馃攳
GOP Rep. Mark Meadows On Tax Reform: Not Supporting Carried Interest Loophole | Morning Joe | MSNBC - YouTube
Channel: MSNBC
[0]
they were welcome back to Morning Joe
[1]
let's bring you now the head of the
[3]
freedom caucus congressman mark Meadows
[5]
congressman great to have you with us
[6]
thank you so much for being here it's
[8]
great to be back with you Joe thanks so
[12]
during the president's campaign he
[14]
talked about hedge fund managers and
[16]
criticized the carried interest loophole
[19]
he said they were paper pushers who got
[22]
away with murder because of this
[24]
loophole but this tax bill that if I'm
[28]
not mistaken Bloomberg and others are
[30]
reporting it keeps carried interests for
[33]
private equity managers for hedge fund
[35]
managers and for a lot of real estate
[37]
moguls why is that is that something
[41]
that you support and will you support
[43]
that if it's in the final bill you know
[46]
I think Joe that actually will end up
[48]
being one of those things that comes out
[51]
whether it's in the mark-up going
[53]
through the house or over in the Senate
[55]
I can tell you I was in the Oval Office
[57]
with the president when this very
[58]
subject came up and he was very emphatic
[61]
that like he was consistent on the
[65]
campaign trail about those hedge fund
[67]
managers and the carried interest
[69]
provisions that he felt like it needed
[70]
to be done away with obviously you've
[73]
got real estate developers and some of
[75]
those that use it as part of the way
[77]
that they do business and so trying to
[79]
address that in a fair way that
[82]
continues to allow for economic growth
[83]
is key but I can tell you that the
[86]
President himself has weighed in on this
[88]
particular provision I think at the end
[90]
of the day it will get addressed whether
[92]
it's in the house or the Senate or the
[93]
final bill so these are the sort of
[96]
provisions that mean that hedge fund
[99]
managers in New York City and Greenwich
[102]
Connecticut might pay 13 or 14 percent
[105]
in taxes for a year while people working
[107]
in your district working hard in your
[110]
district may be paying 35 some small
[112]
business owners up to 40 45 percent do
[115]
you oppose the loophole for carried
[117]
interest and will you fight against it I
[119]
already have spoken up on the carried
[122]
interest provision for hedge fund
[124]
managers I think that you and I agree on
[126]
this particular issue and so this may be
[128]
a news
[129]
thing this morning you and I and the
[132]
president all agree that that carried
[134]
interest provision for hedge fund
[135]
managers needs to go away and and really
[138]
we can use that money for the middle
[140]
income hard-working American taxpayers
[142]
to make sure that they get the relief
[144]
that they need
[145]
you know the hedge fund managers are not
[147]
normally a a large constituency in
[149]
Western North Carolina right all right
[153]
they're also not in Janesville Wisconsin
[155]
but for some reason and it's in this
[159]
bill let's go let's go right now to
[162]
Steve Rattner at 30 rock Steve
[165]
congressman I'm also a little mystified
[167]
about the hedge fund thing because this
[169]
is a 500-page bill with some tiny little
[170]
provisions involving small taxes on
[173]
large and downloads' things like that I
[175]
have no idea why this wouldn't be there
[176]
if everybody as you say so in favor but
[179]
let me move on to another another
[180]
subject which is that you have been as
[182]
leader of the freedom caucus outspoken
[185]
in your opposition to the national debt
[187]
voted against national debt increases we
[189]
have in front of us a proposal that
[192]
would increase by its own by its own
[194]
calculations the national debt by a
[196]
trillion and a half dollars over the
[198]
next ten years how can you support a
[200]
bill that does that given all your past
[202]
opposition to debt well I can tell you
[206]
that it's not just past opposition it
[208]
certainly is ongoing opposition and
[210]
you're right with my record on being a
[213]
deficit Hawk really we've got two issues
[216]
that are working against each other
[217]
right now is is the fiscal restraint
[220]
that many of my colleagues here on
[223]
