i want to tell my republican colleagues it's my view that the buffett rule is going to be on the floor of this senate. we are going to debate it this year. now, maybe the same thing will happen on buffett, maybe the same thing will happen on buffett as happened on payroll tax. there will be such public outcry that some of our colleagues will say well, maybe we should go along as they just did even on the payroll tax not being paid for. i think we should debate the issue of surtax on the highest income people this year. we're going to put those on the floor and debate them, and let our colleagues and let the american people see where our colleagues are. and i'm not so sure that nothing happens. so that's one. step two, your budget doesn't provide any specific -- do you agree that it's a good idea to debate these earlier? >> i do. as i said, a lot of people think these debates don't matter because congress isn't going to do anything this year and i think that's not a great approach to take. we have to have this debate. we're not going to be able to lay these choices indefinitely. we have

then this buffett rule, which is basically a proposal for doubling capital gains rates effectively, at time when even democrats in the senate would be reluctant to that, and we're suffering from not enough business -- >> buffett rule is not targeted to you, rich. he's speaking to -- [everyone talking at once] >> we're going to take the capital gains rate and -- >> even mort would go with that. >> what did you think of the opposition speech? republican speech. >> i thought had it had some very, very good policy stuff in. i agree, i don't think the delivery was exactly inspiring. but it was an intelligent comments. he amongst other things on the economy, the most important thing that he said was we shouldn't get much attention is the complete revision of the tax codes, which is the one thing that we absolutely must have if we're going to revive the economy both consumer and business side. the second thing he said, which again i think was quite interesting, he said the wealthy should start paying for some. things they're getting, like medicare and medicaid. those are things it seems -- [e

in the senate are pushing for a vote on what president obama has your group referred to as the buffett rule it's a rule that will require anyone who pay makes more than a million bucks a year to pay a minimum of thirty percent in federal income taxes regardless of where their income comes from keep in mind the top tax rate now for rate right now for people like warren buffett's secretary is thirty five percent so millionaires and billionaires will actually still pay less than she does but with the buffett rule in place people like mitt romney and paris hilton will make their money sit on their butts around the pool waiting for the dividend checks to arrive will finally pay their fair share in taxes and not just the mac current maximum of fifteen percent senator white house is calling the legislation the ain't a fair share act so can such a proposal break a republican filibuster in the senate and actually get consideration in a bought off house of representatives here to offer his take on this is conservative commentator david selig from from our new york studios david great to see you thank

favor the buffett rule they think if somebody is making a million dollars a year like mitt romney does or or fifteen or twenty or thirty million dollars a year like mitt romney does that instead of paying thirteen percent income tax on it they should pay the thirty five percent the mitt romney secretary pays i don't don't think impressions are there really no it was argument absolutely not and i would like to address that issue the people who feel that way they should also say to this administration and perhaps the next one how are you spending this money i mean tom if they were to seize all of that money they'd probably just waste it there's no accountability he says in his shoe about a contrary miss why should paris hilton in the wall aramis a lower tax rate on money that they literally. fell into their laps and they got sitting around the pool when you know paris hilton in her bikini why should she pay fifteen percent maximum income tax whereas the guy who's digging up the street in front of their new york city is going to pay up to thirty five percent it makes no sense well you kno

buffett rule bill with two fs and two ts. sign up. let people know. we're keeping count and we want the american people to be heard in this. it's not just about washington insiders. >> buffettrule.com. >> buffettrulebill.com. two fs and two ts. now what common sense argument can the opposition make against this bill? let me show you why i raised this. if you look at the highlights of your paying a fair share act that you introduce, it requires a tax rate of at least 30% for millionaires. it affects 94,500 taxpayers. but it creates $50 billion a year in revenue. they claim that they want to bring down the deficit. they claim they want to stop this spiraling down in terms of the american economy. here's a way where billionaires and millionaires will pay the same percentage their employees do that will bring about $50 billion a year. and you are telling me they oppose this? >> it's a little hard to justify, but the status quo always has its defenders. but if you go back and look at the boom years of the clinton presidency, the high end income earners wer

