Buffett Rule rejected by Senate
by Linda Beale
Buffett Rule rejected by Senate
The Senate rejected the effort to make tax policy commensurate with the slogans about American values that we parrot freely–opportunity, paying fair shares, etc. Given the now rigid “phantom” filibuster rule requiring a supermajority to pass anything in the Senate, the Republicans –especially if joined by a few of the right-leaning Democrats–can defeat just about any attempt at reasonable taxation.
So Senate 2230 got only a majority of the SEnate (51 votes) in support of the effort to move the Buffett Rule–calling for a phased in increase to 30% minimum tax on taxpayers with income in excess of a million a year.
Minority Whip Jon Kyl (radical rightist Republican from Arizona) said Congress should instead be focussing on the economy. BNA Daily Tax RealTime (Apr. 16, 2012 at 7:35pm). Shows how completely out of tune with reality the Republican right is. Focusing on the divide between rich and poor is the best way to focus on the economy these days. We are so busy redistributing upwards through tax and fiscal policies that we are rapidly driving the middle class into extinction and depriving those who are disadvantaged by income and other demographics (like location in inner cities) of a fair opportunity to live a decent life. Watch Angela Grovers Blackwell on Bill Moyers PBS program (4/15/12) for more on what equity really means and how our policies are ignoring the real equity issues surrounding us.
crossposted with ataxingmatter
The Buffet rule was never intended to be passed, it was intended to set up a talking point against Romney.
There will be no substantive tax reform until after the election.
Which highlights the importance of the election.
All the Obama-haters on the left who intend to sit out the election should consider what having a few more seats in possesion of D’s or R’s means in terms of this kind of legislation; plus, of course, the opportunity to appoint the next SCOTUS members.
Think about having another Kagan or two vs having another Scalia or two.
I’m implicitly assuming that the party that gets the white house will also get control of congress.
A Republican sweep will be the absolute end of democracy as we think we might have known it.
JzB
Romney provides a new anti-Romney talking point 2 or 3 times a week, just by opening his mouth, for those who are paying attention.
Motherhood is a difficult, full-time job — unless youre on welfare. Then, if you aren’t employed and experiencing the dignity of work, your children become indolent.
Gotta run, i think I hear a dog whistle.
JzB
P.S. 40 years ago, I was a conservative. The other conservatives convinced me to become a liberal.
the buffett rule really was a just campaign gimmick; it only applied to amounts over $1 million, such that someone making $1,000,010 would only pay $3 extra in taxes; & it would have generated less than $5 billion a year, or less than the cost of 3 stealth bombers…
Linda, you are indeed correct in the general terms of your analysis, especially the absurdity of a majority not being sufficient to pass legislation. While the so-called Buffet Rule would be one step in the right direction, I’m not so sure that any one in the Congress or the Executive Office is all that serious about a fair tax code. Remember the legislation from years past that had a euphemistic title like, Paper Work Reduction Acts. I just finished my 2011 federal return. What paper reduction were they talking about. Too much legislation is a smoke screen for the lack of good government. The Patriot Act???? My point is that I doubt that the Buffet Rule was intended for any good purpose other than political posturing.
I’d like to ppoint out one glaring inaccuracy in your post. “Minority Whip Jon Kyl (radical rightist Republican from Arizona)”
We err when we misidentify a elected representative with the labels they would prefer. It would be more appropriate to describe Kyl as a Corporatist Republican. His, and his ilk, only use radical rightist social conservatism as a screen for their fealty to the paymasters of our recent governments. JB, and others, make a similar error in repeating the label “Motherhood is a difficult, full-time job — unless you’re on welfare.”
Yes, Romney is an obfuscator because he changes his definition of work to fit the message he is addressing to varying audiences. There is, however, no one still on welfare in this country. There are impoverished people receiving only scant assistance from the government in the form of food stamps and Medicaid assistance. There are, however, no remaining significant income assistance programs. Billy Boy helped take care of that more than a decade ago. To repeat the term only supports the Romney argument by implication that there are people some where receiving assistance they haven’t worked for and so they don’t deserve. Only people married to very wealthy other people are entitled to be indirectly on the dole through the unbalanced tax code of the past several decades. BTW, Mitch McConnell sounded like the scumbag that he is bloviating about responsible Congressional action to create jobs when all he and his cohorts have been doing is praising and promoting unfounded economic theories of the past, like Laffer’s Laughter Curve.
car alternator
JzB,
Exactly what legislation has been passed under Obama that has increased the individual freedoms or increased the rights of individuals? Exactly how much of the security state has been dismantled? GITMO still remains open.
But we do know he’s increased the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government at every turn. We definitely seen Obama and the Dems run up the debt far faster than Bush ever dreamed of.
So explain to me exactly what you think the Rs are going to do that the Ds are not already doing?
Your hyperbole about ‘the absolute end of democracy” is hilarious.
And rjs correctly brings facts to the table about the gimmick this entire legislation was to begin with. Call me when the Dems pass a budget, any budget in the Senate (which they can do with a simple majority that they have).
Islam will change
buffpilot “gets it”.
