CSPAN - Washington Journal Garrett Watson
Aired: 2026-04-16
Duration: 27:59


=== Large Tax Increase Ahead (14:56) ===

[00:00:00]  At C-SPAN.org.
[00:00:08]  America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
[00:00:14]  From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sites, and the spirit that make up America.
[00:00:27]  Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can, and proudly supported by our television partners.
[00:00:37]  America 250.
[00:00:38]  Over a year of historic moments.
[00:00:41]  C-SPAN, official media partner of America 250.
[00:00:47]  Welcome back to Washington Journal.
[00:00:49]  We're joined now by Garrett Watson.
[00:00:51]  He's policy analysis director at the Tax Foundation, joining us to talk about the impact of the 2025 GOP tax law on taxes.
[00:01:00]  Welcome to the program.
[00:01:01]  Thanks for having me.
[00:01:02]  Tell us first about the Tax Foundation and if you have an ideological point of view.
[00:01:05]  Right, at the Tax Foundation, we were founded in 1937, one of the oldest tax policy research organizations in the country.
[00:01:12]  And we focus on federal, state, and global tax policy to make sure that we can have an efficient, simple, and transparent tax code.
[00:01:20]  We are all about trying to make sure that taxes are raised efficiently at any level of revenue that government is looking to fund for important services.
[00:01:28]  A big part of our work is, of course, research and analysis and modeling of major tax proposals and overhauls at the federal and state and global levels.
[00:01:36]  But we also do a lot of education on how the tax system currently works, opportunities for reform, and trying to undercut a lot of the partisan confusion and debate that we see day to day.
[00:01:46]  And so the educational component is also really important for folks.
[00:01:49]  And we do a lot of charts and maps and graphs, try to get to folks who aren't following this discussion on a day-to-day basis.
[00:01:55]  So are you, do you tend to be on the right, on the left, or are you nonpartisan?
[00:01:58]  We are strictly nonpartisan.
[00:02:00]  We try to focus on how to raise taxes efficiently and simply and transparently.
[00:02:04]  And there's lessons to be learned, I think, on both sides of the political aisle on achieving that goal.
[00:02:08]  We've had challenges with that in the past, and I think there's a lot more work to do that I'm sure we'll get into today.
[00:02:12]  So let's talk about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
[00:02:14]  It was signed into law in last July.
[00:02:17]  What were the major tax differences that were instituted based on that law for individuals and for businesses?
[00:02:26]  So for individuals, the headline change was trying to avoid the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts that were scheduled to expire at the end of 2025.
[00:02:35]  It's going to be a pretty large tax increase.
[00:02:37]  It was going to increase taxes on 62% of individuals by our estimate.
[00:02:41]  And the bulk of the tax cuts that are talked about was extending and making permanent all of those different tax cuts in 2017 that included the larger standard deduction, an expanded child tax credit, a variety of other tax cuts.
[00:02:53]  And then on top of that, on top of those extensions, Congress went ahead and added in new provisions, new deductions, for example, for tipped income, overtime, seniors, auto loans that added a tax break on top of those extensions.
[00:03:08]  Those new deductions are temporary.
[00:03:10]  They go for the next few years through the end of 2028.
[00:03:13]  And then there'll be another discussion about what to do with them.
[00:03:16]  Also, notably, the state and local tax deduction, which was capped at $10,000 through 2025, was made more generous.
[00:03:22]  So now taxpayers can deduct their state and local taxes up to $40,000 in 2025, $40,400 this year, and that'll be another big tax break for folks living in higher cost living states.
[00:03:34]  Regardless of income level?
[00:03:36]  So with the SALTCAP, the new change was they did put in a new income cap for higher earners that didn't exist before for folks earning over $500,000 a year.
[00:03:44]  So that is important to note that higher earners will be limited.
[00:03:47]  For the business side, a lot of the focus was on reverting a lot of the scheduled tax hikes on businesses, most notably the phase-out of immediate deductions for certain types of investments like equipment.
[00:03:58]  We saw a switch in the way in which research and development expenses were deducted from immediate deduction to five years of amortization.
