means committee chairman sander leventhal of by timothy geithner on the economy. later, an oversight hearing on the civil rights division of the justice department. >> joining us this week, rep sander levin, democrat from michigan. thank you for being here. and joining us to question him are gail russell chaddock, washington editor of "the christian science monitor" and david leitman from mcclatchy. >> there's a lot coming up this year. we have one week in session next week and then six or eight days in september. then elections. in the fiscal cliff. is congress really have enough time in those eight days plus next week to assure the country

that all is well heading into these elections? >> indeed, i think the battle next week may give people some discouragement, though i would hope it might encourage people. we're going back about over one of the key issues related to the long term. that is whether revenues will be a part of the solution. the republicans are essentially saying that we cannot touch the income taxes of the very high income families. that is their position and they are stuck on it, i think it does not bode well. i was looking a few days ago about the income figures for 2010, the latest we have them. the upper 1% receive 93% of income growth that year. the upper 1% receive 93%. when that is true and a very

small percentage of people who make under to under $50,000 are small business people and are essentially the very well-to-do have done, on average, well, while the middle class has been stagnating for a number of years going back a long way. we have got to confront this issue. the senate did this recently. there were enough votes to their to pass a bill that sen for middle-income families, the tax cuts remain, but for those with incomes over $250,000, they will still benefit from some of the tax cuts, but if you have an income over the outcome of a woman get the benefit of lower than fair. >> the political landscape, when you come back for a lame-duck session, will be much of the same. the argument you're making now

will be making -- will be made again in november and december. why do not you and your ways and means democrats go behind closed doors now and hash this out? >> we would if we could. when the republicans are bringing up a bill next week's that essentially says in terms of revenues and income taxes for viacom, not only of the door closed, it has a grover norquist block on it. i do you proceed from there to sit down? they have cemented them in and it's really hard to talk under those circumstances. >> you're going out to talk about this in november or december anyway. that or risk the fiscal cliff, stock-market collapse, etc. you're going back to talk about

it. why not talk about it now? >> week would if we could. essentially, the election will be a decisive event. during this campaign there will be some intelligent discussion so the public can understand what is at stake. the public has really spoken directly to every survey and they say to keep the middle- income tax cuts but not those on the higher end. so far, the republicans are not convinced. i hope the election will convince them. then we can move from the data faraway center. >> back in the dark days of the debt ceiling negotiation, there's a lot of discussion from

chairman camp that there was the element of a grand bargain that was slowly developing. there is a speech last week at brookings that suggested the possibility of revenue increases on the table. can you tell us anything about these? are there back nor discussions on what some of these ideas are germinating? >> there have been some discussions in the senate, but senator to me's proposal is often not fully understood in terms of its impact. the chairman has said we should have a top tax rate of individuals for 15% and a corp. -- of 25% in the corporate tax at 15% but he has never

indicated how we will get there. we have asked them how we will get to 25% on the individual tax rate. the chairman says 10% and 25%. it would lose a lot of money. how do you make it out? the study we received is the only way to make it up, to fill that hole, would be essentially to eliminate the mortgage interest rate deduction, the charitable deduction, the health provisions in health care reform, all education provisions. the various so-called tax expenditures like research and development. you'd have to root eliminate all of them. they're not loopholes like the mortgage interest rate deduction in which you see home

after home built mostly after the second world war, very middle-income families. they built these homes with the benefit of the mortgage reduction. there have not been useful discussions because essentially they say 25%. there is no clue how they would get there. and i could, i would ask you questions, but that is not the format here. you have listened to the speeches. in tell me how he would get down to 25%? has he ever indicated how he would get there? >> in terms of specificity? >> in terms of the corporate getting down to 25%, in favor of real tax reform reducing the corporate rate, but you have to

ask what the policy, what the purpose is of the reduced tax rate. but the tax code come even to get down to 27%, is we would have to eliminate all the provisions that tried to encourage manufacturing in this country. you'd have to eliminate all of energynewable an provisions. now the concern is as we move to solar energy, all the solar panels come from china. it is the same with the wind turbines. to say we would get down to 25% without saying he would get there is done very effective or useful step.

