    [Senate Hearing 118-583]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-583

                        BUILDING ON THE SUCCESS OF TCJA:
                           THE 2025 TAX POLICY DEBATE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                            JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

                                     of the

                         CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 19, 2024
                                   __________

              Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                    ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    59-413                    WASHINGTON : 2026

                            JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

        [Created pursuant to Sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Congress]

    SENATE                               HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    Martin Heinrich, New Mexico,         David Schweikert, Arizona, Vice
      Chairman                             Chairman
    Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota             Jodey C. Arrington, Texas
    Margaret Wood Hassan, New Hampshire  Ron Estes, Kansas
    Mark Kelly, Arizona                  A. Drew Ferguson IV, Georgia
    Peter Welch, Vermont                 Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania
    John Fetterman, Pennsylvania         Nicole Malliotakis, New York
    Mike Lee, Utah                       Donald S. Beyer Jr., Virginia
    Tom Cotton, Arkansas                 David Trone, Maryland
    Eric Schmitt, Missouri               Gwen Moore, Wisconsin
    J.D. Vance, Ohio                     Katie Porter, California

                      Jessica Martinez, Executive Director
                     Ron Donado, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                         Opening Statements of Members

                                                                       Page
    Vice Chairman David Schweikert, a Representative from Arizona....     1
    Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr., a Representative from
      Virginia.......................................................     9

                                   Witnesses

    The Honorable Kevin Brady, Former Chairman, House Committee on
      Ways and Means; Former Chairman, Joint Economic Committee,
      Washington, DC.................................................     2
    Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum; Former
      Director, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC..........     3
    Ms. Samantha Jacoby, Deputy Director of Federal Tax Policy,
      Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC.........     5
    Mr. John Arensmeyer, Founder and CEO, Small Business Majority,
      Washington, DC.................................................     7

                           Submissions for the Record

    Prepared statement of Donald S. Beyer Jr., a Representative from
      Virginia.......................................................    30
    Prepared statement of The Honorable Kevin Brady, Former Chairman,
      House Committee on Ways and Means; Former Chairman, Joint
      Economic Committee.............................................    34
    Prepared statement of Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President,
      American Action Forum; Former Director, Congressional Budget
      Office.........................................................    40
    Prepared statement of Ms. Samantha Jacoby, Deputy Director of
      Federal Tax Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.....    47
    Prepared statement of Mr. John Arensmeyer, Founder and CEO, Small
      Business Majority..............................................    62
    Questions for the Record submitted by Senator Amy Klobuchar to
      Ms. Jacoby, and response.......................................    68
    Questions for the Record submitted by Senator Amy Klobuchar to
      Mr. Arensmeyer, and response...................................    71
    Questions for the Record submitted by Senator Welch to Ms.
      Jacoby, and response...........................................    75
    Submission by Vice Chairman David Schweikert: https://
      bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/2021-115/ & https://
      oxfordtax.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sitefiles/wp1105 .pdf...................    81
    Submission by Rep. Lloyd Smucker: https://
      strgnfibcom.blob.core.windows.net/nfibcom/EY-NFIB-
      Macroeconomic-analysis-of-permanently-extending-the-section-
      199A-on-small-businesses.pdf...................................    81
    Article submitted by Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr. ``Just
      pure uncertainty''. Small businesses are hopeful and fearful
      ahead of Trump's second term...................................    82

          BUILDING ON THE SUCCESS OF TCJA: THE 2025 TAX POLICY DEBATE

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024

                                United States Congress,
                                      Joint Economic Committee,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:29 p.m. in Room
    210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. David Schweikert [vice
    chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Vice Chairman Schweikert, Representatives
    Arrington, Estes, Smucker, Malliotakis, Beyer, Moore, and
    Porter. Senators Hassan and Schmitt.
        Staff Present: Ron Donado, Colleen J. Healy, Kobe
    Barthelemy, Shauna Burton, Matthew Cernicky, Jaxson Dealy, Sebi
    Devlin-Foltz, Jeremy Johnson, Jessica Martinez, Michael
    Pearson, Alexander Schunk, Douglas Simons, and Garrett
    Wilbanks.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. This hearing will come to order.
        I would like to welcome everyone to today's Joint Economic
    Committee hearing titled, ``Building on the Success of TCJA:
    The 2025 Tax Policy Debate.''
        Today's hearing will begin with five-minute opening
    statements from myself, Senator Heinrich--or Congressman Beyer,
    whoever shows up, and then we will proceed to questions
    alternating between parties as members arrive. We will have a
    number of members who are going to be coming and going, because
    we have sort of sandwiched this into a day of chaos.
        I would now like to introduce our two distinguished
    Republican witnesses. And going a little off script, a person
    who probably, at least in my time in Congress, had more effect
    on my life because of his willingness to sometimes listen to
    the intellectual chaos I was trying to bring to him, and the
    previous chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, but also
    someone who also sat on the Joint Economic Committee--for how
    many years? Quite a while.
        And then, of course, Dr. Holtz-Eakin, who has been an
    incredible asset--I am way off script--to someone like myself
    when I had ideas, and his willingness to explain to me why it
    doesn't work has always been very, very helpful to me
    intellectually, but also the willingness to take us down rabbit
    holes of trying to be brutally intellectually honest of why
    some things work and don't work, and their effects into
    society.
        I was going to let Congressman Beyer--why don't we--we are
    going to play a little bit of a game here, just so I am being
    respectful. We are going to start with opening statement, our
    opening statement. And then, if Mr. Beyer shows up, we will
    have him introduce the Democrat witnesses. If not, you are
    stuck with me.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Chairman Brady, five minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEVIN BRADY, FORMER CHAIRMAN, HOUSE
     COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, FORMER CHAIRMAN, JOINT ECONOMIC
                      COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Chairman Brady. Great, thank you, Vice Chairman Schweikert
    and distinguished members of the Joint Economic Committee. It
    is nice to be back, and it is really an honor to participate in
    this hearing. And I know from sitting on your side how
    important role JEC plays. This is the counterweight to the
    President's Council of Economic Advisers, and the role you play
    on economic policy is really key.
        So just so you know, in my post-Congress life, I serve as
    the strategic advisor to the Alliance for Competitive Taxation
    Act which was formed to--in 2013 to form--to promote U.S. jobs,
    investment, sustain rising incomes for American families. They
    are seeking a globally competitive tax system, one where
    American companies can compete and win anywhere in the world,
    including here at home, one that makes the U.S. the premier
    destination for new investment and innovation in manufacturing,
    and it promotes economic growth. These are the tax directors
    from 49 of America's leading businesses that employ more than 3
    million workers.
        I also serve as a senior consultant with the global law
    firm Akin, and as a volunteer I am pleased to serve on the
    board of the American Action Forum, and as well as the Tax
    Foundation. I am not a registered lobbyist. My views are my own
    today.
        So why do we do tax reform? As you may remember, tax reform
    became urgent because America's code was horribly outdated, the
    highest corporate rate nearly in the world, and an
    international system so competitive and as a relic of the
    Kennedy Administration. So as a result, for a decade before tax
    reform, America's economic growth was unusually slow, averaging
    a mere 1.5 percent a year. Paychecks were essentially flat for
    a decade, and on average about every other month a new U.S.
    company was moving its headquarters overseas, often taking its
    manufacturing, research, investment, and intellectual property
    with it, which left thousands of Americans in their communities
    behind, all because we had an obsolete tax code.
        Some economists tried to convince America that that was the
    best we could do, that was the new normal. We knew better. And
    through policy work over 8 years, over 40 congressional
    hearings, bipartisan working groups, comprehensive drafts, the
    House Ways and Means Committee pursued the reform of America's
    outdated tax code in preparation for a president willing to
    lead on this challenging issue.
        In 2017, if you may remember--and several of you were
    here--we sought to create a tax code built for growth, growth
    of jobs, paychecks, and the U.S. economy. We wanted to leapfrog
    America to the most competitive economy on the planet,
    positioning us as that premier destination for innovation and
    investment, and ensure competitiveness both for workers and for
    our businesses.
        The Tax Cut and Jobs Act, led by President--and signed by
    President Trump achieved its goals. The Trump tax cuts were a
    boon for American workers. It spurred business investment and
    innovation, technology, software equipment, and facilities,
    restored America's corporate international competitiveness. And
    by dropping the rate from 20--to 21 percent from 35, Congress
    set off an economic boom. Coupled with a modern international
    code, the TCJA's rate cuts drew more investment in research and
    intellectual property back to the United States. It stimulated
    U.S. investment by an average of 20 percent. R&D increased.
    Many companies repatriated, brought back their intellectual
    property to America. More importantly, they developed and kept
    it here in the first place.
        So if you look at within America's companies that compete
    here and abroad, if you look at jobs, capital expenditures,
    total sales, and R&D spending, all grew faster in the U.S. than
    in their overseas markets. In other words, they were investing
    more in all of that because the tax code allowed it and
    encouraged it. And that increased activity here at home was
    worth more than $11 billion and 1 million jobs.
        To make a long story short, the reforms that we made are
    not permanent. They will take concerted effort by Congress to
    both retain those pro-growth incentives, but find ways to
    improve them as well. We knew the moment we signed Tax Cuts and
    Jobs Act there was plenty of room for improvement. But I think
    the key thing is locking in the competitiveness and growth, and
    keeping the rates low in such a way that you drive workers'
    paychecks up.
        And I will tell you, in the three years after TCJA became
    law, the nine percent average--nine percent, a real wage growth
    for Americans--is the largest wage growth since we began
    recording data. At the end of the day, my advice is to not
    simply extend it or make permanent, but look for ways to build
    on that growth and prosperity.
        Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
        [The statement of Mr. Brady appears in the submissions for
    the Record]
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Thank you. Dr. Holtz-Eakin.