[00:04:06]  We saw a tighter deduction for interest expenses.
[00:04:08]  All of that was rolled back and made permanent to try to increase investment.
[00:04:12]  And that was paired with other tax hikes.
[00:04:14]  For example, notably a reduction, a major scale back of green energy tax credits, for example, that certain businesses will be facing in the coming years.
[00:04:22]  So we had gotten this on text for the last guest, but we didn't get a chance to get to it.
[00:04:28]  So I'll ask you, which of the BBV tax breaks are permanent, which are temporary?
[00:04:34]  Is it true that the ones that are permanent favor those with the most wealth?
[00:04:39]  So by far, the bulk of the tax cuts were made permanent because they were those underlying 2017 expirations.
[00:04:45]  And that was a big part of the underlying debate in 2025: how to think about that.
[00:04:49]  Because for a lot of taxpayers, of course, they're just seeing it as an extension of the status quo.
[00:04:53]  It's a continuation of tax, the tax system they're already familiar with, that they're already paying.
[00:04:57]  And we were just avoiding a tax hike.
[00:04:59]  And that was part of what motivated the additional deductions, the additional tax cuts that were provided in that law.
[00:05:06]  And of course, the distribution of the underlying 2017 tax cuts was maybe a little bit different than the new tax cuts.
[00:05:12]  The new tax cuts are very targeted in that there's a lot of income limits, right?
[00:05:16]  Trying to get to working middle-class folks who are earning tips or overtime or other types of deductions like for seniors.
[00:05:23]  But the 2017 tax cuts, while they did overall cut taxes for most taxpayers about 90%, they do tend to increase after tax income of the top a bit more than the middle and working class folks.
[00:05:36]  If you'd like to join our conversation, we've got Garrett Watson with us for the next 20 minutes from the Tax Foundation.
[00:05:42]  You can start calling in now.
[00:05:43]  Republicans are on 202748-8001.
[00:05:47]  Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
[00:05:50]  And Independents 202-748-8002.
[00:05:54]  You mentioned in the beginning that the Tax Foundation likes to see taxes that are simple and efficient.
[00:06:00]  Does the One Big Beautiful Bill Act make taxes more or less simple and efficient?
[00:06:06]  So I think the 2025 tax law was very much a mixed bag.
[00:06:10]  So on the more simple side of things, it is good that we saw the things like the higher standard deduction and child tax credit made permanent from the 2017 law.
[00:06:19]  That did reduce, for example, the number of itemizers who go through a much more complicated process of itemizing their deductions, going from about a third of taxpayers to about slightly less than 10%.
[00:06:29]  So that simplified things for folks.
[00:06:31]  Also, of course, the permanence aspect I think was important.
[00:06:33]  There was a lot of uncertainty about what was going to happen with those tax cuts, about the direction of the tax system.
[00:06:38]  And permanency is always an important principle that we try to emphasize and that was delivered for much of what was in the law.
[00:06:44]  On the other side, though, of course, we didn't introduce new deductions that are novel that folks are still trying to figure out.
[00:06:50]  A lot of folks have a lot of confusion or concern about the way in which the senior deduction works, which tips qualify for the tip deduction, for example.
[00:06:59]  They're also temporary.
[00:07:00]  So we're going to once again be revisiting those provisions as they expire in 2029, which is going to introduce new uncertainty.
[00:07:08]  So I think there is very much, I think, an argument to be made that in some ways the tax code is made more complicated in the law, even if we did solve that major sort of short-term problem of avoiding tax hikes on folks at the end of 2025.
[00:07:21]  Let's talk about the deficit, the national debt.
[00:07:24]  This is the committee for the responsible for a responsible federal budget headline.
[00:07:30]  The One Big Beautiful Bill Act dynamic score comes in at $4.7 trillion.
[00:07:37]  So that is adding to the national debt through fiscal year 2035, $4.7 trillion.
[00:07:45]  First, do you agree with that number?
[00:07:49]  That's right.
[00:07:50]  We found that it would reduce, the law would reduce revenue by about between $4.5 and $5 trillion if you're counting interest costs over 10 years.
