Previous post:

Next post:

President Obama’s “Romney Rule”

by Keith Koffler on January 30, 2012, 10:35 am

I have a better name for the “Buffett Rule,” the Obama proposal which says people making over $1 million per year should be taxed at a rate of at least 30 percent.

Let’s call it “The Romney Rule.”

Because, that’s who it’s targeted at.

President Obama’s demand that wealthy people pay more than 30 percent in taxes is framed by Obama not as a way to seriously cut the deficit or spur the economy – it will do neither – but as a way to make life more fair for less wealthy people who may being paying twice that rate.

Is this person a jerk? Then why is that woman clapping?

Which is another way of saying that Mitt Romney, a rich guy who recently acknowledged paying taxes at a rate of about 15 percent, is not only wrong for the country, BUT HE’S A JERK TOO. Romney, Obama will contend, indirectly, is a no-good bum who avoids paying taxes like you and me.

The reason Romney pays a lower tax rate is that he doesn’t really have a salary, since his main job is running for president. He takes most of his income from capital gains, which is taxed at 15 percent.

But the Romney Rule, the most high profile of Obama’s proposals, is not a serious policy proposal. It’s an expression of Obama’s personal philosophy, which lends itself to class resentment. It’s path toward class warfare. And it’s a way to say ROMNEY IS A JERK.

It’s not serious because Obama is aware that the Republican House will never, ever pass it.

It’s so not serious that according to the Washington Post, Obama is not even going to include it in his budget. The White House budget will include all kinds of trivia, but it won’t even contain Obama’s biggest proposal of the year.

But, rest assured, while it won’t be part of the budget, the Buffett rule will appear in all of Obama’s campaign literature.

{ 3 trackbacks }

{ 40 comments }

Mike Lester January 30, 2012 at 10:53 am

More rules:

JAN BREWER RULE: border agents have right to use bean bag guns when FastFurious drug cartels shooting at them w/ gov. supplied auto weapons. No finger pointing either.

EAT YOUR VEGETABLES RULE: food manufac. distrib. fastfood outlets must provide / advertise against their own interest that they provide healthy alternative to eating their own products. You’ll thank us.

EAT RICH RULE: (see ROMNEY RULE to be overseenby WBuffet’s sec.)

next?

Star January 30, 2012 at 11:01 am

VOTERS ARE STUPID RULE–Nothing to see here, such as the fact that the money risked to create the profit taxed at 15% was already taxed at over 35%.

DeniseVB January 30, 2012 at 11:02 am

This just screams for the Fair Tax. Don’t tax anyone on their incomes, just what they spend. Only til that happens, our tax system will never be fair.

Lizzy January 30, 2012 at 11:07 am

OK Barry you have millions and the FLOTUS just spent $50,000 on underwear
not from Target. So you want expand on that and the list of your taking from
the 1% and shaming them in the same day. Hypocrite in dictionary says Obama’s.

Star January 30, 2012 at 11:14 am

I didn’t really want to get into her underwear, so to speak, and I know Spanx cost, but …. No, not gonna…

MaryOhSoContrary January 30, 2012 at 11:25 am

Star, who knew gold thread had such tensil strength? 50k?!? What “optics” are they going for?!? Fashionista? TMI on their “date nights?” Marriage troubles being fronted by lace and spandex?

Star January 30, 2012 at 11:54 am

For some reason the term “tensil strength” made me laff–we always take it too far–but that’s what makes humor, without which I would be DEAD in this environment.

Car in January 30, 2012 at 11:55 am

Now, she may not have bought underwear. I visited the site for the store, and discovered you can spend about $3,300 on a set of sheets.

But thong underwear started at $90 and went well over $200 a pair.

They don’t carry that stuff at Target!

Knothead January 30, 2012 at 7:21 pm

FLOTUS in thong underwear. Ewwwwwwwww

MT for re-redistribution January 30, 2012 at 12:22 pm

I could have lived my whole life without the thought of Mooch’s undergarments giving me the heebies…

Star January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm

Too late.

MaryOhSoContrary January 30, 2012 at 11:19 am

THE VOTERS ARE STUPID RULE. Promise them anything, go golfing, constantly repeat “HOPE & CHANGE(tm),” book a vacay, croon a few bars of Al Green, call opponents RAAACISTS, take another vacation.

Did I miss anything?

srdem65 January 30, 2012 at 11:31 am

MrRomney made $20+million last year from his investments and MrObama made $14+million in 2010 from his investments or sales of his books (?).
So, we’re going to have one multi-millionaire cast aspersions on the income or tax rate of another multi-millionare? I’d call it a wash.

Some of us yokels in fly-over country have investments that give us “unearned income”, too. They’re called retirement accounts, mutual funds or stock dividends. While these investments don’t reach the stratosphere of the Romney/Obama figures, they are important to those who chose to be financially prudent.

Star January 30, 2012 at 11:56 am

Fourteen mill on those same books? Who is this guy now, James Patterson? I am skeptical.

Susan January 30, 2012 at 12:06 pm

One way to get around campaign finance laws is to have your monied supporters buy your books by the boatload. The big buy by the State Department didn’t hurt either.

MT for re-redistribution January 30, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Financially prudent?? You are a racist.

Robin H January 30, 2012 at 11:34 am

I don’t know anyone who actually pays 35%. We earned $95,000 last year and payed about 7% after the deductions. We are typical middle class, 2 kids and a house. Who the heck pays the 35%?

And retirees, you’d better beware. If you plan on living off of investment income, you’d better hope it doesn’t get taxed as ordinary income.

Star January 30, 2012 at 11:57 am

With interest at 2%–who can live?