>> first of all, it is buffett rule? i thought it was buffet rule that always confused me.antor is out there talking about people working paycheck to paycheck, i think he is talking about people paychecks $10 million each time he gets one white house because that seems to be the people they are representing, the 1 percenters or half of 1 percenters, people who don't want to see the economy really prosper because that means they would have to share part of their wealth, but they have got a real difficult problem, the republicans do that is all people get to vote. if there is a demonstrable improvement in the economy, the republicans have a tough sell. >> dana, isn't it really probably the case that the republicans felt they could run against a bad economy, they were all ready for that their talking points, their spin doctors, and the economy is better than they thought and they really don't know how to find a new theme and a new justification for run? >> exactly t is fairly late in the game to retool as we now hear mitt romney's trying to do, because everything had been put

. >> let me switch to a different topic, the so-called buffett rule. i have been working on a stat e statute -- a bill for a while now that we have just filed. there's obviously a direct revenue effect when to use one of the examples the 400 highest income earners in the country who earned on average over a quarter of a billion dollars each during that reported year turned out to have paid net 18.2% in -- on average in total federal taxes and, you know, you look at what middle income people pay and it's very often higher than that. so there's an upside down quality for certain people in our supposedly progressive tax code, and when you bring them up to the closer to the nominal level with a minimum the way the buffett rule would, obviously that will create additional revenues for the government that can be used to address the deficit and other issues. we have a request in to the joint committee on taxation right now on that. we'll find out what that number is. the argument against it is that the foiks -- the folks who are involved in the hedge funds an

you have the proposed buffett rule. it strikes me that if we are serious about tax reform, the administration ought to put forth a plan that would actually accomplish tax reform and allow us to move forward. there is one thing i did want to ask about. that assiduity proposal that qualified dividend's be taxed at the same low rate as capital gains. i think the 2012 budget was something about how the taxing dividends reduces equity investment for more official allocation of capital. the budget this year, however, proses tax dividends as ordinary income. which, if you have to work, will be a top rate of 39.6%. the new surtax any health reform, that means the top rate on dividends to be over 42%. before leaving considered, it is our tax at the corporate level. isn't it true that such a high tax burden on dividends is an efficient capital? >> i do not think so. one way to think about this is it helps explain why we ultimately need tax reform. if he tried to do a balanced budget reduction plan and do that with a mix of spendi

bucks in payroll they would be thirty five or thirty six percent tax so this isn't even quite the buffett rule that everybody should pay what buffett's secretary makes or pays but it's close and according the tax foundation it would produce an additional thirty six point seven billion dollars a year in revenue which ain't chickenfeed it's not going to solve the deficit problem but it's its but it's really more of an issue of fairness shouldn't people like mitt romney and paris hilton who basically make their living sitting on their butts around the pool waiting for the dividend checks to arrive pay the same tax rate as people as their as their pool cleaners and is the guy digging up the street out in front of a cop was protected. i think a lot of that question to be answered the fact that we have a very complicated tax code when capital gains taxes off of my it's been invested as opposed to an income tax we already know that mitt romney's tax base often just capital gains was lower than my own regular income tax surely we know what's right about that. why should he why should he have lowered t

that's actually the buffett rule.you look at what a lot of very affluent people are paying, especially if their income can coming from capital, i'm thick mitt romney, warren buffett, you're talking 15%. that's clearly unfair. and i think tilted tax policy, most people would recognize. >> senator johnson, let me just ask you this. jared cites the buffett rule, 30%. nobody this day know what's the buffett rule as tax policy really is. it's never been spelled out. senator johnson, actually, obama policy would raise the top rate to 44. >> 44.8. >> where do you guys get that? >> i'll tell you. >> 39.6, i think. >> 39.6 plus obamacare. >> obamacare, you're exactly right. >> i think we're talking about income. >> larry, it's even worse than that. that's just the federal tax rate. tack on state and local property taxes that type of thing, we're going to be over 50%. and let's face it, larry, when you're being taxed at 50%, you're only 50% free. and americans intuitively understand that. and again, it's all how you ask the pol