       STATEMENT OF DR. DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
       ACTION FORUM, FORMER DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
        Congressman Beyer, members of the committee, it is a
    pleasure to be here today, and I appreciate the opportunity to
    weigh in on the important tax policy issues you face in 2025.
        To my eye, America has two preeminent economic problems. It
    has a growth problem, and that growth problem I summarize in my
    testimony by pointing out that in the 20th century GDP per
    capita, the accrued measure of the standard of living, income
    per person, grew at an average annual rate of 2.3 percent. And
    at that pace the standard of living doubles every 30 years,
    roughly one working career. In the 21st century that growth
    rate has slowed to 1.4 percent. And at that pace the standard
    of living doubles every 51 years. And all of us have seen
    evidence in polling and other sources of the discontent in
    America about access to the same opportunities that someone's
    parents had. You just don't have the same chances. I think that
    growth problem is at the root of that discontent, and something
    that should be a focus of policy for Congress and the
    Administration.
        The Federal Government also has a debt problem. Right now
    debt is roughly 100 percent of GDP, $36 trillion, and it is on
    a trajectory that will send it ever northward, reaching
    something like 122 percent of GDP in 2034 and continuing north.
    That is literally unsustainable, and something that Congress
    must grapple with in its deliberations. So this debate takes
    place in that context.
        The second point that I would like to make is that TCJA has
    a proven track record of addressing the growth problem. I will
    echo the things that the chairman said in his opening remarks,
    but we know that we got an enormous acceleration in investment
    in the United States, relocation of intellectual property into
    the United States, choices at headquarters no longer being
    outside the United States but in the United States. We have not
    lost a single headquarters since the passage of the 2017 Act.
    It spurred an enormous increase in economic growth in the U.S.
        And the worst thing we could do would be to let it sunset
    and do a U-turn on a very effective tax reform, and the right
    thing to do is to build on that tax reform. There are things
    that one can do better and improve on the quality of the growth
    incentives. Some simple ones would be to make all equipment
    investment fully expensed, make all R&D fully expensed.
        What you would like to have is a situation where, if you
    incur a cost to improve the productivity of your operation, you
    get to fully expense it and then however you improve your
    productivity is on a level playing field. If you buy some
    equipment, it is the same as training your workers, it is the
    same as investing in innovation. You want the tax code out of
    those kinds of decisions. Those are things that the Congress
    can do next year that would be big improvements.
        But I think the one to really focus on is to focus on pass-
    through taxation. It is now the case that more than one-half of
    all business income is taxed on individual income tax returns
    as pass-through income. For that reason, all of the things
    typically thought of as individual rate considerations are
    business tax issues. And getting a combined corporate and pass-
    through regime that efficiency efficiently allocates capital
    across sectors, distorts economic decisions as little as
    possible--let people run their businesses for business
    purposes, that should be a big objective.
        And you know, what really stands out to me in the 17 Act is
    that an Act that produced an enormous amount of simplification
    also contained the greatest complication, which is the section
    199A pass-through regime. I am not here to lobby for a
    particular outcome. I put one in my written testimony that is
    so simple it is ridiculous. I am just pointing out that there
    are lots of ways to do it, and that we can do better on that
    front, and I would encourage some attention on that.
        And the final point I want to make is just where does debt
    enter in all of this? It is not it is not 2017 anymore. We have
    a deficit of 6.3 percent of GDP for an economy that is at full
    employment, not at war. There is no reason for deficits to be
    this large. They are an active threat to the capacity of this
    economy to grow and deliver on the promise of a higher standard
    of living.
        So--and when you think about the TCJA decisions, think
    growth. But as a starting point, don't make the problem worse.
    So one way to think about it is you could extend TCJA, and that
    would keep current policies in place. And anything you did in
    addition to that, above or below, you should offset. And that
    would be a current policy baseline with a deficit neutral
    reform around it. That is--that, to me, would be the minimum
    that you should aim for.
        The gold standard would be to do a deficit-neutral reform
    from the current law baseline, which would do two things. It
    would allow you to make some progress on the fiscal problem,
    which is real and won't be solved with taxes alone, you are
    going to have to deal with the spending part, but it would also
    allow you to make the tax policy permanent, and thus much more
    effective.
        So I appreciate the chance to be here today to discuss
    these issues, and look forward to your questions.
        [The statement of Dr. Holtz-Eakin appears in the
    Submissions for the Record]
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Mr. Beyer.
        Representative Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I
    would love to introduce Ms. Jacoby, who is the deputy director
    of Federal tax policy at the Center for Budget and Policy
    Priorities and a UPenn Law School graduate and MPP at American
    University.
        And we are delighted to have you with us. So the floor is
    yours.

     STATEMENT OF MS. SAMANTHA JACOBY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL
          TAX POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES

        Ms. Jacoby. Thank you. Representative Beyer, Vice Chairman
    Schweikert, and distinguished members of the committee, thanks
    for the opportunity to testify today. I am Samantha Jacoby,
    deputy director of Federal tax policy at the Center on Budget
    and Policy Priorities. Today I will focus on three points.
        First, tax cuts in the last 25 years gave large benefits to
    households in the top 1 percent and corporations. These tax
    cuts have largely failed to trickle down to workers and
    families.
        Second, these large tax cuts cost significant Federal
    revenue and added trillions to the national debt, increasing
    economic risks. Extending the Trump tax cuts that expire next
    year would further expand benefits for the wealthy, while
    adding considerably to the deficit. More revenue is needed to
    make our commitments to seniors, to address future challenges,
    and to improve our fiscal outlook.
        And third, instead of doubling down on failed trickle-down
    tax cuts, policymakers should prioritize investments like the
    Child Tax Credit that would yield short and long-term benefits
    to people, communities, and the economy as a whole.
        The 2017 Trump tax cut delivered a $60,000 annual tax cut
    to households in the top 1 percent and a $250,000 annual tax
    cut to the top one-tenth of 1 percent. This tilt to the top is
    largely because of a few costly provisions. The dramatic cut in
    the corporate tax rate down to 21 percent mostly benefits
    wealthy shareholders. Despite claims from the Trump
    Administration that it would boost household incomes by $4,000,
    JCT and Federal Reserve economists found that workers in the
    bottom 90th percentile saw no change in earnings from the
    corporate rate cut. And who did benefit? Executives and highly-
    paid firm managers.
        Similarly, the special deduction for pass-through
    businesses, including many real estate funds, financial firms,
    and oil and gas companies, for example, gives millionaires more
    than half the benefit at a cost of $70 billion a year. The
    pass-through deduction has not boosted wages, investment, or
    broader economic activity, but it has created opportunities for
    high-income business owners and their tax advisers to game the
    deduction through both tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion.
        Continuing on this path by extending the expiring Trump tax
    cuts would be irresponsible. It would deliver a $48,000 annual
    tax cut to households in the top 1 percent, but only about $500
    for the average household making less than $100,000. And
    imposing broad-based tariffs as an offset would double down on
    the 2017 law's regressivity, increased taxes--increasing taxes
    on low and moderate-income families, raising the cost of living
    for families, and posing significant short and long-term
    economic risks.
        Together, the Bush and Trump tax cuts have eroded our
    revenue base, undermined our ability to finance high-value
    investments, and driven up deficits and debt, increasing future
    economic risks. Without these tax cuts, the deficit would be
    half its current size and the debt ratio would be much lower.
    Continued growth in the debt ratio poses potential future risks
    to the economy and fiscal policy. Interest costs are higher now
    than in the 1990s, and are expected to keep growing.
        Making the Trump tax cuts permanent would cost $4 trillion
    over 10 years, and adding further business tax breaks like
    expensing for equipment and cutting taxes on multinationals'
    foreign income would add another trillion dollars to the cost.
    These tax cuts don't pay for themselves. CBO projects that
    extending the Trump tax cuts would raise debt by more than 30
    percent of GDP over the next 30 years.
        The country needs more revenue, not less, and those new
    revenues should focus on those who have gained the most over
    the last four decades. Since the 1980s incomes among the top 1
    percent of households grew 3 times as fast as that of middle-
    income families. Instead of doubling down on failed trickle-
    down tax cuts, there are opportunities to make investments that
    make the economy work for everyone.
        Child poverty in the U.S. is higher than in other wealthy
    countries due to our weaker support for families with kids.
    Investing in kids through policies like the Child Tax Credit
    has long-term payoffs for the entire country. Infants and
    families with lower incomes who receive more support from
    child-related tax benefits go on to have higher test scores,
    higher high school graduation rates, and higher earnings into
    young adulthood. All of that supports a stronger economy.
        And policies to support workers can also yield significant
    benefits to communities and the economy as a whole. Six million
    workers in low-wage jobs are taxed into poverty every year or
    deeper into poverty. Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for
    those workers can help them afford rent and the rising cost of
    other basics, which are essential for maintaining a steady job
    and participating in the economy.
        Thank you again for having me to testify today, and I
    welcome any questions you have.
        [The statement of Ms. Jacoby appears in the Submissions for
    the Record]
        Representative Beyer. Thank you, Ms. Jacoby, very much.
        Before introducing Mr. Arensmeyer, I would like to note and
    offer for the record, if there is no objection, an article from
    Alicia Wallace of CNN submitted by Mr. Arensmeyer.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. No, so ordered.
        [The information appears in the Submissions for Record]
        Representative Beyer. Thank you very much. And with that,
    John Arensmeyer is the founder of Small Business Majority. I
    met him a couple of decades ago. We have been working for a
    long time, pulling together the great needs of small business
    and how government can most effectively react, respond, and
    lead.
        Mr. Arensmeyer, the floor is yours.

          STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN ARENSMEYER, FOUNDER AND CEO
                       SMALL BUSINESS MAJORITY

        Mr. Arensmeyer. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Beyer,
    and also Vice Chairman Schweikert, and members of the
    committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak about the
    importance of ensuring that we have a tax code that supports a
    robust, innovative, and inclusive economy anchored by our
    nation's 34 million small businesses.
        We are a national small business organization that empowers
    America's entrepreneurs to build a thriving and equitable
    economy. Prior to launching Small Business Majority nearly 20
    years ago, I was the founder and CEO of an award winning
    interactive communications company that I ran for 12 years. At
    Small Business Majority we engage our network of more than
    85,000 small businesses and 1,500 business and community
    organizations to advocate for public policy solutions and
    deliver resources to entrepreneurs that promote equitable small
    business growth.
        For two decades we have examined the reality of how
    taxation affects America's small businesses, and have advocated
    for tax policies that maximize entrepreneurial growth and level
    the playing field with large corporations. Our work is
    bolstered by scientific research into small business needs
    alongside the voices of America's entrepreneurs.
        To be clear, the current tax code is not working for Main
    Street. Most recent--our most recent national opinion poll of
    small businesses found that more than three quarters believe
    that the current tax system favors large corporations over
    small businesses, that wealthy individuals and large
    corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes, and that
    Congress should create a bottom-up, simplified tax system that
    better delivers for America's entrepreneurs.
        Specifically, the expiration of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
    presents a golden opportunity for Congress to reform Section
    199A pass-through tax deduction as a way that benefits Main
    Street. Based on Tax Policy Center data, almost 70 percent of
    all 199A benefits flow to the wealthiest 4.5 percent of pass-
    through business owners. While the richest entities claimed an
    average deduction of over $1 million in 2021, those with
    incomes below $100,000 took home an average deduction of less
    than 2,000. And as Ms. Jacoby has pointed out, half of the
    benefits of 199A go to business owners earning more than $1
    million.
        Moreover, the 199A deduction has also widened racial
    disparities, with Black and Hispanic-owned businesses receiving
    just seven percent of the benefit. One possible solution that
    we are advocating is to allow entrepreneurs to deduct the first
    $25,000 of business income, something that would benefit the
    vast majority of Main Street enterprises, an approach that 2.5
    times more small business owners support than oppose in our
    recent poll.
        As many of you on both sides of the aisle have said, any
    tax package must address the growing deficit while ensuring
    that there is adequate funding for targeted government programs
    to support our nation's entrepreneurs. Increased revenues can
    be achieved by the following four ways.
        Increasing the corporate tax rate--only 5 percent of small
    businesses, or C corporations are paying the 21 percent
    corporate tax rate. Raising the rate to 28 percent, something
    supported by a majority of business owners in our most recent
    poll, would generate $700 billion in revenue over the next 10
    years, and better level the playing field between large and
    small enterprises.
        Second, bring the capital gains rate to--more in alignment
    with ordinary income tax rates, something that is supported two
    to one by our small business owners in our recent poll.
        Three, maintain the current level of IRS funding to
    maximize revenue and serve small businesses, something that our
    polling has shown is supported by more than 80 percent of small
    businesses, and would close the annual tax gap of $700 billion.
        And fourth, closing tax loopholes favoring offshore income,
    something supported in our polling by three quarters of small
    business owners.
        A few other points that are highlighted in detail in my
    written testimony.
        Small businesses continue to grapple with health care costs
    that are far greater than anywhere else in the developed world.
    More than half of the participants in the ACA marketplaces are
    small business owners, employees, and self-employed Americans.
    The ACA premium tax credits and the accompanying expanded
    market eligibility have been a game-changer for entrepreneurs
    over the past four years. They must be continued after 2025 to
    avoid an estimated 4 million Americans losing coverage.
        Finally, small business owners are already hunkering down
    to weather the painful impact of a potential trade war,
    including stocking up on inventory and thinking about moving
    operations offshore to manufacture for the export market. At
    the most recent convening of our National Small Business
    Council, increased tariffs were the single biggest concern. The
    business owners' comments are in my written testimony.
        In summary, 2025 offers a chance to address the
    shortcomings of the current tax code and lay the foundation for
    tax policies that better serve small businesses. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Arensmeyer appears in the Submissions
    for the Record]
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Thank you. One of the ways we are
    going to do this is, Mr. Beyer, I am going to have you do an
    opening statement. Then I am going to turn to Ms. Malliotakis
    to ask a couple of questions, because she needs to leave in a
    moment. So I am going to try to balance this so everyone can--
    --
        Representative Beyer. Would you rather that she went first?
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Well, but your opening statements
    are always very elegant.
        Representative Beyer. Oh, yes, yes.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Just make it short. [Laughter.]
        Representative Beyer. Five minutes, right. Well, Chairman
    Schweikert, thank you very much, and thank all of you for being
    here today.
        Chairman Brady, welcome back. I very much enjoyed my couple
    of years on Ways and Means with your leadership.
        And Doug Holtz-Eakin, you are a regular contributor here.
    It is good to have you back, and I am thrilled to have my
    friends, Ms. Jacoby and Mr. Arensmeyer.
        As we discuss what direction the tax debate should take
    next year, we really need to look through the tax record and--
    because we know we all want growth, we all want this economy to
    grow as quickly as it can. And we all know that tax policy is a
    big part of that. And the question is--and the debt is a big
    part of it too, as Ms. Jacoby mentioned. And so the question
    is, how do we do this?
        Chairman Brady, I very much respect your great pride in the
    TCJA. I think, love it or hate it, it was the accomplishment of
    Trump I, and you were the one that led all that. So I hope I
    don't hurt your feelings when I try to put a perspective on the
    numbers you ran out there, because, you know, the economy did
    grow at almost 3 percent in 2018, 2.97 percent. But it grew at
    2.95 percent in 2015 under Obama. It grew at 2.47 percent in
    2019, the second year, the same as in 2017, the year that Trump
    inherited from Obama, and the same as in 2014 under Obama. And
    then it dropped. You don't count 2020 and 2021 with the huge
    drop and the huge surge, but 2022 back to 1.9; 2023, 2.54.
        Job growth, again, if you look at all the last 10 years,
    basically the same every year, even after TCJA, except that it
    dropped to three quarters of 1 percent--now two thirds of 1
    percent--in 2019, the second full year of TCJA. So in fact, the
    International Monetary Fund and the Congressional Research
    Service both found that the law, according to them, had very
    little to do with the growth. And this growth didn't even come
    close to paying for the cost of the tax cuts. The Congressional
    Research Service estimated that we had to see a growth rate of
    over 9 percent in 2018 to be on track for that goal.
        So what did happen? Well, as Ms. Jacoby said very well,
    most of it went to the richest--80 percent to the richest 10
    percent. Billions of dollars in tax giveaways to the big
    businesses. We just came off an election where at least part of
    the results were that so many Americans felt left behind, that
    their incomes have not kept up. My friend, Ian Shepherdson from
    Pantheon, pointed out that a blue collar worker in 2023 is not
    making what he made in 1972 in constant dollars.
        So while we want it to happen--and yet we have more than
    1,000 billionaires and, you know, lots and lots of people with
    very high incomes. We have grown our upper middle class
    dramatically, but we have left an awful lot of people behind. I
    know the intent of TCJA was to pull them along, but it hasn't
    worked.
        What has worked? Well, the Child Tax Credit, which we are
    very proud of. It was in the American Rescue Plan. It wasn't
    the only thing that brought child poverty down because the
    economic impact payments do, and unemployment benefits. But
    let's face it, it was 5 percent or 5.x percent, the lowest in
    American history. And when we got rid of it, it went back up to
    12.7--I think it was 13.7 percent last year--we know how to
    reduce child poverty. We have decided child poverty is a
    political choice, a public policy choice, and we have made the
    wrong choice.
        One of the big challenges in this last election was housing
    costs. People across the country, there is too few houses we
    can't afford to get in, and rents are sky high. You know, the
    one public policy thing we have brought forward on that is the
    Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, which we haven't been able to
    pass yet, despite lots of bipartisan support.
        By the way, a shout out to Wyden Smith--our current
    Republican chair of Ways and Means and Ron Wyden--brought back
    a limited Child Tax Credit, passed out of our committee 40 to
    3, and is stuck in the Senate right now. But, you know, we are
    coming together around that.
        And then there is the national debt. You know, we are all
    guilty of it being 100 percent right now, but my great fear as
    we move into this next two years is that we are going to make
    it worse. Or even worse, we are going to pretend that tariffs
    are going to pay for the national debt when we know that
    nobody--no economist actually believes that.
        There are a lot more effective ways we could do this if we
    focus on lifting children out of poverty, people getting a
    quality education, working on a broken health care system,
    making all those solutions a reality.
        And by the way, I don't want to say blanket everything in
    TCJA is wrong. I have seen great studies that show the
    instantaneous deduction depreciation actually did a lot to spur
    growth. If you are--you know, I was in business for 46 years,
    and if you can buy the new car wash and write it off the first
    year you are more likely to buy that new car wash. But I think
    we need to be really careful as we look at readdressing all the
    things that expire, that we focus on ways to--running out of
    time--to make sure that it is lifting up the people that need
    it the most, rather than the people that need it the least.
        [The statement of Representative Beyer appears in the
    Submissions for the Record]
        Representative Beyer. And with that I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Representative Malliotakis.
        Representative Malliotakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank you all for coming today. I think for--I
    wasn't on the committee in 2017. I am very excited about the
    opportunity to extend and make better what I thought was a good