Susan January 30, 2012 at 11:38 am

The fact that taxing capital gains and dividends is nothing more than double taxation is beside the point when the class warfare king is beating his drums. We will really be upsetting the apple cart if Romney doesn’t get the nomination. Obama and his cronies have been planning for their meeting with Romney for a long time.
Soros funded occupooper movement – check
Class warfare rhetoric – check
Fake polling data to make it look like Romney can beat Obama – check
Relying on the Republican establishment to serve their weakest candidate on a platter – check
Relying on Romney surrogates to alienate the tea party, libertarian, and conservative base – check.

If Romney wins the nomination he will be walking into a well-prepared warzone and will be eaten alive because of his malleable policy positions, his wealth (however well deserved), and his Wall Street connections and support. The Republican establishment will have won the battle over their candidate of choice, but they will lose the war against Obama.

MT for re-redistribution January 30, 2012 at 12:27 pm

I fear you are correct. Romney will divide the right, giving O his best chance at re-coronation. It would probably be a very dark, possibly fatal day for the United States of America. Seriously.

anneinarkansas January 30, 2012 at 11:50 am

Romney’s wealth and taxes bother me not at all….there are far more important issues on the table.
What I want to hear Romney say loud and clear is that Obama is a socialist. McCain was never able to utter the two words Jeremiah Wright…and he LOST the election.

Susan January 30, 2012 at 12:01 pm

He can’t do it. That is one reason why I could never vote for Romney in the primary. Sean Hannity asked him point blank if Obama was a socialist and all Romney could say is that he is in over his head. Romney can beat the heck out of his Republican opponents, but his lips are zipped when it comes to confronting Obama’s ideology.

Star January 30, 2012 at 12:04 pm

All those labels leave me cold–just my opinion… Did you see the WaPo story on how he is the most polarizing pres ever–most of the comments are summarizaable as Nuh-uh, is not, your Momma.

Susan January 30, 2012 at 12:12 pm

I actually think he’s a Marxist, but that is my opinion. Choose not to read the liberal rag Wapo so missed the article you reference.

Robin H January 30, 2012 at 1:41 pm

Can we all just agree to call him an anti-capitalist? Who cares what the “correct” label should be.

Star January 30, 2012 at 2:38 pm

I read it so you don’t have to, Susan.

Susan January 30, 2012 at 3:45 pm

Marxism isn’t a label, it is an ideology. He attended the church of Rev Wright, who preaches Black Liberation Theology aka Marxism. Our money isn’t the only thing Obama wants. He wants us to be in servitude to him.

Robin H January 30, 2012 at 5:55 pm

Susan, I agree with you that he’s terrible for us and the country. What I don’t want all of us to get hung up on is disagreeing with each other what that hatred for the country is called. We need to get together and get him out of office, not fight with each other.

I also would like to see someone other than Romney nominated. He’s McCain lite.

Girly1 January 30, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Mr. Rags to Riches LOVES to inject himself into all of the class warfare stuff by bragging that he is one of the 1 percenters – so typical of the nouveau riche!

Why do I think Obama would the the first one to squeal like a pig if someone tried to hike his taxes!

We ought to start taxing the Obama tribe for all of the taxpayer $$$ they are squandering for their hedonistic life style – it could pay off the national debt! .

Car in January 30, 2012 at 1:12 pm

Obama currently lives a lifestyle artificially inflated (financially) by his position. Wait for when he and his wife are private citizens and check to see what they do with their money. They’ll behave just like everyone politician/public figure that mouths progressive platitudes.

Star January 30, 2012 at 4:31 pm

That is one of my recent points, Car. I blogged on it… I don’t hate rich people, that’s pointless. But it’s lots of fun to JUDGE how they spend the money–that’s sport. Viz–the expensivo thongs or tablecloths or 25-room NY apts with lap pools inside, or 600 thread count sheets, or Palace of Versailles decorating schemes, or lobsters in every pot, etc.

A.Men January 30, 2012 at 1:47 pm

ABO 2012 (Anybody But Obama 2012!)

vladdy January 30, 2012 at 2:21 pm

I detest the idea of voting on feelings for or looks of the candidate. But I must admit that there is just something about Romney that gives me an intrinsic feeling of creepiness every time I see or hear him (tho’ not as bad as the feeling I get from obama.) His whole demeanor screams “Fake!” and even “Used Car Salesman here” to me A lot of it has to do with the fact that I’m aware of and know about his advisors and operatives, along with some of their past and present escapades (starting with Steve Schmidt who left the Romney campaign in 2008 and went to McCain when deals were made, and then proceeded to trash Sarah Palin “from the inside” there ever after. See Vanity Fair shortly after bo’s victory)

Susan January 30, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace. Sarah Palin mentions them in “Going Rogue”. I believe progressives infiltrated the “political consultant” business a long time ago.

Stefan January 30, 2012 at 3:52 pm

They could confiscate the total net worth of the 400 richest Americans (as compiled by Forbes magazine) and it wouldn’t cover the budeget deficit for ONE YEAR.

The idea that we can tax our way out of the debt problem is preposterous.

MT for re-redistribution January 30, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Amen. STOP SPENDING! STOP, STOP, STOP!! More free market, not less. Like in the movie “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles”, YOU’RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!!

Sorry, I’m yelling.

Knothead January 30, 2012 at 7:29 pm

As one of my past educators told me in school, ” Calm your exuberance and tame your effervescence.”
But it’s very difficult to not yell.

Shelley January 30, 2012 at 10:23 pm

It will be interesting to see how opponents of the Buffett Rule will try to scramble the message.

WeddedPolecat29 February 1, 2012 at 5:13 am

Obama in 2012!

aJS7 September 10, 2013 at 4:40 am

164189 312062We offer the very best practical and most applicable solutions. All our Sydney plumbers are experienced and qualified and are able to rapidly assess your issue and discover the very best answer. 984952