"Entire Buffett Rule Premise Is False" and Sen. Alexander Wants To "Rumble" in the Senate
Today in Washington, D.C. - Sept. 20, 2011:
Yesterday, the Senate voted 84-8 to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2832., the Generalized System of Preferences Act, a trade promotion bill expected to be the vehicle for renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance. Amendments are expected to be offered to the bill today.
Today, U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) spoke about his decision to step down from the Senate Republican leadership in January. He will leave the No. 3 job and will not seek the No. 2 job as GOP whip. He identified that he is a Republican and an independent minded person and that he wants to be unrestricted in his ability to speak out on critical issues. Alexander said, "Stepping down will liberate me to work for results on the issues I care the most about. That means stopping runaway regulations and spending. But it also means setting priorities -- confronting the timidity that allows runaway health care spending to squeeze out research, scholarships, highways and other government functions that make it easier and cheaper to create jobs. I want to do more to make the Senate a more effective institution so that it can deal better with serious issues." His comments about the history of actions in the US Congress were very interesting. It appears that Sen. Alexander wants to be being able to "Rumble" in the Senate.
Responding to President Obama continued audacious threatening and class-warfare oriented tirades, NRCC Chairman, Rep. Pete Sessions (R, TX-32), in an email identified that "Despite voters roundly rejecting his failed agenda, President Obama has the audacity to threaten to veto any plan aimed at fixing our budget crisis that does not include his demand for a new $1.5 trillion tax increase. President Obama is aiming to outdo his own record in a race for failed policies." Sessions further said, "Our economy is sputtering and the last thing we need is to take $1.5 trillion away from hardworking Americans and put it in the hands of the government. Threatening is not governing. Their policies have failed, but the President and Democrats have shown, once and for all, they have no interest in changing their ways or listening to the American people.
Yesterday, the ARRA News Service addressed Obama New Plan: Use The Buffet Rule: "Screw America" Today, discussions continue in the press.
Politico reports today, “Liberals on Monday cheered President Barack Obama’s plan to hike taxes on the wealthy to cut the deficit. But the response from Democrats on the front lines of 2012 election battles? Silence. Or, at best, tepid enthusiasm. Centrist Democrats, a dwindling breed on Capitol Hill, were quickly faced with another rough choice once Obama went public with his plans: Reject their president or back what Republicans are already calling the largest tax increase in the nation’s history.”
Politico notes, “Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, who is up for reelection in 2012, has supported raising taxes on millionaires but was still weighing whether he’d support higher taxes on those who make more than $200,000 a year. . . . Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), a key moderate who’s up for reelection next year, didn’t mince words: ‘There’s too much discussion about raising taxes right now, not enough focus on cutting spending.’ But Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), who likely will face GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg in next year’s reelection bid, hedged a bit, saying he backs provisions in Obama’s plan that call for closing tax loopholes that benefit millionaires and corporations. ‘This plan isn’t the one I would have written, nor is it the one that will end up passing Congress,’ Tester said. ‘But I welcome all ideas to the table so Congress can work together to create jobs, cut debt and cut spending.’” Guess Sen. Tester or at least Montanans have been listening to Rehberg and other House members' demands for Cut, Cap and Balance and now fears for his re-election.
While President Obama’s tax hike proposals have warmed liberal hearts, even some liberal Democrat senators aren’t fully on board. CBS New York reported last night, “Senators Charles Schumer of New York, Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey all support the millionaire’s tax. [But] Schumer said the $250,000 limit is unacceptable since it will hit the [New York] metropolitan area disproportionately because of the high cost of living here. ‘$250,000 makes you really rich in Mississippi but it doesn’t make you rich at all in New York and there ought to be some kind of scale based on the cost of living on how much you pay,’ Schumer said.” One could easily call "Chucky" Schmer a regional economic bigot.
And according to Politico, “Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is up for reelection next year, told POLITICO Obama’s deficit proposal complements the jobs plan he submitted to Congress last week. But Cardin still had one bone to pick: He doesn’t like Obama’s proposal requiring federal workers to contribute more to their pension plans.” LOL!
Meanwhile, news outlets are examining the anecdote behind the calls from the president and some Democrats for the so-called “Warren Buffett tax,” and finding little basis in fact. The AP writes, “President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries. . . . The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.”
