Tag Archives: david addington

Is Buffett getting misquoted by the Obama administration?

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan

Published on Sep 9, 2011 by

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

__________________

Is Buffet getting misquoted by the Obama administration?

Did Warren Buffett really disagree with Obama’s tax plan?

(Scott Eeels/Bloomberg)
September 30, 2011|By James Oliphant
Republicans are getting a great deal of mileage out of an interview investor Warren Buffett gave Friday morning, contending that the billionaire failed to endorse President Obama’s jobs plan or the proposed tax hike that bears his name.The Republican National Committee, for example, e-blasted a mailer that claimed Buffett had disagreed in a CNBC interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin with Obama’s plan to raise taxes on America’s top earners.

But did Buffett actually say that? More than anything, while interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, he took a pass on commenting on Obama’s plan at all. As they used to say in the 20th century, let’s go to the videotape:

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “Let’s talk about the Buffett Rule for a moment. Talk to me about how it came about in terms of the White House getting in touch with you and you putting your name to this?”

Warren Buffett:  “Well, [National Economic Council Director] Gene Sperling called and said, ’Can we use your name?’ And I said, yes.”

Sorkin: “Are you happy you said yes?”

Buffett: “Sure, I mean I wrote about it.”

Sorkin: “Are you happy with the way it’s been described? Is the program that the White House has presented — a million dollars and over — your program?”

Buffett: “Well, the precise program, I don’t know what their program will be. My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low — not just high incomes. Some guy making $50 million playing baseball, his taxes won’t change. If you make 50 million dollars a year appearing on television, his income won’t change, but if they make a lot of money and they pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what the other people pay .”

Sorkin: “Does that mean you disagree with the president’s new jobs proposal, which would be paid for by raising taxes on households with incomes of over $250,000?”

Buffett: “That’s another program that I won’t be discussing, but my program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are paying very low tax rates. Not just all the rich people. It probably would apply to 50,000 people in a population of 310 million.”

Sorkin: “That means you disagree with the president on the 250,000?”

Buffett: “No, no, you may disagree –“

Sorkin: “I’m asking, you agree that 250,000 is the right number?”

Buffett: “I will look at the overall plan that gets submitted to Congress, which they are voting on, and decide, net, do I like it or do I not like it? There’s no question there will be parts I’ll disagree with.”  (Watch the video of the interview at the end of this article.)

Part of the confusion stems from Obama’s use of Buffett’s name in recent speeches as promoting the idea the rich “pay their fair share.”  The Buffett Rule, as Buffett described in the interview and as he has proposed elsewhere, would affect a small percentage (less than 1) of America’s wealthiest citizens and would elevate the rate they pay on capital gains to be comparable to middle-class tax rates.

Essentially, the proposal was boiled down to a metaphor that has billionaires such as Buffett paying taxes at a lower rate than their “secretaries.”

When Obama rolled out his version of the rule, it was described as a tax on millionaires, but in truth, it wouldn’t affect most people who earn more than $1 million a year unless they derived most of their income from investments.

Along with that proposal, Obama has advocated letting the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire for families making more than $250,000 a year—something which has nothing to do with Warren Buffett or the “Buffett Rule.”

Here’s what Buffett told the Fox Business Network Friday:

“I didn’t say the wealthy should pay more. I said the ultra-wealthy who are paying very low tax rates should pay more and the figures show that the 400 top tax payers who earned an average of almost $230 million apiece were paying 21% in a combined payroll tax and income tax, which is well below what all the people in my office pay now. What I’m talking about would not apply to someone that made $5 million a year as a baseball player or $10 million a year on media. It would apply only to probably 50,000 people out of 309 million who have huge incomes pay very low taxes. If you have a country with a deficit of over a trillion dollars and you think it can be solved by voluntary tax payments then you believe in the tooth fairy. There should be a policy that applies to people with money who earn lots of money and pay very low rates. If they earn it by normal jobs what I say would not hit them at all.”

Related posts:

Do the rich avoid the taxes that we all pay?

