The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Political Hay
Print Email
Text Size

Political Hay

The Buffet Rule

By on 4.16.12 @ 6:10AM

Promising all the entitlements you can eat at a low middle-class tax rate.

Three days before federal income taxes were due, President Barack Obama declared that tax increases can grow the economy. “Now, this is not just about fairness. This is also about growth,” Obama said in his weekly radio address. “It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs.”

In other words, if taxpayers — and potential job creators — pay more taxes we can afford more Solyndras. Such boondoggles will create jobs, at least until they go belly up and lay everyone off. There is a word for an economic strategy of taxing some millionaires to give government loans to other millionaires. It can be found in the title of a new book by Grover Norquist and John Lott: Debacle.

Naturally, the president vowed to raise only a small number of very wealthy people’s taxes. His current gimmick is the “Buffett Rule,” which assumes that super-rich Warren Buffett pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary and that this is normal under the current tax code.

It might be more accurately described as the “Buffet Rule,” as it advertises all the entitlements the middle class can eat at low tax rates. Think of the Golden Corral commerical where a family seeks steak, endless fried shrimp, and a vast salad bar and then stipulates a low $10 price. Only one restaraunt remains a viable choice as its higher-priced competitors are pushed offscreen.

Obama wants voters to believe he can offer universal health insurance coverage, fully funded Medicare and Social Security, and an all-you-can-eat salad bar of green jobs at a 10 percent middle-class tax rate. Mitt Romney can’t offer that bargain. The difference is that Golden Corral isn’t keeping its prices low by adding a surcharge to bills of families dining at Morton’s.

More importantly, buffets can actually offer cheap salad and fried shrimp. Obama’s tax increase won’t pay for all the government he promises. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Buffett Rule would raise only $47 billion in ten years. The tax hike could fund about seven days of federal spending.

Smarter liberal wonks have pointed out that this baseline assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Keep the current tax rates and the Buffett minimum tax will raise somewhat more money. Return to the Clinton-era tax rates, Brian Beutler writes, and the “$47 billion would come on top of a flood of new revenue that would swiftly fill the country’s budget hole.” That flood is a $4 trillion tax increase that also soaks the middle class. Turn off the middle-class spigots by letting only the tax cuts for the wealthy expire and the Buffett flood starts to slow to a trickle.

Now it may be that once safely reelected, Obama will let all of the Bush tax cuts lapse and then blame congressional Republicans for not sending him a bill that preserved them only for the middle class out of their slavish loyalty to the rich. Some observers think he’ll do just that. Taken at face value, the president’s fiscal policy makes little sense.

The president wants the country to believe he can protect middle-class entitlements, along with other domestic spending priorities, without raising middle-class taxes. However much the wealthy exploit tax loopholes, the numbers suggest otherwise.

In his book about the Reagan economic recovery, The Seven Fat Years, the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley tells a story of how the country came to adopt the alternative minimum tax. In early 1969, Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr (an LBJ appointee) told Congress that 21 millionaires had paid no federal income taxes two years before as did 115 other tax filers reporting income in excess of $200,000.

To pursue those Bartley called “Joe Barr’s millionaires,” Congress concocted various minimum tax schemes. Eventually, the alternative minimum tax ensnared millions of taxpayers, not just 21 rich scofflaws. According to one estimate, 27 percent of those who paid the AMT in 2008 earned less than $200,000 a year. It takes direct congressional intervention to prevent the tax from hitting 20 million more taxpayers, mostly residing in blue state suburbs.

Think the Buffett Rule will turn out differently?

As you wave goodbye to your 2011 tax dollars, consider: Obama is campaigning on the idea that only Paul Ryan’s budget plan requires middle-class sacrifice. If the voters knew the benefits he pledges to protect will be paid for by their own tax dollars going to Washington, some of them would surely opt to cut out the middle man.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (48) |

Darin| 4.16.12 @ 7:33AM

Obama has already said the Buffett Rule is not about raising tax revenue. It's about his idea of "fairness." He and his minions don't think it is fair that someone who has worked hard should be able to keep what they have earned. Rather, those people are to be treated as slaves and forced to surrender a portion of what they have earned to be doled out to those deemed worthy.