ABC News reports, “Treasury Secretary Geithner yesterday declined to answer a key question about the president’s proposed ‘Buffett Rule’: How many millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than middle-income families? The answer appears to be this: not many. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has crunched the numbers and found that Warren Buffett and his secretary are the exception to the rule. For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers.” And The Wall Street Journal editorializes, “There's one small problem: The entire Buffett Rule premise is false . . . . [N]early all millionaires still paid a rate that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum.”
The WSJ editors seem to think they see what’s really going on with the president’s proposal. They write, “We rehearse all of this because it shows that the real point of Mr. Obama's Buffett Rule and his latest deficit proposal isn't tax justice or good tax policy. It is all about re-election politics.” And even NBC News’ First Read newsletter points out, “[W]ith some 14 months until Election Day 2012, Obama’s speech yesterday essentially marked the end of the governing season and the beginning of the campaign. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer admitted as much to the New York Times. ‘The popular narrative is that we sought compromise in a quixotic quest for independent votes. We sought out compromise because a failure to get funding of the government last spring and then an extension of the debt ceiling in August would have been very bad for the economy and for the country.’ Pfeiffer added, ‘We were in a position of legislative compromise by necessity. That phase is behind us.’”
As deficit committee member Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) said yesterday, “I am concerned that [the president’s] deficit reduction strategy sometimes seems more defined by political posturing, such as recycling tax hikes that even lawmakers in his own party have publicly opposed. With the Select Committee's deadline looming, we do not have time to waste on political games and pushing big tax increases that will only make our economy weaker for all Americans.”
Tags: Barack Obama, Warren Buffet, Tax, Hypocrisy, Washington, D.C., US. Senate, US House, news, Lamar Alexander, Pat Toomey To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Yesterday, the Senate voted 84-8 to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2832., the Generalized System of Preferences Act, a trade promotion bill expected to be the vehicle for renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance. Amendments are expected to be offered to the bill today.
Today, U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) spoke about his decision to step down from the Senate Republican leadership in January. He will leave the No. 3 job and will not seek the No. 2 job as GOP whip. He identified that he is a Republican and an independent minded person and that he wants to be unrestricted in his ability to speak out on critical issues. Alexander said, "Stepping down will liberate me to work for results on the issues I care the most about. That means stopping runaway regulations and spending. But it also means setting priorities -- confronting the timidity that allows runaway health care spending to squeeze out research, scholarships, highways and other government functions that make it easier and cheaper to create jobs. I want to do more to make the Senate a more effective institution so that it can deal better with serious issues." His comments about the history of actions in the US Congress were very interesting. It appears that Sen. Alexander wants to be being able to "Rumble" in the Senate.
Responding to President Obama continued audacious threatening and class-warfare oriented tirades, NRCC Chairman, Rep. Pete Sessions (R, TX-32), in an email identified that "Despite voters roundly rejecting his failed agenda, President Obama has the audacity to threaten to veto any plan aimed at fixing our budget crisis that does not include his demand for a new $1.5 trillion tax increase. President Obama is aiming to outdo his own record in a race for failed policies." Sessions further said, "Our economy is sputtering and the last thing we need is to take $1.5 trillion away from hardworking Americans and put it in the hands of the government. Threatening is not governing. Their policies have failed, but the President and Democrats have shown, once and for all, they have no interest in changing their ways or listening to the American people.
 |
| Obama-Buffet Hypocrisy! Buffet Hasn't Paid Taxes Since 2002 So, Mr. Obama "Gave" Warren Buffet The Medal of Freedom |
Politico reports today, “Liberals on Monday cheered President Barack Obama’s plan to hike taxes on the wealthy to cut the deficit. But the response from Democrats on the front lines of 2012 election battles? Silence. Or, at best, tepid enthusiasm. Centrist Democrats, a dwindling breed on Capitol Hill, were quickly faced with another rough choice once Obama went public with his plans: Reject their president or back what Republicans are already calling the largest tax increase in the nation’s history.”
