this loophole is becoming worse. please, passed this loophole, let's be done with it and get on to the other important business at hand. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. as an advocate for sb810, mark leno's universal health care bill, i applaud san francisco for having healthy san francisco. it is a great law. it is only one of its kind in the country. i am supporting closing this loophole, leveling the playing field and stopping these sheets -- cheats. that money is necessary for the program. we need every penny from every employer that can contribute to this program to make health care available for everybody. again, i applaud san francisco for having health care for everyone. i look forward to this loophole being closed. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. i have a few more speaker cards. [reading names] >> my name is laurie baker. my husband and i opened a restaurant a year and half ago. it was a lifelong dream, and i am happy that we were able to

this loophole is becoming worse. please, passed this loophole, let's be done with it and get on to the other important business at hand. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. as an advocate for sb810, mark leno's universal health care bill, i applaud san francisco for having healthy san francisco. it is a great law. it is only one of its kind in the country. i am supporting closing this loophole, leveling the playing field and stopping these sheets -- cheats. that money is necessary for the program. we need every penny from every employer that

i hope we can close these loopholes. all the information that i collected, helping the people that worked with me, i am the one that set people up with e- mails and so forth. my employer did not do anything. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning, members of the board. i am an analyst of the curve and accountability office. this morning, i am not a representative of diego. i did research for my master's thesis. i conducted a study from january to may 2010. the authors of labor enforcement was interested in how these programs work. my results will be available after the meeting. through my research, historically, hra's have been used as a consumer health care plan model. these are often offered in tandem with a health spending account. however, although hra's are often offered in tandem with high-tech plants, it is possible to provide these without coverage for catastrophic illnesses. you have also pointed out, controlled by employers since they can decide what they want to cover and whether th

this loophole is problematic for many reasons, and it impacts a number of individuals. many individuals here in san francisco. i would like to identify who those are. first, it impacts the employees, the workers of the city and county of san francisco. these workers have been harmed by this loophole because they have been unable to get the health care that this health care security ordinance invasion that they would get. we have heard testimony from many employees, and you will hear from many today, that talk about how the limitations on how the health reimbursement accounts work make it impossible for them to access the very basic health care that was intended by the law. i have heard countless stories of workers who sought reimbursement only to discover that their accounts had been wiped out by their employers. others who have put off critical services as they waited to accumulate money in their accounts, only to learn that that money was no longer available. we heard when the matter was heard in the commission -- we heard the story at the small business commission wh

i think it is critical that we close this loophole. the hra's are not working as currently presented, and i thank you for your time. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public who has not spoken who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. again, thank you to everyone on both sides of the issue has spoken about this. i know that president chiu and i know supervisor farrell -- ashley, he is on the rules committee, which is starting now -- actually, he is on the rules committee, which is starting now. i do not want to belabor this, but one thing that is important going forward is that we had a discussion about the legal parameters we have, and i think that is something that should have been appropriately at the board of supervisors so that the entirety of the board can hear in a closed session some of the legal issues implicated, so with that in mind, i make a move that we forward this without a recommendation to the full board. supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: thank you, supervisor, a

it is very important that we close this loophole, moved in the intent of the original legislation, and i thank you for your leadership. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, i am with seiu 1021. i was part of the team that worked to pass the legislation when it originally passed. i can tell you without hesitation, having actually sat in the room when it passed this specific provision that it was never intended to be abused in this way. to reward bad actors seems wrong. leveling the playing field is the direction to go. i also just want to know, having sat through the hearings on the original legislation, the same arguments were made by almost the same people about job loss, how this is going to hurt businesses. as history has shown, supervisor ammiano was correct. the supervisors and the mayor's office, who were willing to be courageous around the most important issue that faces america today and being a leader on the most important issue was the right thing to do. history has shown that that was the correct course. by closing the loophole today, you wi

it talked about tax loopholes. i am amazed, as i sit here as a new member, listening to other members talk about tax loopholes and all these things everybody is grinding their teeth about -- we should have done things years ago, last year, the year before. none of that has come to fruition. now a catastrophe stairs as in the face if we do not do anything. >> we still have questions to come from mr. fisher and scott. we have 2 votes running on the house floor. we have been here for two hours. thank you all. we hope you will be able to come back after those votes. we will reconvene for questions from the other three members of our panel, and then we will vote. the rules committee stands in recess until the ending of the second vote. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house rules committee voted to allow four hours of debate on deficit reduction legislation. they had four hours of debate on the legislation. we will have more about tha

