I listened and was really disappointed that she ignored or glossed over several aspects of broader economic policy. She points out that the wealthy pay a vast majority of taxes overall, which is true, but doesn't once mention U.S. wealth disparity and its change over the last 50+ years. The fact that the top 1% or so control so much of the country's wealth is a problem not to mention how it affects the calculus. The boomer generation didn't have CEO's making 300%-400% more than the average worker and didn't have an investor class controlling so much of corporate profits. Instead, they shared in enough of that revenue to afford education, healthcare, have kids, buy a home and a couple of cars, take vacations, and still have a nice savings account, all while paying enough in taxes to build the federal interstate system and pay for expansion of roads, utilities, and infrastructure into the sprawling suburbs. A massive majority of today's working class lives paycheck to paycheck, can be bankrupted by a health episode, can't afford a home, can't afford to have kids, have to take on a lifetime's worth of debt to attend college, and not only lack savings but are drowing in credit card debt. There isn't much capacity for them to pay much more in taxes, meanwhile the people who control that much wealth continue to advocate for and get tax cuts while our roads and bridges and schools and rural hospitals crumble. She also mentions that the wealthy make a lot of money through capital gains that are taxed at a lower rate but doesn't discuss at all wheather it makes sense any more, especially for individuals, and considering that to gain wealth in that manner requires wealth to start, so the advantage is accessible to very few who are already wealthy. I just wasn't all that impressed with her presentation, felt like a Heritage Foundation white paper, which it basically was considering her admitted background.