    product. I think, if you look at the results, it did create
    millions of jobs, it did lift people out of poverty. It did
    double the Child Tax Credit in the standard deduction, allowing
    for families to keep more of their money in their pockets. It
    did lift wages and it did bring unemployment down to record
    levels, particularly for women and minorities. And I think that
    is all wonderful, and we should be applauding the success of
    this.
        And I think that there is also--I guess, obviously, what we
    are looking for here is how do we expand on this? How do we
    build upon the successes of the TCJA?
        I think one of the things that I have observed in speaking
    with people is--obviously, you want people to invest, you want
    people to expand their businesses, grow their businesses,
    create jobs, but they need some type of certainty for that,
    right? And I think that some of the concerns are that the
    provisions have expired and, like, the difficulty we are having
    now renewing some of those provisions like R&D and the bonus
    depreciation that has begun to sunset.
        So Mr. Brady, or Chairman Brady, I would love to ask your
    opinion on what do you think about maybe longer-term
    provisions, some type of permanence that could give businesses
    more certainty so they feel comfortable to expand and invest?
        Chairman Brady. So Congresswoman, thank you. So the short
    answer is the greatest growth you get, the greatest certainty
    to invest in the United States, whether you are bringing
    investment and manufacturing back or deciding where to do it,
    is locking in the pro-growth provisions permanently of the tax
    code you have within the corporate rate, which is one of the
    reasons I think it drove--like, real wages in 2017, 2018 went
    up more than $6,000, the greatest--again, more than the
    previous 10 years combined. The unemployment rate fell. Child
    poverty fell significantly, the fastest rate since the 1960s.
    So making sure you lock in the pro-growth provisions like the
    corporate rate.
        Now, I would continue to lock in those lower marginal rates
    for families and small businesses, certainly, as they come out
    of an epic period of inflation. Very key that we keep that
    going.
        I would extend and simplify the small business tax
    deduction of 20 percent for pass-throughs. They do employ half
    of all the workers in America. That deduction has been--has
    supported more than 2.5 million jobs and grown Main Street, I
    think, beautifully.
        So I would also continue--try to make permanent incentives
    for innovation, for expensing for R&D, the past definition for
    interest deductibility because they are so important to job
    opportunities and rising paychecks.
        Representative Malliotakis. I know President Trump has said
    he wants to also focus on manufacturing and bringing our
    domestic supply chain home. And I think, you know, one thing
    that didn't happen in 2017 was COVID. It came afterwards, and I
    think it opened up all our eyes on the reliance on foreign
    countries, particularly communist China, for pharmaceuticals,
    80 percent of APIs being manufactured there, medical devices,
    nanotechnology.
        I have legislation that would repatriate a lot of this and
    incentivize businesses to come back to Puerto Rico, for
    example, pharmaceutical infrastructure that they had there in
    the 1990s. What are your recommendations of what we can do
    there? And should we offer a lower tax rate if a--for
    repatriating manufacturing here or creating a new facility here
    that could provide jobs and also address those national
    security needs?
        Chairman Brady. Yes, so you--one, you are thinking the
    right way. And I think, first, you have already taken a big
    step. The lower corporate rate, the modern international rate,
    the incentives on innovation, research, manufacturing produced
    real results. The manufacturing jobs that were created the
    first two years after tax reform were the highest growth we
    have seen in a long, long time.
        Secondly, I think the deregulation role the President
    played played another key role for making American companies
    very--Main Street to the largest--very competitive. Keeping it
    to here, as well.
        I think you can look at--I would not single out certain
    industries for incentives, but do the broad-based incentives.
    For example, if you look at businesses, I think one of the
    reasons our economy has prospered well here over the last four
    years is the tax code allowed companies to invest in new supply
    chains. One of the biggest expenses for repatriating is the
    cost of the building, the cost of equipment in it, the
    software, the technology that goes with it.
        I know you have been thinking about how do we create the
    incentives to do that. I think create it within the existing
    provisions and do it broad-based enough that you are not
    picking one winner over another, but you are doing it broad-
    based so that we can, again, become medically independent, you
    know crucial critical minerals, all the things you are thinking
    about for a stronger economy for the long term.
        Representative Malliotakis. Thank you very much.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Okay. We are going to go to----
        Representative Porter. Thank you very much, Vice Chairman
    Schweikert.
        My Republican colleagues have planned today's hearing to
    talk about how great they think President Trump's 2017 tax law
    was ahead of many of the provisions expiring next year. I want
    to focus my time on one piece of the Trump tax law that I
    strongly opposed, which is the deduction--the cap on the
    deduction of state and local taxes, which is also known as
    SALT.
        Ms. Jacoby, can you just explain what the SALT deduction
    is?
        Ms. Jacoby. Sure, thank you, Representative. Yes, the SALT
    cap refers to a $10,000 cap on the amount of state and local
    taxes that a taxpayer can deduct from their taxes.
        Representative Porter. And this SALT deduction is not a new
    concept. It was in our tax code since the inception of the
    Federal income tax in 1913, and its purpose is to prevent
    Americans from being double taxed. If you earn $50,000 and you
    pay $5,000 of that in tax to state and local government, you
    don't have that income available anymore. So it effectively
    allowed you to be taxed on the remaining 45,000. That is the
    effect of the deduction.
        Why does this deduction--why might this deduction be
    important to families, California families in particular?
        Ms. Jacoby. I think that the understanding among many
    households is that they are not fully able to benefit from all
    of that tax that they are not able to deduct on their Federal
    taxes.
        Representative Porter. Right. So most--many Californians
    owe more than $10,000 in state and local taxes. Remember that
    state and local taxes also includes the property tax that you
    pay and the state taxes that fund the school systems, that fund
    public safety. So the cap, the $10,000 limit on the state and
    local tax deduction, really punished taxpayers in states with
    significant tax burdens who fund services, that do help grow
    our economy, like investments in education and infrastructure.
        My office issued a report five years ago showing that
    nearly half of the constituents in my district used the SALT,
    the state and local tax deduction, with an average deduction of
    more than $22,000 per household. And the Trump tax law cut that
    deduction in more than half, capping it at $10,000. And this
    hurt many middle-class families whose communities are investing
    in public services.
        And we want states and localities to provide services to
    people. We think they are closer to communities than the
    Federal Government. And that SALT cap also made it harder for
    homeowners and would-be first-time homeowners to buy houses
    because the property tax they will owe would not be fully
    deductible.
        President Trump didn't make his motives unclear here. He
    stated that the cap on the SALT deduction was intended to
    punish so-called blue states who did not support him in the
    2016 election. This tax law effectively discriminates against
    taxpayers who earn the exact same income based solely on where
    they live. I think that is wrong as a matter of Federal policy,
    and that Congress should not repeat that mistake next year.
        There are concerns about whether the state and local tax
    deduction benefits those at the highest part of the income
    spectrum. So I have a solution. The very first bill I
    introduced this Congress was my SALT Act. It would eliminate
    that state and local tax deduction cap for families that make
    under $400,000 in annual income. For filers making 400,000 and
    above, the SALT cap would start at $60,000. It would be capped,
    as Trump did, and would taper as you climb so that people
    earning--taxpayers earning $1 million or more couldn't claim
    the deduction at all. With the revenue raised from that change,
    my legislation would create enough funding to provide hearing
    and vision coverage for every Medicare recipient.
        This shows we can fund the right priorities when we enact
    the right tax policy. At a time when the cost of housing is sky
    high and too many Americans cannot save enough to afford a
    home, Congress shouldn't make home ownership even more
    unaffordable for working and middle-class families by extending
    this harmful SALT cap. We heard from voters across the country
    that costs are too high. So we need to lower their taxes, their
    Federal taxes, by restoring the SALT deduction.
        The Republican Party controlled the House, the Senate, and
    the White House when it enacted the Trump tax law that punished
    Californians. They have a governing trifecta next year, and I
    urge them to use it to fix the state and local deduction tax
    cap.
        I yield back.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Thank you.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think when this
    was enacted in, you know, in 2017, this was a big move forward,
    I think, in helping working families and small businesses. I
    think that the--essentially, unless you are organized as a C-
    corp, many of these tax cuts would have never helped you unless
    if you had the, you know, the flow-through, the--you know, the
    closely helds, the LLCs, the LLPs. They were able to realize,
    those small businesses that put that money back into their
    businesses or hire more people, I think that was one of the
    brilliant moves of the 2017 legislation.
        I wasn't here then. I will be here next year to work on
    some of these things. And I guess my first question for you,
    Chairman Brady, in addition to thanking you for all the work
    you did with the congressional baseball team--we stand on the
    shoulder of giants, shoulders of giants, thank you for that
    work--but your work as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee
    and your work on this--if you were--if I were going back home
    this weekend and somebody asked me, you know, why is this
    important, why is it important to extend, what are a couple of
    statistics that you would point to?
        Chairman Brady. You know, I--Senator, thank you for the
    kind words, and thank you for your baseball prowess, as well,
    on the field. I have seen it up front.
        So without a question, this tax code, which is now built
    for growth, had its greatest impact on workers' paychecks,
    without a question. And that came from the pass-through rate
    that we lowered for Main Street businesses to try to create
    parity for the corporations. They are taxed at a large level.
    We essentially got it closer to even there, and created the
    investment that our Main Street businesses--the incentives for
    growth.
        But paychecks are a big way--there is no question that
    growth in the three years after TCJA, the nine percent real
    wage, people were getting ahead every month. Every month it was
    outpacing inflation significantly. I think that is the main
    reason to lock in these low rates, to continue the growth and