[00:07:57]  And so basically the value of the tax cuts outweigh the offsets that were included in the law.
[00:08:02]  It is very much a net tax cut over the next 10 years.
[00:08:05]  And I think that's another trade-off or challenge with this law: it is going to complicate our fiscal situation moving forward.
[00:08:10]  We are going to have to look at tough spending and tax changes in the next few years as we head toward a rapidly oncoming entitlement crisis.
[00:08:19]  So I think the only other positive thing that's worth mentioning, of course, that ameliorates some of that revenue effect is there are some aspects of the law that were pro-growth.
[00:08:26]  So we made permanent, for example, immediate deductions for and full deductions for shortled investment for certain types of structures for RD.
[00:08:33]  And we find that that was the biggest sort of increase in economic growth is coming from those provisions.
[00:08:39]  But they do not come close to offsetting the conventional cost of the law.
[00:08:44]  Because proponents will say that we're going to grow the economy, and so we're not going to add to the national debt.
[00:08:49]  That's right.
[00:08:50]  We found between 15 and 20% of the revenue will be recollected due to the economic growth from income taxes and payroll taxes from those pro-growth provisions.
[00:08:58]  But the bulk of that cost is still going to be on the table and we'll have to find a way to work through that in the coming years as our deficits increase.
[00:09:05]  All right.
[00:09:05]  Let's talk to callers.
[00:09:06]  We'll start with Judy in Pennsylvania, Line for Democrats.
[00:09:09]  Good morning.
[00:09:10]  Hey, good morning, Mimi.
[00:09:12]  I have a comment and I have a question.
[00:09:14]  My first comment is about the 2017 big beautiful tax cuts for businesses.
[00:09:22]  That was sold to the American people as cutting taxes on corporations and businesses would lower the tax rate and it would bring American businesses back to the United States.
[00:09:34]  Because according to Donald Trump, America had the highest rate of business taxes of anywhere in the world.
[00:09:41]  So if he cut taxes, it would bring all the manufacturing back to the United States.
[00:09:46]  I call that the business carrot.
[00:09:49]  And that didn't work very well.
[00:09:51]  So then Donald Trump came out with the tariff stick.
[00:09:56]  Donald Trump claimed that imposing all tariffs on the imports would bring American manufacturing back to the United States.
[00:10:04]  But that's not working either.
[00:10:06]  So that's my comment.
[00:10:07]  My question is, and I hope you can answer it because I think this would be surprising news to taxpayers.
[00:10:14]  Can you tell us how much money you have to make on a yearly basis to be considered the top 1%?
[00:10:24]  And can you tell us how much annual income puts you in the top 10%?
[00:10:31]  I think people will be really, really surprised that it really doesn't take that much money to put you in the top 1% of income earners.
[00:10:42]  I think that people believe you have to make millions and millions of dollars every year to be in the top 1%.
[00:10:49]  But no, that's not the case.
[00:10:51]  That amount of money is really low, which shows you how little the rest of the country makes.
[00:10:57]  So I'd really appreciate it if you could give us that information.
[00:11:00]  Thank you.
[00:11:02]  Sure.
[00:11:02]  So I think on the corporate side, to address the caller's first comments, we did see some improvements, I think, from the 2017 law in that our corporate rate was very uncompetitive.
[00:11:13]  It was at 35% before.
[00:11:15]  We were having this issue known as corporate inversions, where corporations were leaving the U.S. or changing their headquarters and merging with firms abroad.
[00:11:22]  We brought the rate down to 21%.
[00:11:24]  We were more competitive, more in line with international norms, and we did see an end to those inversions and some evidence that some folks repatriated billions of dollars back into the U.S.
[00:11:33]  But I think it's right to say that that was paired now in the second Trump administration with tariffs that are trying to create an incentive for investment by creating basically a penalty for offshoring or importing goods into the U.S., though, as we've argued pretty strongly, and I think as the evidence suggests, that has had a much more negative effect overall on net when you think about the increase in costs associated with those tariffs.
[00:11:59]  On sort of income levels in the U.S., I think it's an important point.
