Eight months ago, Warren Buffett, chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich," a group that included, of course, the author of the piece. The column turned out to be one of the most important op-eds of the year -- it gave rise to the proposed "Buffett Rule."
The point is pretty straightforward, and at first blush, a simple matter of fairness: proponents of Buffett Rule want to correct a flaw in the existing tax system: thanks to various loopholes and giveaways, very wealthy Americans -- including the likely Republican presidential nominee -- can end up paying a much lower tax rate than working families.
Senate Democrats will bring the Buffett Rule to a vote a week from today. They'll apparently have Ronald Reagan as an ally in the fight.
ThinkProgress posted this clip today of the Republican icon, speaking in 1985 about tax reform.
For those who can't watch clips online, Reagan is seen telling a Georgia audience about a letter he received from a wealthy executive who found it outrageous that he has a smaller tax burden than his secretary.
In other words, Reagan's argument is, for all intents and purposes, completely identical to President Obama's argument. Modern-day Republicans, of course, have no use for Reagan's legacy, but it seems odd for conservatives to look at Obama's proposal as a radical, socialist, redistributionist plot when there is no meaningful difference between it and the plan espoused by "Ronaldus Magnus."
Also note, the clip wasn't an isolated instance in which Reagan said something he didn't really mean.
The Republican president spent much of 1985 saying it's "crazy" to let the wealthy take advantage of tax loopholes and giveaways, allowing them to have a lower tax burden than much of the middle class.
For the right in 2012, this isn't a close call: the Buffett Rule would mean someone's taxes would go up, which means it's necessarily a bad idea. Tax fairness is irrelevant; what matters is ensuring no one ever has to pay a penny more in taxes for any reason, no exceptions.
But videos like these help drive home a larger point: the Republican Party has moved so far to the right, by contemporary standards, Ronald Reagan was a liberal on economic policy.
Leave a Comment:
I believe it was Confederate traitor Senator Jim's Demented from South Carolina who said last year that Ronald Reagan was a "former Democrat" who would not be able to be elected as a Republican today.
Lindsay Graham from South Carolina said the same thing.
for being idiots, they are quite observant.
They continued to love Ronny until the fallout from "Bedtime for GW Bonzo".
why do we say "so far to the right" when talking about the GOP's heartless, greedy corporatist view of governing? Who said that being that callous is "conservative"
My theory is that when GOP starting breaking laws and lying and screwing the American people in the 70s people stopped trusting the government and stopped voting. Except the rich, who could continue to spend and lobby and liked being invited to fancy political parties and galas; and Christians who felt a duty to vote for the wholesome, anti-gay, (maybe anti-interracial), anti-abortionists...
So that because the base, the rich and the religious.
It seems to be that the GOP is just concerned with being in power and they would sway with the winds like Romney does if they had to. If their base demanded more "liberal" views, I bet they'd start to transition. It's just the populace of small minded, racists, religious old white people that keep the GOP floating want them to be the isolationist party-- so they are.
The phrase should be more honest, "The GOP has gone crazy" (no "right" about it)
They used to care about the middle class, until it stopped voting for them.
So instead of "so far to the right" we should be saying "so far toward the greedy, selfish and myopic"?
Works for me.
So far, the only people who've been shown to be genuinely motivated by a Romney candidacy are the 1%.
The bulk of any increases in taxes to anyone will eventually be burdened by the middle class either through higher costs of goods and services or through reduced payrolls, benefits, and jobs. To believe different is living in Fantasy land.
Reduced government spending is the only solution. Supporting any tax increases is like shooting ourselves in the foot!
Is the oxygen a little thin down there?
We need a combination of decreased spending (military), and increased taxes (fair percentage paid by the uberwealthy who've legislated all our dollars into their own pockets and then sent it all off shore without paying any taxes at all!).
We need a fair tax system and reasonable spending to dig ourselves out of the hole greedy americans (read: rich) have put us in.
Supporting the rich and their policies if you don't make more than 250,000/yr is shooting yourself in the foot.
Reagan and Jesus have much in common; their most fervent followers don't know who they were or what they stood for.
Well what other legacy does the current GOP have to wrap its arms around? Bush 43 and his economic / war disasters? The one term Bush 41? Nixon and Watergate? Certainly not Ford. They look back longingly at the one President who they consider successful and ignore Iran-Contra, his campaign's negotiating with terrorists, and his tax policies. They've got no other history to be proud of.
They're the party of Lincoln!
They ended slavery!
They're the reason the Civil Rights Act passed!
Democrats are the party of the KKK!
(see what I did there, I pointed to the things that they can hold onto from decades ago... which have nothing to do with their current party... much like Reagan's presidency.)
The modern GOP treats Reagan and Jesus of Nazareth pretty much the same. They profess admiration and love, holding them up as the ideal to which they aspire, while ignoring all the things they said and did that contradict their worldview.
The modern deity is Grover Norquist. His punishments for transgressions can be fast and furious. Thus, the cult-like adherence.
What IS his punishment anyway? He doesn't seem to have a following like Dick Armey and his TeaParty.
To me it seems like the punishment is a finger pointing: "oooooo, you said you wouldn't raise taxes and you did! you went back on yerr word!"
Which strikes me as crazy that they still care about that, all they've done for the last three years is go back on their words, their legislation, their campaign promises, hell, they've been lying for decades and they're scared that Norquist will wag his finger because they fibbed about taxation intentions?
