The Daily Rundown | April 16, 2012
>>> later today, senate democratings will hold a procedural -- millionaires who end up making a million dollars annually. president obama talks about it a lot on the campaign trail. but it's not expected to get past the republican controlled house and it may not get past the very -- somewhat evenly divided democratic senate. senator, welcome, welcome back from easter recess.
>> thank you very much.
>> let me ask you a basic question that i just asked congressman clyburn, do you believe the tax code is fair?
>> i think the tax code is a train wreck, it's hard for people to understand. we know that half of households in america pay zero income tax and we know that according to the president's own bipartisan fiscal commission, that it incentivizes people to create jobs abroad rather than here in america .
>> let me stop you there a minute because on this buffett rule, there is one way of looking at it which is because of the complications of the tax code , and because the rich, and you're talking about something about small businesses , trying to help them get through the tax code and in your reasoning, you talk about the fact that the code is complicated and wealthier businesses can cut through that tape, well, it's the same thing with wealthier americans , they can cut through the tax code in a way and take advantage of things simply because they have the wealth and resources to do it. so shouldn't there be a simpler way to tax the wealthy?
>> that's the reason why this is so misguided because you're right, the wealthy have an army of lawyers and accountants that can help them work around this so-called buffett tax, but it's individuals who are going to get hammered. and at a time when we're depending on the private sector to create investments to create jobs, this is going to discourage that. and that's why this is so disappointing. and as i was saying earlier, the president has ignored the commission that came out with a template that would actually do real tax reform and helping the economy get going again.
>> one of the precedents of simpson bowles , so you're okay with getting more tax receipts, more tax money out of wealthier americans ?
>> i think it's not unfair for mr. buffett and other wealthier americans to pay a little bit more than than a widow who depends on medicare for her health care and depends on social security for her safety net . and so i think there could be a bipartisan consensus there as we saw on simpson bowles to begin the important work of tax reform .
>> why did you not endorse simpson bowles , there's a lot of people who talk about the framework.
>> some of our most conservative members at the time, judd gregg and tom coburn voted for it. don't pay attention to the fact that uncle sam needs to be on a diet, we're going to continue eating jelly the donuts as we take our -- close that gap between federal spending and federal revenue due to a robust private sector and better job creation . this is a stunt t president's as much as admitted it, it's intended to divide america along class lines and it's exactly the wrong way to try to approach a very serious topic that should be approached on a by partisan basis.
>> you're a guy that has to raise money out tlrks there is a report that the romney victory fun which is now going to be the presumptive nominee , mitt romney and the republican national committee jointly start raising money together. they are going to give $50,000 donors private access to the inaugural event, if mitt romney is elected president, to the inaugural event at his california vacation home, is.
>> i read in the " washington post " that the president's largest donors are getting access to the white house . we understand to some so m extent that that happens on both political parties, but we -- the president's got a big head start on governor romney, the presumptive nominee of the republican party , he's got a lot of catching up to do. but i think there's going to be adequate funds on both sides.
>> but on the basic premise, do you think it's appropriate to promise basically insider access?
>> i think it's not inappropriate to say that you're going to meet with your donors at a location like that, any more or any less than the president to invite his donors to m co-to the white house .
>> thanks for coming on this