[00:12:03]  The top 1% of income earners earn somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000, maybe a bit north of that overall on average, while for the top 10%, it's around ballpark, around $150,000 for households in the U.S.
[00:12:16]  So I think it's important to point out that there's a lot of variation here.
[00:12:18]  The top 1% of income earners in, say, Washington, D.C. or New York City or San Francisco, it's going to be a much higher number than the top 1% earning in Topeka, Kansas, or Fayetteville, Arkansas.
[00:12:29]  So I think that's another important point is you have that lot of geographic variation in the U.S. Mark, Democrat in San Antonio, Texas.
[00:12:36]  You're on with Garrett Watson.
[00:12:40]  Yes, thank you.
[00:12:41]  My question is regarding why our tax system tends to penalize through regressive taxation and doesn't account for the fact that we have multiple numbers of billionaires who aren't earning an income or a salary yet are reporting these high amounts of wealth through other types of investments and so forth.
[00:13:04]  Why are we not figuring out a way to address such a large deficit imbalance by taxing appropriately those people who have stuff to tax?
[00:13:12]  Thank you.
[00:13:13]  Right.
[00:13:13]  So on the overall, I think, progressivity of the system, the overall federal tax system is progressive in that we do tax high earners as they earn more income at a higher level of a higher tax rate, both overall in the federal system and particularly with federal income taxes, which are some of the most progressive in the world, paired with less progressive aspects like payroll taxes or excise taxes, for example.
[00:13:33]  But there is an ongoing debate, and it's been ongoing for a long time in the last decade about should it be even more progressive, right?
[00:13:40]  What is actually fair for higher earners to pay, particularly very high earners who billionaires, for example, are maybe earning capital gains that they're not realizing because they have appreciated value in their companies that they founded, for example.
[00:13:53]  And they may not be paying that tax on a year-to-year basis.
[00:13:55]  So increasingly, we've seen folks propose taxes like billionaires wealth taxes.
[00:14:00]  For example, there's a very high-profile proposal in the state of California to consider that, as well as other national proposals that have been brought forward.
[00:14:08]  But there's a lot of logistical challenges here.
[00:14:10]  One, of course, is these billionaires need to have liquidity to pay the tax.
[00:14:13]  And there's a concern that we were go ahead and institute a wealth tax, that would cause economic disruption, maybe reduce the asset values of various companies.
[00:14:20]  It's also, of course, very questionable whether or not it's constitutional as a tax overall.
[00:14:25]  And there's other types of taxes outside of wealth taxes that have been considered, much more straightforward efforts.
[00:14:29]  For example, of course, in 2021, notably, Democrats brought forward the Build Back Better Act that had a suite of tax hikes amounting to over $3 trillion over 10 years.
[00:14:37]  And I think that the 28, 2029 window is going to be a reopening of that discussion.
[00:14:42]  We're already seeing some of those new proposals come forward from Democrats on the Hill to try to think about not how much taxes should we actually raise and how should we do that.
[00:14:50]  Should it be through a more novel approach or should it be through a more incremental increase in tax rates or things that we're more familiar with?

=== Regressive Cuts and Fairness (10:17) ===

[00:14:57]  Can you explain again the no tax on Social Security and how that affects seniors and if it's actually not taxing Social Security or if it's a different way to save seniors tax money?
[00:15:09]  Right.
[00:15:10]  So the 2025 law provided a new deduction worth $6,000 per eligible senior age 65 or over if you earn up to $75,000 and then it phases out.
[00:15:21]  And what that was meant to do was effectively replicate for most seniors, about 88% of them by one estimate, so they would not have to pay any tax on their Social Security.
[00:15:31]  The challenge is that it's not actually a literal exclusion of tax on Social Security.
[00:15:36]  It's this deduction.
[00:15:37]  And what that means is you do have seniors who are under the age of 65 who are claiming Social Security, for example, who aren't eligible at all, seniors who are of very high income, or seniors who earn additional sources of income like pension income, 401k withdrawals, where they will still have to pay tax there, and it may have interacting where they still pay tax on their Social Security even after that deduction.
[00:15:58]  So there's been a lot of confusion there.
