The study they are doing of 30 practices. I think it will be interests to a lot of doctors to learn a little bit more about what other doctors are doing to make that work. She is embracing change. Some people fear change. Some people welcome change. She is encouraging her membership. She talked about silos to change what can you do to make that change in how this has to change to become more efficient and help improve the quality. A thing she has a very interesting ideas. To help the policy reporter for the washington post. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. One of the points we make in didnt make any difference to have popular elections . We decided it did make a difference. Senators began to act like house members. This is not something any senator wants to hear. It means that were scavenging for votes. Bad to go out to the people. They had to go out to the people. All you need is 14 votes. You can easily pay off and they did in some cases. They paid off 14 senators. Paying off their mortgages. To buy their election. More with Richard Baker tonight on cspan. Five years from now we are still going to be looking at a world that is dominated by the traditional paid tv packages. People have waited for years to see the tv package blow apart. It is starting to happen. You are seeing are erosion around the edges. In through seismic change the Business Model or technology but the leakage of people at a very slow rate. Over 10 years, that will be a very large are events that the programmers in the Entertainment Industry will have to address and have to serve. Up anare trying to set opportunity for broadcasters to turn in some of their rights if they choose to. To decide to channel share or move to a different part of the spectrum. In return, get a part of the proceeds as we rear range the spectrum. Turn around and sell it to the Wireless Companies for flexible use which will be mobile broadband. More of what is happening from the cable show. The communicators on cspan. Former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich and former greek Prime MinisterGeorge Papandreou where they argued about whether taxing the rich hinders our contributes to economic equality. This is one hour 25 minutes. You did not know which one of your arguments would be totally destroyed. And then you have to come back, you are shaken up. Tax change. You do not know what to say, but you will have to say something. I cannot believe i am about to say this but the dr. Kissinger eu have six minutes. Off . Uld africa be better is a hypocritical argument. [laughter] you are finding it annoying. [laughter] you are all in this. The United States cannot pull itself out by running a surplus unless you find another planet. We remain totally unlike japan, a place where every body in the world wants to, and the place where everybody wants to put their money. We crated colonialism and fascism and every bad thing was in europe. Nor are we in the house of commons. Big deal. He will get there. I promise. It is much more frightening [indiscernible] iran attacked a 1859. Or was in was imagine a World Without religious faith. No scripture, no place to faithp, because of that dedicate their lives to others. Objects in as crude experiment and to supervise this is a dictatorship. A kind of divine north korea. [laughter] [applause] ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the munk debates on taxing the rich more. I am the treasurer and i have the privilege of once again acting as your moderator. He wants to begin tonight of by welcoming you, over 3000 people i want to begin tonight by welcoming you him over 3000 k debates. Another mun we appreciate your enthusiasm for the simple idea to which moreseries is dedicated, and better debate on the big issues of the day facing the world can only be good for us to be hello to the National Television audience watching this debate. And across the continental United States on cspan. , our online you audience watching life right now. It is great to have you as a virtual participant in tonight proceeding. The presence here here on the stage in a matter of moments are for big thinkers. A burning question of our time, tax the rich more would not be possible without the generosity and foresight of our host tonight. I hope you will join me in a warm round of applause for peter and melanie munk. Bravo. [applause] now, we are mere moments from getting our debaters out here on center stage. First, i need your help with three simple tasks. Number one, you should never say this in a concert hall, i will. Power up your smartphones. With a twitter hashtag, munkdebates. You can engage in conversation over the next hour and a half. We also have another technological innovation we want to sprinkle you. Spring on you. Code. Those of you watching can also access our mobile online poll through the following url www. Munkdebates. Com vote. Sounds likeve said ancient greek. I salute you for your knowledge of ancient languages. Do not worry, relax, enjoy the debate. That moment has, were we start to get our debaters has come where well get our debaters onstage. Please welcome the first the former Prime Minister of greece one of oregon policy George Papandreou. [applause] his fellow debater, a Nobel Laureate in economics, a tenacious columnist with the New York Times and discourage a billionaires everywhere, paul krugman. [applause] one Formidable Team of debaters deserve another. We have them for you now. First, welcome the intellectual father of reaganomics, a columnist huber claimed he has has never seen a tax cut he did. Ot like, dr. Arthur b. Laffer [applause] our final speaker tonight joining dr. Laffer is none other than the former u. S. Speaker of are presented as and recent republican nominee and or the most influential politicians of his time, the honorable Newt Gingrich. [applause] 2 final piece of business. First, i am going to ask our projector operator to show the debate countdown clock. Those of you have been to debates before remember we have a clock and when he hits the final moments, it appears on the big screen. We want you to join me for a round of applause during her opening and closing statements. That is going to keep our debates on time and our debaters on their toes. Finally, time for a pivotal moment. We are going to see how this audience voted on tonights resolution as they came into this room. The resolution to tax the rich more, lets have the results. There you have it. 58 in favor. 