Artificial intelligence that is becoming more and more powerful by the day. I will talk to ginny rometty, the head of ibm and will watson take our jobs or make our jobs better. But first, heres my take. Donald trump has done america a great public service. No, really. By taking advantage of the countrys tax laws in such a spectacular fashion, he has shun a spotlight on the corruption that is at the heart of american politics, the tax code. See, when most people discuss taxes they tend to talk about it in leftright terms. The right says the taxes are too high and the left worries that the rich dont pay their fair share but the facts dont support other position. The simplest way to judge a countrys tax burden is to look at the tax revenues from all levels of government as a percentage of gdp and the u. S. Has the fourth lowest burden in the industrialized world, ranking 31st out of 34 countries. The u. S. Percentage is lower today than in 2000, while the average has stayed about the same. Nor is it true that the rich dont pay much in america. Now obviously some people managed to arrange their affairs so they dont pay many, or in trumps case any taxes, but the federal government derived revenues from the income tax and 70 of federal income tax is paid by the top 10 of americans. It is a very progressive system. The problem with american taxes is something different. The complexity. The u. S. Has the worlds longest tax code. The scholars tabulated the word count which is 3,866,392 words. German and france have codes that are less than 10 as long and size makes for burdens. In most international comparisons, the u. S. Scores very poorly on this measure. For example, the World Bank Ranks the u. S. 53rd for its Corporate Tax system. The World EconomicForum Competitiveness report polls executives on the five biggest burdens of doing business in a country, for the u. S. Numbers one and two are tax rates and tax regulations. Even though america is generally more competitive than other rich countries, it is taxation system is much more complicated an inefficient. Why this anomaly . It is intentional. A feature, not a bug in the system. The complexity of the tax code exists by design because it allows for the distinctive feature of the american political system fundraising. America is unique among democracies in requiring at all levels of politics that vast amounts of cash be raised from the private sector. In order to get this money, congressman and senators need something to offer in return. And what they sell are amendments to the tax code. When you pay 5,000 to have a stale breakfast with a congressman, you are not paying for his insights or personality. You and others like you are buying a line of the tax code, which is why it is thousands and thousands of pages long. It is the worlds ultimate pay for play setup. There are only two ways to fix this problem. One would be to simply stop people from paying politicians. But the Supreme Court rules in buckley versus vallejo in 1976 that money is speech and constitutionally protected and this is a view shared by no other western democracy so that leaves one other path, take away what congress sells. If the tax code were made short and simple with a handful of deductions, politicians would have little to offer people as a quid pro quo. You could still pay them for ideas and personality but i suspect the flow of money would slow to a trickle. It is the simple single exclusion to the cancer in american politics. For more go to my Washington Post column this week. And lets get started. Lets get straight to the dos and donts of debating. What should donald trump and Hillary Clinton do in tonights rematch . Were taking a Historical Perspective on this and joining me is jon meacham, author of the recent george h. W. Bush biography, Kathleen Hall jamieson from the university of pennsylvania and james fallow, the National Correspondent for the atlantic. Jim, let me start with you. You were the chief speechwriter to jimmy carter and you describe that as being like fdrs tap dance instructor. So here we have another, shall we say, a difficult person to coach in donald trump. And i want to start with that because we can go back in history but trump has never been something quite like him. What have you observed, looking at the primary debates, looking at the first debate, whats the big takeaway for you about donald trump . I think the big takeaway is that his natural style, which seems to be the only style were ever going to get out of him, was a much better match for the primary debates than it has been at least in this first election debate. He tends to play to a crowd and big cheering audiences and in the primary debates there were ten people there or more and he could make little zingers about his opponents and putting them down and didnt have to address questions he didnt want to address. Thats been different so far and hes had to fumble to get beyond his talking points and also in the general election debate, hes up against a woman. Thats happened only once when he was there with carly fiorina. Historically, donald trump is at his least aggressive and most abash when having a woman facetoface. Those are the three big things that his natural traits were good for him in the primaries but less good for him in the general. Jon meacham, when you look at bush senior, there is a famous moment in 92 which i think about because it was a town hall and a woman asks bush about the National Debt and bush gives a very wonky answer and then the same question is put to clinton and clinton moves in to her, understands that she really is not actually asking about the National Debt, is just expressing some kind of economic anxiety and relates to her. Talk about how the town hall dynamic is different from a debate dynamic. Oh, i think in some ways the 20th century ended that night in richmond. Bush had looked at his watch, he had gotten up and