Do the rich avoid the taxes that we all pay? Do the Rich Avoid Taxes? Posted by David Boaz President Obama says the rich should pay higher tax rates, citing billionaire Warren Buffett, who says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Various analysts have pointed out that Buffett takes very little salary […]

President Obama’s plan and the Heritage Foundation response

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan Published on Sep 9, 2011 by Bloomberg Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg) […]

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax Dan Mitchell does it again. He is always right on the mark. CPAs Celebrate as Obama Proposes to Create a Turbo-Charged Alternative Minimum Tax Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell Wow, this is remarkable. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is one of the most-hated features of the tax code. It […]

Brantley, Buffett and Obama: “Stop coddling the rich”

Brantley, Buffett and Obama: “Stop coddling the rich” The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory Max Brantley is fond of accusing Republicans of coddling the rich and here comes Warren Buffett and validates both what President Obama and Brantley have been saying. However, will the increase in taxes have the desired result that they […]

Buffett wants the rich soaked but that will not solve our problem in the budget

Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted: Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for […]

Brummett touts Buffett’s math, but it is wrong

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:   Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]

The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Dan Mitchell on Taxing the Rich Max Brantley this morning on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:   Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]

Advertisements

Warren Buffett supporting Obama’s plan?

I recently read an article by Steve Brawner concerning Warren Buffett. Here is part of the article:

[John Boozman] says that Buffett is being hypocritical to support Obama’s proposed tax increases because they wouldn’t solve the problem and wouldn’t affect him. In fact, he says, Obama’s bill might raise the secretary’s taxes if she and her husband make $250,000 while Buffett continues benefiting from those loopholes.

“It’s just class warfare,” he says. “It’s a simplistic solution that, like I say, it directs off the real issue of why we’re not creating jobs, why we’re having the increase in the discrepancy between the rich and our middle class, lower middle class.”

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan

Published on Sep 9, 2011 by

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

__________________

Is Buffett getting misquoted by the Obama administration?

Did Warren Buffett really disagree with Obama’s tax plan?

(Scott Eeels/Bloomberg)
September 30, 2011|By James Oliphant
Republicans are getting a great deal of mileage out of an interview investor Warren Buffett gave Friday morning, contending that the billionaire failed to endorse President Obama’s jobs plan or the proposed tax hike that bears his name.The Republican National Committee, for example, e-blasted a mailer that claimed Buffett had disagreed in a CNBC interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin with Obama’s plan to raise taxes on America’s top earners.

But did Buffett actually say that? More than anything, while interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, he took a pass on commenting on Obama’s plan at all. As they used to say in the 20th century, let’s go to the videotape:

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “Let’s talk about the Buffett Rule for a moment. Talk to me about how it came about in terms of the White House getting in touch with you and you putting your name to this?”

Warren Buffett:  “Well, [National Economic Council Director] Gene Sperling called and said, ’Can we use your name?’ And I said, yes.”

Sorkin: “Are you happy you said yes?”

Buffett: “Sure, I mean I wrote about it.”

Sorkin: “Are you happy with the way it’s been described? Is the program that the White House has presented — a million dollars and over — your program?”

Buffett: “Well, the precise program, I don’t know what their program will be. My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low — not just high incomes. Some guy making $50 million playing baseball, his taxes won’t change. If you make 50 million dollars a year appearing on television, his income won’t change, but if they make a lot of money and they pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what the other people pay .”

Sorkin: “Does that mean you disagree with the president’s new jobs proposal, which would be paid for by raising taxes on households with incomes of over $250,000?”

Buffett: “That’s another program that I won’t be discussing, but my program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are paying very low tax rates. Not just all the rich people. It probably would apply to 50,000 people in a population of 310 million.”

Sorkin: “That means you disagree with the president on the 250,000?”

Buffett: “No, no, you may disagree –“

Sorkin: “I’m asking, you agree that 250,000 is the right number?”

Buffett: “I will look at the overall plan that gets submitted to Congress, which they are voting on, and decide, net, do I like it or do I not like it? There’s no question there will be parts I’ll disagree with.”  (Watch the video of the interview at the end of this article.)