loopholes, reduce tax deductions? or republicans dare to do that? will democrats signed onto cuts to medicare or social security? >> democrats, sucked it up. put entitlements on the table, make sure that at the end of the day, these are still programs that serve the public. >> dick durbin, democrat senate wit. sounds so reasonable when you put it on paper, nina. why can they not get it done? >> i don't know why they cannot get done. i do know why. if you looat the polling data, the american public wants no changes in social security, medicare, medicaid. democrats, having desires of winning back the house, they don't want to go there. republicans have a big flank of new members elected on a pledge of no new taxes. nobody is dealing with reality. anybody on this panel, two of us could make a deal, but they cannot. >> why can they not make a deal, charles? >> you saw it in the clipou showed. nancy pelosi is the classic definition of a reaction. liberal. no changes in programs, entitlements. -- classic definition of a reactionary at liberal. no genocide

we are here to support the closing of the loophole. the chinese workers association have been serving the chinese community for 40 years now. our members have high rates of poor health because they are working long hours. i have heard of some people working 17 hours a day, sweat shop conditions. low wages lead to bad housing conditions in sro's, and that leads to bad health. my aunt was a low-wage worker. she was denied treatment. one day, she died in her sleep. she is survived by her two sons. for folks who do not get treatment, that cost would then be on the taxpayers. also for the chinese community, a lot of people do not speak english. people get for notice. when people get health care, they do not even know if they provide health care, even though they have over 20 workers in their workplace. in one case, a worker wanted to testify, but she is afraid because of her workplace. her employer changed to the health spending account. you need to close this loophole. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. let me read a few mo

let's talk about the third group impacted by this loophole -- other businesses. employers. from my perspective, this is pro-business legislation that tries to level the playing field for businesses in san francisco. olsc has given us much information, a lot of statistics, and they have more they can give us. the reality is that the vast majority of businesses and employers in san francisco are playing by the rules and doing what they are supposed to. we will hear from restaurant owners. we will hear from many businesses that are doing exactly what the health care security ordinance intended to do, which is to cover their employees. businesses that understand that there is a business interest in treating your workers with respect and dignity, that there is a business benefit to making sure that you have a work force that is in fact healthy, and that in fact, having a healthy worker means increase productivity and something that not only helps the business but actually helps the consumer. it makes sure that the service is more reliable. it makes sure that the business is more

the loopholes we benefit from.ortgage interest deduction is going to be the toughest one, particularly now when the housing market is still so weak. i would be really surprised if they went after that. where i think there is a powerful lobby but also a very effective counter political argument. a bellwether one is the way carried interest is treated. this benefits a very narrow group of people, hedge funds and private equity, and it's really unfair. it's why warren buffett pointed out he pays lower taxes than his secretary. if they can make that one stick, then i think that shows they're really able to get traction on these loopholes overall. >> if they do the loophole deal, what about medicare? the house democrats don't want the president to give up much at all. what's the number? it means test benefits and they can do other things to squeeze out savings. how much money do they need to get out of medicare? >> it's hard to say how much money. the fact is medicare is underfunded to the tune of about $37 trillion in

eliminated -- those loopholes eliminated. if i had the time i would. i must now yield to a co-sponsor of the fair tax, a gentleman who has co-sponsored legislation in this house. mr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for how long? mr. woodall: i'm sorry, mr. speaker, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: two minutes, the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in strong support of this bill and rule, cut, cap and balance. the gentlelady from texas just stood up and said she would call it the tap dance bill. quite frankly what the president has in mind i would refer to as the whistling past the graveyard plan. this cut, cap and balance approach to this problem is just that. and the first provision of cutting spending, mr. speaker, of $111 billion, $35 billion of that by the way from mandatory spending, but not one dime, not one dime from social security or medicare. we protect our seniors. but this spending problem, i mean, it is