Obama says he is a Christian. Apparently his Christian beliefs do not include the 8th and 10th Commandments. Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not covet. We already know his beliefs do not include the 6th Commandment, thou shalt not commit murder, for he not only supports abortion but partial birth abortion. I don't know if Obama really is a Christian, but his own actions do not show him to be one.

Von Mises Jr| 4.16.12 @ 8:21AM

Obama is an elitist intellectual on the same venue as Rousseau, Hegel and Nietzsche. Dr. Sowell wrote in "Intellectuals and Society" that intellectuals live in the realm of ideas. They produce nothing. They create nothing, except chaos.
This story is hundreds of years old. It is why they don't teach the French Revolution in public schools. Burke, Tocqueville and Von Mises all explained how the Industrial Revolution ended serfdom by creating a meritorious alternative. The new "Bourgeoisie" class is the same people today that we call small businessmen and entrepreneurs.
Once the "Ancien Regime" was displaced by the bourgeoisie, the Nobles and Aristocracy along with their intellectuals (Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche) declared war on the new wealth. The Ancien Regime's "gravy train" was cut off when the serfs stopped paying quitrents (land taxes), tallies and other tolls. The Nobles and Aristocracy, like Obama and his minions, created nothing and produced nothing. They were leaches. They are parasites. And when the serfs rebelled, the war was on between the parasites and the new hosts.
Those who fail to learn from history and bound to repeat it.

W| 4.16.12 @ 9:46AM

Von
Did you read "Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson? He slices and dices Rousseau and his followers.
What do tou think?

Von Mises Jr| 4.16.12 @ 10:08AM

I have Paul Johnson's "History of the American People" that I have not read yet. I do not own his book "Intellectuals," but I thank you for the recommendation.
I have read Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" that is a sequel to "Visions of the Anointed" and "In Search of Cosmic Justice."
Dr. Sowell is my favorite author. I own about two dozen of his books and read all but two of them. I don't think that there is one in print I do not have in my library.

W| 4.16.12 @ 10:34AM

Von,
I like Johnson's histories. I agree about Sowell. If he were a left wing economist the MSM would have him on TV on every channel every day as the black economist.
I have most of his books, and my favorite is "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." As an econ major I enjoy his economics books, Basic and Applied Economics. His social/economics books such as Migrations, Race and Culture, Conquests and Culture are great.
He should be required readings in every school.

TLP| 4.16.12 @ 10:37AM

And, there you have it. Von Mises has said it all. He has written one of those "I wish I had written that" posts.

Nietzsche, Rousseau, Hegel. They gave birth to the Lenins, and the Stalins, the Maos, the Pol Pots, and, of course, the THING that lives in our White House.

If History tells us anything, it's that this always starts out the same way. Class Warfare. Stir up the lowest common denominator. FEED the resentments between the Races, the Creeds, and the Income Stratas. These things eventually bring a HALT to progress in every field of endeavor. Economic. Manufacturing. Education, and in the field of Health Care. Civilization starts to move BACKWARDS. The ever increasing size of the Government's thumb, presses the people in to the ground, until, like the people in Syria, they decide it is better to "Die on their feet".

Everything that the Far Left espouses for the "Betterment of Mankind" (in their image) is nothing more than: The standard definition of INSANITY, with a little HISTORY REPEATING, thrown in, for good measure.

You would think that we would learn, so that Millions would be spared the Inevitable results of Secular Heaven on Earth".

Alan Brooks| 4.16.12 @ 7:22PM

Just today Romney said for Obama to "pack his bags"; so if Romney does win in November, then what? Will Romney say "government is the enemy"? You guys think the ex-governor of Taxachusetts will do anything but play-act Reagan?

Mike Hawk| 4.16.12 @ 7:43AM

Obama is no Christian, he is Caesar and demands were render unto him.

