Subject: Tax hit for Chris Hayes
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>, Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:50:14 -0500

HRC is going to call into Chris Hayes' show this afternoon to do her tax
hit.  How does this look to you guys?

·      Right now, the super-wealthy and big corporations are using every
trick in the book to game the system and avoid paying billions in taxes.
It’s wrong, and it’s bad for our economy. We can’t have one tax system for
those at the top and another one for everyone else.

·      So today, I proposed adding a new “fair share surcharge” on
multi-millionaires and closing loopholes to make it harder to game the
system.  I’m also pushing for the Buffett Rule, which sets a minimum rate
for those at the top, and other reforms like closing the carried interest
loophole that allows some hedge fund managers to pay a lower rate than a
teacher or a nurse.

·      When it comes to taxes, there’s a clear choice in this election.
Republicans candidates are promising huge new giveaways to the wealthiest
Americans.  And on the Democratic side, I am the only candidate pledging to
raise middle class incomes, not middle class taxes.

·      You know, Senator Sanders, Governor O’Malley, and I share a lot of
the same values and goals.  We both want to make the economy work for
everyone, not just those at the top.  And the differences between us pale
compared to what we see on the other side.  But we *do* have differences.

·      I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.  I measure every
policy by whether it’s going to actually make life better for working
families.  And I’ve laid out how I’m going to pay for everything I’m
proposing by making the wealthy pay their fair share.

·      Senator Sanders has a different approach.  His agenda would add 18
to 20 trillion dollars in new federal spending, but he hasn’t explained how
he’d pay for it.  That’s a big risk, because it’s hard to make the
arithmetic add up any other way than a big tax increase on middle class
families.  I don’t think that’s the right choice when incomes for most
people have barely budged in years.

·      I like and respect Senator Sanders quite a lot, but I’m concerned
that some of his ideas run the risk of hurting rather than helping.  So I
look forward to debating these differences in the campaign.