Part of the confusion stems from Obama’s use of Buffett’s name in recent speeches as promoting the idea the rich “pay their fair share.”  The Buffett Rule, as Buffett described in the interview and as he has proposed elsewhere, would affect a small percentage (less than 1) of America’s wealthiest citizens and would elevate the rate they pay on capital gains to be comparable to middle-class tax rates.

Essentially, the proposal was boiled down to a metaphor that has billionaires such as Buffett paying taxes at a lower rate than their “secretaries.”

When Obama rolled out his version of the rule, it was described as a tax on millionaires, but in truth, it wouldn’t affect most people who earn more than $1 million a year unless they derived most of their income from investments.

Along with that proposal, Obama has advocated letting the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire for families making more than $250,000 a year—something which has nothing to do with Warren Buffett or the “Buffett Rule.”

Here’s what Buffett told the Fox Business Network Friday:

“I didn’t say the wealthy should pay more. I said the ultra-wealthy who are paying very low tax rates should pay more and the figures show that the 400 top tax payers who earned an average of almost $230 million apiece were paying 21% in a combined payroll tax and income tax, which is well below what all the people in my office pay now. What I’m talking about would not apply to someone that made $5 million a year as a baseball player or $10 million a year on media. It would apply only to probably 50,000 people out of 309 million who have huge incomes pay very low taxes. If you have a country with a deficit of over a trillion dollars and you think it can be solved by voluntary tax payments then you believe in the tooth fairy. There should be a policy that applies to people with money who earn lots of money and pay very low rates. If they earn it by normal jobs what I say would not hit them at all.”

Related posts:

The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Dan Mitchell on Taxing the Rich Max Brantley this morning on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:   Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]

 

Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs?

I loved reading this article below. (Take a look at the link to other posts I have done on Steve Jobs.) David Boaz makes some great observations: How much value is the Post Office creating this year? Or Amtrak? Or Solyndra? And if you point out that the Post Office does create value for its […]

Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it

(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]

8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs

(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]

Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money?

  Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money? (I just finished a post concerning Steve’s religious beliefs and a post about 8 things you may not know about Steve Jobs) Uploaded by UM0kusha0kusha on Sep 16, 2010 clip from The First Round Up *1934* ~~enjoy!! ______________________________________________ In the short film […]

Warren Buffett does not endorse Obama’s plan

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan Published on Sep 9, 2011 by Bloomberg Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg) […]

Do the rich avoid the taxes that we all pay?

Do the rich avoid the taxes that we all pay? Do the Rich Avoid Taxes? Posted by David Boaz President Obama says the rich should pay higher tax rates, citing billionaire Warren Buffett, who says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Various analysts have pointed out that Buffett takes very little salary […]

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax Dan Mitchell does it again. He is always right on the mark. CPAs Celebrate as Obama Proposes to Create a Turbo-Charged Alternative Minimum Tax Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell Wow, this is remarkable. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is one of the most-hated features of the tax code. It […]

Brantley, Buffett and Obama: “Stop coddling the rich”

Brantley, Buffett and Obama: “Stop coddling the rich” The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory Max Brantley is fond of accusing Republicans of coddling the rich and here comes Warren Buffett and validates both what President Obama and Brantley have been saying. However, will the increase in taxes have the desired result that they […]

Buffett wants the rich soaked but that will not solve our problem in the budget

Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted: Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for […]

Brummett touts Buffett’s math, but it is wrong

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:   Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]

 

Warren Buffett supporting Obama’s plan?

I recently read an article by Steve Brawner concerning Warren Buffett. Here is part of the article:

[John Boozman] says that Buffett is being hypocritical to support Obama’s proposed tax increases because they wouldn’t solve the problem and wouldn’t affect him. In fact, he says, Obama’s bill might raise the secretary’s taxes if she and her husband make $250,000 while Buffett continues benefiting from those loopholes.

“It’s just class warfare,” he says. “It’s a simplistic solution that, like I say, it directs off the real issue of why we’re not creating jobs, why we’re having the increase in the discrepancy between the rich and our middle class, lower middle class.”

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan

Published on Sep 9, 2011 by

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

__________________

Is Buffett getting misquoted by the Obama administration?

Did Warren Buffett really disagree with Obama’s tax plan?