Capitol Hill are not willing to show in
[225]
terms of actually looking at reducing
[227]
spending and so as we look at that going
[229]
forward whether it's with defense or
[231]
non-defense discretionary numbers those
[233]
numbers continue to rise and having to
[236]
to address that there's there's only two
[238]
ways that you can do that either you can
[239]
cut back on those areas or you can
[242]
hopefully grow the economy this
[244]
particular pro-growth tax reform is
[247]
really designed to to not only grow the
[250]
economy the the initial numbers are very
[253]
exciting in terms of what we will see
[254]
and so I believe that a short-term
[256]
deficit will
[258]
we'll end up over a 15 year period
[260]
paying for itself as long as we get the
[263]
kind of GDP growth that it appears that
[267]
we're going to get and so you know it's
[269]
one of those things that you take what
[271]
you've got on on a particular given
[273]
situation and hopefully look to to show
[276]
some restraint on some of those fiscal
[278]
issues going forward but yeah it's it's
[281]
one of those it's it's a choice between
[283]
very - difficult reasons approaches and
[287]
at this particular time we've got to get
[289]
the economy going again so what in
[291]
effect you're saying is let's do the
[292]
easy stuff ie cut taxes first and do the
[294]
harder stuff like cut spending later but
[297]
I don't know that tax reform is ever
[300]
easy and I'm glad to hear you say that
[302]
because over the next few weeks it is
[304]
going to get very very difficult so I
[307]
don't see it as an easy task I don't I
[309]
don't disagree with that but let me just
[310]
move on to one other thing which is that
[312]
when you look at these tax cuts on a net
[313]
basis in other words you take the tax
[315]
cuts and then you back out the tax
[318]
increases by removing loopholes or other
[320]
deductions what you find is that
[321]
business is getting about a trillion
[323]
dollars a trillion dollars for business
[325]
over the next 10 years
[326]
consumers are getting 300 individuals
[329]
are getting 350 million dollars over the
[331]
next ten years how is that a fair
[334]
allocation of the benefits of tax cuts
[337]
well I don't know who did your analysis
[340]
I can tell you I was actually else at my
[342]
analysis was done by the Ways and Means
[343]
Committee no but here's what I'm saying
[346]
that that analysis was not done by the
[348]
Ways and Means Committee when we're
[350]
really looking at this I can tell you
[352]
that as we're starting to get into this
[354]
we're looking at a four to five trillion
[356]
dollar tax benefit and when we start to
[360]
look at at each individual area you've
[363]
got to take it in a whole it is not just
[365]
corporations that get the benefit and
[367]
even even if your analysis is spot-on
[370]
here's what we have is is when we look
[373]
at the the ability for our corporations
[377]
to bring those jobs home we see wages go
[380]
up we see economic growth here and so
[382]
it's hard to take it in a static
[384]
environment to suggest that you've got
[386]
one block of Benna
[389]
fits against another and I can tell you
[391]
that I was up until midnight got up very
[394]
early this morning looking at all the
[395]
details I want to make sure that my
[398]
voters are the ones that benefit in and
[401]
ultimately in the final bill that's
[403]
what's gonna happen congressman it's ktk
[405]
here all during the Obama administration
[407]
the argument we used to hear from
[408]
Republicans in Congress was the
[411]
Democrats are earnest irresponsible they
[413]
want to spend now and they say that
[414]
they're gonna deal with the deficit down
[416]
the road that's the argument you've just
[418]
made it sounding just like a Democrat
[419]
we're going to have our tax cuts now and
[421]
we're going to sort out the deficit down
[423]
the road you weren't satisfied with that
[424]
argument when it was the Democrats
[426]
making that argument why should people
[428]
believe that you can do any more about
[430]
it now well I don't know that the
[432]
Democrats were ever doing a pro-growth
[434]
tax thing that actually cut taxes for
[437]
the American middle income wage earner
[439]
and so you know a part of that argument