Jack in Wi.| 4.16.12 @ 7:44AM

Obviously the only way to get this country's house in order is to slash government spending in huge amounts. The number one priority should be to get out of all these foreign wars and entanglements. End all foreign aid most of which goes to criminals and kleptocrats. Finally after all that is doen we can look to get entitlements under control. Romney is a loser with his program of endless wars and endless tax cuts for the rich and corporaions. It won't sell. Obama will run as the peace candidate who is protecting the elderly from the mean Republicans.

I could care less if they strip Warrne Buffet from every penny he owns. He is an old man near death who doen't know what to do with his money. He should of been giving it away for the last 20 years, not accumulating more wealth. Andrew Carnagie said. " He who dies rich dies disgraced. " The rich don't like it when the hoi poloi gets new wealth. If tax rates go through the roof it is very hard for people on the bottom to accumulate wealth.

chuck| 4.16.12 @ 9:06AM

"I could care less if they strip Warren Buffet from every penny he owns. He is an old man near death who doesn't know what to do with his money."

What they can do to Buffet, they can do to all of us.

Tom Osterman| 4.16.12 @ 9:35AM

Defense spending is always the first thing cut. Then it's the only thing cut and the dollars go straight to the entitlements and "investments." You can debate the merits of defense cuts as you like, but the fact is that "tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect" is Washington's philosophy. You do remember the "Peace Dividend" arguments of the Nineties, don't you?

Mike Hawk| 4.16.12 @ 10:00AM

So are you Jack. I think we take all of yours and give it to Buffett's poor underpaid poverty stricken Secretary after she loses her job. You don't need it anymore and you just robbed it from all those poor people anyway.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.16.12 @ 8:05AM

Warren Buffet is just another Obama backing tax cheat but the main stream media has little interest in investigating a liberal billionaire:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889
Funny thing is, it turns out Buffett was being… shall we say… disingenuous when he claimed his “leaders” never got around to asking for his “shared sacrifice.” His company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been fighting the IRS tooth and nail to avoid paying its federal tax bill for nearly a decade.

How much of the State’s rightful money has this hypocrite been clutching in a white-knuckled death grip? Oh, only about a billion dollars or so. Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government tallies up the bill:

Using only publicly-available documents, a certified public accountant (CPA) detailed Berkshire Hathaway’s tax problems to ALG researcher Richard McCarty. Now, the American people have a better idea of how much in back taxes the company could owe Uncle Sam.

According to page 56 of the company report, “At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, or about $1 billion. McCarty explained, “Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities. They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.”

He added, “The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.”

On top of this tax bill, figure the value of the time IRS agents have invested trying to collect it – they don’t work cheap, and we pay their salaries – and the resources Buffett’s people have invested fighting back. All of which would have been saved if Buffett simply practiced what he preached, and willingly handed over his fortune to the brilliant and compassionate “leaders” he commands the rest of us to support without resistance.

Warren Buffet is no different from the other liars and frauds orbiting Barack Obama. His hypocrisy just runs billions of dollars deeper. When it comes to “shared sacrifice,” you do the sacrificing, and they do the sharing.

martin j smith| 4.16.12 @ 8:08AM

Actually encouraging job creation is extremely important but to those deluded by the idea of "fairness" the Buffet Rule is music to their ears. What these ignorant people do not ask themselves among other things is this: What is fair and who decides and on what basis. Is it fair that some one who worked harder than another person should get equal amount of pay as a dead beat ?
And do we want a population of deadbeats all equally unproductive and equally stupid and equally useless ?

Maxwell| 4.16.12 @ 8:46AM

To answer your last question, yes! Just look at the OWS. I remember when I was at The University of Akron, the only students out demonstrating were the ones taking liberal arts. The Chem. E. and EE in the next dorm room, never saw them.

PolishKnight| 4.16.12 @ 10:30AM

Which may explain why Obama and James Moran want to remove any limits to H1B visas and import as many engineers as possible from India. Most Indians are loyal Democrat voters who foresee a future of race based entitlements as a future Democrat "victim" demographic.

The fact that so many Republican millionaires also support unlimited legal, and illegal, immigration it makes it hard to feel sorry for taxing them.