(Scott Eeels/Bloomberg)
September 30, 2011|By James Oliphant
Republicans are getting a great deal of mileage out of an interview investor Warren Buffett gave Friday morning, contending that the billionaire failed to endorse President Obama’s jobs plan or the proposed tax hike that bears his name.The Republican National Committee, for example, e-blasted a mailer that claimed Buffett had disagreed in a CNBC interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin with Obama’s plan to raise taxes on America’s top earners.

But did Buffett actually say that? More than anything, while interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, he took a pass on commenting on Obama’s plan at all. As they used to say in the 20th century, let’s go to the videotape:

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “Let’s talk about the Buffett Rule for a moment. Talk to me about how it came about in terms of the White House getting in touch with you and you putting your name to this?”

Warren Buffett:  “Well, [National Economic Council Director] Gene Sperling called and said, ’Can we use your name?’ And I said, yes.”

Sorkin: “Are you happy you said yes?”

Buffett: “Sure, I mean I wrote about it.”

Sorkin: “Are you happy with the way it’s been described? Is the program that the White House has presented — a million dollars and over — your program?”

Buffett: “Well, the precise program, I don’t know what their program will be. My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low — not just high incomes. Some guy making $50 million playing baseball, his taxes won’t change. If you make 50 million dollars a year appearing on television, his income won’t change, but if they make a lot of money and they pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what the other people pay .”

Sorkin: “Does that mean you disagree with the president’s new jobs proposal, which would be paid for by raising taxes on households with incomes of over $250,000?”

Buffett: “That’s another program that I won’t be discussing, but my program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are paying very low tax rates. Not just all the rich people. It probably would apply to 50,000 people in a population of 310 million.”

Sorkin: “That means you disagree with the president on the 250,000?”

Buffett: “No, no, you may disagree –“

Sorkin: “I’m asking, you agree that 250,000 is the right number?”

Buffett: “I will look at the overall plan that gets submitted to Congress, which they are voting on, and decide, net, do I like it or do I not like it? There’s no question there will be parts I’ll disagree with.”  (Watch the video of the interview at the end of this article.)

Part of the confusion stems from Obama’s use of Buffett’s name in recent speeches as promoting the idea the rich “pay their fair share.”  The Buffett Rule, as Buffett described in the interview and as he has proposed elsewhere, would affect a small percentage (less than 1) of America’s wealthiest citizens and would elevate the rate they pay on capital gains to be comparable to middle-class tax rates.

Essentially, the proposal was boiled down to a metaphor that has billionaires such as Buffett paying taxes at a lower rate than their “secretaries.”

When Obama rolled out his version of the rule, it was described as a tax on millionaires, but in truth, it wouldn’t affect most people who earn more than $1 million a year unless they derived most of their income from investments.

Along with that proposal, Obama has advocated letting the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire for families making more than $250,000 a year—something which has nothing to do with Warren Buffett or the “Buffett Rule.”

Here’s what Buffett told the Fox Business Network Friday:

“I didn’t say the wealthy should pay more. I said the ultra-wealthy who are paying very low tax rates should pay more and the figures show that the 400 top tax payers who earned an average of almost $230 million apiece were paying 21% in a combined payroll tax and income tax, which is well below what all the people in my office pay now. What I’m talking about would not apply to someone that made $5 million a year as a baseball player or $10 million a year on media. It would apply only to probably 50,000 people out of 309 million who have huge incomes pay very low taxes. If you have a country with a deficit of over a trillion dollars and you think it can be solved by voluntary tax payments then you believe in the tooth fairy. There should be a policy that applies to people with money who earn lots of money and pay very low rates. If they earn it by normal jobs what I say would not hit them at all.”

Related posts:

The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Dan Mitchell on Taxing the Rich Max Brantley this morning on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:   Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]

 

Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs?

I loved reading this article below. (Take a look at the link to other posts I have done on Steve Jobs.) David Boaz makes some great observations: How much value is the Post Office creating this year? Or Amtrak? Or Solyndra? And if you point out that the Post Office does create value for its […]

 

Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it

(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]

 

8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs

(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]

 

Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money?

  Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money? (I just finished a post concerning Steve’s religious beliefs and a post about 8 things you may not know about Steve Jobs) Uploaded by UM0kusha0kusha on Sep 16, 2010 clip from The First Round Up *1934* ~~enjoy!! ______________________________________________ In the short film […]

 

Warren Buffett does not endorse Obama’s plan

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan Published on Sep 9, 2011 by Bloomberg Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg) […]

 

Do the rich avoid the taxes that we all pay?

Do the rich avoid the taxes that we all pay? Do the Rich Avoid Taxes? Posted by David Boaz President Obama says the rich should pay higher tax rates, citing billionaire Warren Buffett, who says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Various analysts have pointed out that Buffett takes very little salary […]

 

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax Dan Mitchell does it again. He is always right on the mark. CPAs Celebrate as Obama Proposes to Create a Turbo-Charged Alternative Minimum Tax Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell Wow, this is remarkable. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is one of the most-hated features of the tax code. It […]

 

Brantley, Buffett and Obama: “Stop coddling the rich”

Brantley, Buffett and Obama: “Stop coddling the rich” The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory Max Brantley is fond of accusing Republicans of coddling the rich and here comes Warren Buffett and validates both what President Obama and Brantley have been saying. However, will the increase in taxes have the desired result that they […]

 

Buffett wants the rich soaked but that will not solve our problem in the budget

Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted: Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for […]

 

Brummett touts Buffett’s math, but it is wrong

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:   Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]

 

Warren Buffett does not endorse Obama’s plan

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan

Published on Sep 9, 2011 by

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

__________________

Is Buffett getting misquoted by the Obama administration?

Did Warren Buffett really disagree with Obama’s tax plan?

(Scott Eeels/Bloomberg)

 

September 30, 2011|By James Oliphant
Republicans are getting a great deal of mileage out of an interview investor Warren Buffett gave Friday morning, contending that the billionaire failed to endorse President Obama’s jobs plan or the proposed tax hike that bears his name.The Republican National Committee, for example, e-blasted a mailer that claimed Buffett had disagreed in a CNBC interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin with Obama’s plan to raise taxes on America’s top earners.

 

But did Buffett actually say that? More than anything, while interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, he took a pass on commenting on Obama’s plan at all. As they used to say in the 20th century, let’s go to the videotape:

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “Let’s talk about the Buffett Rule for a moment. Talk to me about how it came about in terms of the White House getting in touch with you and you putting your name to this?”

Warren Buffett:  “Well, [National Economic Council Director] Gene Sperling called and said, ’Can we use your name?’ And I said, yes.”

Sorkin: “Are you happy you said yes?”

Buffett: “Sure, I mean I wrote about it.”

Sorkin: “Are you happy with the way it’s been described? Is the program that the White House has presented — a million dollars and over — your program?”

Buffett: “Well, the precise program, I don’t know what their program will be. My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low — not just high incomes. Some guy making $50 million playing baseball, his taxes won’t change. If you make 50 million dollars a year appearing on television, his income won’t change, but if they make a lot of money and they pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what the other people pay .”

Sorkin: “Does that mean you disagree with the president’s new jobs proposal, which would be paid for by raising taxes on households with incomes of over $250,000?”

Buffett: “That’s another program that I won’t be discussing, but my program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are paying very low tax rates. Not just all the rich people. It probably would apply to 50,000 people in a population of 310 million.”

Sorkin: “That means you disagree with the president on the 250,000?”

Buffett: “No, no, you may disagree –“

Sorkin: “I’m asking, you agree that 250,000 is the right number?”

Buffett: “I will look at the overall plan that gets submitted to Congress, which they are voting on, and decide, net, do I like it or do I not like it? There’s no question there will be parts I’ll disagree with.”  (Watch the video of the interview at the end of this article.)

Part of the confusion stems from Obama’s use of Buffett’s name in recent speeches as promoting the idea the rich “pay their fair share.”  The Buffett Rule, as Buffett described in the interview and as he has proposed elsewhere, would affect a small percentage (less than 1) of America’s wealthiest citizens and would elevate the rate they pay on capital gains to be comparable to middle-class tax rates.