polls show that americans are totally cool with raising taxes on the wealthy or with applying the buffett rule so you know one of the lies is not a good point to make it's a popular budget i will say it out yet so on a strictly strategic level because this budget makes sense and if i were the president what i'd do roughly the same thing probably exactly yeah i mean it seems very smart does it have any real impact in terms of our actual spending and actual programs that are going to benefit real americans very little and i think what will continue to happen it's frustrating for me is you can ask the question when did world war two and we still have fifty two thousand troops in germany thirty eight thousand in japan we look at the wars in the spending coming down from those but it is all in theory is that as i think about that and now i guess in the streets there they might be leaving europe but that right there is to be heading into the persian gulf into other areas around there but three billion dollars to the pentagon also had a budget those released three billion dollars more for iraq even t

the buffett rule. you get rid of that tax and instead you have the buffett rule, you're talking about $50 billion in revenue. the dividend tax would bring in a likely $206 billion. and taxes on big banks would bring in about $61 billion. proposals to limit the values of tax deductions to 20% would bring in about $584 billion. of all of these put out there, what passes? what gets through congress? >> none of them will pass. all the republicans are saying they absolutely will not. even traffic has called this dead on arrival. it really is a sense of where the president's priorities lie. he is saying that tax cuts -- tax hikes to the wealthy are something he would like to see happen in the future. his campaign is focused on economic fairness. some of the themes of occupy wall street has come up. if reelected, we may or may not see this in his second term. host: talk about are limiting the alternative minimum tax. guest: the alternative a limited -- the alternative minimum tax is what president obama is pr

it doesn't include the buffett rule.ly, majority of americans support taxing the wealthy, so there is that. people agree with the concept here, whether the use of jesus makes them uncomfortable or not. if he does that, how much money gets raised? >> it's on the order of $35 billion a year. to gain a sense of the mana -- >> jamal, i want to ask you just to follow up on that. a guy named adam davidson was on the show last week. you taxed millionaires at 100%. you'd raise $700 billion in one year. they'd have no money left. if you increased taxes on everybody by 8%, it has a bigger impact than taxing millionaires at 100%. how do you get your arms around that issue that the middle class is part of the solution here? >> it does seem that in order to solve this problem, you're going to have a figure out a broad ta overhaul that makes sense. doug and some others look at the 30% millionaire tax, oh, it's only going to raise -- over ten years, but you know what? last year, the republicans who came into congress the tea party, the

>> no, i have no comment on that. >> on the buffett rule -- back to the buffett rule, governor christiey response to his remarks that warren buffett should just "shut up and write a check" in a tv interview last night? >> i think mr. buffett, who is widely regarded for his success in business as well as in philanthropy, has been quite outspoken, as is his right, on what he believes is an issue of tax fairness. he simply believes, as one of the wealthiest men in the world, that he should not be paying an effective tax rate lower than his secretary. i don't know why the governor mentioned or others think that's a bad idea, but this president believes it's the right approach. >> do you think he should go ahead and write the check until that -- it becomes law? >> i mean, that's a quip that tries to draw attention away from what is a very serious issue, which is the need to have a tax code that's fair and that helps the american people as they recover from this recession, and helps us achieve the kind of balanced approach to deficit and debt reduction that this president has pursued for some