PolishKnight| 4.16.12 @ 10:30AM

Which may explain why Obama and James Moran want to remove any limits to H1B visas and import as many engineers as possible from India. Most Indians are loyal Democrat voters who foresee a future of race based entitlements as a future Democrat "victim" demographic.

The fact that so many Republican millionaires also support unlimited legal, and illegal, immigration it makes it hard to feel sorry for taxing them.

kwan| 4.16.12 @ 9:17AM

Obama: "It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs."...Isn't this the same mindless prattle that Obama was spouting off when the Pelosi/Reid controlled Congress voted $ 798 billion dollars to "strengthen the economy and create jobs"? Anyone notice that the economy is in a stall/collapse mode, and that unemployment is at over 8% for the longest time since the Great Depression? What was that definition of insanity? Oh yeah : Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

flyovermark| 4.16.12 @ 10:03AM

The GOP should stop trying to take a defensive position on “tax fairness”, and propose a “Stuffit rule” to counter the “Buffett rule”. How about a GOP bill that limits the top tax rate of ANY taxpayer to the top average “effective tax rate” paid by those with incomes over $1 million? IRS figures, on 2009 returns puts that average “effective tax rate” for incomes over a million at about 25%. Where the “Buffett rule” would impose a minimum income tax of 30% on incomes of $1 million and up, the GOP’s “Stuffit rule” would a impose a maximum income tax cap that guarrantees EVERY taxpayer, no matter what his income, pays no more total federal tax than 25% of his income. That sounds more like the kind of “tax fairness” that most Americans could get behind.

…the best defense is a good offense…

Tommy Frisco| 4.16.12 @ 10:07AM

Return to the Clinton era tax rates? Sure, as long as we also return to the Clinton/Gingrich era budgets. That would be fair.

The Bishop| 4.16.12 @ 10:24AM

All one needs to do to see the utter folly of such "fairness" policies is observe the debacle called the Alternative Minimum Tax. This was enacted in its original form in 1969 to ensure that 155 of the privileged didn't entirely escape federal taxation. Now, without Congress extending exemptions, it threatens to enlarge the federal taxes of over 30 million U.S. taxpayers. Tinkering around the edges has devastating unintended consequences. And this is Obama's BFD (thank you, Joe Biden) during the election year? What a moron!

Rick H| 4.16.12 @ 10:56PM

Well said. That's what the Republicans need to answer the demagoguery that's coming. Just reply "Can you spell AMT?"

Jabber3| 4.16.12 @ 10:48AM

The “big lie” is that Buffet pays a lower Federal income tax rate than his secretary. This is false. The fact is that Buffet and other owners of corporate stock and business assets pay the Federal U.S. corporate tax which is the highest corporate tax rate in the world and then pay an additional 15% tax on dividend distributions and capital gains which are paid out of corporate earnings after taxes. The issue is that dividend/capital gains income are reported as part of an individual’s personal income tax statement whereas the corporate taxes are paid on a corporate income tax statement. All taxes are paid by individuals at some point.

Rick H| 4.16.12 @ 10:58PM

Excellent point. I like to say this in a simpler way for the libs to follow. Warren owns is a 25% owner of Berkshire Hathawy which paid $6B in taxes. So he actually paid an extra $1.5B in taxes. Somehow, he forgot to add that into the comparison with his secretary.

Cynicon Implant| 4.16.12 @ 11:05AM

You know, we can rant all we want about about Obama's tax plan being a fantastical joke but until the average American understands the Laffer Curve, supply side economics and how lower tax rates can increase tax revenues then "soak the rich" pandering is going to be effective. The problem is not that Americans are vindictive, it is that they are undereducated about basic economic facts.

The solution is to develop a steady flow of information to the masses in which basic facts are spelled out plainly. Make it an ongoing series of TV spots. Go right around the "news" people and be willing to pay to get the message out. Romney should be the one doing the talking -- it fits with his "I get business and the economy" profile.

Once people understand that the Dems have been lying to them on this subject for decades (since Kennedy, in fact) and the way out of this mess is lower taxes (and lower spending), they will vote for Romney in droves.

