A Modified 'Buffet Rule' - And Why I Support It

In a show of shameless and bombastic opportunism, President Obama has lately taken to pushing what is known nationwide as the "Buffet Rule", thus named because Warren Buffet pays more in taxes than does his secretary.  Nobody on either side expects the bill to pass either the House or the Senate.  The bill has widely been regarded as an election-year PR move on Obama's part aimed at casting the Republicans as the "God Bless the Rich, and No One Else" party.  And it's working.

It may surprise you, however, to learn that I myself support the Buffet Rule, or at least my own version of it.  Ignoring all impracticalities and economic impacts of the bill as it is currently written, I wholeheartedly agree that a fair tax law seems like a commendable goal.

Obama, of course, is trying to assure the nation that we can have our cake and eat it too - higher taxes only for the super-rich, while everyone else reaps the "benefits" (see: GSA) of government spending without being burdened by it.

This, of course, is where the President and I differ.

Obama seems to think that he can convince people to like him with this little stunt, and his logic isn't too farfetched.  The fact of the matter is that the middle class is suffering under the weight of a massive tax burden, fueled by ludicrous government spending and unfathomable debt.  There's a reason the Buffet Rule is so popular right now - in the midst of the largest depression since the Great One, bitterness abounds from those who are struggling to survive.  A cunning politician needs only to nudge this bitterness in the right direction in order to serve his own interests.

And who could fault the bitterness?  Rationally, of course, it makes sense to encourage investment from those who have the means to invest; this is the lifeblood of a free market.  But when a person sees those more fortunate than he paying a lower tax rate, while his family struggles to make ends meet, anger and cries of unfairness soon trump rational thinking, and not without cause.

The President has cunningly turned this sentiment into a campaign to make sure wealthy Americans are suffering as much as the middle and lower classes.  I urge everyone to think of the current Buffet Rule as exactly this:  If the middle and lower classes are suffering under today's tax burden, then the wealthy have to suffer as well.

There is a fairly simple alteration that can be made to the Buffet Rule - one which no establishment candidate on either side would ever dream of proposing.  The sentiment is the same; CEOs should not pay less in taxes than their secretaries.  However, rather than increasing the suffering of those more fortunate in today's economy, why has nobody suggested that we ease the suffering of those less fortunate?  If the current tax code is an unfair burden on some, does it make more sense to extend that unfairness to everyone, or to make the code fair for all?

Lower the taxes on the secretaries, rather than raising them on CEOs.  Encourage investment from the top, but extend the amount of spending money available to the middle and bottom.  After all, every product needs a consumer, and subsequently, every consumer needs the funds to buy said product.

If the middle and lower classes are suffering under today's tax burden, then EASE THE TAX BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES.

Of course, no Democrat OR Republican in their right mind would ever propose such an unprecedented and indeed preposterous action.  Well, one would.  It's just a shame he's so damned unelectable.