i said, we don't need a buffett rule, we need a buffer rule.ve to stop the intrusion of more and more government. washington's got enough money and we have to get the fiscal house in order by aiming at number 1, reducing spending and number 2, trying to increase the economic activity in the private sector. what i said was the back bone of america is our small business people. and so what i propose today is a 20% small business tax cut that goes right to the heart of the economic engine in this country, which are the men and women who are the entrepreneurs willing to go and take a risk if they just get some signal out of washington that washington will get out of the way and stop making it so expensive and so difficult. >> speaking of washington, i'm sure you have been following the controversy right here over this contraception issue. the president is now creating what he called the accommodation. that will satisfy your constituents in virginia isn't accommodation he sked? >> i don't think so because what we have here is a role by this presiden

to have millionaire households pay 30% of income in taxes, something the white house called the buffett rule after warren buffett. mitch mcconnell went on the offensive saying the plan was not a budget but rather a campaign document. the republican presidential candidates also went after his proposal. >> you know, the president came out with a new budget today, and -- [ boo'ing ] >> yeah. you have reason for that response. >> another trillion dollar budget deficit. another tax the rich scheme. more debt. more government. more control. less freedom, less opportunity. >> the times over the next debt ceiling is not this fall. we've already played this game before. we know what obama is going to do. he's going to go up to the last minute, stand there say, how can you do this, we have no choice. time to stop it is right now. >> i don't want to say i wasn't focused on that. but were the producers of blair witch lighting rick santorum. let work on that. two of the nation's leading newspapers offered different opinions on the plan. you'll be surprised to know the new york times disagrees with the re

it doesn't include the buffett rule.usly, majority of americans support taxing the wealthy, so there is that. people agree with the concept here, whether the use of jesus makes them uncomfortable or not. doug, you looked at the numbers. if he does that, how much money gets raised? >> it's on the order of $35 billion a year. it to give you a sense of the magnitude involved, we have a deficit of over $1 trillion. it's nothing. >> jamal, i want to ask you just to follow up on that. a guy named adam davidson was on the show last week. he raised an interesting point. you taxed millionaires at 100%. you'd raise $700 billion in one year. they'd have no money left. if you increased taxes on everybody by 8%, it has a bigger impact than taxing millionaires at 100%. how do you get your arms around that issue that the middle class is part of the solution here? >> it does seem that in order to solve this problem, you're going to have to figure out a broad tax overhaul that makes sense. doug and some others look at the 30% millionaire

he did call for the buffett rule that a multimillionaire should pay the same rate as their secretary. i think that's fair. i think all americans have to be part of pulling us out of this downturn and even those that are the wealthiest need to be helpful in this particular challenge that we have. we need to all work together to move forward and be positive about it and continue to grow our economy and grow opportunities and rebuild the american dream, reignite the american dream and what the president is trying to do is not only improve the economy for the people that have made it, but throw a ladder down to help the other people climb up that ladder of opportunity. it's education. >> if you raise taxes on the most productive and likely to invest, i don't think they will create opportunity. sean duffy, i'll give you the last word. will the buffett rule on millionaires or any of the tax the rich programs encourage prosperity and budget balance. >> it will stifle growth. >> you move to wisconsin and, let's be clear, tax increases aren't to reduce the debt. they're to increase spending an

for what he calls economic fairness and a proposal to raise taxes on millionaires, called the buffett rule named after warren buffett. >> i think asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes is just common sense. >> reporter: two-thirds of americans-- 67%-- agree taxes should be increased on households making over a million dollars a year. including, for the first time, a majority of republicans. but bud faircloth, an independent from delaware, doesn't believe the president will make good on his goals. >> i'm not sure if he'll ever get the congress to work with him and i just don't think he'll ever get the job done. >> reporter: but in our poll, independents have shown a shift towards mr. obama. a month ago they favored mitt romney. today independents favor the president. and, scott, that swing among independents is why for the first time the president has a clear advantage against his republican opponents if you put them a general election matchup. >> pelley: and independents decide these elections. norah, thanks very much. there is news in the numbers for republ

