax credit is directed at the parent tax penalty, a little known but significant feature in our existing tax code that has the effect of -- sort of taxing american parents twice. once when they pay their taxes on the individual side, and on the payroll side, and again, as they incur the substantial costs of raising children. according to the u.s. department of agriculture, it costs on average, $300,000 to raise a child to maturity. today's children will become tomorrow's

. >> will go to eric watson, burgess averitt, phil rocker, sue davis and lisa ms. cara to start.let we do a constitutional question or two in the thought that my colleagues may have other topics in mind. as reid wilson recently noted in the "washington post" legislators and 27 states have passed applications for the constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget amendment and proponents in nine other states are pushing for passage. to support the move to a convention, a lot of people think there are dangers as it is not clear how it operated what subjects they could deal with once convened. >> i'm one of those people who thinks that there are dangers they are because we followed one procedure where congress proposes in the states ratified. the alternative proposal is where two thirds of the state call for congress convening a convention and proposing amendment were they become effective if the states ratified. i was always taught growing up by my late father that there is great risk in this because we never had a constitutional convention at least not since 1787. last time w