overall. >> if they do the loophole deal, what about medicare?ocrats don't want the president to give up much at all. what's the number? it means test benefits and they can do other things to squeeze out savings. how much money do they need to get out of medicare? >> it's hard to say how much money. the fact is medicare is underfunded to the tune of about $37 trillion in current dollar terms based on reasonable assumptions. no matter what they do on medicare, it's a modest downpayment towards trying to make that program solvent, sustainable and secure over time. >> there's some who say hit the deadline. doesn't matter. force the government to make tough decisions. the others say we'll see the financial markets go into deep markets go into deep turmoil again. who is right? >> we won't know until it happens. the risk of serious turmoil, if the politicians try to pull an all nighter is sufficiently severe. a prudent legislature that cared about the country more than anything else wouldn't try to risk it. >> appreciate your insights. again, high stak

some companies utilize loopholes and pay no taxes. others pay the second highest tax rate in the industrialized world. i would say that the goal here is to get rid of all these loopholes so whoever your no matter what you make, pay the same amount of tax rates. we need to reform this tax code as we create jobs if we simply raise taxes, raise spending, borrow more money, we lose jobs. this debt is a threat to our current economy and the tax code is a current threat to our economy. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york. . hoke -- >> i rise in support of this act. this legislation is strong medicine, mr. speaker but it will cure what ails the american economy. for far too long, washington has overspent, borrowed and heaped debt upon our children and our future children. if we don't -- if we don't make a change with cut, cap and balance now, the american dream will go away and we won't have the opportunities that this country has always offered. it's time for the federal government to get our spending

economically it would be worse than this loophole closing thing. but it would start to get us some serious reductioof the deficit annot just through spending cutting but also through revenue. >> let me come back to the pledge. >> rose: okay. >> the pledge says we're not going to raise tax rates, that's what people were asked to pledge and we're not going to eliminate any deductions or exemptions, so maybe there's yet a different compromise. put a limit on them. not eliminate but put a cap on them. the thing that i've been talking to folks in washington and elsewhere about is yes you can keep all of these special perks that are in the tax code. when you add them all up they can't reduce your tax bill by more than some percentage of your adjusted gross income. >> rose: what kind of resnse do you get from washington? >> a lot of people say that's interestg. >> rose: including grover norquist? >> i have not discussed it with grover norquist. but it seems to me you could as a republican congressman have taken the pledge and you've given them way around

republicans on the other hand never saw a tax they like, even when it meant closing tax loopholes.hey do not wants to support any enhancements. they do not want to cut spending, and i tell people, what is next? if it is not entitlements or closing loopholes, if there is no closing of the defense budget, what is left is evisceration of the safety net. mayors want to focus america back on the number one issue, getting people back to work, reinvigorating our economy, investing in our courts and highway transportation and public transport system, and we want them to stop dithering, stop the blame game, work together, find a solution that i think the president is advocating for. it should be one that addresses spending cuts we need to make but not solely spending cuts. it also addresses tax loopholes we need to close and tax revenues we need so we can fund government, invest and america's future again. >> does your critique of fellow democrats mean that you think republicans are raising a legitimate issue with the deficit reduction? >> first, it is not just republicans focused on debt r

-- homeowner have a loophole. guest: i missed the last part. and on the first question, great question. we have to make sure that whatever we do, whether it is in making cuts to spending or dealing with these tax expenditures or the tax loopholes, that it is a dedicated to the deficits. absolutely. you could do that. that can be very transparent, because you can read that into the law that requires the use for deficit spending. at the same time, with regard to the loopholes, again, richard point out something very important, and that is what i alluded to in the previous response to these loopholes. mortgage interest deduction is not something that most americans consider a tax loophole. if you are renter in you are filing and make the same amount as richard or me and grinned, you do not get to deduct from your taxes. so you might consider that a loophole. what we have to do is decide is a good policy, worthwhile policy to have a tax reduction in our tax code to and sent people to buy a home? i think it is a good i

so listen to the words about anything related to loopholes, tax rates. that's going to be the clue about whether there's any give on the revenue side of this equation. >> laura tyson, former chief economic adviser to president clinton. thank you for decoding the coming conversation for us and for those great ideas. >> all right. thank you very much, matt. >>> coming up, casey anthony let's her hair down. america's most famous accused killer since o.j. simpson is about to be sprung. we'll ask the mega panel what her acquittal says about our trite a fair trial. >>> and the president getting it from all sides on everything from the debt to the war to where he was born. are we being too hard on the guy? we'll ask bob woodward in just a bit. >>> plus -- how lady gaga could keep you out of a mess like this. >>> you're watching the dylan ratigan show, only on msnbc. introducing the schwab mobile app. it's schwab at your fingertips wherever, whenever you want. one log in lets you monitor all of your balances and transfer between accounts, so your money can move

