Aside from the humorous fact that the proposal's namesake, Warren Buffett, wouldn't actually fall under the rule (his annual salary is only $100,000 per year), there is a serious mathematical and logical hole in Obama's premise: IT WON'T HELP THE PROBLEM ONE IOTA!
The problem to solve is the Federal deficit, right? Our federal deficit in 2012 is projected to be over $1.3 Trillion. The Buffett Rule would raise only $47 Billion...not a year (which would only close a measly 3.6% of the deficit if that was the case)....but over TEN YEARS! Translation? This is 1/600 OF 1% of the deficits over the next ten years if the President has it's way! That's 0.001666667% of the deficit. To put that in real terms, that's like telling a person earning $50,000 per year that they will receive a raise of $84.00 a year. That translates to roughly $1.60 more per week before taxes. (Congratulations. Your hard work has earned you the ability to purchase an extra 3 Musketeers each week...don't skimp, get the king size bar...you've earned it.)
That was the point of the Buffett Rule, at first, was to close the deficit? Ooops, that won't work. Perhaps this is why the Left has changed their entire argument to "fairness." It's not fair! (Waaa! Waaa! Waaa!) Yet isn't it funny that these same people who are obsessed with fairness are the same people who throw a fit when the fairest possible tax option, a flat rate tax (whether on income or consumption) is proposed. Because it the goal is parity, and parity is apparently paying the same rate, why isn't it parity when the Middle Class has their rate reduced?
There is also another huge fallacy in this point: Income and Capital Gains are taxed differently FOR EVERYONE. Middle Class individuals who buy stock and make investments pay the same Capital Gains rate as a millionaire. Ooops...are my facts getting in the way of talking points AGAIN?
The bottom line on the Buffett Rule is this: 1 - It won't impact the deficit in any real way. It's the equivalent of pennies. 2 - Despite Obama claiming the Buffett Rule "is not class warfare," OF COURSE IT'S CLASS WARFARE! If it isn't about reducing the deficit, what else can you call it?
This is just another page out of the pamphlet that is the Liberal Playbook. Since Obama can't defend his own policies as intelligent and useful, he has to bring up class and "fairness" (and for some reason names it after a man who is fighting the IRS over paying over $1 Billion in back taxes he owes...I guess that's not part of Buffett's "fair share"). And THIS is supposed to be hard to defeat in November? I think not.