Essentially, the proposal was boiled down to a metaphor that has billionaires such as Buffett paying taxes at a lower rate than their “secretaries.”

When Obama rolled out his version of the rule, it was described as a tax on millionaires, but in truth, it wouldn’t affect most people who earn more than $1 million a year unless they derived most of their income from investments.

Along with that proposal, Obama has advocated letting the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire for families making more than $250,000 a year—something which has nothing to do with Warren Buffett or the “Buffett Rule.”

Here’s what Buffett told the Fox Business Network Friday:

“I didn’t say the wealthy should pay more. I said the ultra-wealthy who are paying very low tax rates should pay more and the figures show that the 400 top tax payers who earned an average of almost $230 million apiece were paying 21% in a combined payroll tax and income tax, which is well below what all the people in my office pay now. What I’m talking about would not apply to someone that made $5 million a year as a baseball player or $10 million a year on media. It would apply only to probably 50,000 people out of 309 million who have huge incomes pay very low taxes. If you have a country with a deficit of over a trillion dollars and you think it can be solved by voluntary tax payments then you believe in the tooth fairy. There should be a policy that applies to people with money who earn lots of money and pay very low rates. If they earn it by normal jobs what I say would not hit them at all.”

Related posts: 

Do the rich avoid the taxes that we all pay?

Do the rich avoid the taxes that we all pay? Do the Rich Avoid Taxes? Posted by David Boaz President Obama says the rich should pay higher tax rates, citing billionaire Warren Buffett, who says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Various analysts have pointed out that Buffett takes very little salary […]

President Obama’s plan and the Heritage Foundation response

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan Published on Sep 9, 2011 by Bloomberg Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg) […]

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax Dan Mitchell does it again. He is always right on the mark. CPAs Celebrate as Obama Proposes to Create a Turbo-Charged Alternative Minimum Tax Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell Wow, this is remarkable. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is one of the most-hated features of the tax code. It […]

Brantley, Buffett and Obama: “Stop coddling the rich”

Brantley, Buffett and Obama: “Stop coddling the rich” The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory Max Brantley is fond of accusing Republicans of coddling the rich and here comes Warren Buffett and validates both what President Obama and Brantley have been saying. However, will the increase in taxes have the desired result that they […]

Buffett wants the rich soaked but that will not solve our problem in the budget

Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted: Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for […]

Brummett touts Buffett’s math, but it is wrong

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:   Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]

The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Dan Mitchell on Taxing the Rich Max Brantley this morning on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:   Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]

Obama’s funny math: Saving money that never was going to be spent

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan

Published on Sep 9, 2011 by

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

_______________________________

We have been hearing about how the stimulus saved jobs that would have been losted even though unemployment went up after the stimulus was passed. Now we are hearing about the money Obama’s plan will save.

Still Spreading the Wealth

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Added to cato.org on September 21, 2011

This article appeared on National Review (Online on September 21, 2011.

Back when Barack Obama was running for president, he famously told Joe the Plumber that his goal was to “spread the wealth around.” Judging from the deficit-reduction plan that the president introduced on Monday, he really meant it.

The president’s plan barely makes a pretense of reducing spending. The Obama administration claims that its proposal would reduce future budget deficits by roughly $4.4 trillion. But that includes $1.1 trillion in savings from troop draw-downs in Afghanistan and Iraq that were already going to occur. This is an old trick by which the president gets to “save” money that was never going to be spent. The president also reaches back to include $1.2 trillion in savings from the debt-ceiling deal that was signed into law last month. And, he includes $430 billion in savings from lower interest payments as a result of the reduced debt.

The president’s actual cuts total less than $580 billion over the next ten years. That amounts to less than 1.3 percent of expected total federal spending over that period. It barely offsets the cost of the new stimulus bill he announced last week.

The American welfare state is alive and well.