klutz when you talk to your middle-income -- >> when you talk to middle-income constituents -- >> have you been there? >> many times. do you say to them that they may have to sacrifice? everyone may have to sacrifice in order to make this fiscal system worked. do you say that? what is it you say to them that they may have to sacrifice? >> i do say that. i think there are some items that we need to trim. but i do not say to them though is that we will privatize social security. i do not say to them that we will privatize medicare. i do not say to them that we will block grant medicaid and ship it to the states. i do not say that we will end

all support for education. in the republican bill coming out next week, they would eliminate the education opportunities, these opportunity credits. when i for -- when i ran for governor long ago, 10% of the college-age kids were in up higher education. it is now 50%. it's a wonderful development. it is happening in part due to support from the government, support for community colleges. and the stafford loans. as i go door to door, what i'm told is our kids are in college now and they're having trouble making it. they're having trouble even if they were paid for. our families are under some pressure. do not eliminate all of the

state and federal support for higher rates vacation. that's what they tell me. >> what should they sacrifice? >> in terms of specifics? i think this might not affect them of we were going to look, for example, at the deduction for mortgage interest. we may be able to look at the higher end. that would not affect most people in the county. it's hard to tell them to sacrifice when they have worked hard and have had stagnant and come on average. i think they're willing to participate if they feel that everyone else is participating. i think, for example. i'm willing to take a look at the mortgage interest rate deduction, but not to simply chop it off in terms of 25%.

no way. i would not be willing to do that. >> you mention that one thing you say to people is that you will not privatize social security. is the payroll tax cut, which is taking a big chunk out of bonds going into social security undermining social security? has this stumbled into, if not permanency, it will be very hard to get rid of because whenever it comes, it's going to hurt. >> provided it is not necessary again for economic growth. if we can come of we were on a pattern of increased economic growth in part because of the payroll tax cut. we have had a reduction in growth. we will see what happens in the

next six months. if we can return to the growth of last year, i would be in favor of ending it. that's another thing i would say to the people as i go door to door. you may have to give up that provided it ist necessary to continue the economic growth. >> are you confident you have not already heard social security? >> i'm confident. the part is going to be repaid. i do not think we can keep going and doing that. remember, the president proposed the payroll tax cut and i supported it as ranking member. you cannot just have austerity. you have to have economic growth.

we have inherited a deep hole in this administration, as europe and now has, that as we try to shape a balance between austerity and economic growth, and we have done better than most european countries because we had a return to growth with a couple of hundred million jobs added in the job sector and we've provided money for teachers. i can tell you that it was so critical that we provide that assistance to local school districts in terms of their basic foundations and in terms of having teachers. i urge everyone who likes to use the big tax for the big rhetoric to go back and look at the realities within their school districts. there has been a reduction in forces and fire departments and

in many of the areas. it was really important that we provide support for local government. seeing some growth in the private sector and we're seeing some real pinches in the public sector. >> 10 minutes left with congressman levin. >> this is a horrible sight way. -- segwey. >> it would not be the first time from you or on the floor of congress. >> we at mcclatchy ask everyone to release their tax returns. i believe you have. >> seven years. we change the countenance so we will have to get the others. >> what ever. you release many years. you also introduced legislation that said presidential candidates should release of 10 years.

two questions. should other members of congress released their returns? number two, does your legislation include a number -- members of congress? >> the 1978 act applies to all of us including presidential candidates and it is very outmoded. part of the heart of the legislation that we're working on would reform the ethics law. when you look at governor romney's returns, you can tell from your returns how much was invested in tax havens, how much was invested in swiss accounts. from the capital gains provisions, you cannot tell how much of it came from his own money and how much came from

management services. i think they said it was required in the tax return, but $10 or $11 million in they have yet to file the return, but it was from a carried interest. i introduced legislation on a carried interest. essentially, what it did was to say the people managing other people's money could have a capital gains tax on part of the money received from managing. we need to be able to tell when people file their returns and indicate how much there is in capital gains how much of it came from what sources. also, governor romney has a lot

more in his ira than what people can put in annually. this to be true for all members of congress as well as all major presidential candidates, but what is the source of your ira account the especially when it is beyond what could be the annual limits for most people? it may well be what happened, what can happen, is that you put in assets that are evaluated very low and then they grow astronomically and you end up with an ira with tax preferences. those changes would apply to everybody. as to the filing your tax returns, we're looking at this issue. the precedent for presidential candidates is clear.

i once negotiated legislation with the governor romney's father when i was in the state senate. he filed, i think, 12 returns. i think romney should follow his father's example or come very close. as to what legislate toward should do, we're looking at that and talking it over. -- as what legislators should do, we're looking it over. >> do you think your colleagues should disclose their tax returns to the public? >> i'm looking at it. i think each of oz, at this point, needs to make a decision -- i think each of us needs to make a decision. in my case, because i'm a ranking member, i hope to be chairman when we do tax reform, because of my ranking position on ways and means, i think, if i

may say so, a need to put my taxes out there. correction leadership be held at the same standard in congress? >> we're looking at it. >> what gives you pause? >> we are drafting legislation. i would like to talk to both republicans and democrats. this is not a partisan issue. as wegoing to do that prepare the legislation. i would like to put in legislation that came from a bipartisan discussion and consensus. we need to do that. this is not a republican or democratic idea. it's fairly clear in terms of the ethics amendments. i think that should apply to rebut a. -- to everybody.