[441]
is is right but we we had a vote on the
[444]
House floor just a few weeks ago we're
[446]
actually the Democrats the progressive
[448]
budget looked at a 10 trillion dollar
[450]
budget now if we're all concerned about
[453]
deficits
[454]
you know perhaps that vote on the budget
[456]
shouldn't have had every Democrat voting
[458]
for that budget and so listen we're here
[461]
in in truly a defining moment for our
[465]
nation we're going to actually give more
[467]
money of the American taxpayers dollars
[470]
back to them and that's you know if the
[473]
Democrats had fought that back when they
[475]
were making the arguments maybe they
[477]
would have had more of a bipartisan
[479]
appeal there as well Congressman Joe
[483]
Scarborough again I wanted to ask you
[485]
sort of my ongoing obsession that it has
[488]
been for 20-25 years as we talk about
[490]
the deficit and the debt entitlement
[493]
reform we're talking about tax cuts I
[495]
don't think I would be quite so
[496]
concerned about deficits in the future
[499]
on on these tax cuts if I thought
[504]
Congress would follow up and reform
[506]
Social Security and reform Medicare and
[509]
reform Medicaid in a way that doesn't
[511]
hurt current enrollees but ensures that
[514]
the program is saved in this country is
[516]
saved from massive debt 10 20 years from
[518]
now I remember Republicans getting
[521]
elected saying they're going
[522]
to talk about entitlement reform and and
[526]
embrace it
[526]
Barack Obama his first two months said
[530]
we can't kick the can down the road
[531]
anymore it's been kicked down the road
[534]
Donald Trump says nobody's going to
[537]
touch Medicare or Medicaid or social
[538]
security you and I both know that is not
[542]
sustainable so my question is with you
[546]
being the chairman of the house freedom
[548]
caucus when will members get serious
[552]
about the top fiscal issue that
[556]
confronts us and that is runaway
[559]
entitlement spending not just for
[561]
Medicaid but for the middle class
[562]
entitlements to Social Security and
[565]
Medicare
[566]
you know Joe every time I come on I want
[570]
to make sure I shoot straight with you
[571]
and and you're right that is the top
[573]
fiscal thing that we have to worry about
[575]
and quite frankly not enough is being
[577]
done I can tell you members of the
[579]
freedom caucus have not only put forth a
[582]
bill that looks at at defining and
[585]
reforming Medicare but also other
[588]
entitlement programs I do believe that
[590]
you will see some initiatives starting
[592]
in the first quarter of next year not
[595]
necessarily on Social Security and
[597]
Medicare because you're right the
[598]
president has weighed in on those not
[600]
wanting to touch those believing that he
[602]
made a campaign promise there but the
[605]
other part of that is is looking at some
[607]
of the work requirements in terms of
[609]
welfare some of the things that actually
[611]
Bill Clinton did when he was president
[613]
that we need to revisit and bring back
[615]
and so I think you will see some of
[618]
those starting in earnest in the first
[619]
quarter of next year but you're right
[621]
we've got to get serious about it and if
[623]
we don't all the pro-growth tax reform
[626]
in the world is not going to ultimately
[628]
balance out where we need to go as a
[630]
nation fiscally and we have to approach
[634]
obviously we have to be concerned about
[636]
Medicaid but Medicare is just as big or
[639]
a bigger problem in the long run we have
[641]
to address those middle class
[642]
entitlements whether it's popular or not
[644]
thank you so much congressman mark
[646]
meadows greatly appreciate you being
[648]
with us what do we have next we're going
[650]
to continue this conversation with the
[652]
man who piece together that long
[653]
weighted tax legislation the chair of
[655]
the Ways and Means Committee is next on
[657]
Morning Joe thanks for checking out
[659]
MSNBC on YouTube and make sure you
[661]
subscribe to stay up to date on the
[663]
day's biggest stories and you can click
[664]
on any of the videos around us to watch
[667]
more 4 Morning Joe and MSNBC thanks so
[670]
much for watching
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage