Notice something odd about the conservative excuses for opposing the Buffett Rule?
***
...the money that would be brought in by the government through this sort of tax increase would hardly reduce the growing federal debt. The debt is too large, and the revenue would be too small. -- Weekly Standard
The Buffett Rule Would Impact . . . 4,000 Taxpayers? -- National Review
It pays for about six percent of the president's proposed deficit spending. -- House Budget Chair Paul Ryan
...makes no meaningful dent in our national debt. -- GOP Sen. Marco Rubio
... the predicted revenue of the Buffett Rule would produce $4 billion a year in revenue, which represents about 0.44% of next year’s deficit... -- Hot Air
...the Buffett Rule would raise a mere $47 billion over ten years. Meanwhile, President Obama’s budget calls for adding $6.7 trillion to the national debt. That means that the Buffett Rule will only cover one half of one percent of the President’s new spending. -- Heritage Foundation (Note: the House Republican budget adds $12 trillion to the national debt.)
***
That's right. These conservative Republicans are complaining that the Buffett Rule doesn't raise taxes enough!
Of course, they won't cop to the fact that's where the logic of their argument goes. They are simply grasping at straws to avoid admitting they want multimillionaires who live off of stocks and dividends to continue gaming the tax system.
No one supporting the Buffett Rule is claiming it's a fiscal silver bullet. But since conservatives keep blocking proposals to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, keep trying to repeal the cost controls from the President's health care reform and keep trying to exempt the Pentagon from budget reform, you have to start somewhere.
The Buffett Rule ends a gaping unfair loophole in the tax code, and takes a step towards fiscal sanity. If conservatives think that step doesn't raise enough revenue, I look forward to hearing their ideas to raise more.
