I’m not going to say that the Obama administration lies to an accepting media with the practiced smoothness of a Three Card Monte dealer in Times Square. That would be mean and, goodness knows, this White House does get all het up when we say mean things about it.
However, I’m at a loss to explain how else to describe the weapons-grade whopper the White House Spokesgrifter Jay Carney told in this morning’s press gaggle when asked about the so-called Buffet Rule. That’s Barack Obama’s Attack O’The Week this week — an attempt to wring a few billion dollars out of 400 households who have managed, through a lot of hard work and sacrifice, to reach the very pinnacle of financial success in America. I’m not going to get into the numbers of the Buffett Rule, which are a noxious stew of fuzzy math and laughable fiction. I’ll let the graphic at the end of this post handle that. I want to point out that Jay Carney looked America right in the eyes and told a lie so blatant that, if we lived in Old Testament times, God would have opened a fiery crevice underneath him to consume him and his entire lineage.
Q Back to the Buffett Rule. Given that if it passed, it would make a small dent in the deficit, would you say that the measure is more symbolic than material?
MR. CARNEY: I think the money we’re talking about here, $47 billion over 10 years, is nobody’s idea of a small amount, A. B, we never suggested — the President, no one ever suggested that implementing the Buffett Rule would contribute in large measure to reducing the deficit. The President has put forward a comprehensive deficit reduction plan that takes a balanced approach, that includes as a principle of tax reform theBuffett Rule, but that does not rely on — and we never suggested it would rely on — the Buffett Rule to reduce the deficit by a significant measure. It is a principle of tax fairness. [Emphasis mine]
So, according to the Mouth of Sauron, Jay Carney, neither the President nor anyone else in the administration suggested that the Buffett Rule would reduce the debt in either a “large” or “significant” measure.
Got that? Okay. Now let’s leap into that wonderful time machine known as the Internet and travel back about six months, to September of last year. Here is what the President said in a speech at a DNC event in California.
What I’ve said is this is a very simple principle that everybody should understand: Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a lower [sic] tax rate than Warren Buffett. A teacher making $50,000 a year, or a firefighter making $50,000 a year or $60,000, shouldn’t be paying a higher tax rate than somebody making $50 million a year. And that basic principle of fairness, if applied to our tax code, could raise enough money that not only do we pay for our jobs bill, but we also stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. And as I said when I made the announcement, this is not politics; this is math. (Laughter.) [Emphasis mine]
I’m no White House Spokesliar (my breath causes mirrors to fog up and I do not cause dogs to bark furiously), but I consider any plan that would “stabilize our debt and deficits”, which are slated to run at least a trillion dollars a year from now until the heat death of the universe under Barack Obama’s unanimously-rejected budget plan, a “large” and “significant” measure. It seems pretty obvious that Barack Obama intended for all of us to believe that this Buffett Rule was a bit of an economic wonder drug — not only would it reinstate “fairness” but it would also cure a great many financial woes.
That, also, was a lie.
The American Jobs Act, the bill to which the President referred in his speech, clocked in at $447 billion dollars. The Buffett Rule was predicted to bring in, at best, $114 billion, not in one year, but in ten. By my count, the President would need almost 4 Buffett Rules — or four times as many Evil Bazillionaires — to cover just his jobs bill if we assume that his plan stretched out over ten years, which it didn’t. We haven’t even gotten to the part where this miracle plan of his stabilizes the debt for ten years. How many more monocle-wearing, puppy-blending, orphan-kicking rich people would we need to get to that point? Hundreds? Thousands?
Now we could have had more rich people if only the President didn’t have such an intense hate-on for people who work hard and make a lot of money from their labor. Perhaps if the President was more of a rational thinker he would have put a few policies into place so that we’d have a lot more rich people and millions of middle class people making more money, too. Then the Federal coffers would fairly bulge with revenues that he could spent on infrastructure and magic trains and unicorn farms and all the other Cloud Cuckoo Land stuff he wants and we could “stabilize” that pesky debt.
But those are all fond wishes. We don’t have a realist President. We have Barack Obama, serial fantasist and Jay Carney, Mouth of Sauron. So instead of real economic policies that allow all of us to go out and seek our success in ways that work best for us we get laughably bad math and even worse lies. I would think that “fairness” begins with respect and truth. But, like I said, I don’t work for the Obama administration.
Oh, here’s that graphic I mentioned. Remember when the reporter told Jay Carney that the Buffet Rule would only make “a small dent in the deficit”? He was right and Carney, like he does, distorted it to fit his deceptive narrative.
Category: The Economy and Your Money