"Buffett Rule" fails in the Senate

photo courtesy flickr user John-Morgan

Updated:  7:20 pm ET

The Senate on Monday struck down the so-called "Buffett Rule," a Democratic-backed measure that would require high income Americans to be taxed at a rate of at least 30 percent, with 51 Senators voting to proceed with a vote on the legislation and 45 voting not to proceed with a vote.

Democrats needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

The vote was largely along party lines. Susan Collins, of Maine, was the sole Republican to vote for the rule, and Senator Mark Pryor, D-Ark., was the lone Democrat who voted against it.

As Americans across the country rush to file their taxes ahead of this year's April 17 deadline, Senate Democrats were pushing the Buffett Rule legislation, which would have mandated that income above $2 million would be taxed at least at a 30 percent rate, with a graduated boost in the minimum marginal rates for income between $1 million and $2 million.

President Obama has for months pushed a version of this legislation, which he argues would level the playing field for Americans who are unable to take advantage of the tax deductions and low rates on capital gains which benefit many high earners.  White House officials have estimated that the Buffett Rule would produce $47 billion over ten years in additional tax revenue for the government.

Buffett rule: A Q&A
Congress battles over tax changes as Tax Day nears

"It's simple: If you make more than $1 million every year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do," the president said in his weekly address on Saturday.

The rule is named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has become something of a symbol for the left on the matter of tax reform after arguing in an op-ed last year that the wealthy should be forced to pay higher tax rates. Buffett has often pointed to the tax breakdown among his own staff as an example, noting that his secretary pays a higher overall tax rate than he does. The New York Times reported Monday that Mr. Obama, too, paid a lower tax rate than his secretary in 2011.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid argued in remarks on the Senate floor Monday that the nation's highest earners "shouldn't be allowed to hide behind tax loopholes that rig the system in their favor."

The measure has faced strong resistance from Republicans, many of whom argue it is little more than a political gimmick that would harm the economy in its fragile state.

"This entire debate has been very illuminating for a lot of folks," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "It's revealed a lot about this president. By wasting so much time on this political gimmick that even Democrats admit won't solve our larger problems, it's shown the president is more interested in misleading people than he is in leading."

A handful of recent polls have showed that most Americans support some version of the Buffett Rule. A new CNN/ORC poll shows that 72 percent of Americans favor the measure, and a Gallup poll from last week indicated that 60 percent favor the rule.

In a statement following the bill's failure, Mr. Obama lambasted Senate Republicans for "choosing once again to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few Americans at the expense of the middle class."

"The Buffett Rule is common sense," Mr. Obama said in the statement. "One of the fundamental challenges of our time is building an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. And I will continue to push Congress to take steps to not only restore economic security for the middle class and those trying to reach the middle class, but also to create an economy that's built to last."

[rightontarget]

by agentzer007 April 17, 2012 1:14 PM EDT
See my post below for the main reasons why this whole tax the rich argument is nothing more than liberal propaganda and wealth envy.
*********************

"wealth envy"??????? LOL! LOL! LOL! Buffett himself is for the tax the rich argument so I guess he is envious of HIMSELF? The Prez even said it would affect "folks like him". There are LOTS of wealthy who support this bill. It's the GREEDY who do not!!!!!!! It's about FAIRNESS, which is something those wealthy folks who are GREEDY do not understand. Don't lump ALL rich folks into one basket. Sort out the crooks who try to get away with hiding their assets and the greedy who only care about how much more money they can have and then you might have a clue!!!!!!!

[Sam2011]

This worthless bill should be called "fools gold for the rubes of class warfare" fact is, Obama would STILL pay less in federal taxes as a percentage than his own secretary.

[endrepubs]

Lets see.......... over 70% of Americans support the Buffett rule, and a majority of Republicans support this rule. So we have a clear majority of Americans who want this rule to become law and what does our Congress, led by Republican opposition do? They vote a popular amendment down. It is clear the Republicans need to be replaced in Congress. They only look after the wealthiest.

[armyman63863]

Are you sure you dont have anymore 7 out of 10's??? Its 7.3 I didnt know if you understood math from your posts, thought I'd help you out.

[audemus]

Yet another of the items in a long list of items the Republicans have supported which protect their rich buddies and their campaign contributions.....they've only succeeded in placing yet more financial weight on the backs of the already over-burdened, when they had the chance to do something worthy and fair....

I'll never understand why we keep sending people to Washington who place their personal agendas ahead of the interests of the vast, vast majority of the American people. It's our fault.

Tocqueville was right when he said, "In a democracy, we get the government we deserve." Unfortunately.

[AOCGUY]

Whether one agrees or disagrees with this bill it is the height of silliness to think that should the rich be taxed more on their investment income that they will quit investing. Let's say I have $1M dollars to invest with an expected annual return of 8% or $80K. If the current tax rate on unearned income is 15% then my net profit is $68K. Now if the tax rate is raised to 30% then my net profit drops to a mere $56K. Now does anyone really think that someone will quit investing because they can only realize a $56K net profit on an investment of $1M?

[AOCGUY]

Geez Chevy, it was an example, pick any ROI you wish - still works the same.

[aldrich617]

If the Buffett Rule was never more than rhetoric and entirely meaningless,
then why not just pass it? This would at least assuage the suspicion that
the Republican Party is becoming totalitarian in spirit, tactics and strategy,
relying more and more on the Big Lie propaganda technique, internal purges
of moderates, and the rejection of political compromise. Its adherents follow
quirky shifts in Party Policy with nary a dissenter, and frequently
refuse to follow the rules of civilized debate, ignoring questions
they can't answer, and shouting down opponents.

[Zann-Zel]

What a shock and surprise! The republican controlled House voted down something Obama was for!
That's okay.

'Cuz come November we're gonna vote out more Republicans than we ever have before! : )

[AOCGUY]

Actually Zann it was a GOP Senate filibuster not a House vote. The result is essentially the same though.

[josephp5]

The silliest argument against this is that if we tax the rich too much they will leave. Fine! Let them move to Guatemala or Haiti, where the tax rates are low. There they will find their Libertarian paradise, where there is little to no government interference in the free market. There they will be able to nurture their inner Ann Rand.

Of course they will never leave. The rich want to benefit from all the services and advantages of the American economy, but still whine about having to pay for it.

[omnibus66]

No news here. Republicans continue to protect their sugar daddies. Call me when they do something that is actually good for the country.

[involved_indi]

The Buffet Rule was never anything more than rhetoric geared toward disengaged voters. Wealthy pay the taxes they do because of loopholes, not the tax rate percentages. Obama is using the age old political strategy of telling a class of voters that their issues in life are "the other guys fault" in this case, the other guys being people with more money. He couldn't even get this passed in the democratically controlled Senate... where 7 of the top 10 wealthiest Senators are democrats by the way. Please do a little research into the damage that has been done to this country over the past 4 years before you vote in November. It's all available online if you have the courage to open your eyes.

[aldrich617]

If the Buffett Rule was never more than rhetoric and entirely meaningless,
then why not just pass it? This would at least assuage the suspicion that
the Republican Party is becoming totalitarian in spirit, tactics and strategy,
relying more and more on the Big Lie propaganda technique, internal purges
of moderates, and the rejection of political compromise. Its adherents follow
quirky shifts in Party Policy with nary a dissenter.

There is something going on here, something evil, and I intend to get to the bottom of it.

[josephp5]

That's a lot of pretentious sounding puff. So what if it is loopholes? The Buffet Rule would close the loopholes!

And by the way, the richest Senator is Republican Daryl Issa (a crook if there ever was one). You forget to mention that in your "7 out of 10 Senators" statistic.