Norquist's punishment is that he'll be able to point to a pledge that the Republican politician signed that said that they would not raise taxes. If they do end up raising taxes he'll then call them a hypocrite.
Funny how when Democrats and liberals do that it doesn't seem to matter.
Grover not only has a "document that he can point to", but he will also go after a politicians "funding" from Lobbyists, corporations, big donors. Which in turn may lead to a "tea-potty" challenger. In our money driven politics its surely not worth it for incumbents to actually vote "the will of the American people" they are supposed to represent rather than for the guy that pays for the campaign checks!
Last time I looked, Norquist has something like $200 million in his SuperPAC (and it's really his; he controls it, it really is issue-based, etc. No smoke and mirrors required) and is prepared at the drop of a tax break to apply it to anyone who breaks the "no new taxes, read the brand I just stamped onto your face" pledge.
96% of the current congressional republicans have signed "The Pledge"...while the theory may have been a nice way to differentiate the two parties, the unfortunate consequence prevented fiscal responsibility when unfunded and unbudgeted emergencies occur. Two lengthy wars, recession and a host of natural disasters where everyone turns to the federal government for funding. How did republicans pay for it in the past? Borrowing from social security and medicare funds, pilfering from the postal service and any other federal revenue streams...now they want to kill these programs with some made up hype about wasteful government spending, the nanny state or an entitlement society. They robbed Peter to pay Paul and are blaming the victim for the crime. What is scarier is the Paul Ryan plan or every republican presidential candidate would cut taxes further and thanks to the pledge, republicans could never vote to raise them. I also love the right-wing observation that 40something % pay no federal income tax...SO!!! Your pledge signing members of Congress can't even fix that as it violates their oath to Grover Norquist!!!
They might make an exception for the poor. However, the majority of the famous 47% are elderly and a key constituency for Republicans.
At some point, Norquist is going to find himself without any friends in the Republican party. That could occur if the Tea Party gets banished this fall. With few or no radicals in the Congressional Republicans, they will see Norquist as a paper tiger and his influence will be greatly diminished. Threatening primary challenges will not win him new friends. I would venture that he will be a persona non grata if the Tea Party sustains major losses this fall because he will get blamed for the loss of the House.
Mike, it's hard to get rid of your base. And once you do, there's not much more to do besides start hunting for a job.
If Republicans lose the elections, there are a couple scenarios. What happens will depend on who loses. If Romney and the Tea Party lose, then I see internecine warfare. Moderates and radicals are going to be blaming each other. If Romney loses and the Tea Party does not lose a lot of seats in Congress, then radicals will take over the party. If Romney wins and the Tea Party loses, then moderates take over the party. If Romney and the Tea Party win, you don't want to even think about it.
The modern Grand Oil Party is the part of Rush Limbaugh.
Rachel Maddow should interview Peter Corning, author of The Fair Society.
"What is not so well appreciated, even now, is the overwhelming evidence that this gross income disparity has produced massive collateral damage to our health and well being as a nation. It turns out that many of our public health problems and social/psychological pathologies are strongly correlated with the degree of income inequality. It is no coincidence that, in international comparisons with other rich nations, we now rank very poorly in our quality of life measures—also in sharp contrast with previous generations. "
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-fair-society/201204/economic-inequality-is-the-culprit
Animal Farm as analogy:
Snowball is Reagan, they've already started in on the denunciations.
Napoleon is Norquist, the man behind the scenes scarfing up the SuperPAC money
Squealer is either Gingrich, Limbaugh or just an amalgam of the Fox News, WND, RedState, Blaze, Big(insert bugaboo) noise machine
Boxer, the workhorse, is the Tea Party base. Working hard against their interests, ever-loyal to the pigs, until they are no longer useful and it's to the glue factory for them
The humans...? IDK, the military corporate complex?
Thoughts?
Just wondering...These tax breaks and the trickle down theory the Republicans keep trying? Isn't "trying something over and over and expecting different results
" the definition of insanity? Why hasn't anyone realized that these guys are obviously insane? should be good cause to get them removed from office. :)
There are 2 disappointing things about the Obama version of the Buffett Rule.
1. It carves out big exceptions including charitable contributions. Is Warren Buffett going to stop being charitable just because he doesn't get a tax break? 30% should be 30% period and not 30% with a huge exception.
2. It leaves in place the most complicated tax code in the world. Why not just have a 30% simple comprehensive no exceptions no deductions no exclusions tax rate, with a large 0% income bracket (or standard deduction)? This would be simple, fair and progressive. Get rid of the rest of the tax code and all the accountants and lawyers.
Democrats came up with the tax code as written. I thought it was Progressive. Buffett doesn't pay income tax. He only pays tax on his investments. To change the tax code to a simpler version we will have to get rid of all elected officials that look at our money as their own.
You do know that we have more rich Democrats in Congress than we do Republicans.
You do know that's completely irrelevant, right?
It's the republicans in the House doing the stone-walling on everything. They also just blocked another attempt to stop ripping off tax payers with subsidies to oil companies. Republicans did that, not democrats.
Why am I getting a sense of deja vu?
Rachel, what do you say to the fact that only a small minority of the rich pay less than the average American? Warren Bruffet and for that matter Mitt Romney pay less because they make their income through capital gains. That means in their younger days they made wages (taxed of course) saved them up in investments and now earn money through Capital gains. If you want Bruffet and Romney to not pay less than 30% you need to raise capital gains to 30%. Do you know what will happen if American raises capital gains to 30%?