Obama and the D’s occasionally throw liberal/progressives a Culture War bone (ending don’t ask, don’t tell, etc.) then go right on continuing Bush II’s policies on everything from continued TBTF bank bailouts, to our ongoing military “presence” in oil rich ME countries, to GITMO and ignoring due process, to spying on American citizens, to arresting those vicious pot smokers at Oaksterdam.
Oh, and Obama makes nice populist speeches where he *promises* to raise taxes on rich people and Wall Street… which go nowhere as he and his fellow D’s must collect campaign checks and interview for jobs with these same fat cats after they leave office.
Gimmick or not, it’s symbolic, a good start and might have been the start of something good.
Given the now rigid “phantom” filibuster rule requiring a supermajority to pass anything in the Senate, the Republicans –especially if joined by a few of the right-leaning Democrats–can defeat just about any attempt at reasonable taxation.
And who elected (and keeps on re-electing) these people?
Nach Romney, Wir!
Harm,
That’s the result of a group of ubiquitous voters named bigotry, fear, lethargy and ignorance.
“We are so busy redistributing upwards through tax and fiscal policies that we are rapidly driving the middle class into extinction…”
Regulations and legislation are much more effective in precisely steering money to cronies imo.
I would suggest to you that the Fed and its magic printing presses are the real bane of the middle class.
A well thought out confidence scam occurs in stages that the professionals know well. First and foremost in the success of an elaborate scam is that those being taken for the ride must trust those doing the taking.
“the common factor is simply that the victim relies on the good faith of the con artist”
Then the best con artists will enlist the assistance of others who intend to be rewarded for their part in effecting the scam.
“shills, also known as accomplices, help manipulate the mark into accepting the con man’s plan”
The victims of the best confidence scams expect some form of reward to be awaiting them, most often in the form of money though not only financial rewards are used as the lure. Madoff used financial incentive to bait his traps. Others use fear, love and other emotional appeals such as patriotism or religious zeal.
‘the mark is led to believe that he will be able to win money or some other prize by doing some task.’
When the scam is truly outsized and the payoff is a king’s ransom (or maybe just a raid on a sizable Trust Fund) the scam requires a host of participants.
“A “long con,” sometimes known as a “big con,” is a much more ‘plannified,’ complex con, intended to take the mark for a substantial portion of his/her net worth. It usually consists of a team of grifters working together and often involves elaborately rigged false decors (“The Big Store“). The most famous types of long con are The Wire, The Rag, and The Pay-Off.” Then, of course, there is the U.S. Congress.
Well we are about to hear a couple of other shoes now that the Buffet Rule setup has been played out to its foretold conclusion. You might recall that there had been a poorly received Bowles-Simpson Plan to “balance the budget.” It was outrageously destructive to working Americans who weren’t part of the top tier of our economy. It was an end run to grab the fruits of FICA and the haloed Social Security Trust Funds. It was shunted aside by politicians who wanted to remain in office. At least for the time being it was taken off the table so that far worse plans could be set in motion and duly set to pasture.
There was the Republican Ryan Road Map. Where that road would take most of us was to perdition. Then there was the Buffet Rule which no one seems to have taken too seriously. The NY Times reported that the threat of a Republican filibuster blocked debate on the bill. How did they actually get to vote on it if they didn’t even get to talk about why they weren’t going to pass the thing to begin with? Must be my cynicism. To the rescue comes Sen. Kent Conrad, erstwhile Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. He knows that the Bush tax cuts are coming to sunset later this year if no legislation is past. God forbid. He knows that the middle class can barely afford to pay their current tax bill. And he also knows that he’ll be able to leverage all those concerns against the Social Security “entitlement” benefits. So guess what good old Kent has dusted off for renewed presentation. That’s correct. It’s Bowles-Simpson to the rescue and the scam is about to conclude. That’s called the payoff.
The $5 billion a year, or $47B over 10 years, is what the Buffet Rule generates after the Bush tax cuts expire, assuming they do. If the Bush tax cuts are extended, the Buffet Rule generates $160B over 10 years. In other words, the Bush tax cuts expiring would account for more of the revenue gain, with an additional $47B generated from the Buffet Rule.
loopholes romney says he’ll close might be worth as much as $40 billion / year…
So in other words, Romney’s plan is a just a gimmick because it only generates 5B a year? It also assumes that the Bush tax cuts are extended, meaning it starts from a higher deficit baseline. So right from the get-go, the Obama budget has a 120B greater revenue.
BTW, the Buffet Rule would be phased in between 1 and 2 million of income. Because it would bring a person’s total effective income to 30% (not just the marginal top tax rate, but the total tax effective tax rate for the individual), it must be phased in. Otherwise, the person would suddenly pay a lot more tax at 1 million than they would at 999,999, much more than that 1 dollar of income is worth. You seem mention the phase-in as if it’s something that weakens the proposal…
both – romney’s plan & obama’s rule – are mockable – im just disgusted that we’re going to spend the rest of the year on this partisan crap while there will be no serious attempt to address this country’s real problems..
Amen