What about the OTHER Buffett Rule…?
This afternoon, Democrats will engage in yet another politically motivated show vote, voting to raise taxes on job creators in the name of “fairness.” Their ostensible motivation for doing so comes from a campaign engineered by Warren Buffett, hence the Buffett Rule moniker.
But even as Democrats invoke Warren Buffett’s name in promoting this afternoon’s tax increase, it’s also worth recalling that in March 2010, Mr. Buffett conducted an interview for CNBC where – asked about the health legislation that was then in the process of being rammed through Congress – he said the bill “really doesn’t attack the cost situation that much” and that “I don’t believe in insuring more people until you attack the cost aspect of this.”
In other words, there is not just a Buffett Rule on taxes – there’s a Buffett Rule on health care too, and it’s this: Obamacare’s coverage expansions should not start until the law is proven to have lowered health care spending levels. But the real question is, why won’t Democrats accept this Buffett Rule as well? After all, if President Obama is so confident the 2,700-page overhaul will be effective in lowering premiums by $2,500 per family as promised, why doesn’t he believe this condition will be easily met? Conversely, if the President does NOT believe the law will be effective in slowing the growth of health spending, and will instead result in skyrocketing costs to federal taxpayers, what’s the point of even voting on today’s tax increase, seeing as how new spending on Obamacare will quickly overwhelm the $47 billion in supposed savings from this tax hike?
So this observer looks forward to Democrats embracing both Buffett Rules, and calling for Obamacare’s new spending on coverage expansions to be delayed unless and until the law has been proven to lower costs by $2,500 per family, as candidate Obama promised. Because if Democrats wish to outsource their legislative agenda to Warren Buffett, they should be willing to outsource ALL of their agenda to him, and not just the bits and pieces they agree with – after all, “fairness” requires it.