    competitiveness there.
        I think we saw child poverty reduced at the fastest rate
    since the 1960s not by sending them government checks, but by
    getting their parents ample opportunities for jobs and rising
    paychecks, and we saw that done in a sustainable way, that you
    can lock in as well as you as you move forward on extending
    these.
        I think too we live in a world where a lot of our companies
    have income that is mobile. You want them to choose the United
    States to invest in that new plant down the road, the new
    research, the jobs along Main Street. This tax code is built
    for growth of Main Street in a major way in the U.S., in a
    major way. Our goal was not to level the playing field; it was
    to tilt it our direction.
        Senator Schmitt. Now I will just ask another question, and
    also for you, Doctor, too.
        You mentioned inflation. So I think all the savings--and
    you had a--you know, people's income, no matter what your race,
    your gender, line of work, whatever, went up after this, and
    that was the goal. And I think that happened. And I come from a
    working-class family in a working-class neighborhood, and
    people felt that.
        And then, of course, you have got the Inflation Reduction
    Act, you have got the American Recovery Act, 1.4 trillion
    pumped into the economy. And then, you know, there is energy
    issues, and all of a sudden everything costs a lot more. So
    whatever those gains were were certainly eaten into by
    inflation.
        So knowing those set of circumstances, what happened
    before, the amount of spending that took place after this went
    into place, what are the best areas to sort of double down on
    or do more of--or do less of, I guess, if you were to
    recalibrate this--for expanded growth next year? What would be
    a couple of things you would identify?
        Both of you, please.
        Chairman Brady. So I would--to echo Doug Holtz-Eakin's
    initial points, I would find a way to simplify that small
    business pass-through tax cut. It does good work. I don't think
    the economy captures the growth that comes from that provision.
    It is meaningful, but I think it is actually bigger than we
    believe. It is an awfully complicated--on the day it was signed
    I knew it was too complicated. I think we can make that work
    much better.
        I would continue--you know, tax rates on corporations may
    or may not be positive or popular, but it drives so much of the
    paycheck and incentives. Whatever the--if you can lower that
    rate, whatever it is tied to--R&D it makes better, innovation
    it makes better, manufacturing--it is sort of that crown jewel
    that drives growth sort of throughout the economy.
        And one of the points, Senator, I would make is we didn't
    lower rates for corporations. We lowered it on them to drive
    the growth and the paycheck increases we wanted. Then
    corporations paid for more than 80 percent of their own tax cut
    because they knew, one, we needed to do that to balance the
    provisions there, but they believed they would have a stronger
    economy for their workers and their customers, and they do.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Briefly, I would say the key is to have a
    fiscally disciplined focus on supply side incentives. Supply
    side incentives give you growth without the price pressures. An
    undisciplined approach will scare bond markets, drive up rates,
    and would be counterproductive when you are trying to improve
    incentives to invest. So a fiscally disciplined supply-side
    approach is what you are going to need.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Hassan.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you very much. I appreciate this
    hearing, and thanks to you and the chair for holding it.
        To our witnesses, thank you all for being here today. I
    want to start with a question to Mr. Arensmeyer and Ms. Jacoby.
        In communities across New Hampshire it is increasingly
    difficult for workers to find affordable places to live. And I
    am sure we have all--all of us have constituents who are
    struggling with this. The housing shortage drives up costs for
    workers and makes it harder for small businesses to hire the
    workforce that they need.
        So Mr. Arensmeyer, can you talk about the drag that housing
    shortages are having on the economy, particularly when it comes
    to small business growth?
        Mr. Arensmeyer. Well, housing--Senator, housing has not
    been something we have focused on directly on. Clearly, like
    other costs in the economy, we focus mostly on costs of
    supplies and just the inability to potentially raise prices to
    match the increase in costs.
        Senator Hassan. Yes.
        Mr. Arensmeyer. Housing is absolutely, you know, part of
    that. And certainly, if that--if housing stagnates, there are a
    lot of small businesses who work in the housing space,
    construction and otherwise. So there is an indirect effect on a
    slowing housing market with small businesses.
        So yes, like, it is a huge part of our economy and
    absolutely any drag is going to impact small businesses for
    sure.
        Senator Hassan. Well, in my state one of the things it is
    really impacting is recruitment of employees. We have
    businesses that can't find employees because employees can't
    move to New Hampshire. They--even high-income employees can't
    find a place to live. So it is the number-one priority I hear
    about from businesses, most of which are small in my state.
        Ms. Jacoby, how can the Federal Government better
    incentivize the development of housing that workers can afford
    through the tax code in ways that work for smaller states like
    New Hampshire that may have really rural communities? You know,
    100-unit multi-family housing is not going to work in some of
    my communities.
        Ms. Jacoby. I thank you for that question, Senator. Yes, I
    think, you know, others have mentioned increasing housing
    supply through, you know, proven measures like the Low-Income
    Housing Tax Credit. That is an important way to increase
    housing supply and reduce costs.
        Another thing that I think often gets left out of the
    conversation is the importance of rental assistance. Tax
    incentives for increasing housing supply often leave out the
    lowest-income workers who cannot even afford housing at sort of
    mid-level--mid levels. And so increasing the availability of
    rental assistance through vouchers is also very important.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin, it is nice to see you. I have worked with
    my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to restore the full
    and immediate research and development tax deduction, which, as
    you all know, expired in 2022.
        Restoring the full deduction is vital to our national
    security and our economic development. When American companies
    invest in R&D to develop new products and technologies, it
    obviously stimulates our economy, promotes job growth, and
    helps us outcompete countries like China. The Chinese
    Government currently provides a 200 percent super deduction for
    R&D, effectively giving firms an immediate $2 million deduction
    for every $1 million invested in R&D. Meanwhile, American
    businesses can only immediately deduct $100,000 for $1 million
    in R&D development.
        So how does the current R&D deduction impair American
    businesses' ability to plan and make investments going forward?
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. I think there are two main channels. It is
    a really important question because this is central to our
    strategic competition with China----
        Senator Hassan. Yes.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin [continuing]. And to America's future in
    general.
        One channel is that--it says if I have a choice between
    something I can fully deduct and my R&D, I do the other thing.
    And so you are skewing the composition of business activities
    away from the innovation we need.
        The second is especially important for smaller businesses.
    The fact that they can't expense it, and they have--and they
    can only deduct it has huge cash flow implications for the
    small business guys.
        Senator Hassan. Right.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. And this was a disaster for them, quite
    frankly.
        Senator Hassan. Yes.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. And reversing it, I think, would be very,
    very important very quickly.
        Senator Hassan. And obviously--and I think you just
    mentioned this--very important in our strategy to outcompete
    China, right?
        To Ms. Jacoby, the Child Tax Credit is a critical lifeline
    for hard-working families. Over the past year members of both
    parties have expressed strong support for expanding and
    strengthening the Child Tax Credit. As we look to next year,
    any tax package should prioritize cutting taxes for hard-
    working families, which would lower costs and lift children out
    of poverty. What changes should Congress consider to the Child
    Tax Credit to reach more hard-working families, including
    changes that have had bipartisan support?
        Ms. Jacoby. Yes, thank you. So the most important thing
    that the Child Tax Credit can do is better reach the 19 million
    children who are currently left out of the credit----
        Senator Hassan. Right.
        Ms. Jacoby [continuing]. Or don't receive the full credit.
    That change would--and did in 2021--reduce child poverty to
    historically low levels. So that is the most important change.
        But any change to the Child Tax Credit should prioritize
    those kids. The Wyden Smith bill that my colleagues worked very
    hard to study and analyze, and--that would have made the Child
    Tax Credit more available and helped lift 500,000 children out
    of poverty.
        Senator Hassan. Yes, well, thank you.
        And I will just thank my colleagues in the House for
    passing the Wyden Smith agreement. We are trying on the Senate
    side, and look forward to continuing to work with all of you to
    see what we can get across the finish line. Thank you.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Thank you, Senator. The people's
    house.
        Senator Hassan. I love being here. We are doing all sorts
    of live quorum calls, so I am going to dash. But thank you very
    much.
        Representative Moore. Thank you so much.
        Representative Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
    was--I came--first took office in 2017, so I was here during
    the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and I was really
    proud of the impact that had on my constituents who really saw
    and felt that increase in the average household income.
        And, you know, it is remarkable how different they feel
    now, and I think you saw the results of this election partly
    due to that after the economic policies of this Administration
    compared to the first few years of the Trump Administration. So
    I was very proud of the work we did. And I think the statistic
    that I am probably most proud of is that we had the lowest
    poverty rate than at any other time in our history. So we
    lifted more people out of poverty than any other time.
        This is a different time, though, and I want to get back to
    some of the comments you made, Dr. Holtz-Eakin, and then maybe
    Chairman Brady, as well.
        And by the way, Chairman Brady's leadership is why we got
    the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, so I was really proud to serve with
    you at that time.
        But we now have 36 trillion in debt as of today, adding $2
    trillion per year. One of the ways--and my belief is that is
    one of the greatest threats that we are faced with, where it is
    a predictable crisis. We are going to have a sovereign debt
    crisis within the next 10, 20 years, probably, if we don't
    change the trajectory. One of the ways we get out--not the only
    way, but it is important to have strong economic growth, back
    to your point, doubling income every 20 years versus every 20--
    every 50 years.