i hope it's not a new buffett rule for investors to not buy treasuries. if investors see thoat advice ad then shies away from that investment and that will be a problem for the country. we need to -- the federal government's massive purchases of securities to help push rates down, unfortunately the administration remains luled in by the siren song and uses the low rates to finance for debt to advance a bloated european government. i look forward to your opinion to budget, i received it late last year after the deadline that was supposed to be honored submission, but i'm really concerned and ai do not see a resolution to the problems that the country is facing. >> i'm pleased to welcome our witness, secretary tim geithner, as you know, mr. secretary, your statement will be automatically stated in the record, summarize and take your time. >> our economy today is getting stronger gradually but we have a lot of tough work ahead of us. over the last two and a half years, despite the severe cut backs of take over governments, despite the increase in oil prices

same time, i want to emphasize that the president is in favor of fundamental tax reform and the buffett rule would be part of that fundamental tax reform welcome a simpler code, lower rates would all be part of tax reform. >> mr. flores, last but not least. >> certainly not least. thank you for your testimony today. this ipad cost about $600. that's the same as about six barrels of oil that exxon produces. who makes more profit? >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> apple makes substantially more profit on that ipad. so the question is this. let's say that apple's making too much money on this, so let's go to apple and raise their taxes. now, are we to assume if we do that that apple's going to make more of these at a cheaper cost for the international community? >> i don't know what specific tax expenditures -- >> you know the answer like i do -- let me get in the rest of my question. >> i do know there are outdated tax breaks and expenditures for oil and gas companies that no longer -- >> we expect apple to be able to reclaim its intellectual property investment and its investmen

and now the senate is moving on that buffett rule to make sure some very rich people like romney can't avoid paying their fair share of taxes. yes, in the eyes of the democrats you can just as easily replace buffett's name with romney's. plus what about newt gingrich? he didn't call romney last night to congratulate him. are you kidding? he didn't concede to romney in florida. he didn't even mention mitt romney's name. newt gingrich's performance, his at times delusional speech last night, left republicans wondering, is newt ready to take the gop down in his quest to bring down romney? just how much is newt willing to hurt the man who has spent millions hurting him? and you may have heard gingrich say this last night -- >> many of you may have noticed the obama administration has declared war on the catholic church and other religious institutions. >> well, newt is talking about the obama administration's recent decision to force catholic institutions including hospitals and universities to pay for birth control including iuds that run counter to the teachings of the church. the admini

it again goes to the broader principle embodied in the buffett rule which is that millionaires and billionaires shouldn't be paying a lower effective tax rate on their income than average folks, in this case the mr. buffet's secretary, so that's the approach to carried interest. it is not aimed at an individual. it is a matter of bachk fairness. >> shouldn't we expect to hear the president ultimately here in the coming months talk about mitt romney and carried interest in the same breath assuming? >> again, this is not about -- i can refer you to the campaign if they want to preview campaign lines. i know because i have heard him talk about it, this about -- this isn't about raising revenues for the sake of raising revenues. it is about having a balanced and fair approach to ensure that as we get our deficit and debt under control we're investing in the things that will help the economy grow in the long-term and that includes education and innovation and making sure that we're investing in clean energy technologies so that we enhance our energy independence in the 21st century. it is about buil

the so-called buffett rule would ensure millionaires pay their taxes although it was not included in the wugt pro profl. peter schroeder is joining us live on capitol hill from the hill newspaper. thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> first of all, what kind of reaction did the president's budget get from people like senator kyl and the testify today from the treasury secretary? >> the reaction immediately from republicans up here on capitol hill was not one of pleasure. they were eager to criticize the proposal saying it piles on debt sdpent doesn't do enough and increases taxes some people say are essential to get the economy running giving their running small businesses and trying to create jobs. meanwhile your treasury secretary geithner among a number of oerm administration officials trying to defend this proposal saying it's the right thing for the economic right now and includes some targeted stimulus but also down the line includes provisions it they say will address the deficit and help get the nation's fiscal footing right back on the right track. >> you have two sid