Politico notes, “Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, who is up for reelection in 2012, has supported raising taxes on millionaires but was still weighing whether he’d support higher taxes on those who make more than $200,000 a year. . . . Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), a key moderate who’s up for reelection next year, didn’t mince words: ‘There’s too much discussion about raising taxes right now, not enough focus on cutting spending.’ But Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), who likely will face GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg in next year’s reelection bid, hedged a bit, saying he backs provisions in Obama’s plan that call for closing tax loopholes that benefit millionaires and corporations. ‘This plan isn’t the one I would have written, nor is it the one that will end up passing Congress,’ Tester said. ‘But I welcome all ideas to the table so Congress can work together to create jobs, cut debt and cut spending.’” Guess Sen. Tester or at least Montanans have been listening to Rehberg and other House members' demands for Cut, Cap and Balance and now fears for his re-election.
While President Obama’s tax hike proposals have warmed liberal hearts, even some liberal Democrat senators aren’t fully on board. CBS New York reported last night, “Senators Charles Schumer of New York, Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey all support the millionaire’s tax. [But] Schumer said the $250,000 limit is unacceptable since it will hit the [New York] metropolitan area disproportionately because of the high cost of living here. ‘$250,000 makes you really rich in Mississippi but it doesn’t make you rich at all in New York and there ought to be some kind of scale based on the cost of living on how much you pay,’ Schumer said.” One could easily call "Chucky" Schmer a regional economic bigot.
And according to Politico, “Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is up for reelection next year, told POLITICO Obama’s deficit proposal complements the jobs plan he submitted to Congress last week. But Cardin still had one bone to pick: He doesn’t like Obama’s proposal requiring federal workers to contribute more to their pension plans.” LOL!
Meanwhile, news outlets are examining the anecdote behind the calls from the president and some Democrats for the so-called “Warren Buffett tax,” and finding little basis in fact. The AP writes, “President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries. . . . The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.”
ABC News reports, “Treasury Secretary Geithner yesterday declined to answer a key question about the president’s proposed ‘Buffett Rule’: How many millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than middle-income families? The answer appears to be this: not many. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has crunched the numbers and found that Warren Buffett and his secretary are the exception to the rule. For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers.” And The Wall Street Journal editorializes, “There's one small problem: The entire Buffett Rule premise is false . . . . [N]early all millionaires still paid a rate that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum.”
The WSJ editors seem to think they see what’s really going on with the president’s proposal. They write, “We rehearse all of this because it shows that the real point of Mr. Obama's Buffett Rule and his latest deficit proposal isn't tax justice or good tax policy. It is all about re-election politics.” And even NBC News’ First Read newsletter points out, “[W]ith some 14 months until Election Day 2012, Obama’s speech yesterday essentially marked the end of the governing season and the beginning of the campaign. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer admitted as much to the New York Times. ‘The popular narrative is that we sought compromise in a quixotic quest for independent votes. We sought out compromise because a failure to get funding of the government last spring and then an extension of the debt ceiling in August would have been very bad for the economy and for the country.’ Pfeiffer added, ‘We were in a position of legislative compromise by necessity. That phase is behind us.’”
As deficit committee member Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) said yesterday, “I am concerned that [the president’s] deficit reduction strategy sometimes seems more defined by political posturing, such as recycling tax hikes that even lawmakers in his own party have publicly opposed. With the Select Committee's deadline looming, we do not have time to waste on political games and pushing big tax increases that will only make our economy weaker for all Americans.”
Tags: Barack Obama, Warren Buffet, Tax, Hypocrisy, Washington, D.C., US. Senate, US House, news, Lamar Alexander, Pat Toomey To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 3:07 PM - Post Link
4 Comments:
If Warren Buffett wants to pay more then he should, maybe he could clear up the tax appeals he has been fighting for the last ten years, because he says the IRS wants to take too much. Can you spell hypocrite?
I don't think anyone who is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus would deny that Obama is a socialist. To me, the question is which GOP candidate's policies would give us another Barack Obama in 4 years...
Considering what Schumer said, "...‘$250,000 makes you really rich in Mississippi but it doesn’t make you rich at all in New York and there ought to be some kind of scale based on the cost of living on how much you pay,’ Schumer said.” One could easily call "Chucky" Schmer a regional economic bigot...." so much for "fair share." That is the same as loop holes. Flat tax or a single, equitable, national sales tax where every person whose heart beats and breathes will have to pay.
Good points! I am not for a Flat tax because the IRS would still exist and the tax is on income verses consumption. I agree bout having a sales tax, consumption tax, where the crooks, "hooker's," rich Yacht buyers, etc. will also pay their fair share. To learn more on the FairTax view and share the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUNoDyV14oE
Post a Comment
<< Home