mr. hassett: he is. but i think that the idea we would get ledge live spwaoeuplts the next year or two is met far fetched. ramesh: is no hope on that front for time being. mr. hassett: that is a safe call. why we have one and a half minutes left. i did want to touch on something else you have written about controversial people do not like hearing that the poverty statistics have gone in the right direction over the last generation or so. mr. hassett: it was one of the things that i found most interesting feels that we put out if you go back it read hendon johnson who actually cared a lot about poverty but wrote very informed smart things about it. if you go back it look at war on poverty he declared and try to come up with a scorecard of how we are doing the official poverty numbers are not much help and they look leak we have not made any progress but they exclude any like all of the poverty programs so imagine if you're trying it track how are we doing with poverty and the american doesn't account that

mr. hassett: that's correct. there was a survey of the national bureau of economic research and number of your -- of years ago where economists were surveyed about the 1986 tax act and they said that the medium estimate that median estimate of economic growth from that was about 1% per year so tax reform is one of the tools we would want to use. chair crapo: thank you. >> a little over a decade ago there was a debate whether the growth rate assumed was too pessimistic. you co-authored a paper that defended that rate over the more optimistic 3% growth rate we had experienced over the previous four decades. i believe that was rather prescient of you. part of your reasoning was that prudent planning for the future should place more weight on the downside risk than on the upside potential. now it is conservatives who want to assume their way to balance. do you believe he 3% growth rate over the next decade is warranted? i heard your comments but when the consensus among the fed and the kevin hassett of 2006 is on the

mr. hassett come also with you. would go back briefly to the discussion about immigration. the point of your report had to do with legal i would assume legal denigration, guest worker programs, they create an economic multiplier. some would even argue they create american jobs as a result of that reliable, predictable guest worker program that ebbs and flows in this country and is something we need to get sex. was that the essence of your analysis? >> yes, sir. >> i am looking forward supporting your nomination but now with a little asterisk since i read your report on deflategate. i'm not a patriot samper ensure the folks in new england love you. no, i thought of remarkable. it's going to have to make a go and change my -- not going to use the hearing to drill into that. i do want to talk about a report, you are very well published in very impressive list of writings. what i want you to spend maybe a minute or two on is the spending taxes and certainty roadmap a 4% gdp. in your current role how would you cut through the noise we have right now and emphasize what we think w

mr. kevin hassett to be chairman of the council of economic advisers

kevin has it and others, 10 year -- hassett and others, 10 years ago, 12 or 15 years ago we were free traders, i'm not saying we're not free traders, in many ways mr. trump would like a free trade situation with reciprocity, we have moved today use of tariffs to move toward free trade reciprocity or a matter of national security. there is no question the world has changed. the republican party has changed. arthur and we have changed. >> pl president trump first term was well aware of negotiating ability of tariffs, deals he got were freer trade, usmca, and japan and south korea and brazil. when you look at this, by way kevin is amazingly well qualified to be your replacement, he is a d data driven guy, i like him, you look at it here, there are several reasons why you want to use trade to get other objectives. number one, prior to 1913, tariffs were a major source of revenue are in federal government. when you look at the numbers if you do use a tariff across the board flat tariff, you can use that to cut income taxes as you said, you can. you can see how it works well with colombia, we'll not have to raise tariffs to colombia to get to do what we

hassett and others. ten years ago, 12 years ago, 15 years ago and we were very much free traders and i'm not saying we aren't free traders because in my ways mr. all of us have moved toward the use of tariffs coming to move towards free trade reciprocity or as steve just said, to use them as a matter of the national security to close the border and so forth maybe the russian ukraine war and there's no question the world has changed the republican party changed, arthur, and we have changed. can hawkeyes do you make of it? >> i think you're correct. we have changed and trump during the first term was well aware of negotiating ability of tariffs in doing things and the deals he got were all freer trade than he threatened tariffs to get them and japan and brazil and going for them and look at all this and by the way seven amazingly well qualified to be your replacement and he's a data-driven guy and competent academic economist and i really like him. looking at him here, there's several reasons to use trade to get other octoberives as well. prior to -- objectives as well and prior to 1913, tariffs were a major source for the government. if you lo