that we talk about closing the tax loophole for private jet owners, oil, gas companies, those sorts of things and maybe this payroll tax holiday, extending that and in exchange for some minor tweaking of medicare, but nothing that really gives the republicans too big a win on that issue. and they would also argue, to gloria's point earlier, that you actually need this. this is not just a win for democrats, you need it because you need democratic votes to get this through because you're going to lose so many republicans who simply won't vote to extend the debt ceiling under any circumstances. so that's the calculus if you went with the middle deal, there would be an entirely different math for a tax reform package if you went with that larger deal that's more in the $4 trillion range. >> the irony here to me is that a larger deal would in many ways be easier to cut because it's so obvious what you would have to do. if you do a smaller deal, then you have to have eric cantor lay out by piece by piece by piece, cut by cut, by cut, what he would do if you don't have the revenue side of

eric cantor talking about loopholes.en't objecting to this loophole or that, we oppose raising taxes on families and small businesses at a time when we should be focused on growth and job creation. >> there won't be an increase in tax rays. nobody is talking about that and a good for reason for it. what they are talking about are what are called revenue enhancers. the $6 billion we send into ethanol, things like that. there's a consensus in cutting that stuff. that stuff is limited. biden talks identified trillion dollars worth of use that would be acceptable. you won get to the numbers that you need to without more dramatic use. >> let's do what president clinton said and "wall street journal" agrees with. bill clinton said 35% of corporate income tax rate it's second highest in the western world. drop the rates of corporate rate down at the same time we get rid of these loopholes. you can get a republican deal on that. a short term deal on that. but if you go for straight increase for revenue -- >> you won't get any re

i am here to support the loophole about healthy san francisco. i also need to mention, at this time, the restaurant charging 4% to customers, that money, i think, went to the owner's pockets. instead, that money is going to the pockets of one person instead of the everyone. i have documents to prove that the rest from made over $2 million. just do the math. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> director of the office of small business. at the small business commission, you have the commission's response in your packet. we are not recommending -- the commission is not recommending approval, but does recommend the fact that the needs to be strengthening in notifications. we checked with our city attorney. the city can require employers to provide some regular noticing of these hra accounts. a particular note i want to draw to your attention, on paragraph 4 of the commission's response, many of these businesses are using the hra account to deal with their part-time employers. the unused funds are actually helping to supplement their

many workers are not receiving the benefit of the law because of the loophole. some workers are even being told now that you have the account. if you do not use the money, i will give you money back and the end of the year. they use that to get around a law. these are ideas of how responsible businesses are being hurt by the fact there is a loophole for undue incentives. we believe and workers of small businesses are connected and workers really need the support of the commission at. >> following, and we have -- [list of names] >> i am the executive director of the san francisco labor council. we represent people who do have the benefit. we are proud to work withi the supervisor to really work hard to put this legislation together, and supervisor campeau'os is saying we are note to debate. and when it comes down to it, the coalition knew that the intent of this legislation was to provide health care to workers. that is the intent, and what really disturbs us from some of the studies but have taken place, all of the individual stories we hear from different worke

so we are here to close that loophole because as supervisor, now assembly member omiany will tell you, the whole intent of healthy san francisco was to provide that healthcare to the employees that were supposed to be covered by healthy san francisco. let me share with you text from the original legislation that talks about the original intent of that ordinance and i quote -- "all san francisco residents should have quality, affordable healthcare. currently approximately 82,000 adult san francisco residents are uninsured even though more than half of those individuals are employed. san francisco taxpayers bear the cost of paying for emergency room visits and other unnecessarily expensive healthcare for the uninsured. by establishing a health access program for uninsured san francisco residents with an emphasis on preventive care and by requiring businesses to make reasonable healthcare expenditures on behalf of their employees depending on the business' ability to pay, the burden on san francisco taxpayers for providing healthcare for the uninsured can be reduced," and i end the quote

