Don’t fall into the Buffett Rule trap

posted at 12:16 pm on April 14, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

One conversation which cropped up last night centered on a distressing trend I’m seeing among conservatives, and one which was front and center on Hot Air’s pages yesterday from Allahpundit. There appears to be a growing tendency in Republican circles to blow off the results of the recent Gallup poll which showed that a very solid majority of voters favor the Buffett Rule by a nearly two to one margin. It’s true that the political will doesn’t exist to pass this into law right now, but that’s not the point at all. Even Obama doesn’t want this thing to pass. (More on that in a minute.)

The point(s) AP was trying to make seem to focus on two themes. First, there is the Jay Cost approach, which essentially says, “Yeah, but don’t worry. That’s not what swing voters really care about so it won’t matter.” He thinks Obama has a “lousy reelect strategy” so there’s no sense talking about it. This, to me, sounds like a combination of massively wishful thinking and whistling past the graveyard.

The second piece of “evidence” about voters’ feelings on the subject comes in the form of an online YouGov poll which showed that most regular folks wouldn’t want large lottery winnings taxed at a high rate. Leaving aside for the moment the sterling bona fides of “YouGov” as a national polling organization, that strange story actually has a fairly obvious – and completely opposite – lesson buried in it. If you ask lower and middle class workers about their views on lottery winnings vs. the ultra-wealthy, you’re going to get two very different sets of answers. Why?

Because against all logic, people who play the lottery still like to think there’s a chance that they might win. Or, failing that, that some friend of theirs might win. Or at least some other poor schlub out there who needs a lucky break. But if you ask them what the chances are that they’re going to be running a company like Bain Capital next year they’ll say zero. They actually think their odds of hitting the Lotto jackpot are better than becoming a Wall Street Fat Cat. And if they do hit the lottery, they don’t want all of their money taken away.

But back to Cost’s assertion, I think the GOP ignores this at their own peril. People are talking about it. The media is talking about it. Endlessly. The President is up on his bully pulpit hammering on it. The Vice President is working it like a rented mule. And they’re not going to stop.

This isn’t because they think it’s going to pass or because they believe it will fix anything. Even DNC cheerleader Greg Sargent – a guy so far out on the left wing that he could have Castro taking a second look at free market capitalism – is openly admitting that the bill wouldn’t raise enough money to amount to a rounding error on the national budget and that it’s as likely to pass as John Edwards is to make another run at the White House. But that was never the point. As I noted above, even Barack Obama doesn’t want this thing to pass. If it did, the bill would fall into history like the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Supporters would get a quick thrill up their legs and then it would be forgotten.

But if the GOP defeats the Buffett Rule, then Obama can keep talking about it straight through November. The Republicans wanted to make sure that people who earn as much as Mitt Romney pay a lower tax rate than you do! And…

IT’S NOT FAIR.

It’s a powerful message, and one which resonates with far too many people, as Gallup has repeatedly shown. Say what you will about the President’s performance in office, but the guy has a crack political team and he knows how to campaign. He’s holding on to a winning hand on this one and he knows it. And this tendency to pretend this isn’t going to be a campaign issue in the fall (particularly when he’s running against Mr. “How Many of Ann’s Cadillac Convertibles Can I Fit In My Car Elevator”) is disturbing. In terms of electoral strategies, it just looks like Obama is playing three dimensional chess and we’re playing tiddlywinks here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And rather than tamping down the scandal situation, they’ve only fanned with flames with another week’s worth of questions and denials to come.

Sweet. How sweet it is.

Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“We’re not crooks – we’re incompetent” is their battlecry. The water is circling the drain, Barry.

Philly on May 19, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This.

When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

ear relevant…

driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.

kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.

savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.

However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)

What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.

(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)

AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM

I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.

Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.

tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM

Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…

Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Perfect!

lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.

bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM

If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!

SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)

He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.

Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2