Entitlement reform, once the supposed basis for a grand compromise, is now off the table. Social Security is running a deficit and facing more than $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities, but the president makes no changes to the program. Medicaid would be cut by roughly $72 billion over ten years, barely more than $7 billion per year in a program that today costs $276 billion annually. The president would trim Medicare by $248 billion over ten years. Depending on which accounting measure you use, that program is facing unfunded liabilities of $30–90 trillion, meaning that under the best-case scenario, the president is proposing a reduction of less than 1 percent. And none of the president’s proposed Medicare savings amounts to structural change in the program, which is what is needed. Instead, the president falls back on the usual grab-bag of cuts in provider reimbursements. Those cuts are likely to drive providers out of the program, making it harder for seniors to see a doctor, while doing nothing to change the program’s path towards insolvency.

The American welfare state is alive and well.

On the other hand, the president throws his weight fully behind tax hikes. His plan would increase taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. That’s on top of $450 billion in tax hikes that the president proposed last week to pay for the stimulus package. In total, the president is seeking nearly $2 trillion in higher taxes, compared to $580 billion in spending cuts. That amounts to nearly $4 in taxes for every $1 in cuts.

And, let’s look at those taxes. The president continues to focus his rhetoric on millionaires and billionaires, but his proposal includes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for people earning as little as $200,000 per year. That tax hike would also fall heavily on small businesses and almost certainly would slow job creation.

The president’s other big tax initiative is, of course, the new “Buffet rule,” a new alternative-minimum tax designed to ensure that “millionaires and billionaires” pay the same effective tax rate as middle-income workers. While that populist pitch may well prove politically popular, numerous studies have shown that it is highly misleading. Few millionaires and billionaires actually pay taxes at such low effective tax rates. Those that do are receiving the majority of their income from capital gains, income that has already been taxed multiple times before it is subject to the capital-gains tax.

Besides, we should never forget that investment is both risky and necessary for job creation. It is exactly the sort of thing we should be encouraging.

But in the end, economic growth and job creation is secondary to the president. So is deficit reduction. This proposal is about the president’s idea of “fairness,” as he has said over and over. The president sees the wealthy as achieving their success not through hard work and initiative but by exploiting the less well-off or through pure luck. They are the winners of life’s lottery, in his view. It is his job, therefore, to remedy this injustice. That means taking money from some and giving it to others.

It’s about “spreading the wealth around.”

Conservative response to President Obama’s speech on July 25, 2011

On Monday July 25, 2011 at 2:17pm Max Brantley posted on the Arkansas Times Blog:

Looks like everyone may fold a bit, according to President Obama’s statement on a Senate-driven compromise. Rich people are held harmless in dealing with the U.S. budget. Big spending cuts will be made. The debt ceiling is lifted sufficiently to last through the 2012 election. Republicans give up on insistence on long-term solution. Sour tastes all around, except if the deal prevents U.S. defaults. Here’s a roundup.

However …. House Republicans seem determined to get their way or wreck the country.

_______________________

There is only two problems. First, there had been no deal cut. (Actually on Politico on Sunday afternoon they also reported a deal had been cut, but they jumped the gun like Max did here).

Second, the Republicans are right to protect the American job producers from any future tax increases that would kill our recovery.

David Addington nails it below in his summary of President Obama’s speech:

David S. Addington

July 25, 2011 at 10:37 pm

http://www.facebook.com/extern/login_status.php?api_key=229592157056043&app_id=229592157056043&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df299b30cbddf072%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhaltingarkansasliberalswithtruth.wordpress.com%252Ff3f7f9740d0f1f4%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&display=hidden&extern=2&locale=en_US&next=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df1067b45af74eff%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhaltingarkansasliberalswithtruth.wordpress.com%252Ff3f7f9740d0f1f4%26relation%3Dparent%26transport%3Dpostmessage%26frame%3Df39f160a8218526%26result%3D%2522xxRESULTTOKENxx%2522&no_session=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df2d46b4e2a65fb%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhaltingarkansasliberalswithtruth.wordpress.com%252Ff3f7f9740d0f1f4%26relation%3Dparent%26transport%3Dpostmessage%26frame%3Df39f160a8218526&no_user=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df336111abe2f25c%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhaltingarkansasliberalswithtruth.wordpress.com%252Ff3f7f9740d0f1f4%26relation%3Dparent%26transport%3Dpostmessage%26frame%3Df39f160a8218526&ok_session=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df4147d0b2eeac1%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhaltingarkansasliberalswithtruth.wordpress.com%252Ff3f7f9740d0f1f4%26relation%3Dparent%26transport%3Dpostmessage%26frame%3Df39f160a8218526&sdk=joey&session_origin=1&session_version=3

It’s hard to understand why President Obama took to the airwaves tonight at prime time. He still has no plan for dealing with government overspending and overborrowing, and he  gave the nation very little except a repetition of his never-ending call for tax hikes.