        And so we have to get the tax code right, and that is why I
    think, you know--we heard from Mr. Beyer. You know, you believe
    as well it is important that we put growth policies in place.
    But I also believe that we can't add to the debt with what we
    are doing at this particular time. I think it is very, very
    important.
        So how do you square that? Is it possible to do that? Can
    we extend the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that I
    think are so important to driving a growing economy, and do
    that without adding to the debt? I would like to get your
    thoughts on that.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. So there is a very, I think, confused and
    confusing public discussion of this.
        Simply extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act keeps us at the
    current policy and the current level of deficits and debt and
    debt growth. So last year we had $1.8 trillion in deficit, 6.3
    percent of GDP. Over a trillion of that was interest. So it
    should be a warning sign. But to simply continue doing that
    is--we would have $2 trillion deficits, and we would be on the
    trajectory that I outlined at the beginning of my testimony, so
    that it is not that we are going to cut taxes, we are just
    going to continue with the current level if we just extend.
        You can do better than that. You could close the gap and
    improve the growth incentives. And as I mentioned, I think the
    gold standard would be to have a deficit-neutral tax reform
    that would allow you to do the tax reform that Mr. Brady could
    design, and which would be permanent because it would not
    produce deficits, you wouldn't have to sunset it. Permanent
    incentives are always better than temporary incentives. That is
    the gold standard. That is where you want to go.
        Realistically, to do that you have to bring in the spending
    side of the Federal budget. There is no way to solve the fiscal
    problem without addressing the spending. I can do that at great
    length, but I don't want to use up all your time. But Social
    Security and Medicare are over 50 percent of non-interest
    spending over the next 10 years.
        Representative Smucker. Yes.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. And they are growing faster--5.5 for
    Social Security and 7 for Medicare--than any revenue base is
    going to grow. They are going to grow at about four.
        Representative Smucker. Yes, and I want to give Chairman
    Brady just----
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. So you----
        Representative Smucker. We will talk----
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. You have to deal with that.
        Representative Smucker. Yes, we will talk a lot more, I am
    sure.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes.
        Representative Smucker. But, like, I 100 percent agree, and
    I think we have to go to the spending side. Spending at about
    26 percent of GDP is at the highest level ever. So we have got
    to get to it.
        But Chairman Brady, I would just like to--I only have
    another minute, but I would like to get your reaction to that,
    as well.
        Chairman Brady. Yes, I think permanence is so important to
    the tax code for so many reasons. And I know you are going to
    have a pretty spirited debate about how much of this will be
    paid for going forward. But all I know is finding pay-fors are
    hard. If you remember, in 2017 we had $5.5 trillion of tax
    cuts. We paid for $4 trillion of it up front. So 72 percent of
    those tax cuts were paid for when President Trump signed that
    bill. Since then we have had significant revenue growth,
    somewhere between a half a trillion and 1 trillion. So we have
    raised that cover significantly, as well.
        It is terrifically hard to do pay-fors, but it is part of
    the process of trying to make permanent, you know, the
    provisions that most lift wages and most give you growth in
    competition and innovation. Yes, and it is worth pursuing that
    permanence.
        Representative Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I
    am out of time, but I do want to submit for the record, if I
    may--I wanted to--my next question was about 199A. I would be
    very interested in hearing some of the ideas to simplify it. I
    think it is really important to our Main Street businesses. And
    I have a study about the economic activity supported by the
    section 199A deduction I would like to submit for the record.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Without objection.
        [Representative Smucker's submission appears in the
    Submissions for the Record]
        Representative Smucker. Thank you.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Ms. Moore.
        Representative Moore. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And,
    you know, I will just kind of pick up for you, Mr. Smucker,
    where you left off, if that is okay. I have the exact same
    question that you have: How did you all square this all?
        First, before I do, just let me say to Mr. Brady I really
    miss you. I have been here for a minute now, but I remember
    when I first came in naive, wanting to be on the Ways and Means
    Committee, and, you know, everybody, particularly Nancy Pelosi,
    told me what a lunatic I was to even think that. And I actually
    was so dumb that I think the first person on the Ways and Means
    Committee I came to see if I could get on the committee was
    you. I am a Democrat. It just shows you, you know, where
    desperation will lead you. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Brady. You have done a great job.
        Representative Moore. Listen, but I really enjoy the
    encounters that we have outside of this room, but I--this is
    really--I really get your point that you were going for growth.
    But I do recall from Dr. Holtz-Eakin's testimony that he says
    we got a growth problem and a debt problem.
        And you said we had a growth problem because, even though
    the economy is growing, which is a good thing, it is not
    growing enough or in the right ways to have people meet their
    basic needs, you know? And I guess I am sort of setting this up
    before I ask my question. We got a growth problem and a debt
    problem.
        So question one is, as we think about extending these tax
    cuts for the sake of growth, you know, do we need to think
    about ways maybe like the 199 sort of reforms that we need to
    make since that costs so much money--that would be, like, $684
    billion over 10 years just to not close that gap. But should we
    do something like that?
        Because what I worry about is the notion of if we extend
    all these tax cuts for 4.6 trillion more dollars to the debt,
    and then we are--we have a President who has assistants that
    are talking about cutting 2 trillion of waste and all that, at
    what point are we going to be cutting into bone and marrow? And
    I think my colleagues already mentioned Social Security and
    Medicare. I wasn't going to go that far. I was just going to
    say, you know, like food stamps and Head Start.
        But at what--how do you support raising these taxes,
    maintaining the corporate tax cuts, spending 4.6 trillion more
    dollars, how does that square--to borrow Mr. Smucker's jargon--
    how does that square with us really not sending the economy in
    a tailspin, considering that people would not, you know, pile
    on top of that tariffs?
        And so just share with me--maybe I will choose Mr.
    Arensmeyer. I mean, have I--how does this square? I have sort
    of shared what they said.
        Mr. Arensmeyer. Well, Congresswoman, I--you all are going
    to need to decide how much you can continue to increase the
    deficit with the tax code.
        Our position is, yes, we need tax incentives, and 199 is a
    perfect example. But they need to be designed in a way that is
    going to bring the maximum impact.
        Representative Moore. Right.
        Mr. Arensmeyer. And it is going to level the playing field.
    And our whole point on 199A is--to use that as an example--is
    that right now it is very skewed toward the businesses that
    probably don't need it as much. That--as I said in my
    testimony, 70 percent of the benefit going to 4.5 percent of
    the pass-through businesses.
        So then we come back and say, okay, you can redesign this
    bottom up. We are suggesting a $25,000 deduction bottom up. You
    can pick a number, but it is obviously not free. But
    ultimately, whatever you decide to do within the framework of a
    manageable deficit, it should be targeted to where the economic
    need is the greatest. And our point is that it is the smallest
    businesses in this country who are generating jobs----
        Representative Moore. I think so, too. I would love to have
    asked more questions, but I do think that that is really one of
    the ways--if we aren't going to pass the whole package, because
    that--and I also just want to make sure that you don't think
    that the TCJA has paid for itself as part of this equation.
        Mr. Arensmeyer. When you--I think the numbers are what they
    are.
        Representative Moore. Ms. Jacoby.
        Mr. Arensmeyer. Okay.
        Ms. Jacoby. No, definitely not.
        Representative Moore. Okay. With the indulgence of the
    chair, I will just finish my sentence.
        I just want to thank you all for your testimony, and I
    just--I do want to look at this, you know, in a very serious
    way, not in a kind of a partisan way, because I think we have
    to make some choices about the tax cuts that we continue to
    provide, because growth is only one aspect of it.
        As Dr. Holtz-Eakin said, you got to be concerned about it
    actually trickling down because this--the wages that have been
    increased have not come from the TCJA, they have come from
    states and cities and places where the minimum wage has been
    raised. Am I right about that, Ms. Jacoby?
        Ms. Jacoby. There is solid academic research that found
    that the corporate tax cut specifically did not increase wages
    for most workers.
        Representative Moore. Right. And so we got to be more
    mindful of how we grow our economy so that it benefits
    everybody and not just the top folks. Thank you so very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that indulgence.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Mr. Arrington.
        Representative Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to my
    friend and fellow Texan and exceptional leader whom we all
    dearly miss, thank you for being here and for your
    contributions to our beloved country.
        And we have got to get back to those policies that
    incentivize investment and growth, and unleash prosperity
    again. And we are in a--quite a predicament. At this stage we
    are on--to say it is an unsustainable fiscal path as it relates
    to deficits and debt is the understatement of the hour.
        So things have changed, and the fiscal health of the
    country is in rapid decline. And so we have to face this
    opportunity for the country clear-eyed, sober-minded, and in a
    way that I think balances the two key ingredients, which is
    simply to reduce spending and increase growth.
        I think there is some there is myths, and I want you to
    respond to this, but I think there is a myth by some of my
    Republican colleagues that we can just grow out of the $36
    trillion, 125 percent debt to GDP hole that we are in that will
    get only exponentially worse, 22 billion--22 trillion, rather,
    trillion dollars over the next 10 years. And then it gets
    just--you know, we would never get there in the 30 years, which
    is about 130 trillion. And 95 percent to 98 percent of that are
    two programs that you mentioned, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, earlier.
        So it just--we go off the cliff at some point, whether it
    is 5 years, 10 years, 15 years. The scary thing is I don't know
    that we can predict it, and once it happens and it turns on us,
    I don't think there is a way out of it. So we have to feel that
    sense of urgency now, and we have to take on this opportunity
    to rein in spending and put back the incentives that will
