Dems Won't Rule Out Tax Hike On Wealthy

Pelosi Says Democrats Looking For Way To Pay For Middle-Class Tax Cuts

(CBS/AP)  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats are not ruling out raising taxes for the wealthiest people to help pay for tax cuts for middle-income families.

Asked in a CBS News interview if Americans making over half-a-million dollars a year may see their taxes go up, Pelosi said: "They may. But as I say, that's not where we'll begin. It's an option, it's not a first resort.

Pelosi spoke of pursuing an estimated $300 billion that people owe in back taxes, eliminating deficit spending and reducing wasteful federal spending.

"As we review what we get from ... collecting our taxes and reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the Treasury, it may be that (repealing) tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year, might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children," Pelosi, D-Calif., told Bob Schieffer in an interview on Face The Nation aired Sunday.

A budget rule, known as the pay-as-you-go rule, that was approved by the Democratic-run House on Friday requires that tax cuts have corresponding cuts in government spending or tax increases elsewhere to pay for them.

"What we're saying is Democrats propose tax cuts for middle-income families. And we want to have 'pay-go,' no new deficit spending. We're not going to start with repealing tax cuts, but they certainly are not off the table for people making over half a million dollars a year," Pelosi said.

The Senate's top Republican said most GOP senators oppose this budget rule because "it almost guarantees that the majority, if it enacts it, will try to raise taxes."

"The last thing we need to do is to be raising taxes in this country, and 'pay-go' is the first step toward raising taxes," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Fox News. "I think there will be very few, if any, Republicans who will support raising taxes.

Last week, the president challenged Democrats to join him in balancing the budget within five years and urged them to cut thousands of pet projects from future spending bills.

"The war in Iraq and the tax cuts for the highest end people in our country makes it difficult and challenging to balance the budget, there's no question. But we'd like to see what the president's version of a balanced budget is. He's never sent one to the Congress," Pelosi said.

Asked if it's possible to balance the budget without raising taxes, Pelosi, said, "If the president's willing to join with us to fight waste, fraud, and abuse, collecting the taxes, closing the loopholes, we can start there. … What we'd like to do is come to the table as I say, put all our priorities on the table."

Mr. Bush's spending decisions also came under fire from the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis.

"How can you ever expect to get to a balanced budget if you're spending $100 billion a year on Iraq borrowing the money to do it, if you're giving $50 billion a year in tax cuts to people who make over a million bucks a year and paying for that with borrowed money?" Obey said.

Elsewhere on the legislative agenda, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is getting ready to investigate suspected government fraud, particularly in federal contracts in Iraq and the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina struck. But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is not preparing to hand out subpoenas at first.

"I don't think you issue a subpoena first. You negotiate, and you try to get the information you need," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the new chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, is seeking GOP cooperation in making inroads on bloated tax laws.

"We have to look at all of the deductions, all of the credits, and to come up with what we think we can do," he said. "Is it going to be difficult? You bet your life."

Rangel, Waxman and Obey appeared on "This Week" on ABC.

[ralynna]

We always get a refund so I think taxes should be raised to pay for the poor.

[lestb35]

Oh man, dude, what a way to live, that sounds so good right now. You have definately got the right idea.

[randalds]

Hey, Randal we'll all be looking to leave the United Slaves of America if they raise taxes on the middle class. The rich and poor can have the country.
Posted by lestb35 at 04:14 PM : Jan 09, 2007

Think quiet evenings with little or no outside static. Just sipping tequila and watching the sunset over the Pacific with a view that in the US you'd pay millions for, then you have the right idea.

[randalds]

Sounds like a good life, Randal. Mexico sounds awesome, maybe I'll do the same.
Posted by lestb35 at 04:04 PM : Jan 09, 2007

The tiny seaside villages of the Mexican West coast are paradise for the next 10 to 50years. Some are becoming Americanized, but if you choose carefully you can actually still afford to live like a King on just your social security alone for the rest of your life. If you don't want a resort or a copy of an American coastal city, but will be happy with a real Hemingway type life (withe satellite Internet and TV access of course) then the Mexican west coast is paradise.

[lestb35]

Hey, Randal we'll all be looking to leave the United Slaves of America if they raise taxes on the middle class. The rich and poor can have the country.

[lestb35]

Sounds like a good life, Randal. Mexico sounds awesome, maybe I'll do the same.

