than $10 million by 2019.
A lot of enforcement not
happening.
Thanks so much.
>>> Joining us now to discuss,
Mike Johnson of Louisiana.
He's on the judiciary committee.
Let's start with the debate
among house Republicans today
about exactly what deals Kevin
Mccarthy made to become speaker.
Is there going to be some sort
of list of the concessions
Mccarthy made to his critics to
win the gavel it seems like in
the name of the transparency you
and your fellow members are
talking about?
>> We had our first big meeting
this morning and there was very
positive vibes around.
We're working off the same sheet
of music.
It was clarified that there is
no magical addendum to the rules
that we all agreed to.
There are lots of discussions,
but everything and all the new
ideas have to go through regular
process.
That's one of your great reforms
that we enacted.
It has to go through the
amendment debate before it gets
to floor.
Lots of discussions and ideas
from across the conference.
But I think it will be
considered by everybody.
>> Mccarthy made deals with chip
Roy and others.
I'm not saying there was
anything wrong with the deals.
I'm not saying that what he
agreed to was bad.
But it does seem to me that the
public would be well served just
to be presented with that list
of promises.
>> Look, what Kevin agreed to --
and I've talked to chip Roy and
other who is are negotiating.
They all agree, they're all on
the same page that the same
thing was done and said.
What Kevin has committed to is
an open legislative process.
We're going to run this like the
founders intended.
We're going to have actual
debates, we're going to have
discussions about policy and
legislation and it's going to be
limited to single subjects so
you can't have these massive
omnibus bills that are thousands
of pages long.
This is going to be the way we
were taught in our old civics
classes.
I think the American people are
going to appreciate it.
>> It includes the house freedom
caucus to approve a third of the
members, there's a baseline of
spending being at 2022 levels
going forward.
I'm not saying there's anything
wrong with any of this, why not
write it down and let the public
see it?
>> It will be written down at
the appropriate time when we
bring forward bills to
accomplish any of our
objectives.
You're going to see that.
Everybody will see it.
It will be very clear, very
transparent and we're excite
about that process and getting
going on it.
With regard to the committees,
Kevin said this morning in the
meeting and everyone nodded in
agreement that we want to have
as much as possible equal
representation of our Republican
viewpoints on all of these
committees and rules is an
important one.
That's the committee that
decides which legislation
actually gets to the floor and
in what order.
So I think everybody thinks that
these are very positive things.
I'm not sure I have any
colleagues today murmuring about
this.
I think they're excited about
where we're headed.
There were high fives and
cheering in the room this
morning and we're excited to
deliver for the American people.
>> There's house Republicans who
want to know what those deals
are on.
Let's move on.
You supported the house bill we
just discussed.
It would rescind billions of
dollars to the irs.
You tweeted, you will vote to
stop the 87,000 irs agents from
going after families.
That's not true.
It would be employees, not
agents.
The congressional budget office
says that your bill to get rid
of those irs employees is going
to add to the deficit.
>> Only in the bizarro world of
Washington would you get an
estimate that not spending the
money is going to add to --
>> Because of enforcement more
people who are avoiding paying
their taxes.
About ten years ago, if you made
more than $10 million a year,
one out of five people like that
would be audited.
Now it's down to 3.6%.
The wealthy people are getting
away with not paying their
taxes.
Corporations too.
>> The intent of hiring all of
these new agents would have the
effect of going after
hard-working families and small
businesses.
That is not a Republican talking
point.
That comes from the joint
committee of taxation.
They've evaluated this and they
know it will be the low-hanging
fruit that the irs will go after
fruit.
That's the small business owners
and those who are struggling to
be entrepreneurs and job
creators, they're the
risk-takers in our economy who
provide jobs for more people.
They don't need scrutiny.
What the Republican party wants
is an irs that works for
hard-working families, not
against them.
And that's what this was going
to be about and that's why we
fulfilled our commitment to
repeal that funding on the very
first day.
I'm glad we did and I think if
you poll this across the
country, I think most of America
agrees with us.
>> Are you saying 87,000 agents
are coming at you, or is it,
it's funding for the irs, and
they would be focused ongoing
after individuals who don't pay
their taxes, mainly wealthy
people and corporations.
I think you would probably get
two different answers.
>> Maybe, when the joint
committee on taxation publishes
something, it's given a lot of
weight.
They're nonpartisan.
This is not Republican talking
points.
This is what the evaluation and
the analysis of the white
house's proposal and legislation
last year, what it would
actually accomplish.
We disagree with that.
We have a different agenda.
>> I quoted the cbo.
>> The cbo doesn't have a lot of
credibility right now.
Their analysis is wildly
inaccurate in a lot of ways and
they don't always do appropriate
analysis.
Look, I think there's going to
be some reforms in that arena as
well as we go forward.
When they come out with an
estimate on capitol hill right
now, there's lots of eye-rolling
typically.
That's part of the problem we
have with transparency and doing
the American people's business
in the way it should be done.
We're going to continue to work
to reform these processes to
make Washington work for the
people again.
Look, this is commonsense ideas
that will yield transparency and
accountability.
>> Why not be honest about what
the bill would do.
>> I am honest.
>> You said 87,000 irs agents.
That's not what it is.
>> That is exactly what it is.
That is the treasury's own
published report in 2021 that
they said, as you noted, over a
ten-year period.
They wanted to add 86,000 --
>> Employees.
Not agents.
>> Jake, you know what all of
those positions are going to be?
Have you seen the analysis?
>> You're saying every one of
the 86,000-plus is going to be
an irs agent?
>> I'm not saying that.
I'm saying a large percentage of
those will be agents.
That's a large -- very important
function of the irs.
That's not hyperbole.
That's what's on paper.
>> Do you think there's a
problem in this country of
wealthy individuals and
companies not paying their fair
share in taxes.
>> That's been a problem, of
course, but it's -- we're not
preventing that.
The irs has an important job to
go after tax creates,
absolutely, and we support that.
We want these things to be done
properly.
What this provision would have
had the effect of doing is
making life harder for middle
class working families and small
businesses, full stop, that's
what the nonpartisan analysis
evaluated and that's why it's a
top agenda item.
>> Instead of just removing the
funding, why not say you can use
the funding but you can only go
after individuals who make over
$5 million a year?
>> We're open to a proper
analysis and a proper
instructions from congress on
the use of those funds and maybe
that would be a worthwhile
exercise.
But that is not what happened
with the legislation that passed
last year and that's why we had
to unfund it and repeal it
effectively.
I wish we had some Democrats who
followed commonsense and went
along with us on it.
>> But there's no effort to
actually make this bipartisan
because even if it passes the
house, it's not going to get
through the senate and president
Biden said he's going to veto
it.
If you actually want to make
sure that nobody -- I'm just
going to make up a number now.
At least say $2 million.
No one who makes under
$2 million a year is touched by
this, why not work on something
with senate Democrats that can
be law.
>> John quincy Adams said, duty
is ours, results are god's.
I can't control what happens in
the senate or the white house.
But we're going to do the job
that the American people sent us
here today.