By the way, I'd like to recommend "The End of Prosperity" by Laffer, Moore and Talous. It does a beautiful job of laying out the historical facts and presenting an alternative path to the destructive on we find ourselves on today.

Nancy in NC| 4.16.12 @ 1:02PM

At one time I would have agreed with the premise in your first paragraph. Today I'm not so sure.

We have a country filled with people who feel entitled to anything and everything. With a president beating the drum of class and race inequities, it's sweet music to those so inclined. When so many receive participation trophies just for showing up, they truly expect a big piece of the pie just for being. Since we are no longer a meritocracy and have evolved into "I'm entitled" , to expect someone to actually get a grip around economics that doesn't play to that mentality, we may be truly screwed.

As long the FPS (Federal Propaganda System) is in charge of education I don't see anything changing anytime soon. Pardon me for sounding like such a pessimist, but if we don't make substantial changes very soon there will be no turning back.

And I don't expect the power brokers in the GOP to make those substantial changes. They are too interested in their power and think they are part of the "Ruling Elite", hat tip to Mr. Codevilla.

Too many Americans have lost (or never have known) what it means to be an American. They prefer the softer, gentler way of socialism...damn the consequences to their offspring!

martin j smith| 4.16.12 @ 11:10AM

You know the expression who are the spies spying on the spies ? Well apply that to the unproductive class --They never ask what happens when we are all unproductive --where will our next meal come from ? And btw: You know those folks who claim the economy is doing so well-so what about the adds lately about hunger is America or all of the "For Sale" signs popping up around homes in various parts of the country or the cost of fuel and food going up ? Who is living in a bubble ?

JP| 4.16.12 @ 12:12PM

One way the GOP could shut the gobhole of Obama and his party is to refer to the Buffet Rule as the Obama Rule. Make no exceptions.

Buffet isn't a Senator or House member; he cannot sign laws. Why not give credit where credit is due.

The GOP can also point out that we already have the Buffet Rule. It is called the AMT or Millionaire's Tax.

TexasMom2012| 4.16.12 @ 12:29PM

Obama wants us to believe that if our boss is forced to pay higher taxes in the interest of fairness that this will somehow benefit us. What will actually happen is the boss will make adjustments to maintain their own income. This could mean layoffs but at the least no raise for the employee... Or it could mean that inflation results making my earnings worth less. It is simply bad policy. I have a lot of family that owns their own businesses; I guarantee the successful business will adjust their model to maintain profitability while the borderline business will be forced to close.

Oldefarte| 4.16.12 @ 1:54PM

This whole argument is about SOCIALISM versus CAPTIALISM. Obama/Democrats want to protect their historically legislated socialistic governmental programs/benefits by having THOSE WITH INCOME PAY MORE IN TAXES. When he/they say the rich needs to pay more, he waves the accusation of REPARATION FOR SLAVERY. The welfare state, the Great Society, Affordable Homes, his/their WELFARECARE are essentially governmental welfare programs; and he/they want income earners to continue paying for same. Welfare mostly was originally intended as TEMPORARILY helping those in need, not a PERMANENT OR CONTINUING GIVEAWAY. Democrats however desire is to make welfare permanent so as to enslave its recipients to the government; and to do that it is necessary for income earners to continue to PAY MORE IN TAXES for the growth of these programs. '''''Millionaires & billionaires''''' in Obamaese. Conservatives and Republicans [ie income earners] conversely want the sixe/expenses of government reduced, and to do that means decreasing/eliminating these governmental welfare benefits that Democrats and liberals want to increase. If Obama is re-elected, the already overblown governmental budget defecit/debt will explode and financially crush this country within two years [ie Europe/Greece/Portugal etc on steriods]. This election is simply about this nation's survival. If we allow Obama to have four more years, his wasteful spending of taxpayers' money will quadriple. This election is not about conservative versus moderate or even liberal Republicans, but rather whether this nation survives. To avoid this impending explosion, a vote for presumptive Republican nominee Romney is a must and additionally for all Republicans on the ballot, good or bad [a weeding out can occur later, but the essential deference is between again SOCIALISM/DEMOCRAT/OBAMA and CAPITALISM/REPUBLICAN/ROMNEY!!!!!!!!

