Buffet Zone

When the Secret Service starts acting like the GSA, the Administration might have a problem. Much worse than that, however, is what is happening to the President's one and only issue recently, the Buffet Rule. Should we ensure that rich guys pay a larger percentage of their income than their secretaries? The rule polls well and the Washington Post thinks it makes sense as a matter of fairness. But the Post focuses on another point: it is all but useless as fiscal policy.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that this version, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), would affect 116,000 households in 2015. Because of that small number — and because the tax would be gradually increased as income rose from $1 million to $2 million — the tax would bring in a scant $47 billion over 10 years, assuming that the Bush tax cuts for upper-income earners expire on schedule. (If the tax cuts are extended, the Buffett Rule would affect more households — 217,000 — and therefore bring in more revenue.) You read that right: $47 billion over 10 years. Less than $5 billion a year.

Obama is making a mountain out of a policy molehill. But don't take my word for it. Ask Obama.

Mr. Obama on Wednesday addressed those "who are saying, 'Well, this is just a gimmick. Just taxing millionaires and billionaires, just imposing the Buffett Rule won't do enough to close the deficit.' Well, I agree. That's not all we have to do to close the deficit. But the notion that it doesn't solve the entire problem doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it at all."

No, Mr. Obama, the fact that your policy de jour is a gimmick doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It just means that it doesn't matter. It won't help or make any appreciable difference. That means that you aren't being serious about anything that matters.

Meanwhile, the WaPo exposed something that does matter. From a piece by Lori Montgomery:

President Obama's landmark health-care initiative, long touted as a means to control costs, will actually add more than $340 billion to the nation's budget woes over the next decade, according to a new study by a Republican member of the board that oversees Medicare financing.

The study is set to be released Tuesday by Charles Blahous, a conservative policy analyst whom Obama approved in 2010 as the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security. His analysis challenges the conventional wisdom that the health-care law, which calls for an expensive expansion of coverage for the uninsured beginning in 2014, will nonetheless reduce deficits by raising taxes and cutting payments to Medicare providers.

Believing that the PPACA would actually reduce deficit spending is like believing that an herbal supplement will really help you lose weight without dieting or exercise. Bear in mind that this was the major argument that the President made on behalf of the legislation when it was still working its way through the bowels of Congress.

More surprising, perhaps, is Patrick B. Pexton's apology for Montgomery's story. Pexton, the WaPo's Ombudsman, has this:

So why does a modest and short Post story about the health reform law become a blockbuster online? And what does that say about our reactive, partisan, hyperventilating media culture?...

Putting the story on A3 was the right judgment for a print publication. Montgomery urged her editors, correctly, not to put it on the front page: it wasn't worth that.

So let me get this straight. The Buffet rule is properly front page news, even though it had no chance of being enacted and, as the WaPo acknowledges, would have only trivial consequences if it were enacted. Meanwhile the likelihood that ObamaCare, which has been enacted, will not reduce the deficit by $575 billion as claimed but will increase it by somewhere between $340 billion and $527 billion dollars, is small news.

This is what it looks like when a great regime strives with all its powers to ignore reality rather than dealing with it.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

Hey, I have a study that says the moon is made of green cheese. Really, KB, you're echochamber sources churned this one out several days ago. You're getting slow on the uptick from your masters. The study was put out by Mercatus Institute, a well-known Koch-funded operation that specializes in producing soon to be discredited poof studies. This is not worth commenting further on.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/bogus-obamacare-deficit-study.html

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: I could swear that, once upon a time, you were capable of thinking. Now you can do is spin conspiracy theories.

[Mark Anderson]

Lets see, 400 Americans have more wealth than the bottom half of the country and the six Walton heirs have more wealth than the bottom 30% of the country. Isn't the American aristocracy wonderful. Ken likes it. You can all be part of the thrifty working class.

[Stan Gibilisco]

It's obviously a political move. Tax the rich more! Placate the poor. Convince the poor to vote for you. Not a hard thing to do, when a poor person takes half a look at Barack Obama's likely opponent in November.

And the poor are evolving into a majority in these United States. Next to the fabulously rich, we're all poor! So soak the bastards. Or at least make it look that way. A win-win thing for Obama. He tried (again) to help the little people and those doggoned Republicans blocked him (again). Harumph!

Make the whole thing a referendum on Romney, that spoiled brat. The best defense is a good offense. We're headed toward a perverse feudosocialist hybrid society no matter what, just as surely as water runs downhill. Just watch! Both parties are simply looking to soften us little people all up. It will end when they sock us with big fat value added tax. Then we can sing "Forever Poor" on our way into the long dark night.

[Dave]

Only $47 BILLION??? Over 10 years? Than is CHUMP CHANGE! A MOLEHILL! The amazing thing is that GOPers are so blind to a $47 BILLION "molehill", but a few million for education or womens health or children's nutrition is "wasteful" and "unsustainable"... Pathetic Ken... You are a tool...

[daomteagl]

adult star ryan conner flat chested nude free gallery berlin sex
http://dating.xaijo.com/?profile-ROSEANN
college cover page download boob in pdf kelley blue book r v videos animal extreme sex gradis homemade teen pon movies sexo sexo com animais hentai tsunade lactating teen free trailers trixie teen free download monica mattos horse sex rapid free spanking tubes pittsburg slim girls kiss wicked 3gp xasujus asian free movie sample sex star wars nude celebritys nurse school in brampton old sexe hot threesome with the maid indian adult desi books free download oil and natural gas corporation deepthroat compilation blowjobs

[daonteagj]

pepper deluxe chick megaupload free blow job clips zoofi sex
http://zippic.info/?profile-ALAN
http://xaijo.com/?profile-KENT
http://adult-story.info/?profile-IMELDA
used car price canada black book wyspianski criticism young poland culture bangalore xxx sex video full leanth free live nude girls 1995 vida o amateur sex gay porno gratuit magic memory stick installer sexy latinas conejitas playboy sex addicts support groups in ut its just wrong mom and son howard stern torrent imagen de sexo anal samsung u800 soulb black pokemon xxx jessie cars for sale in japan arab gangbang homemade musical instruments free lesbian big toy porn bento box pictures silvia saint and shay sweet lesbian
http://bitly.us.to/oMCGg