28 opposed. 14 undecided. Lets drill down with our second question. How big that potential swing vote was in this audience. Depending on what you here tonight during the debate among are you open to changing your vote . Lets have that number. Wow. 79 said yes. Only 21 said no. It is a debate that is very much in play. Time for our opening statements. Wellide arguing in favor will argue first. Paul, you are up. Good evening. Thank you for being here. The invitation. I am delighted to be here in this lovely city. Which among other things has a much more interesting mayor. [laughter] that is not what we are here to talk about. Were here to talk about taxing the rich. Philosophical big and social issues involved here. Colleague ist my going to address those. I am going to keep my part quite mundane. Three to talk about mundane issues. Should we be thinking about raising anybodys taxes . The second is can we raise significant sums by taxing the rich more heavily must work and should we fear the economic consequences if we do raise taxes on the rich . On the first question, look, we are living in a time certainly in the United States where we are currently being told there are good, humane things would like to do but we cannot afford. We are short on money. The debate involves. Which is been a lifeline to a lot of people. One is food stamps which is been a lifeline to a lot of people. Rich make anyhe different . If you look at the top one percent in the United States, and 2011 they had a combined ome of 1 trillion not cap not counting Capital Gains. If you can raise 0. 07 , that negate the Food Stamp Cuts we have to make. The point is, theres a lot of money at the top. Make a significant difference in allowing us to have a Better Society than the one we are headed for. Can you actually collect more money from the top . Will raising taxes . We lot of evidence have a lot of evidence. Our top tax rate has ranged from 91 . W of 28 to with a lot of variation. It is true that higher marginal revenue toost decline. We have good estimates of how have to be torate put us on the wrong side of the curve . Probably 80 . We do not have to worry about taxing so heavily that we lose revenue. We can collect more and put it to good use and were willing to raise tax rates from the top. Finally, what about tax rates and the economy . Would have disastrous effects . Thats what you always hear. The classic example came some time ago. At least 20 years ago in 1993 when president clinton raised top tax rates. There were many predictions this would have terrible effects of the economy. You knew this was coming. A fellow by the name of Newt Gingrich said it would kill jobs and lead to a recession and will force people out of work and into unemployment and increase the deficit. I know what your answer is going to be. You are going to say, on the good stuff happened after republicans took over congress and started cutting taxes. That is not going to watch. First of all, during the first two years of the clinton administration, the u. S. Economy added millions of jobs. To understand a thousand a month before you guys moved in. 278,000 a month before you guys moved in. Every year, according to cbo that little was in office, the tax rate on the top 1 was higher than it was in any year of either the bush one or two administration. Do at the economy the u. S. Economy expressed in applicable. Boom. Epic some people figure that it does not happen. By the way, wouldve much higher tax rates for our generation after world war ii. It is considered inconceivable now. That did not stop the 25 year period to be the test to be the best we ever experience. Should we raise taxes on the rich . Yes, for various reasons. Can we actually raise more money that way . Yes, we can. Should we be afraid that it will hurt to becoming . No, we should not. Lets do it. [applause] very well done. 25 seconds to spare. Youing better than when find those quotes to turn against your opponents. We like that. Speaker gingrich, you are up next. Thank me say, i want to peter munk for creating Something Like this. As a former teacher am a when you are talking and you realize a large part of your class is behind you, it creates a certain tone of insanity. You hearting on those to watch back. I want to approaches from a different angle. The debate is not about raising the tax rate. 90 . D 70 tax rates and you had really good attorneys and cpas and you never paid them. When a president ial campaign in candidatekrugmans ran against my partys candidate. It was all legal. It is like the current president s total for the commerce which turned to mistake her taxes by 80 million. It was not a big mistake. It will be like me and you fouling 300 running. The fact is, really rich people do not earn incomes. They get money. That is why bill gates have lots of money. That is why he does not care what the tax rate is. He is not going to pay it. Im going to make three quick cases. First about morale a team. Morality. 