Yesterday, Democrats began their media push on the Buffett rule, which Sheldon Whitehouse and Tammy Baldwin have turned into legislation called the Paying a Fair Share Act. The bill would set a minimum 30% effective tax rate for earners making over $1 million. The revenue increase from the bill is actually kind of small. CBO estimates it at around $47 billion over 10 years, but that is under current law where the Bush tax cuts expire. If they are extended, it could increase to around $160 billion over ten years. But more than that, Democrats frame it as an issue of tax fairness, where the rich deliver a “fair share” toward funding the public sector. The bill phases in for people making between $1 million and $2 million to avoid a “cliff effect,” so there would be no strong difference in tax payments between those making $999,999 and $1 million.
Whitehouse, Baldwin and Chuck Schumer held a conference call yesterday on the legislation, and Schumer vowed that “even if we come up short of 60 (votes), we’re going to continue pushing this issue all year long. It’s an emerging contrast with Republicans.”
To that end, Democrats have begun to target Republican Senators in their states over the vote, scheduled for April 16.
Congressional Democrats and the White House plan to target Republican senators in 13 states next week, in an effort to pressure them to vote for the “Buffett Rule” tax on millionaires, a Democratic official said. The Republican senators represent Tennessee, Missouri, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Maine, Nevada, Nebraska, Alaska, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Iowa, the official said.
Democrats are hoping to use their April 16 Senate vote on the Buffett Rule to divide Republicans and make their leaders – including Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination – appear out of touch with voters.
This would include op-eds and public comments, but not paid media – at least not yet.
Obviously we’re looking at a message vote, and Democrats believe they have the upper hand. Republicans are “on the defensive on their signature issue, taxes,” according to Schumer. I’m not certain that’s true, but the comments of Mitch McConnell on the Buffett rule yesterday point in that direction.
“This is yet another proposal from Democrats that won’t create a single job or lower the price at the pump by a penny, but may have the opposite effect,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement.
“Just as with their proposal to raise taxes on American energy manufacturers and increase the cost of energy, this is yet another sign that they’re out of ideas and simply focused on tax hike show-votes rather than pushing for the dozens of jobs and energy bills that have passed the House but are stalled in the Democrat-led Senate,” McConnell added.
Whitehouse responded that McConnell tried to change the subject, “when faced with opportunity to defend the rule that hedge fund managers should face a lower tax rate than a Rhode Island truck driver.” He said this showed the formidable nature of the legislation, which does poll quite well.
Taxes will be a signature issue going into the elections. Republicans passed a budget in the House that would slash tax rates while professing to cover those reductions with closing loopholes, though they fail to identify one loophole that should be closed, and they refuse to raise rates on dividend or capital gains income. Democrats have countered with the Buffett rule, and they want to roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year. The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of December, as does the payroll tax holiday.




17 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
NEXT!
Yep. More kabuki.
These aren’t the Senators your looking for. These aren’t the Senators we’re looking for.
He can be on his way. You can be on your way.
Move along. Move along..Move along.
Isn’t it their job to do something, rather than position themselves around something to aid in their reelection efforts?
Oh silly person.
Wait , what there’s democrats in DC ?
When did they get there ?
That sheldon had me going there for awhile, he sounded so “ethical” once.
Evidently not.
How it works, apparently, is that the Democrats pretend to try to do something that they wouldn’t do when they had the power to actually do it. Then we vote for the Democrats.
Just ask the White House. Better yet, go to the WH Press Office at Greg Sargent’s Plum Line and watch the process in action.
They already expired, they are now the Obama tax cuts and there is no guaranty Obama’s tax cuts won’t be extended, whether he or willard are elected.
David what I find odd is the Federal Reserve Charter ends next year. How comes that is not being discussed anywhere? Regardless of your thoughts on the FED whether it stays or goes would have huge impact. It’s charter ending is not something you deal with at the last minute.
What is going on? Why is nobody on the hill mentioning this? Is a bill being pushed through we do not know about? Seems beyond strange
Don’t get my hopes up.
Thanks for bringing this up. I heard a rumor last fall that the charter had already expired but couldn’t verify it. I guess some question when the charter really took effect, although to me it doesn’t seem in question.
I suspect most people don’t realize the Fed has a charter that is about to expire.
So great to read those who have it figured out.
Kabuki Show Time!
The OBAMA TAX CUTS will be extended… probably indefinitely if not for infinity. You can quote me, if you like.
“Democrats”?? Don’t make me laugh…
ptoui!
Double D, please refrain from using the terms “Democrats” and “fight” in the same sentence. I don’t want to regurgitate on my keyboard.
30%? Shit. Come to me when the rate’s back to 95%.
Yeah whatever. In the end the usual suspects like Baucus Landrieu and Ben Nelson will vote with the Richie Riches
David what I find odd is the Federal Reserve Charter ends next year. How comes that is not being discussed anywhere?
Because its not true. Nowhere in the current Federal Reserve Act is there an expiration date. When the FRA was originally enacted in 1913 there was a 20 year sunset period, but it was removed in 1927 so now Fed bank charters are open-ended (but can be dissolved by Act of Congress).
Really, you need to do a little bit of research before passing along disinformation. Even the Ron Paul superfans are on top of this being a hoax.
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/1806561