there is no precedent for members of congress. governor romney should follow the average of the precedent, 8, 9, 10 years. >> would you favor, do you favor a six-month motion to carry over? >> if necessary. we cannot have another potential meltdown. we would have to extend the c.r. if it takes six months, that might be the wise thing to do. >> yet another awkward segwey. with regards to russia and trade, syria is reporting. several members of your caucus

said that putting language in the report is not good enough. why is it not good enough? >> it not good enough. i said in my opening statement when we first to get up the needed to have strong enforcement provisions that were not in the bill. we worked with the senate and we put in the bill some very strong enforcement provisions. while russia is going into the world trade organization and there is the dispute settlement mechanism, we won an specific issues -- we wanted specific issues. we also wanted a human rights provision trade with china there was a human rights provision setting up a commission on human rights including workers' rights in the pncr.

having that combined is essential. there has to be in agreement that they will be combined. with syria, we do not have jurisdiction. it does not directly relate to trade. what i said was that i felt we had to handle russian pntr to express our deep, deep this like, worse than that, for the failure of russia not to join the family of nations in terms of syria. i hope we could use the intervening period from committee action to action on the floor to continue to exert pressure. >> time for one or two more questions. >> the field is very quickly and

i'm glad you raised it. we need to take every opportunity we can. i'm not saying every issue is directly related to it every single other, but when there is an overriding situation like syria, we need to be able to express ourselves to congress. >> the house passed with two dissenting votes in the house passed a bill asking the white house what exactly a sequester would look like. this is an enormous sum of money. the congress has the spending power. is there something about the possibility of sequester that just seems to you at odds with what you felt being a member of congress was about? having the white house tell you

what $109 billion would come from? >> we have had unusual formula before. we do on trade bills. i think we all have to buckle down on the sequestered. that letter was an expression of the need to look at the consequences in advance. >> do you think that will spur meeting -- meaningful dialogue on how to avoid the sequester will let enflame the partisanship even further? >> that is one reason that i welcome every day here that hope springs eternal, even in washington. >> rep sander levin, top democrat on the ways and means committee. thank you very much. >> i enjoyed it.

thank you. >> staying with us to reflect on what we heard our gail russell chaddock from "the christian science monitor" and david leitman from mcclatchy. you asked about a stopgap measure to deal with the appropriations. what did you hear from the congressman? >> in the parade of horribles facing the country, sometimes parties like government shutdowns to leverage all sorts of concessions. it looks as if both parties are inclined to let this one slide right on through. >> is that significant to you? >> it is. they see these elections as the size of. -- decisive.

they do not want to waste what credibility they may have on a government shutdown. >> david leitman. >> it is a double-edged sword. not having the shutdown will give them more time to continue confidential government. we cannot forget the overarching question. the reason the public seems to dislike congress so much is a while and have not produced a budget? why is the senate not voting on a budget. september 30th is the end of the fiscal year. there has been little serious effort to tackle this the way the law intends. they will kick the can down the road six months. at some point, these lawmakers need to address that. one point i would make regarding sacrifice, an interesting answer from congressman levin, is that it's very hard to say what he wants his constituents to give up but he did have some.

mortgage interest rates deduction and taxes for higher- income people and he even entered about social security. >> people forget the payroll tax deduction is social security. if your concern is the viability of this program, and is eliminating the contributions for years on and a good planned? he said he had not been hurt because there is a promise to pay. the government has plenty of promises to pay and not the resources to do it. at some point, congress has to come to terms with that. >> it with nothing new, but i'm glad he said it. people are willing to sacrifice if all are sacrificing. in 1983 when the sec revamped social security, tax increases, some cuts and a great concern that someone would take a political hit.

everybody puts their hand on the table at the same time, so the speech. i think that's what he is advocating now. question asked about tax returns and whether or not members of congress should release them. >> he would not go that far. he looking at legislation. he had done that himself, but he will not go that far at this point. we will follow this and say that everyone should do so. >> any viewer who just saw that exchange should be reminded that no member of congress has gone as far as he has in either disclosing his figures were proposing permanency. >> senator durbin releases his every year with disclosure and has 433 years. there are people who have done it, but in our survey we counted 18 or 19 more willing to do it. most did not even respond. most did not even respond.