21 whoo commend the said they do not care what the 4 of us say. Audiencesean canadian are more candid. Let me start with morality and practicality and then a question of focus. I love the way it is phrased. Raise taxes on the rich. Why . Would we mean by rich . Live in a neighborhood a drive a certain type of car. The person next you drive a better car. They happen to like cars. Something else. Since i drive a better car, should we tax them more . You have another friend that happens to work two jobs and they have a slightly higher income because they earned it. Should we raise their taxes . Why . This is not about charity and contributions and morale a t area the power to tax is to morality. If youto tax is to are successful enough, we should rip you off. You owe it to us. How dare you he so successful. If that is the strategy, the right answer is not to go out on a fancy tax rate that learners can get around. We know how much bill gates is worth. We know how much Warren Buffett is worth. Why should they have more than 1 billion net worth is mark will get 1 billion this year out of two people. Why should they be allowed to be successful . The american answer has been, when has this become a big deal . Microsoft is a big deal. And improve the lives of the lot of people. It may want particular person successful as a courage another generation to sound like to invent microsoft. We can send a different signal him why waste your time . Wartime and inin the crisis, you can say to people we need everything we can get. Say to peopleto in general, if you are successful, we are going to punish you. It is bad. I want to sayity, come to america as be an entrepreneur and create jobs and great wealth and new ideas and we will award and honor you. We believe that pulls people ahead. That chinese has followed the strategy of creating a lot of billionaires. 600 millionle people into the middle class. The price of that was germanic, radical economic growth. Dramatic am a radical economic growth. That is good, not bad. I want to raise the bottom. I want to find a way to help everybody. Is theber one focus jobs. If trading opportunity for everybody. As solving the problem of the poor. And solving the problem of the poor. This the wrong folks of politics. Big government today is a failing your credit institution. Look at all of the things you have in the private sector that has improved. Look at the handheld device that was all of you have that enables you to vote tonight. Look at all the breakthroughs. Look at the government. I will close to one example. The founder of the google driverless car, it is to lower the cost of College Education by 90 . By improving access to learning. Theres a world out there that we can improve dramatically. Ofis not a function taxation. As a function of breaking through the boxes we have been in. That would be a better focus the trying how to punish people for being successful. [applause] i can see those republican primary debates have kept you sharp and on your toes. He says great opening statements. Up next, George Papandreou speaking for the pro team. [applause] thank you. Let me thank you, when i was a teenager in canada, it was very hospitable to my family who were in exile because of a dictatorship in greece. It is an honor to be here with the speakers. We are talking about a very important issue. That is inequality. Theres a story in inequality created in the 1920s. It is undermined basic principles of fairness and justice in our societies. I am in favor of this weposition because i believe need to ensure fairness and a just society. I admit, theres a value which i cherish. Beyond the moral reparative i feel that is important, i would like to relate a personal experience to you. Minister, ie prime had huge deficit made by the previous conservative government. I had to raise taxes. My main task was to revamp the tax system because there were loopholes, lack of transparency, and a lot of tax evasion. The greek people who were paying for the debt of greece were at the same time seeing as we were paying back our lenders am a is Global Financial system was aiding tax evasion through tax havens. Economy,y trickle down we had a trickle out economy. Instead of a trickle down economy, we had a trickle out economy. Offshore in 2010. Revenues are lost. They is so much being lost could five times a deal with the lending goals. Say inevitable tax, i also believe in a strong, Global Governance which must include transparency, closing loopholes, financial regulations around the world. Arecond point, tax revenues a democratic decision for each country. I believe in progressive taxation because it is the bloodline of a social contract among a basic bargain in our societies. Conservative argument is we need a race to the bottom because of global competition. They say we should emulate the emerging economies with a lower taxes, lower benefits, lower environmental standards. Less education and less of a safety net for pensioners. They are proposing to undermine this basic bargain that holds our society together. Is there another way . Gordon brown said we need to overhaul our economies ever structure an event hightech equipment and promote education. That is bringing our iphones and blackberries and this innovation. Is going to he says be the firepower to deal with the emerging economies of china and india. Otherwise, he if you look at the more equal societies around the world, all the indices show, if it is anything, whether it is life expectancy, health, jobs, homicides, they are taught, if you look at more equal societies around the world very well done. By the way, paul, that was a great one on the mayor. I have had a great experience just before come linging here. It is a beautiful city. Some of you can tell im not an exercise freak. I didnt break into a sweat or anything. Walked gorgeous lead into the office. I happened to be in the messinine, and i said, do you have any chance have a machine that would attract someone like me . The man said, yes i do, in fact. He he walked me over to the a. T. M. [laughter] let me say all the aspirations all three of you have mentioned tonight are correct. The question is, what happens in the real world, im going to tell you, if you raise tax rates on the rich, you will not get the money you expect, and you will probably lose money completely. If you look at the u. S. Tax code. We put in the progressive income tax in 1913. At that time the highest marginal income tax was a high 7 . By 1990, we raised that rate to 7 . In 1919. We had a depression going into world war i. After world war i, we had a campaign in 1920, between the democratic candidate roosevelt who wanted to keep wood row wilsons tax rates high. And the republicans wanted to drop the tax rate. They said they wanted a re