attempted to be sort of a phil donahue sort of figure. He misunderstood the question. And actually, actually said the words i guess i dont get it. And the clinton aides were highfiving each other because that captured the entire dynamic. And clinton was a creature of town halls, a creature of Cable Television in the same way donald trump is a creature of social media and reality television. So mastering the means of communication of your era is critical to political success in a democracy like this. George h. W. Bush, for all his many, many virtues, simply was not in his by 1992. And so i think the town hall for trump is going to be a very interesting question. He tends, like most salesmen, to try to take on the coloration of the audience to which hes speaking, as jim just said. Will he attempt to win that person over, that questioner over and that leads him, as weve seen before in different interviews, hell assert different policy points. Thats a strong term for what he asserts. I apologize. Hell assert certain positions because he thinks thats what that person wants to hear. This may be a very long monday of cleaning up various things that he says to that person in that moment. Kathleen, what strikes you about this debate thats new or has historical references. This is a complex year in which the number of issues in the National Stage that the public isnt really deeply knowledgeable about is actually very high. One of the questions about a town hall format is what will the ordinary voters who stand in for us put on the agenda as being important to them and how will the candidates define their significant differences and similarities in relationship to those concerns. Its historically true that debates forecast governance and, importantly, they can forecast where the candidates agree as well as disagree because town hall debates tend to be more civil. The audience, town halls, the people sitting there asking questions seem to demand it. You know, i think, kathleen, about that survey you did in 2013, i think it was, that 30 of americans cant name a Single Branch of government. It will be interesting. Audience, stay right there. Well be back with more, some of the biggest historical bloopers, when we come back. To keep their global campus connected. And why a Pro Football Team chose us to deliver fiberenabled broadband to more than 65,000 fans. And why a leading car brand counts on us to keep their Dealer Network streamlined and nimble. Businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink. The spare, no, i dont want to put anybody out. Nonsense we lend it to everybody. Some people we hardly know. Ive never been 1 in anything until i put these babies on. Now were on a winning streak and im never taking them off. Do i know where im going . Absolutely. Were going to the playoff. Allstate guarantees your rates wont go up just because of an accident. Starting the day you sign up. So get accident forgiveness from allstate. And be better protected from mayhem, like me. Hey, jesse. Who are you . Im vern, the orange money retirement rabbit from voya. Vern from voya . Yep, vern from voya. Why are you orange . Thats a little weird. Really . Thats the weird part in this scenario . Look, orange money represents the money you put away for retirement. Save a little here and there, and over time, your money could multiply. See . Ah, ok. So, why are you orange . Funny. See how voya can help you get organized at voya. Com. So relax you wear many hats, at our 1000 americas and canadas best value inns. Enjoy Free Internet and instant rewards at most locations. And we are back with jon meacham talking about the history of debates and tonights debate. Jim, i want to ask you about one debate that you were probably watching very closely. You were chief speechwriter to jimmy carter. In the Carter Reagan debates, reagan looks at carter and says, there you go again. And the idea was, you know, theres carter sort of aggressive attacking and reagan is pristine and president ial. When you look at the history of what carter was doing, pointing out entirely accurately that reagan had a history of being against social security. That fact was completely forgotten and all people remember is the magic of reagans demeanor. Its true. And if we had another political scientist, apart from you, fareed, it would be that we cant really prove that the 1980 debates changed on that but certainly theres a larger subjective feel that the campaigns can pick up, that the electorate picks up, that the media picks up, too. That it did have that mark in 1980 one week before the election. And these moments usually count when theres some kind of involuntary physical reaction on the part of the debaters that has captured the screen and that fits some preceding idea about that person. We saw it with lloyd benson and dan quayle in 1988 when he was dancing down dan quayle as no jack kennedy and in the 1980 campaign, the sense about carter was that he was too sense, beset, a man being overwhelmed by the really difficult problems of that era. And reagan who had spent eight years as governor of california, the question was, was he a comfortable enough figure in that job. And if you wanted to think that he was comfortable, this exchange, although largely incorrect, as you pointed out, did have that body language question. Jon, what are the moments that stand out and what is it that can slip you up or make you win . Is it a factual point or is it a question of demeanor . I think jim is right. I think style and substance, as we often set up as dichotomies, i would actually argue that they are connected. To me, if you look at 1984, there was the question of the age issue. Reagan had had a disastrous first debate in part because he was trying to correct not knowing enough facts. Reagan was drilled with a number of facts and statics and reagan sort of lost his way in the first debate with walter mondale. Everybody