why don't we plug tax loopholes now?senator coburn's credit and senator durbin and the others came up with a way to do that. >> greta: here's an example, you say why don't we do this about loopholes. last november bowles-simpson commission came up with an idea to get rid of 3300 loopholes, earmarks, nobody did anything. >> that's not true. >> greta: the 's not true. >> proposal of the six s most of that -- >> greta: i'm saying for six or eight months nobody was saying let's adopt i. >> i don't know that -- i don't think that is true. -- >> greta: they took the vet and it got dismissed. there's -- took the vote and it got dismissed. >> i'm saying let's not dismiss it. let's get four trillion in deficit cuts by doing some statesmanship here. by put ago sigh the back and forth you've heard tonight and get -- by putting aside the back and forth you've heard tonight and get things done. >> greta: it may be too late for people to have statesmanship. they want controls on congress. i think that's the problem. you've had so many

so nobody should hold a candle to us on wanting to close loopholes. we have been saying that forever. it's just all the spending cuts, we have yet to see specifics. we have yet to see commitments to do this. but we see a lot of commitments on tax rate increases. that's what we're concerned about. but more to the point, at the end of the day, does a guy like me think we can have a more efficient tax system that raises revenues at say 18%, 19% or 20% of gdp without causing an economic problem. i do. but the key is, you bring a government down to 18%, 19% or 20% of gdp, that's not on the table. no reforms have been offered to deal with the drivers of our debt which is health care entitlement spending that brings government spending down in line with revenue. all we're talking about right now is not bringing spending down in line with revenues but just bringing revenues up. if you go down this path of chasing ever higher spending with ever higher revenue, you will shut down the economy and you are not going to fix the problem. that's our concern. >> final

it talked about tax loopholes. i am amazed, as i sit here as a new member, listening to other members talk about tax loopholes and all these things everybody is grinding their teeth about -- we should have done things years ago, last year, the year before. none of that has come to fruition. now a catastrophe stairs as in the face if we do not do anything. >> we still have questions to come from mr. fisher and scott. we have 2 votes running on the house floor. we have been here for two hours. thank you all. we hope you will be able to come back after those votes. we will reconvene for questions from the other three members of our panel, and then we will vote. the rules committee stands in recess until the ending of the second vote. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house rules committee voted to allow four hours of debate on deficit reduction legislation. it also prohibits any amendments to the measure. the house will bid again the

i'm happy to close loopholes.eal deal. >> how about this one. >> that's what they're talking about. >> how about this one, senator. take this back to main street in oshkosh and ask the people you encountered in the main street in oshkosh. hedge funds. a lot of money. billions of dollars. you get taxed capital gains rate, 15%. why not tax it as income? >> mike, has the president proposed that? is it on a piece of paper? >> why don't go. >> can i take a look at it? >> why don't you propose it. >> because first of all we haven't passed a budget in the united states senate for two years. the democrats are in total control of the senate. the house did pass a budge. the democrats simply refused to put their plan on the table because they don't want to have the american people see what their plan is. their plan primarily is to raise taxes. but, again, i'm willing to work with anybody. i'm willing to negotiate. i'm willing to eliminate loopholes. most of my colleagues are willing to eliminate loopholes. show us what they

the gentleman also knows that those loopholes and the costs associated with those loopholes pale in comparison to the problem. so i know it makes for good politics to go throw the shiny ball out there, madam speaker -- mr. van hollen: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i will not yield. to throw the shiny ball out there that somehow the republicans will sustain these preferences when all along in our budget and in our plan we have said we're for tax reform. we have said we're for bringing down rates on everybody. and that's it, madam speaker. let's get serious and stop playing politics. it's not about that. there is no disagreement that any of us want to support those loopholes, but what's really going on, madam speaker, in all of the debt discussion, in all of the negotiation is the fact that the minority and its party and the president continue to insist that we raise taxes on the sml business people that we need so desperately to begin creating jobs and hiring people again. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the mr. hoyer: i thank my frien the ranking member of the budget commit

there were way too many loopholes, many that i brought up. i think the 20-person marker has a lot of issues. the lot of businesses want to make sure they stay under that cap. that is loss of revenue. this was so predictable, this one. the other issues of how many of these businesses have skirted right out to south of san francisco -- i know several. it was all predictable. it was all done way too fast, quite frankly, so that our former mayor had some trophy for his statewide campaign, in my opinion. i keep it real. there are some anythings in this legislation that need to be reworked to create the best possible healthy san francisco for san franciscans, for workers. if i am going to pay into it, like i do -- i do not know if any other commissioners pay into it. i do not know how many people in this room pay into it. i pay into it. i want it to work. i want it to be good. also, the people who are behind the scenes -- none of this is transparent. it all got written behind the scenes. every issue i brought a at this task force was completely ign