They just need tax relief and this is taking a tax burden off their backs but the stimulating nature is well designed so for example, i was at a Manufacturing Company not long ago and my constituents in suburban chicago. The company said this. Peter, were going to invest 30 million in our plant next year if that Tax Bill Plans with full expensing as we proposed, were not going to spend 30 million. Were going to spend 50 million its that type of approach that were trying to create here which is why there was so much enthusiasm about it among republicans in the house. You havent seen this in a long long time. Maria well you have enthusiasm sure but not so much from those 13 republicans who voted no against the house bill. God bless them and if youre chasing everybody all the time in terms of a Roll Call Vote youll be waiting a long time. To get 227 House Republicans to agree on something as big as this is i think incredibly
significant and a good milestone but we still have good work to do. Maria so youve got the state and local Tax Deduction eliminated in the plan except for the tax break on Property Taxes, we know that but were going to seek with darryl isa in awe few minutes and he was one of the no votes because he says california is the big loser here even Southern California representative says california will be the biggest loser from the house bill, since under this plan californians will shoulder the largest net tax increase at 12. 1 billion in 2027. Do you worry that voters are going to turn against you guys in 2018 because some people are paying higher taxes because of the elimination of that deduction . Whats the impact of that elimination in your view . Your question is do i worry and the answer is no, should i worry about getting tax reform done. I think thats the first point. I represent constituency in a high tax state, illinois, new jersey, new york and california all are high Tax Jurisdictions
and what weve tried to do in this bill is come up with a compromise and that as you pointed out earlier theres two current deductions in the tax code as it relates to state and local taxes. One is presumably income tax and sales taxes and others and the other is Property Taxes, so what i fought for and we were successful in including is to separate out, keep the property Tax Deduction, cap it at 10,000 , but Property Taxes are different in that theyre not related in your capacity to pay. You get a Property Tax Bill whether or not you can pay that bill or not. Theres no relationship to pay and if someone were to evaluate this tax plan and say that is the only thing thats happening, that is the elimination of a state and local deduction then the criticism would be right, but look, youve got to look at this in totality. These rates are coming down, the brackets are being extended, its the elimination of the alternative minimum tax and i know in my constituency that hits 30,000 households, were increasing a Child Tax Credit,
final Conference Committee report. Let me go back back to one of the facts that you just asserted and thats the notion of how much the current state and local Tax Deduction is. Yeah thats that amount of money but within the current tax code, so for example, its basically a trueism to assert that its currently this valuable but what were saying is lets shed this whole tax code. Its a loser. It is not helping us, its Holding Back Growth and if we do that and you change these deductions within the context of overall tax reform, that is what were proposing and look, when it all comes down to it 90 of american taxpayers when were done would be able to fill their return out on something as simple as a postcard. Thats whats celebrating thats worth chasing and thats worth pursuing and what were doing. Maria so do you think the local state and City Lawmakers are going to reevaluate what theyre doing . This morning weve got this quote. Were going to have to re
evaluate everything if a federal bill repealing the state and local Tax Deduction becomes law from new Jersey Senate president , mayor deblasio wants his millionaires tax, california has high taxes already the state of california and theyre saying were re evaluating everything because im just saying that whats happening in washington is concerning the hell out of me, mr. Sweeney said, do you expect were going to see an exodus out of these high tax states and pressure the governors and the local politicians to lower taxes or pull in spending . Congressman thats up to them. Im in a state thats a fiscal basket case right now. My home state jammed through a massive tax hike on middle class folks, both up and down the whole spectrum last summer and it hasnt ended well because they havent dealt with the underlying spending problems. Look, when you take on something as big as the federal tax code, youre not just, for example, if