In noting the risk of ever-increasing debt, President Obama said every family knows that “a little credit card debt is manageable.” The government has racked up $14.294 trillion in debt — thought of by no-one as a little credit card debt.  The spend-tax-and-borrow crowd, currently headed by President Obama, has been in charge in Washington too long.  They have mortgaged the futures of our children and grandchildren.  Our government is so deep in debt that the share of debt of a baby born today is $45,000.

It is time for the spend-tax-and-borrow crowd to stop.  As the President indicated, conservatives want deep spending cuts.  In contrast, President Obama wants more taxes, a terrible idea.  First, the government already takes too much money from the pockets of Americans in taxes.  Second, if Americans give the government more money in taxes, the government will just find ways to spend it, rather than using it to pay off the public debt.  Third,  raising taxes reduces investment, which cuts economic growth and kills jobs.

Americans sent a message in the election of 2010 — cut the size and cost of government.  Conservatives must act now to drive down spending on the way to a balanced budget, while protecting America, and without raising taxes.  Forget the McConnell, McConnell-Reid, Coburn, Gang-of-Six, Boehner, and Reid plans.  Go with the American plan — cut government spending, deeply and right now, for the good of the country.

McConnell plan stinks

In this speech above by Mitch McConnell, I agree with everything he says. However, his actions of late have been deplorable.

David Addington lets it rip on McConnell below:

Shame on the Politically Motivated McConnell Plan to Hike Borrowing With No Spending Cuts

The McConnell Plan to hike the debt limit has only one thought behind it — fade the political heat.  The Plan purportedly makes the Democratic President bear the political burden for increases in the debt limit to the benefit of Republicans, but the Plan does nothing for the good of the country.

The McConnell Plan, if enacted, would immediately raise the amount of money the government can borrow by $100 billion above the current debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion.  The McConnell Plan would then allow the President to make this year and in the coming year a total of three requests for further increases of $700 billion, then $700 billion more, and finally $900 billion more.  Each of those presidential requests would take effect automatically, unless a law is enacted to reject the presidential request.  Because President Obama is highly likely to retain the support of at least one-third of one House of Congress (the number of votes it takes to sustain a presidential veto of legislation), the real effect of the McConnell Plan is to raise the debt limit by more than $2 trillion.

The McConnell Plan would put America deeper into debt and achieves nothing toward the vitally important objective of getting federal overspending and overborrowing under control.  All the McConnell Plan requires the President to do is submit a list of suggested spending cuts that exceeds the dollar amount of the requested hikes in the debt ceiling.  The McConnell Plan does not give those spending cut ideas or any alternative ideas any legal effect or even specify an accelerated procedure for congressional consideration of such ideas — the McConnell Plan just requires the President to submit a piece of paper.

If the outcome of the current presidential-congressional negotiations over how to get spending under control is the McConnell Plan of just letting the President have the freedom to go on borrowing another $2 trillion, then Senator McConnell and every congressional Republican who votes for it will bear as much political responsibility for this action as President Obama and the Democrats.

Senator Jim DeMint was right to describe the McConnell Plan to the newspaper The Hill as “like leaving the jail door open and looking the other way, then saying it’s not our fault.”  And Representative Jim Jordan was even more succinct with his view on the McConnell Plan on the website Politico.com: “I’d say ‘no way.’”  Conservatives should follow their lead.

Conservatives in Congress need to focus on what is good for the country.  That starts with a clear understanding that this is the moment to put the country on the path toward getting federal overspending and overborrowing under control.  The guiding principle is simple:  Don’t raise the debt limit, without getting spending under control.  Use the legislation on the debt limit to put America on the path to driving down federal spending and borrowing, while preserving our ability to protect America, and without raising taxes.