i thank you for offering the buffett rule before there was a buffett rule, before we were talking about a buffett rule, you were out in front. ms. schakowsky: and one of the themes the president has underscored over and over again, that everybody should get a fair, not a fair shake, a fair shot and everybody pay their fair share. everybody play by the same rules. and so, when we talk about where should the money come from for important things like transportation, of course there's many flaws in that bill, you know, they take mass transportation, mass transit out of the funding stream. but trpping, i think, has always before been a bipartisan issue and of course we want to be able to pay -- to be able to pay for that and it creates a lot of jobs, but everybody uses the roads, they use the transit system they benefit, and so everybody, excuse me, needs to pay their fair share, what they are able to pay to contribute to the common good. but the president has talked about having each other's back. it's kind of a basic philosophy. we're all in this together. not we're all in this alone. but

that's the so-called warren buffett rule.president's budget also calls for $360 billion in cuts to medicare and medicaid. >> we're going to have to make some tough choices in order to put this country back on a more sustainable fiscal path. >> reporter: so far it's been a bumpy ride. three years ago the president pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. not only will that not happen, this is the fourth consecutive year with a deficit of more than $1 trillion. in this contentious election year there is little chance that congress will actually pass this budget. but it gives the president an opportunity to outline his agenda and lay the blame on congress if nothing gets done. rob and paula, back to you. >> that promise is going to bite the president this election season, saying by the end of my first term we'll have it cut in half. and we are far, far from that point. >> it's all about pointing fingers and the blame game. >> it's what they do best on capitol hill it seems like. >>> well, president obama

bipartisan, and by the way, i think senator whitehouse has made a lot of great points with the buffett rule. senator coates and i have a top rate, which is lower than the rate -- excuse me is higher than the rate that senator whitehouse has been talking about. so there's plenty of opportunities here for some common ground, and i look forward to continuing the discussion. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to take this moment to recognize once again the remarkable amount of serious work that senator wyden has produced without the benefit of the chairmanship. on healthcare reform, and i just want to thank him for it. your honor, i think it's an enormous contribution. senator sessions? >> can -- while she's preparing, i would join in that. it is a tremendous amount of effort that it takes and senator wyden i appreciate your leadership and all of us in the senate watching your work and we appreciate it. >> senator ayotte is recognized. >> i understand that you testified before the house committee yesterday that we can get to 2013 without raising the debt ceiling again, or without additional ext

relief for people who are millionaires and billionaires while -- i don't have to tell you about the buffett rule there are a lot of people who are paying a higher rate of taxes than warren buffett or bill gates or donald trump. it's just not right. >> so if the president is re-elected, and that is an if. if the republicans have the house and possibly the senate, will anything be different in january 2013? will republican leaders negotiate with this president over the next four years on some of the issues that barack obama is talking about in 2012? >> well, first of all, i don't accept your premise. i believe that the economy is getting better. president obama is getting stronger. the republicans, whoever they put up, is going to be a weak candidate. if it's one of the ones that is out there right now, romney, santorum, ron paul or newt gingrich, none of the four can beat president obama. and i think that means that president obama is going to get re-elected and bring the democrats back in control of the house and pick up couple of seats in the senate. >> but even in 1984, a landslide year for ro

i think the buffett rule and what the president is promoting with that, i think should happen. you know, folks have been doing very, very well. and it's -- the way the current system is set up is inhumane. what we have going on in our country right now, and it's time we stop and just say it. it's inhuman what's happening, what some families have to go through in the united states of america in some of our major cities and some of our rural areas. and to think that somehow warren buffett or some of these others can't contribute a little bit more in order to help us pay down the deficit. i have republicans in my district who don't pay that close of attention to the daily workings of congress say why don't you guys just raise taxes on those who make more than a million dollars a year. and i say that's exactly what we're trying to do. but you have "the wall street journal" editorial page, and you have the right wing caucus of the tea party folks in the house aren't for any of that. not even asking millionaires to pay more. and when you have that big of a chasm between what practica