[00:16:00]  And I think it's important that, yeah, we should be clear with the American people that this is some tax relief, but it's not a true exclusion on tax paid on Social Security.
[00:16:08]  This, of course, does expire in 2029.
[00:16:10]  So one thing we'll be following very closely is their popular interest in changing this to try to have a fuller exclusion.
[00:16:18]  Part of the sort of legislative challenge was in the reconciliation process, the wonky process that this bill was used to turn into law, you're not allowed to change payroll tax collections.
[00:16:28]  And so we basically feed in on taxes paid from Social Security that revenue back into the Social Security trust funds.
[00:16:34]  And there's concern about whether or not that would be allowed procedurally in the Senate.
[00:16:38]  So that might be part of the problem is if it runs into that.
[00:16:41]  But if it becomes more popular, they might be able to end run around that through 60 votes in the Senate.
[00:16:46]  Rob in Richmond, Virginia, Independent Line, you're on the air.
[00:16:51]  Good morning.
[00:16:52]  My question would be this.
[00:16:53]  Wouldn't we be better off going to, and this is just my perspective, if you went to a flat tax system?
[00:17:02]  So, and it's basically, this would be my pitch to all the average people.
[00:17:08]  You know, set minimum deductions higher per person.
[00:17:12]  The individual deduction, this has, say, goes up to $40,000 or $50,000 a person and has had like a 10% flat tax on all income, regardless.
[00:17:24]  No deduction, no write-offs or anything like that.
[00:17:28]  You know, on capital gains, earned income, everything.
[00:17:32]  I think they would collect more money and to be in a fairer system because back in the 1960s and 70s, the tax rate was essentially 90% on paper, but it never got to that because the businesses would always buy equipment and invest in things and then write it off, which was great for back then, but you didn't have stock buybacks back then.
[00:17:54]  That was considered insider trading or illegal.
[00:17:57]  They changed the rules in Reagan.
[00:17:59]  So the only way I can see forward for everybody to have a fair system and everybody pays, you know, the government collects its money and everybody pays a fair weight is what I just proposed.
[00:18:09]  What do you think about that?
[00:18:11]  So the motivation here, I think, makes a lot of sense, right?
[00:18:13]  We want to have a simpler tax system, so eliminating a lot of tax deductions, credits, a lot of the complicated things in the tax code makes sense.
[00:18:21]  Having lower rates by broadening that tax base is also a smart move.
[00:18:25]  The challenge, I think, is very much in the details when it comes to flat tax proposals.
[00:18:29]  One thing, of course, is by making the base so large, you can end up creating new distortions or inefficiencies.
[00:18:35]  For example, if we just tax effectively gross revenue for businesses or folks, you know, gross incomes without any deductions, that can cause other problems, penalties to investment on the other side.
[00:18:45]  The other challenge is just making the math work if we aim to make this revenue neutral or even raise revenue to cover our deficits.
[00:18:52]  Because in order to have a truly flat tax, because the system is so progressive right now, it would have to be a fairly high tax rate across the board.
[00:19:00]  And there's concerns about the distributional impact, how that would impact lower income folks, working class folks who have to pay that.
[00:19:07]  There are proposals to move closer toward a consumption tax system and provide, for example, a very large standard deduction, even larger than we currently have, to protect working class folks, lower income folks, while also raising revenue.
[00:19:19]  Though doing it in a literally flat way may be challenging mathematically.
[00:19:25]  But there's still aspects of this that I think could be, even done on a bipartisan basis, because you could even move to a consumption tax that's simpler while also making it progressive in a variety of ways.
[00:19:33]  So I think that is one option.
[00:19:36]  In Oregon, on the line for Democrats, Sharon, you're next.
[00:19:42]  Hello.
[00:19:43]  Am I connected now?
[00:19:44]  Yes, you are.
[00:19:45]  You're on the air.
[00:19:45]  Hello.
[00:19:47]  Okay.
[00:19:48]  Now I'm kind of nervous because this is mathematical stuff.
[00:19:52]  But your guest, I'm sorry I didn't catch her name.
