On Monday's CBS This Morning host Charlie Rose tossed Sen. Chuck
Schumer (D-N.Y.) a softball on whether he believes higher taxes on
millionaires would create jobs, but the senator only chose to address
the second part of the question on income inequality. Rose did not
follow up and later Schumer argued that the taxes would create jobs but
certain conditions should be met.
That was not the only time Rose let Schumer off without a follow-up
question. Schumer insisted the tax revenue should go toward building
infrastructure and student loans to create jobs, but added that it would
not solve the whole deficit problem. Rose could have challenged that
liberal assumption by pointing to the failure of the Democrats' stimulus
package, but failed to do so.
Rose's
two-sided question to Schumer about the "Buffett Rule," which the
Senate Democrats are pushing for a vote next week, was "do you believe
it'll A, create jobs? Do you believe B, it will somehow reduce the
inequality gap in America?"
Schumer did not immediately address the first question, but answered it
later, saying that "at minimum it brings in $47 billion."
"Now if you put that money into, for instance, keeping student loans at
a low rate, they're at 3.4 percent now, they're going up to 6.8, you'd
create a lot of jobs over the next five years. If you put the money into
building highways, roads, and bridges, which many of our colleagues in
the House are stopping, you'd create a lot of jobs," the Democratic
senator continued.
Rose wouldn't challenge that line, however. CBS correspondent Jeff Glor
asked a tough question instead, about notions that taxing the
ultra-rich was being politicized into a campaign strategy by the
Democrats.
The largely soft interview began with an easy question from Rose for
one of the leading Democratic senators – explain the Senate Democrats'
"Buffett Rule" legislation. "Just for purposes of explanation, explain
the 'Buffett Rule,' because everybody talks about it and we know the
essence of it, but what is it?" Rose asked.
A transcript of the segment, which aired on April 9 on CBS This Morning at 8:01 a.m. EDT:
CHARLIE ROSE: Billionaire Warren Buffett struck a nerve last year when
he said that America's wealthiest people should not have a lower tax
rate than the middle class. Now Senate Democrats are pushing for a vote
next week on the "Buffett Rule," a proposed tax hike for people who
would make more than a million dollars a year. New York Senator Chuck
Schumer is a prime mover behind the proposal. Senator, good morning.
Sen. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-N.Y.): Good morning, nice to be here.
ROSE: Welcome to our table.
SCHUMER: – on your nice new show and nice set.
GAYLE KING: Welcome. Welcome.
ROSE: It is good to have you here. Just for purposes of explanation,
explain the "Buffett Rule," because everybody talks about it and we know
the essence of it, but what is it?
SCHUMER: Well, it's very simple. First, if you're a very wealthy
person, we have nothing against them, God bless them. They made a lot of
money. But you have the opportunity to take advantage of certain tax
breaks that average people don't. And as a result, a large percentage of
people who make lots of money, millions and millions of dollars a year,
pay an actual tax rate of 15, 20, 22 percent, whereas –
ROSE: Because most of the income is from investments, rather than ordinary –
SCHUMER: Investments, or they take advantage of different –
KING: Capital gains.
SCHUMER: – capital gains and dividends account for a lot of it, but
other deductions too. There are all kinds of deductions. There's a whole
industry of accountants and lawyers who do this. So we're simply saying
that 30 percent should be the minimum for all income over $1 million.
There's one exception in the bill that Senator Whitehouse – he's our
leader on this – has put together, which is charitable deduction. We
still want to encourage very wealthy people to give as much to
charitable. But everything else, there's a 30 percent floor for only
their income over a million. Your first million goes by the regular
rules.
ROSE: Alright, do you believe it'll A, create jobs? Do you believe B, it will somehow reduce the inequality gap in America?
SCHUMER: Yeah, look, one of our great problems in America, which people
don't focus on enough, is that middle class incomes have actually gone
down. Median income went down over the last decade. But the income of
people who are in the top one percent or .01 percent, has gone way up.