    balance the supply and demand that has been out of whack and
    has created this record inflation in an economy that is, I
    think, fragile, quite frankly.
        So when I think about one of the fundamental questions will
    be dynamic scoring, I think that has been underscored,
    undervalued, underestimated, the yield of growth people coming
    off of welfare and onto payrolls, people investing, and the
    revenues coming into the Treasury coffers. But I am not
    convinced that all tax cuts pay for themselves. I just--I don't
    believe it. I have never heard any thoughtful person that has
    been an expert in this area say that it is the case. But we
    also have trillions of dollars in opportunities for direct
    spending savings, and we have been talking about them for
    decades.
        What is the right approach, Chairman Brady? And I am going
    to ask Doug also to opine on this. What is the right approach
    here? How much credence should we give--CBO has gotten it
    wrong, JCT has gotten it wrong both on the downside of
    underestimating it, but--again, I think it is a stretch to get
    to a place where we just think it is somehow going to pay for
    every nickel and dime that we, you know, that it would cost in
    any cost estimate. What are your thoughts on that? Am I wrong
    or----
        Chairman Brady. So, Mr. Chairman, one, for as long as I
    have known you, you wake up every morning worried about the
    debt and deficits because of the impact on our communities, on
    our families, on our country as a whole.
        I think about 10 years ago this committee held a hearing
    about the debt ceiling. What is the real debt ceiling? We
    invited, I think, four or five economists from across a broad
    spectrum of philosophies, but they agreed--they disagreed on a
    lot, but they agreed on three things: one, we will know that
    real debt ceiling when we hit it; two, it is sooner than you
    think; and three, you don't want to find out.
        So my belief has been that you have got to have growth and
    guardrails around spending. You have got to right-size the
    Federal Government in its spending habits to get it to a
    sustainable level so that--it doesn't help last year that our
    revenue growth was 11 percent, our spending was higher than
    that. These are huge numbers for growth. Yet we are not able to
    constrain the spending that deepens the deficit.
        No, not all tax cuts pay for themselves. But tax reform
    can, which is--in 2017 we did a big--took a big step, too,
    which is eliminating provisions to fund the growth and to fund
    those rates--not totally, but significantly--that direction.
        I know there was----
        Representative Arrington. Was that number four trillion?
        Chairman Brady. So 4 trillion and--yes, in--which was 72
    percent at the get-go, plus the new revenue. I think corporate
    revenue this year will be at the highest level percentage of
    GDP. Some of that is from the reforms we did back in 2017--you
    did--that are continuing to grow the revenue in a significant
    way.
        But you have got to have the fiscal constraint, whatever
    that mechanism is, to avoid that debt ceiling crash.
        Representative Arrington. Thank you.
        Can--do you mind if Doug responds?
        Chairman Brady. I took Doug Holtz-Eakin's time, I
    apologize.
        Representative Arrington. Would you mind if Mr. Holtz-Eakin
    responds?
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. So let me repeat some things the chairman
    said in my own words. I mean, if you want to get the best
    growth out of the tax policy of 2025, have it be permanent,
    have it be structured toward increasing the supply of skills
    and innovations and capital in the economy--in this economy, to
    tilt the playing field as was done before. And when you get to
    the hard job of balancing that against the imperative that you
    take away the debt headwinds to growth, which are real and
    particularly dangerous if financial markets lose confidence in
    the United States, you begin by first broadening the base.
        The rule of tax reform is broaden the base, lower the
    rates. In this circumstance you may need to raise some revenue.
    The broader base is the solution to that. And this will not be
    as anti-growth as jacking up the corporate rate, which seems to
    be everyone's reflex. That would be a disastrous mistake, in my
    view, to first go there. You don't want to jack up rates on
    small businesses. That is not going to be helpful.
        So, you know, that is it. And then you are going to run out
    of the capacity to do that without solving our fiscal
    challenges. And you will have to turn to the spending side and
    develop a strategy to get to the point where our large
    mandatory spending programs grow at the same pace as the
    economy, not faster. Once you can do that, you can actually
    bend the debt to GDP ratio south. If it goes south even
    infinitesimally, financial markets will be like, okay, they are
    good. You take off the table the disastrous thing those
    economists were trying to avoid, and you go about solving the
    other real problems that the country faces.
        But these are the big ones right now, and that is how I
    think about challenging it.
        Representative Arrington. I am grateful for your insight.
    Thank you.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Mr. Beyer, questions.
        Representative Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        First I want to pile on with my friend, Mr. Arrington, that
    I too worry a great deal about our rapid fiscal decline--Ms.
    Jacoby mentioned it, Dr. Holtz-Eakin again--and just point out
    that just the tax gap alone is estimated between 425 billion on
    the low side per year and a trillion on the high side. I saw a
    number coming out of the transition yesterday that put it north
    of $800 billion a year, which is one of the reasons why we have
    fought so hard to put money into the IRS to go get that. It
    wasn't a matter of pumping up people with guns to go on small
    businesses, it was to take--because we know that people that
    have 1099s and W-2s, 99 percent of them pay it. It is the
    people that don't that that--we are trying to get there.
        And Mr. Holtz-Eakin, Dr. Holtz-Eakin, I want to say when
    you say ``deficit-neutral tax reform,'' we are in the minority.
    We are facing a trifecta. That will be our number-one goal. At
    least my number-one goal is we redo TCJA through
    reconciliation, that if it can be deficit-neutral that would be
    a great step forward.
        Chairman Brady, I don't want to put you on the spot too
    much, but the President-elect on September 17 posted on Truth
    Social he was going to ``get SALT back,'' and lower your taxes.
    Any idea what to expect in these next couple of months?
        Chairman Brady. You know, on that provision I don't. I know
    that, you know, he had concerns about it in--during tax reform,
    coming from New York--obviously, a tax--a state with very high
    taxes. But as we explained to him when we dug into the SALT tax
    issue, it is the single biggest subsidy in the individual code,
    and goes predominantly more than half to families making more
    than $1 million.
        What was worse was rural communities, subsidized cities,
    low and modest income, the wealthy, blue--red states, blue
    states, non-itemizers, itemizers. So we concluded, why doesn't
    everyone just pay their own state and local taxes? I mean, we
    choose where we live and work.
        Representative Beyer. Yes.
        Chairman Brady. We have a choice in who elects us. Why does
    my neighbor have any obligation to pay my state and local
    taxes? Why am I obligated to pay others?
        Representative Beyer. Okay.
        Chairman Brady. So what we did was took the average SALT
    deduction across America, doubled it to create the marriage
    issue there to help with joint filers, and we used the money to
    lower tax rates for middle-class families and small businesses.
        Representative Beyer. Great----
        Chairman Brady. So I still believe that philosophy and
    concept is correct. Certainly, the President and some of our
    Members in Congress in those states where it is a very
    sensitive political issue----
        Representative Beyer. Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. Brady [continuing]. Are obviously going to be----
        Representative Beyer. Let me move on, because I am running
    out of time.
        Ms. Jacoby, you know, looking at how we are paying for
    this, I was impressed that Vivek Ramaswamy said we can just
    take every Federal employee whose Social Security number ends
    in an even number and fire all of them, and then that cuts you
    by 50 percent. But that may not be realistic, but they are
    talking very seriously right now about cutting SNAP programs
    and the nutrition programs, taking the health care--the
    Affordable Care Act subsidies. What does that do to growth in
    our economy when you make families hungry and when you take
    away health care from people?
        Ms. Jacoby. Thank you, Representative Beyer.
        Yes, I think in my view, using--cutting spending, reducing
    benefits for low-income households through, you know, reducing
    their health care, reducing their food assistance, that would
    be a hugely harmful way to pay for regressive tax cuts. Paying
    for regressive tax cuts by taking health care, taking food
    assistance away would cause unimaginable hardship. And taking
    food assistance away from kids makes it harder for them to pay
    attention in school, it makes it harder for them to graduate,
    and that hurts the economy down the line.
        Representative Beyer. Great, thank you very much.
        Mr. Arensmeyer, you have been a champion for small business
    for a long time. And one of the reasons, I think, in TCJA that
    the 199As came was because, otherwise, an LLC, a partnership
    would be paying 37 percent, 39.6 percent versus the
    corporation's 21 percent. How do we justify getting rid of 199A
    and taking it back up to close to 40 percent if corporations
    are at 21?
        Mr. Arensmeyer. Well, Congressman, our position is not to
    get rid of 199A, it is to reform it. It is to make sure that
    the benefits are going to the smallest businesses who need the
    help the most.
        And our whole economy, particularly our small business
    economy, depends on as much money in the economy, particularly
    at the community level, as possible. So it is about where do we
    need the--what is going to do the most good for the economy and
    what is going to be the fairest way to do it? And right now,
    with 44 percent getting 70 percent of the benefit, that is not
    equitable or particularly stimulating to our small business
    economy.
        Representative Beyer. Great, thank you.
        I yield back, sir.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. And now for
    the great joy of holding the gavel, you can all leave. I am--
    they are mine.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin, somewhere in one of my binders I have a
    study that actually looked at the corporate tax rate. And
    within that study it was claiming about 67 percent of that
    ultimately flowed through to workers.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. How can that be true, and then
    some of the things being said on the other side?
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. They can't all be true simultaneously. We
    know that, as a matter of process of elimination, the
    corporate--any corporate tax will be paid for by either the
    workers, the shareholders, or the consumers, because that tax
    will be passed on in some form. The ultimate burden will be
    shifted.
        There is a lot of empirical research on corporate taxation
    in general to try to find the incidence without conclusive
    evidence--I think that is a fair reading of that literature--
    and there have been some specific studies of the Tax Cuts and
    Jobs Act, some of which have concluded that it had a big impact
    on the investments, and that will be passed on in terms of
    higher productivity to wages. So--
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. If I remember my----