[00:19:59]  It's agreed that the 2017 tax cuts primarily or in a major way helped out the rich and businesses with minor help to the regular people.
[00:20:12]  Now they wanted those tax cuts continued, which is what this new big bus will, it continues permanently those, maybe adds a few more little carrots for them.
[00:20:23]  That's why millionaires were sitting behind the president at his inauguration.
[00:20:28]  Meanwhile, the tax cuts for the middle class and lower class, especially like tips and stuff, are temporary.
[00:20:34]  So they're going to go away.
[00:20:36]  And if you think of tips and et cetera, very few people, I worked my whole life in many jobs, so did my husband.
[00:20:43]  We never earned a tip.
[00:20:45]  So we would never get any benefit out of that, even temporarily.
[00:20:50]  Now, the idea was manufacturing would come back.
[00:20:53]  It didn't.
[00:20:54]  Actually, what happened in 2017, that money was reinvested in the companies.
[00:20:59]  They reinvested and bought their own stock back and made more money.
[00:21:03]  Manufacturing had no gains last year.
[00:21:07]  So what we did was we created a tax that was very regressive.
[00:21:12]  It really hurt the middle class and the lower class.
[00:21:15]  We nailed them again on this new one, only we made it permanent.
[00:21:20]  And then on top of it, tariffs were added, which really hurts the middle and lower class because we spend all our income in order to survive and the rich do not.
[00:21:33]  So tariffs completely hurt us more than the rich.
[00:21:37]  So didn't these two bills really end up widening the gap between the middle class and poor and the rich even more, making it harder for the middle class and poor to live?
[00:21:51]  All right, Sharon.
[00:21:52]  So a couple of points here.
[00:21:54]  One is it is important to emphasize that most taxpayers from the 2017 tax law did see tax cuts.
[00:22:00]  It was something like 90% of folks saw a net tax cut.
[00:22:03]  And of course, that did vary depending on your tax situation and your income level, though it was a substantial tax cut for many middle-income earners overall.
[00:22:10]  As a portion of incomes, because a lot of higher-earner folks have businesses, right, or are paying those more progressive taxes, mechanically, when you do cut taxes under a progressive system, you're going to see them accumulate an increase in after-tax income.
[00:22:23]  But it was a very broad-based tax law.
[00:22:26]  I think there's a good point, though, that with this new law, a lot of the new tax cuts, particularly these new deductions, are very targeted.
[00:22:32]  So for folks who are earning tips, say your occupation is primarily in tips, or you do a lot of overtime on top of that.
[00:22:38]  We're seeing reports of some folks with thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in refunds from this that they're paying a lot of tax in, and it wasn't adjusted for during the tax year.
[00:22:48]  Meanwhile, folks who are on a W-2 income, who don't qualify for these new deductions, may see only slight increases in their refund or a reduction in their tax liability due to this increase in the center deduction and the child tax credit compared to last year.
[00:23:02]  So I think that is an important point.
[00:23:03]  And another important point, I think the collar is right, that the tariff regime very much does threaten to offset a good portion of the value of these tax cuts, particularly for lower income folks who are more likely to face the higher costs related to tariffs.
[00:23:17]  And we did the math there, and a bunch of the, a good portion of the value of those tax cuts are offset by the tariffs.
[00:23:24]  So that's another argument to rethink that tariff regime.
[00:23:27]  It also offsets some of the economic benefits of the 2025 tax law.
[00:23:32]  So that's one thing we're trying to prioritize and emphasize to policymakers is to reconsider those tariffs.
[00:23:37]  And Garrett, you're going to be testifying at the House Small Business Committee on the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on small businesses.
[00:23:45]  Did this act stimulate investment as President Trump has promised?
[00:23:50]  Right.
[00:23:51]  So on, we have a little more evidence from the 2017 law, of course, because there's just been eight years plus to look at the data.
[00:23:57]  And what we find is, generally speaking, when you compare investment levels and projections from 2017 and compare it to the actuals, the actuals, there's some evidence that investment did increase.
[00:24:07]  Of course, there's a lot of cash that came into the U.S. repatriated from the change in the corporate side.