Bill| 4.16.12 @ 2:21PM

Buffet Rule: more taxation, more regulations, more bureaucracies, more spending, more borrowing, and then recession.

fiscal| 4.16.12 @ 3:02PM

First, let's get the facts straight -- tax increases will not stimulate the economy, but neither will tax cuts. We actually have the data, and it is very clear that tax cuts are not stimulative. The argument that if we put more money in the pockets of "job creators" it will create more jobs is clearly false given the data. (That's what is wrong about dumb "common sense" solutions that fool most of the public). This occurs because jobs have been lost due to primarily increases in productivity and secondarily to off-shore production. Corporations create jobs due to demand, not available capital. Anyone who has done a corporate CAPEX knows that. And if jobs are created, they go where labor is cheap. There is only one developed country where the job market is strong and wages are high, and that is Germany. They've done that with government thrust to keep high tech jobs and give incentives for higher education so that they have a more educated workforce. Those are things we will not do as a country because of both Republicans who are against government involvement in higher education and Democrats who want more liberal arts and culture programs that do not increase our GDP.

Both Obama and Romney know this, but they both will say anything to get elected. Romney probably understands this more at his core, so the country would probably be better with him, in any event.

This gets us to the subject matter at hand. The Buffett rule is only a sloppy band-aid on a tax system that makes no sense. From an economics viewpoint, there is currently little need for a cap gains rate that is different than a normal income tax rate -- and that is really what the Buffett rule does -- it makes high income earners pay near a normal marginal rate.

And Republicans should support not only the repeal of the cap gains rate, but a flat tax system that starts at about $20K per year with no deductions except for first homes (which is where Romney is going). Republicans should be the party of fairness, because that's just not true for Dems who like the unfairness of progressive taxation.

fiscal facts| 4.16.12 @ 3:30PM

"First, let's get the facts straight - tax increases will not stimulate the economy, but neither will tax cuts"

"We actually have the data, and it is very clear that tax cuts are not stimulative"

The argument that if we put more money in the pockets of "job creators" it will create more jobs is clearly false given the data"

What actual data of very clear straight facts, you very clear in fact actual crooked liberal?

fiscal| 4.16.12 @ 4:07PM

There are both macro and micro analyses showing the impact of tax cuts. However, I'd suggest as a starting point to look at a graph of GDP over the past 40-50 years and overlay that with the marginal tax rate cuts (and increases). You'll find that there was a greater slope of GDP increase during the tax increases of Clinton than with the tax cuts of Reagan. Certainly, the Bush II tax cuts did not result in long term growth as the housing bubble and recession broke the back of that time period. From a mathematical perspective, tax cuts certainly don't have any long term stimulative effect.

Christina Romer did a micro-analysis of specific tax cuts, but there was disclaimer in her research about the overall effect.

That is not to say that tax cuts are bad, but spending cuts are far more important as they lower the cost of borrowing and the impact of debt payments on the federal budget.

The logic of this is to say that leading with tax cuts as an economic strategy makes absolutely no economic sense. In fact, tax cuts in the past have only lead to increased deficits and debt wheither you are talking about Reagan, Bush, or Obama (as he has had virtually no tax increases). Instead, we should be leading with spending cuts and then determining tax rates to balance the budget.

Of course, as a Libertarian, I'm in favor of a huge cut in the functions performed by the federal government and a large decline in military and entitlements. That said, I refuse to support statements that are not supported by analysis and fact.

fiscal facts| 4.16.12 @ 4:17PM

"The logic of this is to say that leading with tax cuts as an economic strategy makes absolutely no economic sense"

What actual data of very clear straight facts, you very clear in fact actual crooked liberal?

fiscal| 4.16.12 @ 4:37PM

So you think the world is flat????

Here is a more general analysis of the effect of tax cuts on economic growth. I can't help you if you don't have the mathematical knowledge to understand the data.

http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html

If you wish to do your own research, please be my guest. Many political economists of the right use the increase in revenue under Reagan as proof, but if you actually look at the longer term data, revenue increased at that rate in the past without tax cuts.