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. So that is where we are.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. If I remember my elementary
    school economics class, wages only go up, functionally, really
    from two things: inflation, which means you are just peddling,
    you know, treading water; or productivity, and productivity is
    your primary driver of wages. Do you think that is where there
    is the formularic problem on particularly the way the left
    likes to calculate this number, is that wage growth is
    substantially because of investments in capital equipment
    that--you are not getting that plugged back into the wage
    growth?
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. I think--and the biggest problem with the
    TCJA studies are the time period is too short. You have this
    very important reform, a couple of years of clear sailing, a
    pandemic, and then now we have come out of it, we have got
    maybe a couple more data points on the basic mechanism of have
    an investment, have it in the United States, have it generate
    higher productivity, have that show up in the form of higher
    wages. That is something that I am quite confident, as time
    goes on and we look back, we will say that was a good reform.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Would you agree that the
    expensing and research and development expensing accomplished a
    substantial portion, if not almost half, of the actual economic
    expansion?
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Those are very important provisions. And I
    was disappointed to see them begin to sunset and phase out,
    because that was, I thought, an unnecessary headwind to growth
    in the United States. I would have tried to find some way to
    have those remain full expensing for as long as possible.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Well, it is--and how much of that
    benefit from--let's just use expensing and purchasing capital
    equipment, therefore I am more productive, therefore I can pay
    my workers, you know, higher wages, so you end up in the
    virtuous [sic] cycle. But is it also the permanency of that
    cycle?
        Because we actually built a--believe it or not, we did it
    on butcher paper--a horizon chart showing that that is
    depreciation. It doesn't actually have a cost.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Right.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. It actually makes money. So it is
    a tax provision that does pay for itself if you build a
    horizon, because all expensing is is, instead of taking it over
    seven years, you took it instantly. But it forced you to buy
    better, faster equipment. But now you have got to buy better,
    faster equipment again a couple of years later because your
    competition is doing it, and you build this virtual cycle of
    getting more and more productive, which means wage growth.
        I mean, do I describe it fairly?
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes. I think, you know, I like expensing
    because it makes it easy to level the playing field among all
    the different ways to make a business more productive. That is
    great.
        The other thing it does is that it insulates you against
    inflation fears. You get the full cost recovery in the first
    year. You don't have to count on the depreciation allowances
    keeping up with inflation somehow, and if they don't you never
    really get full cost recovery, which is a bad thing for the
    investment climate. And permanence makes expensing much more
    valuable because it is just timing. And now you know that the
    timing will continue. But to turn it on and turn it off and
    turn it on and turn it off is a real source of uncertainty to
    businesses trying to make some sort of a capital plan.
        So getting it permanent is even better.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Okay, so it is not only the tax
    policy, but it is the ability to see my horizon.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Because particularly with some of
    these pieces of equipment, particularly the complex ones--you
    want to buy, you know, the next generation of CRISPR, you know,
    you wait a couple of years for it to show up. Well, what
    happens if the tax code is expiring in that window?
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes. And again, just to reiterate, for
    small businesses the cash flow aspect of the expensing is
    really important. If you are a start-up and you are getting to
    deduct all those, you are less likely to be in a taxable state,
    your cash flows are being entirely plowed back into growth in
    the business. That has been a recipe for success for American
    small businesses for a long time, and this supports that.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Doctor, a conversation--you may
    not remember--you and I had, heaven, almost a couple of years
    ago, was actually in regards to stability within the debt
    markets. How do we do economic expansionary policies, tax code-
    wise--and you actually did something that set off a series of
    thoughts with me, and that was you made an argument that it is
    much more than just tax policy. It will be regulatory. It would
    be talent-based immigration policy. It would be our willingness
    to knock down barriers to adopt technology.
        You know, the--we--Mr. Beyer--sorry about that--and I have
    had conversations for a couple of years now of technology that
    could crash the price of health care because one of the great
    sins we engage in here is one of two sins. Well, the way we are
    going to cut spending is we are just going to shift it to you
    as an individual or your state. That is just a shift. That is a
    scam, because we can actually see within the calculations if it
    just raised my state taxes it didn't really help my growth.
        But the second thing we can do is the adoption of
    technology. So health care, one of the great sins--and I
    believe this is left and right--the ACA was a financing bill,
    who got subsidized, who didn't. The Republican alternative was
    a financing bill. Medicare for all is a financing bill. Are we
    willing to actually have the much more disruptive conversation
    of what we pay, and how do we use the tax code, but also what
    comes out of both the budget, Ways and Means to incentivize if
    there is a better, faster way to make someone well?
        If there is a better--you know, the thing I talk about all
    the time, the breath biopsy you blow into, it tells you you
    have a certain virus or bacteria, and you allow the technology
    to bounce off your medical records so you are not allergic to
    something, and order your antivirals. It is a flu kazoo. We
    functionally have that as illegal in the way we do policy here,
    because it would disrupt business models, but it would crash
    the price of delivering health care.
        The only reason I ramble about that is how do we design
    also a tax code and regulatory code that moves the investments
    into productivity and making our lives healthier, faster,
    cheaper to live in?
        And am I rambling, or is there ways you would--if I came to
    you and Chairman Brady--I am not ignoring you two, I just like
    them better. Oh, come on. And forgive my asthma, it is--I come
    to you and say, okay, I got 4.6 trillion, I got to cover over
    10. But I need to maximize the morality of growth, having a
    population. If obesity over the next 10 years will be 9.1
    trillion additional health care expenditure--the Joint Economic
    Committee did a whole report on that last year--it turns out
    making our brothers and sisters healthier is the single
    greatest pay-for in society. What do you do, policy-wise?
        And that is both for you, Chairman Brady, and Dr. Holtz-
    Eakin.
        No, no, this is actually--remember, the Affordable Care Act
    is a financing bill.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. This is--
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. It is not about the price of
    delivering the service.
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. So this is what I would say. I think you
    have put your finger on a problem in health policy. We have
    payment silos. We pour money down part A, pour money down part
    D, part C, part B. We pour money down the Medicaid, the CHIP.
    And these are payments silos that are actually not tethered in
    any way to health outcomes. They are just payment silos.
        And the health sector in general, all the providers,
    beneficiary groups, protect those health silos like mad. And if
    you try to touch them, you know it. They are all in to visit.
    You can't do that. But as a result, you will never get
    disruptive change that provides new business models and general
    improvement in delivery systems and care. Everybody in
    healthcare is in favor of innovation and change, as long as it
    doesn't change your payment silo, as long as they don't get
    touched.
        It is not that different than the tax code. I told you to
    broaden the base. You don't think there are some things in
    there that people are going to protect like mad? They are their
    payment silo. And you have to recognize that the process of
    genuinely innovative, broadly accessible tax reform is knocking
    down those payment silos and giving everybody the same access
    to tax treatment. Beneficial tax treatment, everyone should
    have some access to it. And creating as few silos and targeted
    things as possible, that is the recipe.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. I have the feeling----
        Dr. Holtz-Eakin. We got a lot.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. I have the feeling you and I are
    going to be having a lot more of this conversation.
        Chairman Brady.
        Chairman Brady. And I was struck by your phrase, ``the
    morality of the tax code,'' which I think--the tax code done
    right is a force for good. And we saw the results from a new,
    modern tax code.
        But I actually was sort of thinking, outside that code, if
    it were up to me I would make sure there was a work requirement
    tied to every Federal program that makes sense, because what we
    have learned through the years is that if you learn a skill, if
    you get a job, if you continue in that job, your chances of
    being in poverty are very low. The chances for real income
    growth for your family in a model you set for your children
    just has dramatic benefits, you know, for breaking that cycle
    of poverty, moving people, getting them--reconnecting them with
    the workforce in a positive way.
        And I think, as we--I always focus on the tax code, but I
    also believe that the dignity of work has--is remarkable power
    that our Federal Government should encourage, rather than
    discourage.
        Vice Chairman Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And without objection--I need to dig it out, but there is a
    University of Chicago Ph.D. who actually did the modeling of
    the Child Tax Credit, and showed that unless you had a worker
    education requirement attached to it, then in 10 years that
    same population was actually poorer, because they didn't move
    up in their skill set. And it is a very well vetted paper, and
    it is something we should use as one of our baselines here.
        With that, I appreciate you giving us time. We have votes
    coming up very, very shortly. I would like to thank everyone
    for being here today. This is an important discussion. I
    believe we are going to take a week if anyone wants to add some
    things to the record, and thank you for your time today.
        [Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Vice Chairman David Schweikert's submission for the Record:
    https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/2021-115/ & https://
    oxfordtax.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sitefiles/wp1105.pdf.
        Representative Lloyd Smucker's submission for the Record:
    https://strgnfibcom.blob.core.windows.net/nfibcom/EY-NFIB-
    Macroeconomic-analysis-of-permanently-extending-the-section-
    199A-on-small-businesses.pdf.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                [all]