[randalds]

Semi-retired at 50. Not bad. You got twenty five good years left.
Posted by lestb35 at 02:18 PM : Jan 09, 2007

Not really. Every man in my family has died in their early 60's and not one has ever made it to 70. I have maybe 12 years left myself. The semi-retired part comes from having married an older women who is determined to retire soon herself. We're going to both move to Mexico and get a tiny place in a seaside fishing village. We won't live the life of the rich and famous, but we'll be together.

[lestb35]

Yea, I've been meaning to go to the SBA,a wealth of information, and take some classes.

[lestb35]

Semi-retired at 50. Not bad. You got twenty five good years left.

[randalds]

Randal, we should get together and start a business hiring semi-retired people exclusively. They have so much to offer our society and are usually the best employees. I've heard the govt. is coming out with new tax incentives for small manufacturing and production companies.
Posted by lestb35 at 01:50 PM : Jan 09, 2007

That's actually not a bad idea. I spent 20+ years running main-frame computers, but so few of them are used these days that I'm obsolete. However I would like to think that my ability to operate them speaks to and intelligence that could be better used then what I'm doing now. I don't need a to make a ton of money (just enough to pay my expenses and give me some beer money on the side), but there is nowhere for someone like me to turn right now. Unless of course I want to become a greeter at Walmart and, at 50, I think I'm a bit too young.

[lestb35]

Randal, we should get together and start a business hiring semi-retired people exclusively. They have so much to offer our society and are usually the best employees. I've heard the govt. is coming out with new tax incentives for small manufacturing and production companies.

[lestb35]

Randal, I see the lower middle class struggling more than the poor. Let me explain. They are trying to hold on to property, and credit and not slip into poverty which would be not owning anything and signing up for free govt. surplus. It's like we have two Americas those of us who are trying to hold onto the original self sufficient personal ownership America and those who have slipt below the line and depend on the govt. for everything. No judgement here just an observation. In fact I would say rather than struggle ones entire life trying to keep afloat, I'd say sell everything and go completely dependent on the US govt if your pride can take it.

[randalds]

I've come out of semi-retirement recently and taken a job at a supermarket to have something to do. It's strange because they know I don't need the job to get by and they treat me very different then the ones who need the job to pay bills or to just survive. It seems to me that corporate America has lost so much respect for the people who do the day to day back-breaking work that keeps our nation functioning. I'm thinking of quitting. Not because the work is too hard (I actually love hard work), but because I feel guilty for taking a job someone else might need and because I can't stand to watch how management abuses their need to keep this job. There is a class war coming.

[randalds]

Yes lestb35, but the goal is to find a way to eliminate the poor altogether. Via a humane way of course and not the Bush/republican way of just wasting them all. LOL!

Anyway the elimination of poverty is obviously feasible. I mean it's not like America doesn't have the money or resources to do it. The distribution of that money and resources is the issue.

[lestb35]

Randal, really the argument for the "poor", is overused. The poor in this country are pretty well cared for the biggest problem for them is sorting through the miriad of programs but once they're in they are well provided for and pay no federal taxes especially if they have dependants. The Earned Income Credit is basically a bonus check without having to pay any income tax.

[lestb35]

If we have to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to stop borrowing ourselves into oblivion, then so be it.
Posted by frankly6 at 11:25 AM : Jan 09, 2007

They're saying we're at the lowest tax rate we'll ever see in our lifetime.Kind of makes you want to cash in your IRA's now and pay the penalty. Well, if they're going to raise taxes on the middle class and lower middle class we'll be working until we're 80 to pay off our houses and equity loans.

[randalds]

Randal, do you really want the govt. to own your home? Sounds almost unAmerican.
Posted by lestb35 at 01:19 PM : Jan 09, 2007

You're right. I didn't express that well. It should have been something more along the line of "government provided". To those who can't afford there own that is and for them to own. The point is that basic housing should be a right. Just as basic health care, food, etc.

[lestb35]

Randal, do you really want the govt. to own your home? Sounds almost unAmerican.

[lestb35]

If we just taxed corporations without all the tax incentives wouldn't be ahead. It would probably hurt the stock market initially but who cares.

[randalds]

Try this: "I believe charging different prices for my customers based on their different abilities to pay is the fairest." How many businesses would stay in business with this philosophy (yes, hospitals are forced to act this way by law)?

Posted by OlGreyGhost at 01:08 PM : Jan 09, 2007

Oh and when it comes to basic necessities of life, housing, food, utilities, etc., I think these should be government owned and controlled and distributed and charged on an ability to pay.