Senator Sanders: Of course they pay taxes, but not proportionate to what they earn.
Let me ask you another question, a moral question. Let’s forget about being in the United States Senate, let’s get down to basic morality. In your budget (pointing his right index finger at Director Nussel), you propose over 700 billion dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest three-tenths of one-percent; 700 billion dollars in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires at the same time as you want to eliminate, among other programs, the low-income weatherization assistance program, as you want to make massive cuts in the (indistinct, sounded like Lydie) program, which you are very familiar with. Well, in Vermont, and all over this country, Iowa, I dare say (NOTE: Nussel, prior to appointment as Ch of OMB, had been a GOP Representative in the House), it is getting cold. Older people cannot afford to keep their homes warm. What is the moral justification for giving over 700 billion dollars in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, and then cut back on programs which keep people warm, which provide health care for desperate people, and which provide many other basic necessities? Give me the moral justification for that.
Director Nussel: The, ah, tax, ah, cuts the president proposed in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 are distribute much further than the top one-tenth of one percent.
Senator Sanders: But I’ve given you an example of how it impacts the top one-three-tenths of one-percent; seven hundred billion dollars. Tell me why the richest people in this country need tax breaks while poverty is increasing.
Director Nussel: Look, ah, look, I would guess under that, that you received a tax cut.
Senator Sanders: I may have. But I’m talking about millionaires and billionaires. And I don’t need a tax break. You don’t need a tax break. Tell me, why should the richest people . . .
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
