Rebuffing Obamaâs gimmicky âBuffett Ruleâ By Dana Milbank, Published: April 11 President Obama admits it: His proposed âBuffett Ruleâ tax on millionaires is a gimmick. âThere are others who are saying: âWell, this is just a gimmick. Just taxing millionaires and billionaires, just imposing the Buffett Rule, wonât do enough to close the deficit,â â Obama declared Wednesday. âWell, I agree.â Actually, the gimmick was apparent even without the presidentâs acknowledgment. He gave his remarks in a room in the White House complex adorned with campaign-style photos of his factory tours. On stage with him were eight props: four millionaires, each paired with a middle-class assistant. The octet smiled and nodded so much as Obama made his case that it appeared the president was sharing the stage with eight bobbleheads. And if thatâs not enough evidence of gimmickry, after his speech Obamaâs reelection campaign unveiled an online tax calculator âto see how your tax rate stacks up against Mitt Romneyâs â and then see what the Buffett Rule would do.â Obama argued that his plan to make sure that those earning north of $1 million a year donât pay a lower tax rate than average Americans â although gimmicky and insufficient â is an advance. âThe notion that it doesnât solve the entire problem doesnât mean that we shouldnât do it at all,â he explained. Thatâs true, to a point. But Obamaâs claim that the Buffett Rule âis something that will get us moving in the right direction toward fairnessâ would be more convincing if he took other steps in that direction, too. Three years into his presidency, Obama has not introduced a plan for comprehensive tax reform â arguably the most important vehicle for fixing the nationâs finances and boosting long-term economic growth. His opponents havenât done much better, but that doesnât excuse the presidentâs failures: appointing the Simpson-Bowles commission and then disregarding its findings, offering a plan for business tax reform only, and issuing a series of platitudes. The Buffett Rule, rather than overhauling the tax code, would simply add another layer. A search of the White House Web site yields 17,400 mentions of the Buffett Rule â a proposal that would bring in $47 billion over 10 years, much of that from 22,000 wealthy households. By contrast, the alternative minimum tax gets fewer than 600 mentions on the site. The AMT, if not changed, will take about $1 trillion over a decade from millions of taxpayers, many of whom earn less than $200,000 a year. Obamaâs prioritization is no mystery: The populist Buffett Rule polls well. This explains its inclusion in countless presidential speeches and statements. White House reporters, tiring of the theme, have proposed a Jimmy Buffett Rule (three-drink minimum) and a Buffet Rule (Newt Gingrich would be an obvious candidate). The politics of the Buffett Rule â it has no chance of passing when the Senate takes it up next week â are so overt that Obamaâs remarks Wednesday were virtually indistinguishable from a section of his campaign speech in Florida on Tuesday. Wednesday: âIf weâre going to keep giving somebody like me or some of the people in this room tax breaks that we donât need and we canât afford, then one of two things happens: Either youâve got to borrow more money to pay down a deeper deficit, or . . . youâve got to tell seniors to pay a little bit more for their Medicare. Youâve got to tell the college student, âWeâre going to have to charge you higher interest rates on your student loan.â . . . Thatâs not right.â Tuesday: âIf somebody like me, who is doing just fine, gets tax breaks I donât need and that the country canât afford, then one of two things is going to happen: Either it gets added to our deficit . . . or, alternatively, youâve got to take it away from somebody else â a student whoâs trying to pay for their college, or a senior trying to get by with Social Security and Medicare. . . . Thatâs not right.â Parts of Obamaâs âofficialâ speech will no doubt be repeated on the stump, including the points that âwe just need some of the Republican politicians here in Washington to get on board with where the country is,â that Obama cut taxes 17 times (the bobbleheads nodded in agreement), and the contention that Republicans today would view Ronald Reagan as a âwild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior.â Nothing is inherently wrong with campaign-style rhetoric from the White House; George W. Bush used it repeatedly to pass his tax cuts and in his attempt at a Social Security overhaul. The pity is that Obama doesnât use his unrivaled political skill to sell a tax plan of more consequence â and less gimmickry. danamilbank@washpost.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...rule/2012/04/11/gIQA7m4HBT_story.html?hpid=z4
Obama is just full of gimmicks and untruths. Still, 50% of Americans are blind to the failure that is Obama.