The real Vladimir Ilyich Obama stands up
As part of his fantasy “deficit reduction” plan, Barack Obama proposed a number of new taxes. One of them was the so-called “Buffett Rule.” When it was initially proposed, it was part of the plan to reduce the deficit.
“Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” he said. “It’s hard to argue against that.”
Mr Obama suggested a “Buffett rule”, which would see Americans who earn more than $1m pay the same rate of tax as those who earn less.
The proposal refers to billionaire financier Warren Buffett, who has complained that he and his wealthy peers pay relatively less tax than the people who work for them.
Many high-income Americans benefit from tax loopholes that see earnings on investment taxed at lower rates than wages.
On Sunday Republican Paul Ryan, chairman of the House budget committee and a proponent of deep cuts and no tax rises, described Mr Obama’s plans as “class warfare”.
The president referenced Mr Ryan’s criticism on Monday, justified his tax-and-cut package by saying simply: “It’s not class warfare, it’s math.”
So how much impact would the Buffett rule have on either the debt or the deficit? The White House refused to say.
But for the moment, the White House wants to keep the attention focused on Obama’s argument that it’s unfair to tax Buffett’s secretary at a higher rate than her boss.
“I’m not going to give you a schedule of how broad individual tax reform would break down and what impact it would have,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said at the Wednesday briefing. “The president simply believes that as a matter of principle that unfairness ought to be changed.”
Republican lawmakers — noting the absence of real numbers — attacked the plan as a political charade, an attempt to score points in the November election instead of a serious policy to reduce federal debt. One outside analysis by the non-partisan Tax Foundation indicates the rule would generate another $36.7 billion a year in revenue — far from enough to make a serious dent in a national debt of $15 trillion.
It’s estimated that the “Buffett Rule” would bet around $4 billion per year.
A bill designed to enact President Obama’s plan for a “Buffett rule” tax on the wealthy would rake in just $47 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress’ official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press.
That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is also minuscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama’s budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax.
Obama’s proposed deficits run over a trillion dollars for as long as anyone can imagine.
Since the Buffett rule would have essentially no impact on the debt or the deficit, Obama has shifted tactics. It’s no longer about deficit reduction- now it’s all about fairness.
The Obama administration is emphasizing “fairness” over deficit reduction in its renewed pitch for the “Buffett rule” ahead of next week’s scheduled Senate vote.
Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “This is not the president’s entire tax plan. We’re not trying to say this solves all our economic problems, all our budget problems.”
So it’s not the math? It’s fairness? OK, then.
“Fairness” was Vladimir Lenin’s central campaign theme– equality of outcome. It’s what Communism is all about.
It also led right to Josef Stalin. So how is $4 billion a year going to create “fairness”? How is it going to give everyone a “fair shot”? How does that actually work? Will the yearly $4 billion go into the “fair shot pool”? And once that doesn’t do anything, will Obama be back asking for a 90% tax so everyone can have more “fair shots”? Is the ultimate goal control of and business and everyone’s salaries so the Obamitburo can determine what’s “fair” for all of us?
The fly in the ointment? Life isn’t fair.
If life was fair, I’d have Barack Obama’s wealth. If life was fair, we could all be astronauts. If life was fair, my kids wouldn’t have lost soccer games 8-1. If life was fair, we’d all get into Harvard Law.
It can be argued that it’s a terribly unfair thing for someone to lose at the Master’s. Why is there a “champion” of the NBA each year? That’s not “fair” to the other teams. Why play the Superbowl? It’s not fair that one team has to lose. It’s even more unfair to the teams that did not make it. Why not just have every tennis match and baseball game end in a tie! That’s fair!
But then, what’s the point of playing? What’s the point of doing anything if the outcome is the same if you try as if you didn’t try?
It’s also not “fair” for only half the country to pay Federal taxes. As someone once said, we all ought to have some “skin in the game.” We all ought to pay the same tax rate.
The Marxist genie is out of the bottle. Neal Boortz compared Obama’s words to those of Marx:
“Responsibility from all” = “From each according to their ability.”
“Fairness for all” = “To each according to their needs.”
Watch some future democrats’ attitudes toward redistributing their GPA
Obama is no longer about recovery or growth. He’s all about fairness.
The ultimate result of a Obama’s fairness vision would see equal outcome for everything. No matter how hard you work, no matter the risk you take, you earn the same amount of money. No matter how hard you study you earn the same grades. Everyone owns the same house, the same car.
The good part is that everyone gets to be a doctor, lawyer or airline pilot. Without question, though, some democrats would be more equal than other democrats. That’s how it went in mother Russia too.
Somewhere, Vladimir Lenin is giddy with glee.