healthcare deals with 1 6 of the economy, which it does, Tax Policy Deals with the entire economy and if youre dealing with the entire u. S. Economy, youre having an impact on a global basis. So i think what weve got to do is look at a bigger, look at ultimately what were trying to do. We want to make the u. S. The most competitive Tax Jurisdiction in the world and i think that happens. One quick point. The best way to track local revenues and State Revenues and you want to see them grow . Grow the economy. Continue to have underperforming growth and theyre going to have underperforming revenue. Maria congressman i dont understand why you didnt do anything with carried interest. Ive got a quote here from one of the most Successful Hedge Fund managers out there and here is what he says. Im very disappointed incidental ly about the shape of this tax cut being proposed. I am just appalled that we are going to continue to have a carried interest scheme for hedge funds and we know what the president said during the election. He said that he would change carried interest which allows
certain Fund Managers and private equity guys to treat income as capital gains. Enabling them to have a 20 rate rather than 39. 6 rate. How come no change in carried interest other than just having people have a longer timeframe to hold that security . Congressman well a longer timeframe to hold the security is important its all about the alignment of interest. I get the criticism and the back and forth and it could be that the United States senate comes up with a different plan on carried interest thats their perogative and if they do well take a look at it. Here is what we dont want to do we dont want to make it so that some suburban developer in my constituency trying to put together some real estate deal where there is capital thats involved and an active owner thats involved somehow we blow up the finances of that deal so weve got to be careful about it what we proposed is a longer Holding Duration if the senate comes up with another plan of course well evaluate that and give that a reconsider asian. Maria all right, we will leave it there be watching sir thanks so much for joining us. Thanks maria. Maria peter roskam. Former Secretary Of StateHillary Clinton firing back at republicans as they call for Special Council to investigate the uranium one deal. Is there enough evidence to launch a full investigation . Well talk about it coming up next, follow me on twitter at Maria Bartiromo at Sunday Futures let us know what youd like to hear coming up in the program as we look ahead now on Sunday Morning Futures. What started as a passion. Has grown into an enterprise. Thats why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. Now, im earning unlimited 2 cash back on every purchase i make. Everything. Whats in your wallet . And it goes right at the rule of law. Maria well thats former Isnt Of StateHillary Clinton firing back at calls for Special Council to investigate the obama era uranium one deal. Some republicans including President Trump argue that she engaged in pay to play, and a partner at Avenue Strategies and former u. S. Attorney for the Eastern District of arkansas. Good to see you sir thanks so much for joining us this morning thanks maria. Maria should there be a Special Council to look at uranium one . I think theres two questions here, maria. I think the first question is should there be an investigation of that transaction . The Second Question is who should investigate it . So when you ask me should there be a Special Council appointed i think it presumes thats the only way to investigate it. Im not sure thats right and frankly i dont like these Special Councils at all. Im not aware of one thats gone well. They become runaway trains, but it should be uranium one transactions be investigated . You know, Tens Of Millions of
dollars traded hands at least one witness said the people that gave the money were trying to buy influence. I think thats worth a look. The question is does it merit the sensational process of appointing a Special Council and does that bring in a level of politics that have not in play when just the u. S. Attorney office or main justice does their job and quietly and goes and takes a look at something and exercises discretion about how far the investigation should go and whether charges should be brought. Maria so what should be looked at specifically . We know the Clinton Foundation received the 145 million from a kremlinbacked company. We know that she approved a sale of 20 of the uranium of the u. S. stockpile and we know that around that time bill clinton was giving speeches in moscow getting half a million dollars, 500,000 price tag there. Are these some of the things youre referring to or are there
other things you think are more important to be looked at . Well and i believe ive read in the reporting theres at least one witness that it was connected to an employee of the russians that believe that they heard conversations that indicated that those contributions were attempts to buy influence. I think the debunking or hillary s supporters want to say this has all been debunked because of the process, the Committee Process and thats true. It would have been hard for hillary to drive this through on our own as Secretary Of State but i think theres still a fair question why was this money being given . Was there other influence that was being sought and i think a look into that is merited 145 million in my neighborhood is a lot of money and thats wonderful if they were trying to give it to a charitable cause and then it wasnt transparently disclosed so those i think raise enough questions that a fair and
nonpolitical prosecutor would want to take a look. Maria i mean, people really just want to make sure theres fairness and theres accountability. I spoke with trey goudy from the Oversight Committee last week and Congressman Gowdy said look we immediate to make sure the doj is doing their job very similar to what you just said actually. Not sure if its a Special Prosecutor or just the doj doing their job but we need the doj to do their job. Is the doj doing their job . How come were just hearing about this look at this now . Weve known about this for some time. Well when i became United States attorney general john ash croft sat me down in a room with deputy general Larry Thompson and he explained to me he had studied the history of the department of justice and every time they lost sight of the need to keep the politics out of these decisions, they had gotten in trouble so what i think the department of Justice Needs to do and i think they are doing very effectively is really not pay a lot of attention to
what the congressman or senators are saying not paying a lot of attention to what the white house is saying and they need to do their job. Thats to quietly evaluate these facts, make determinations about what merits an investigation and conducting that investigation as discretely as they can until they get to a point where they can make a decision. Maria because so much conversation about conflicts youve got Robert Mueller obviously formerly head of the fbi now being questioned about conflict with the fbi. Can he actually, you know, honestly investigate his former colleagues . Do you know what these Special Councils, i think Robert Mueller has a great reputation and im going to suggest to you that we can assume hes doing as good a job as professionally as can be done but its a runaway train. We dont want to launch people and 30 fbi agents and 14 prosecutors on the sole mission of investigating any Single Person until they find something that sounds more like stallin
happy to put their support behind their parties tax plans. Up next ill talk to one of the no votes so far, california Congressman Darryl isa is with me live as we look ahead on Sunday Morning Futures well be right back. Example, they didnt attack carried interest which is clearly a loophole and then they went on to spend another many trillion, trillion and a half dollars on a personal side that really isnt an overhaul. Its in fact simply a change. Maria yeah, and you know, i know that this is a big deal for california. In 2014 alone, the Salt Deductions slashed californians taxable income by a total of 101 billion more than twice that of second place new york so new york and california are upset about this. Do you think that there is room for movement here in the senate plan . I know you voted no largely because of the Salt Deduction being eliminated and your constituents seeing taxes go higher. Do you think that the senate makes a change on that . Well if the senate asks the basic question of why are we raising taxes on anyone other than those caught up in loophole closing, then they can get past this. One of the things in this bill
and its not popular to talk about is doubling the standard deduction, but maria, you know from your years in economics and so on that if you in fact double the deduction, meaning you give you allow people to not pay taxes on more money even if they dont have a group of itemizable offsets, then what youre really doing is lowering taxes on them beyond what they actually were spending. In other words the standard deduction for many californians will cover their State Income Tax so to speak and what ends up happening is youre giving it away in a various areas, doubling the Child Tax Credit all these others and then coming back to other people and saying well you can afford to pay more. Im a republican. I do not vote for tax increases to shift money around. Ive never done it and i dont plan to do it, so unless theyre willing to have a new alternative maximum tax that
says no california an will pay more on this system than the old , then theyre not going to get my support and thats what they need to do for all three of us in california that voted no and quite frankly, for some of those who voted yes. You probably are aware the speaker came to california directly from that vote. He sat up in Orange County with 35 or 38 major done ors and told them he was going to do a california fix in the senate. Well i wish he had told us that as part of the house project so we could have done it. Maria yeah, its a good point. Well look, let me pushback on this and say look, some thing has got to give here. Youve got a 1. 5 trillion plan to lower taxes . How do you pay for it. I recognize leadership is saying growth will pay for it, the revenue goes up but you know the committee for responsible budget is saying this is a Budget Buster that in fact were going to see additions to debt and theres no focus on actually paying for this, so what do you
say to that and then youve got people like Mick Mulvaney from the omb saying its not the federal governments fault that new yorkers and california taxes are so high that theyre driving people out of the states. I dont think its up to the federal government to save new york from its bad decisions so somethings got to give, right . Well you know the interesting thing is that they threw in in the house bill 10,000 for Property Taxes which means that if youre Mick Mulvaney