I'm sure liberals would love my stance on cutting Medicare and Social Security as well as making the central government much smaller. That said, they would like my views on personal freedom to keep government out of their bedrooms and government out of the marriage business.

fiscal facts| 4.16.12 @ 4:53PM

A graph. A former Obama economic advisor. Something called econdataus.

What actual data of every clear straight facts, you very clear in fact actual crooked liberal?

fiscal| 4.16.12 @ 4:55PM

I guess the old adage is correct -- the intellectually challenged will inherit the earth...

fiscal facts| 4.16.12 @ 5:41PM

Intellectually challenged liberals state:

"First, let's get the facts straight - tax increases will not stimulate the economy, but neither will tax cuts"

"We actually have the data, and it is very clear that tax cuts are not stimulative"

"The argument that if we put more money in the pockets of "job creators" it will create more jobs is clearly false given the data"

"The logic of this is to say that leading with tax cuts as an economic strategy makes absolutely no sense"

- without providing any actual very clear data of straight facts, even when actually very clearly being challenged to provide any actual very clear data of straight facts, not once, not twice, but three times, in order to support the argument the logic of which is to say that of an intellectually challenged liberal that makes absolutely no sense.

randyinrocklin| 4.16.12 @ 3:41PM

I cannot see how progressive income taxes can pass muster under Equal Protection Clauses.

Mike 3/505| 4.17.12 @ 8:08AM

+1

PattyMor| 4.16.12 @ 6:21PM

Let's have Boehner pass the Buffet Rule, but limit the tax to registered Democrats. Why not? Different levels of taxation already exist for different taxpayers. We'd get the last laugh as old Harry Reid deep sixes the bill in the Senate.

Resist We Much! | 4.16.12 @ 11:24PM

Forget The Buffett Rule! The Reagan Rules Rock!

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....chive.html

The Taxman Cometh Differently On Either Side Of The Pond....Although Probably Not For Long

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....ither.html

Resist We Much! | 4.16.12 @ 11:26PM

Obama’s Buffett Rule: Would bring in $7.7 million per DAY, ceterus paribus.

Obama deficit spends: $4.3 billion per DAY.

There Hasn't Been So Much Fire At The White House Since Dolley Madison Saved Some Of Our Most Cherished, National Treasures

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....white.html

Jessy Smith| 4.17.12 @ 2:54AM

oh,nice topic. i have heard that a saying goes in China like this "Only one himself knows if the shoes match his feet or not “。If u really love her /him ,nothing matters, let alone the height . I met my BF through ~~---T'a'l'l'c'h'a't ._C`○`Μ.~~ a nice place for tall women and big men, or big women and tall men, to interact with each other! , he is almost three inches than me ,but we think we did find the true love .BTW,Ever feel that you would best enjoy someone who is not in your height group? Free of the embarrassment and annoyance, go for what makes you really happy.If u are really interested in it, maybe u wanna check it out or tell your friends.

Bill G| 4.17.12 @ 7:00AM

I thought the Buffet Rule was how he was campaigning... serve up some class envy, racial bias, religious bigotry, whatever he thinks people will swallow enough of to get them to vote for him.

Luke Williams| 4.17.12 @ 2:03PM

If you pay attention you will notice that when the dems talk about the economythey are talking about how much you are giving to the govermnent for the government to spend.
When a conservatives talk about the economy they are talking about how much money you get to keep and spend yourself.

shipley130| 4.17.12 @ 7:14PM

Obama is such a weiner.

More Articles by W. James Antle, III

More Articles From Political Hay

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

June 18, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

The Biggest Fool of All

June 17, 2013 | Doug Bandow

The IRS Ten: The New Keating Five

June 13, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Mark Levin: The Constitution’s Churchill

June 11, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Chris Christie Is Smarter Than You

June 7, 2013 | Benjamin Brophy

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/16/the-buffet-rule

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|99 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|56 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|31 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|19 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.