laughs, including mondale, and moves on without ever actually questioning the under lying fact of the fact that he was at that point 73, 74 years old. We talked about president bush in 1992. George w. Bush and al gore in 2000, when gore seemed to be condescending to bush and bush seemed ameonable enough which is likable enough. There are these things i think jim is right. Theres a narrative to any human activity, human endeavor, and debates tend to confirm, i think, for most people those points. You rarely see a significant break in the tracking polling. But it is these are moments that endure in part because we only see these people about whom the country obsesses together now three or four times in a given year. Kathleen, this is sounding a little bit more style and substance. What is it that you think the debates bring to the table here . What should we be looking for . What will we be left with . The press tends to focus on style over substance and tends to ask irrelevant questions, such as who wins the debate or a knockout punch. You cant win 90 minutes of discourse. You can win an argument. But what debates do for voters is increase their ability to understand what the eventual victor will do in governance and clarify distinguishes between the candidates. Thank you all. Well bring you back after the debate to see what you thought of it. Thank you. The second of three debates is moderated by our own cnn Anderson Cooper at 6 00 p. M. Pacific and 9 00 p. M. Eastern. Russia in the midst of a major spat, stopping discussions, withdrawing from gre agreements, what is going on . A conversation with David Ignatius, coming up. What if we designed a paint that not only made your bathroom look like a spa but stood up to the humidity of a shower this steamy. This steamy yep, even this one. If its a matte finish paint, and can resist any amount of moisture, is it still paint . Find aura bath spa, only at your Benjamin Moore retailer. When legalizing safe, responsible adult use of marijuana, the most important question is how . By voting yes on prop 64 adults 21 and over could only purchase marijuana at licensed marijuana businesses. And prop 64 bans advertising directed at kids. Requires strict product labeling. Childproof packaging. And bans edibles that appeal to children. Smart provisions to safeguard our families. Learn more about the safeguards at yeson64. Org. I think everybodys patience with russia has run out. That was White House Press secretary josh earnest on monday after the u. S. Announced it was pulling out of its ongoing discussions with russia, talks that were trying to find some kind of a political solution for syria. That same day, in response to what it called americas unfriendly actions, russia announced it was pulling out with an agreement with the United States to dispose of enough Nuclear Material to make thousands of bombs. This all comes as the United States accuses russia of committing ongoing atrocities in aleppo and the fears that russia is trying to influence the president ial election. The new cold war continues to be turning positively frigid. To discuss, let me bring in the Washington Post columnist David Ignatius and steven cohen. David, from what you have heard from Administration Officials and other sources, you have some of the best, what is their plan now with relations with russia really seeming at a deadlock . I think, fareed, they are struggling to figure out exactly what the plan is. The u. S. View has really been from the beginning of the syria crisis that american options are not good, that military options are risky. President obama has been allergic to military from the beginning and certainly in the final months of his presidency. Theres a desire to do something to alleviate the enormous human suffering in aleppo. Theres a discussion of whether that should take the form of air lifts, supplies, some effort to get new supplies into aleppo on the ground. I think the only thing that Administration Officials tell themselves is that as difficult and painful as this is for the United States, it will be more so for russia in the absence of this deal, that it will be, for russia, a nightmare. Steve, what is russias game plan here . What does it gain from this really quite brutal tragedy in syria which supports the assad regime . It is making itself target number one for jihadis all over the sunni world. Well, russia takes a somewhat broader view of what has happened and so do i. We are in a new and much more dangerous cold war with russia. More dangerous than the presiding cold war. We now have three cold war fronts that could easily become hot war with russia. Ukraine, the baltic region, where nato is building up on russias borders and now, of course, syria. The importance of the deal and lets be clear, it was negotiated and a deal between obama and putin, for essentially a military alliance in syria would have been the first since world war ii. That would have been what we used to call a cooperation breakthrough. In the new cold war, it was killed. So one question we have to ask is who and why it was killed. But clearly, its dead. Whats the answer to that . I would simply say the russians did not end it because putin and the russian class wanted this arrangement with the United States very much. So the question is, where does that leave us . And i understand what mr. Ignatius has just reported, these important discussions in the white house. But i would say that the first step forward is stop basing American NationalSecurity Policy on the villification of putin. Russia has legitimate interest. What we used to do during the past cold war, talk about whether our National Interests can be coordinated and turned into something that is cooperation. David, let me ask you about the specifics on syria. Did the United States scuttle the deal and what do you think of russias culpability here for what is going on in syria . I think steve cohen is