Last updated on 2012.04.13
How can I not quote our President when he offers commentary this sharp? The President spoke Wednesday in favor of the "Buffett Rule," a policy to ensure that rich folks pay a proportion of their income in taxes similar to what us middle-class folks pay:
Some years ago, one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong. So this president gave another speech where he said it was "crazy"—that's a quote—that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan.
He thought that, in America, the wealthiest should pay their fair share, and he said so. I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days, but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we're calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility; everybody doing their part. And if it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule [President Barack Hussein Obama, quoted in Oliver Knox, "Obama on Reagan: "A Wild-Eyed, Socialist, Tax-Hiking Class Warrior," Yahoo News: The Ticket, 2012.04.11].
The Reagan Rule: perhaps I should be nervous about a general election turning into whether the Republican or the Democrat can act more like Reagan. But I rather like the idea of Barack Hussein Obama telling 15%-tax Willard Mitt Romney that on substantive issues, he and his party aren't following their movie-star icon at all. Bring it on, Barack!
Tax capital gains at the same rates as earned income.
Obama strikes me as more sincere than Romney. That's why I might actually vote for Obama in November.
The Republican party has veered off into a fantasy land where the ideal presidential candidate would be Ebenezer Scrooge and his running mate would be Louis XIV.
Nick, what about capital losses? I don't hear that one discussed very often.
Seems the little people take the capital losses, and the big fish get the capital gains.
I'm with you, Stan. The Democratic policies at least seem intended to do what we say they're intended to do. Far too much of the GOP agenda seems to be marketed in code to hide the handouts to the rich.
Cory, your last sentence "Far too much of the GOP agenda seems to be marketed in code to hide the handouts to the rich," has an interesting tie in to the truth in labeling for food discussion.
What if we had a truth in labeling law for political agendas.
Nah, it'd never happen...but if it did, think of the fun we could have.
For example, what if Cap and Trade were relabeled "Free market solutions to pollution." The individual mandate for health insurance was labeled "Personal Responsibility Health Care Reform."
Oh wait, I think that is what they were originally labeled when they were conservative ideas.
I wonder, Jana: is there any chance I'm just blinded by my own ideology to equivalent lies from my Democratic leaders?
I don't think so Cory, but then you and I seem to be in agreement on a lot of different subjects. I think we all have a little spin in us for the things we are passionate about. But personally, I don't think the Dems are very good at it.
It's probably a good idea that we check ourselves every now and again.
As long as we are being reflective, here's a thought provoking column. I don't agree with all of it and think that there is a lot more to the story, it does make a person think.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread?sc=tw&cc=share
I think your biggest obstacle to thought is to think you are right before you investigate. Mine too.
The first step is to quit deluding yourself.
Interesting article, Jana: the graph there shows that since the mid-1990s, Republicans have been at historic and climbing high for conservatism, while Democrats haven't shifted much from a level of liberalism that matches what looks like average leftism for the fity years prior to the Depression. Really interestingly, that graph shows that Democrats surged to their most centrist level under FDR, who is held out as the icon of our nefarious leftishness.