[00:24:12]  And we did see, of course, small businesses benefit from things like the 20% pass-through deduction through the lower rates and brackets, things like expensing of both R ⁇ D and equipment.
[00:24:22]  And so that was, of course, complicated by the pandemic, by tariffs in 2018 and 2019.
[00:24:27]  So the picture got very murky later on.
[00:24:29]  And of course, this new law in 2025 made permanent a lot of those cuts, added in these deductions on a permanent basis for R D and for short for equipment.
[00:24:39]  That's really important for small businesses because they often don't have the liquidity to wait for a deduction for 10 or 20 years.
[00:24:47]  Big corporations can't.
[00:24:48]  They can wait for that.
[00:24:49]  They have the money to just take the deduction in five or 10 years.
[00:24:51]  New businesses don't have margins, often don't have profits at all.
[00:24:54]  And so having that immediate deduction can be helpful to allow for that liquidity.
[00:24:59]  That's something we're going to be talking a lot about, I think, at the hearing today.
[00:25:02]  Policy analysis director for the Tax Foundation, Garrett Watson.
[00:25:07]  You can find them at taxfoundation.org.
[00:25:10]  Garrett, thanks so much for joining us.
[00:25:11]  Thank you.

=== Bridging the Political Divide (02:02) ===

[00:25:14]  C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
[00:25:25]  Coming up this morning, talk about the latest on the Iran war and other congressional news of the week, first with Texas Republican Congressman Craig Goldman, and then with Hawaii Democratic Representative Jill Takuda.
[00:25:37]  C-SPAN's Washington Journal joined the conversation live at 7 Eastern this morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
[00:25:50]  Here's a look at some of our live coverage today on the C-SPAN networks.
[00:25:54]  On C-SPAN, the House gavels in at 10 a.m. Eastern to consider an Iran war powers resolution to end unauthorized military action in Iran, as well as legislation to extend temporary protected status to Haitians living in the U.S. for three years.
[00:26:09]  On C-SPAN 2, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kaine, give an update at 8 a.m. on the Iran conflict from the Pentagon as the temporary ceasefire continues.
[00:26:21]  The Senate will then continue work on the Republicans' bill to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and a photo ID to cast a ballot in federal elections.
[00:26:31]  On C-SPAN 3 at 9 a.m., Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies before the House Ways and Means Committee on his department's priorities, answering questions on topics such as vaccines, fertility, and the Make America Healthy Again movement.
[00:26:47]  And at 2.30 p.m., the four astronauts who were on the Artemis II mission speak to reporters at their first news conference since returning to Earth, following a historic 10-day lunar flyby mission.
[00:26:59]  You can also watch these events on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at c-span.org.
[00:27:09]  Best ideas and best practices can be found anywhere.
[00:27:12]  We have to listen so we can govern better.
[00:27:14]  Democracy depends on heavy doses of civility.

=== Civility in American Politics (00:42) ===

[00:27:17]  You can fight and still be friendly.
[00:27:20]  Bridging the divide in American politics.
[00:27:22]  You know, you may not agree with the dump crowd on everything, but you can find areas where you do agree.
[00:27:26]  He's a pretty likable guy as well.
[00:27:27]  Chris Koons and I are actually friends.
[00:27:29]  He votes wrong all the time, but we're actually friends.
[00:27:32]  A horrible secret that Scott and I have is that we actually respect each other.
[00:27:35]  We all don't hate each other.
[00:27:36]  You two actually kind of like each other.
[00:27:38]  These are the kinds of secrets we'd like to expose.
[00:27:40]  It's nice to be with a member who knows what they're talking about.
[00:27:43]  Liz did agree to the civility, all right?
[00:27:46]  He owes my son $10 from a bed for a year.
[00:27:48]  He's never paid.
[00:27:50]  Fork it over.
[00:27:51]  That's fighting words right there.
[00:27:52]  I'm glad I'm not in charge of it.
[00:27:54]  I'm thrilled to be on the show with him.
[00:27:56]  There are not shows like this, right?
[00:27:58]  Incentivizing that relationship.