And this bill is a question of fairness, making people believe in the
code, and it brings in some revenues, no question about it.
ROSE: Sitting in that very chair recently was the mayor of this great city, Mike Bloomberg.
KING: Mike Bloomberg, yes.
ROSE: I'm going to show you –
KING: We'll show you!
ROSE: Here's what he said.
(Laughing)
SCHUMER: We'll see.
(Video Clip)
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, mayor of New York City: If you just raise taxes on
the rich, you only raise a de minimis amount of money. Most of this
country is middle class. And that's where most of the tax revenue is. So
if you want to raise $4 trillion over the next 10 years, which gets you
halfway – only halfway to a balanced budget – everybody's taxes have to
go up.
(End Video Clip)
KING: Your response, Senator.
SCHUMER: Well I love Mike, and I love the "halfway," that's the only part of Boston that's left in him.
(Laughter)
SCHUMER: But it is true that the high-end people are not the whole
answer to the problem. But they are gaining a greater and greater
percentage of income, it's not – it's no longer that they're just, you
know – for instance, the top, I believe the top one percent in income
made 23 percent of the income last year. So you do get some money, but
it's also a question of fairness. For the average family who's
struggling right now, their income is going down to at least the think
the system is on the level, they should be paying less than the people
who make the highest income. In terms of job creation, you asked about
that, at minimum it brings in $47 billion. Now if you put that money
into, for instance, keeping student loans at a low rate, they're at 3.4
percent now, they're going up to 6.8, you'd create a lot of jobs over
the next five years. If you put the money into building highways, roads,
and bridges, which many of our colleagues in the House are stopping,
you'd create a lot of jobs. So if you don't want to do more deficit
spending, and there's a consensus there, you've got to find the money
somewhere and this is a logical place to do it. But no question,
Bloomberg is right, it's not going to answer the whole question. That's
not an argument against it. You've got to start somewhere.
JEFF GLOR: But the notion that it's been politicized, that targeting the ultra-rich as a campaign strategy –
SCHUMER: You know, this is such a bogus argument. We have believed, as a
country, that higher-income people should pay a higher percentage of
income since the 16th Amendment, which was 1912, it came in with Woodrow
Wilson and the progressives. And you know, some of the people who, I
guess, believe that well the way to get this economy going is reduce
taxes on the wealthiest people make that argument, but there's no class
warfare involved. It's a question simply of fairness. And the bottom
line is most wealthy people I talk to say yes, I shouldn't pay a lower
rate than somebody who's my secretary. Some, and they're very powerful,
and that article in the New York Times talks about them, say I don't
want to pay any taxes. But they're a small group, they have
disproportionate influence, obviously, with the Super PACs.
KING: Let's talk about the fairness of baggage fees, for just a second.
Because everybody – I was flying recently, and I was asked –
SCHUMER: Of cabbages and kings.
KING: Gayle King here. I was asked to pay $25 – I know, I got the joke.
I was asked to pay $25 and I started thinking, now what is this
covering again? I understand that you disagree too with baggage fees.
Because?
SCHUMER: Look, what's happened is there's competition in the airlines
because of the internet, and you can go on and find out the best cost.
So they try to hide the fees in other places. And now they –
KING: Not so hidden.
SCHUMER: Not so hidden.
KING: Yeah.
SCHUMER: But, when you go online they'll say the price of the ticket's
$300. Now for each bag you carry on it's another $50. That raises the
price a lot. So the only thing we're asking for right now, we've asked –
I've asked all the air lines to make a commitment not to charge for
carry-on baggage. The big airlines, to their credit, have made that
commitment. But the smaller airlines are doing it. We can't stop them. I
don't think we should pass legislation for this. All we want is the FTC
to require disclosure. And when they say the cost is $300, plus $50 a
bag. And let people make their own decision.
ROSE: The New York Times, you've mentioned this a couple of times, with
an eye on the general election super PAC aims blitz at Obama. Are we
looking at not only the most expensive, but also perhaps the dirtiest
campaign we have seen?