Romney needs to call Obama’s Bluffet….

 

We know that the Bluffet, sorry Buffet, rule is a motif for President’s class warfare, and more warning shots will be fired when Congress returns today from a two-week recess to a test vote on the rule, which would impose a minimum 30 percent tax rate on income over $1 million. The Bluffett tax targets wealthier Americans’ investments rather than salaries.

Today is the day when this issue of class warfare kicks off for November in earnest, now that we know it will be Romney for the GOP and Congress gets to have a say on the matter.

President Obama, who pays less tax than HIS secretary (he filed tax returns showing he paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent on income of about $800,000 in 2011) says the government needs the revenue from the Bluffett rule, estimated at $47 billion over 10 years, to cover “a broad range of goals.” He also says “This is not just about fairness.” Well, he got that right, it is very unfair, but not in the simplistic moralistic way he is peddling.

He says “This is also about growth. It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs. And it’s about whether we as a country are willing to pay for those investments.” In other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Fact is, do we really need government to do the investing, and where does the investment go? Into government black holes and deep pockets, rather than into businesses which create wealth. The Bluffet tax would not create wealth, it would merely enhance dependency. We would see a better rate of return on the $47 billion in business investment by the wealthy than we would from government. That is an awful lot of liquidity to take out of the markets, and I don’t see too many secretaries taking up the slack.

Of course, keeper of the Treasury keys Tim Geithner was out pushing the rule on Sunday, “Just because Republicans oppose this does not mean it’s not the right thing to do and not the right thing to push for,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. Double negatives aside, we can say that just because Democrats think it is the right thing to do doesn’t mean it even begins to make sense.

If we look at the paying side of this, we see the rich targeted for this end up paying more. Simple. But for what are they paying? Increased revenue means increased expenditure, and so the things for government to spend on expands to meet the expanded revenue. More programs, more dependency and less reward for effort. What does the payer get in return? They get little benefit, and the wealthier they are the less they need what they are paying for.

Which means the sole purpose of the Bluffet rule is twofold, increased state powers and redistribution of wealth. Conservatives who attack Romney or the rich for their wealth are playing with the same deck as Obama.

Obama says, “If you make more than $1 million every year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do… Most Americans support this idea. We just need some Republican politicians to get on board with where the country is.” Of course, Obama doesn’t have to worry too much about his investments, because after leaving office, which cannot come soon enough, he will make a ton of cash for the remainder of his days. He doesn’t have too much to worry about…The rest of us do.

A Comparison of the Republican Presidential Candidate’s Economic Plans

Bookmark and Share    As Republicans try to figure out who will be the best candidate to run against President Obama, the economy remains the number one issue affecting voter opinion in the general election for president.  And with projections of unemployment reamining high, long into 2012, combined with a way too slow rate of economic growth, rising prices and debt, low consumer confidence, and a host of other negative economic indicators that offer little hope for a turnaround, it looks like the economy will remain the top issues in 2012. 

As such, White House 2012 has prepared a chart that compares each of the Republican presidential candidate’s econmic plans to one another. 

In the chart you will see exactly where each candidate stands on such things as the personal and corporate rates, repatriation of corporate profits made overseas, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, capital gains and death taxes, spending, and more. 

Hopefully this comparison will serve as a quick and handy summation of the similarities and differences between the candidates.  But no matter how helpful it may be, there is no substitution for knowing exactly what each candidate is proposing.  They say the devil is in the details and that is the truth.  While summaries are nice, knowing precisely what is involved is far better.  That is why in addition to our summary comparison chart, White House 2012 is also providing you with the links to each candidate’s actual economic plan.  Some are more detailed than others and in that area, the most comprehensive plan of all out there is the plan outlined in Mitt Romney’s “Believe in America” proposal. 

While the details that Romney offer are commendable, there is also a commendable trend toward to simplicity that is being offered in the 2012 cycle. Each of the candidates are proposes a flatter” tax code with less brackets, and several are proposing an all out flat tax. Such simplification is welcome but they also involve more than just one single tax for all. So I advise you to take a good look at each candidate’s individual plan. Decide for yourself who has the best command of this most important issue and who has the best plan to deal with it.  Below the chart, you will find links to the most detailed information on their economic plans made available by their campaigns.

Click on the name of each candidate to review the details of their economic plans

Michele Bachmann

Herman Cain

Newt Gingrich

Jon Huntsman

Ron Paul

Rick Perry

Mitt Romney

Rick Santorum

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: