cur-mud-geon: anyone who hates hypocrisy and pretense and has the temerity to say so; anyone with the habit of pointing out unpleasant facts in an engaging and humorous manner
The so-called ‘Buffet Rule’ was voted down yesterday with a 51-45 count against. There were a required 60 votes for this to move forward. No one expected this to go forward; this bill was not going anywhere; the vote was staged to purely score political points moving into the coming election season.
Our elected officials are big on the ‘political points’ thing, but not so big on the business of keeping spending down.
The Buffet Rule, of course, came about when President Obama famously pointed out that Warren Buffet, a friend, multi-millionaire and fellow liberal, paid a lower effective tax rate than did his secretary. We never have learned what the effective tax rate of Buffet’s secretary is, but I guess no one, in the intelligentsia at least, feels that is important.
All this puffing and posturing is, of course, meant to paint the Republicans as being captives of “the 1%”, while the Democrats are certainly the friends of all the 99% who are downtrodden and paying way too much in federal taxes of all kinds. More than 50% of the 99% pay no federal income taxes, but that is only incidental to the press.
When you boil this down, it is sort of interesting to find that the vaunted Buffet Rule that just had to be passed would’ve brought in enough additional federal revenue to pay for a whopping ’11 hours’ worth of our gigantic, out-of-control federal budget.
This is among those classic political posturing battles designed to keep our attention off the real issues. We spend too darn much and need to rein in federal spending. We do not have a problem with too little taxation; we have a problem with too much spending.
Look at the recent GSA scandal for proof that there is much that can be cut from the federal budget. The Senate would’ve better spent its time if it actually came together to pass a budget, something the Democrats in control have failed to do since President Obama took office. Too many of our elected officials are merely in office to be in office, and their actions are too often intended only to perpetuate their time in office.
If tax PAYERS were given even half the attention as tax TAKERS, we would be in a much better state of affairs. Instead of working to balance the budget through expense reductions, the majority would rather work on the ‘class warfare’ agenda that they hope will see them keep their majority.
Now we see similar things taking shape in the gubernatorial re-elections about to take place in Wisconsin. The two Democrats with the best shot at displacing Governor Walker, Falk and Barrett, are looking at what taxes they can restore upon election rather than at what they can do to keep the state moving forward with the newfound savings from Act 10, among other things.
It is frustrating to be able to see this so plainly while others seem oblivious to the same signs. This seems to indicate that this is either a genetic condition or at least is learned at an early age.
Ignorance might be bliss, but it is awfully expensive.