RUSH: Jackie Calmes, writing in the New York Times about Obama and the Buffett Rule and all this stuff he's talking about. By the way, folks, this stuff is never going to see the light of day this year. It's not the point. There won't be a Buffett Rule tax passed. None of this stuff is gonna happen this year. This is pure campaign leverage, structure, positioning, what have you. It's fine to get mad about it. I can't blame you. Don't get depressed about this stuff, though. I'll tell you when it's time to get depressed. Yeah, I'll tell you when it's time to move to New Zealand. We're not there yet. But Jackie Calmes really puts this in perspective, the way she writes about it.
"All but certain now that his Republican opponent will be Mitt Romney, President Obama has made his proposed 'Buffett Rule' minimum tax for the wealthiest Americans like Mr. Romney a centerpiece of his re-election campaign, defying the political risk of being seen as a tax-and-spender by wary voters." Defying the political risk. What's that mean? Well, in the past, and Ms. Calmes even writes this: "While voters have not often rewarded candidates who advocate tax increases, Mr. Obama and his campaign advisers, in league with Democrats in Congress, express confidence that voters are on their side --" Stupid voters. And by the way, just to be clear. I'm not trying to be insulting.
It's the most proper description that I can come up with of the people who are the target of Obama's campaign. Ignorant, uninformed, whatever, stupid, dumb. I know it sounds coarse to some people, but that's to whom he's aiming all of this. And the New York Times is a little bit worried here. "Defying the risk of being seen as a tax-and-spend liberal." They remember how that worked out for Walter F. Mondull back in 1984. At the Democrat convention in San Francisco Mondull promised to raise taxes. He said Reagan's going to, too, but he won't tell you. I just did. And it was bye-bye Mondull in a 49-state landslide. The Democrats remember that.
RUSH: David in Endicott, New York. Thank you for waiting. You're next on the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Good afternoon, Rush. I have a question about the Buffett Rule. It's my that understanding Warren Buffett paid a lower income tax rate because the vast majority of his income was derived from dividend income.
RUSH: Yeah, capital gain, 15%.
CALLER: And long term capital gains.
RUSH: Right, so I with this new Buffett Rule, my understanding that that's gonna tax 30% over a million dollars of ordinary income.
RUSH: That's right. It's exactly right.
CALLER: Now, the question is: Will Warren Buffett actually be paying more in taxes as a result of the Buffett Rule?
RUSH: No. He's not gonna be reporting any more ordinary income than he already does. So he will not be impacted by the Buffett Rule. Only his secretary will.
CALLER: Right. (laughing) So we have another rule that's just for show.
RUSH: The Buffett Rule, they've run the numbers, they've crunched the numbers. The Buffett Rule is going to generate $5 billion. And when that figure got out earlier this week, Obama and the Democrats switched their tune. They said, "Well, the point of Buffett Rule is not to raise revenue and reduce the deficit. The point of the Buffett Rule is 'fairness' and make sure rich people pay their fair share." Don't forget the AMT is the first Buffett Rule, the first millionaires tax. This is purely a campaign device of class envy, or class warfare. But it's not gonna affect Buffett or Gates or anybody else who does not have earned income as opposed to investment income.
You're exactly right about that. And Buffett, by the way, owes close to a billion dollars in back taxes anyway, and he's fighting it. He's fighting it! So this is a tax increase named after a guy fighting the IRS over his tax bill. You know, the GSA, the General Services Administration, the stuff we're learning about these party animals? This is Animal House. This is Animal House in the regime. The GSA could spend $5 billion on one outing to Las Vegas and then do videos to show us how and to rub our noses in it. $5 billion! We had the statistic yesterday: If you cut every federal department, by 1% (which is reduce the paper clips), at the size of this budget, a 1% cut would generate $33 billion or $36 billion.
A 1% cut across the board of every government agency, would generate up to $36 billion. But the Buffett Rule: $5.1 billion. Now, the White House tweeted yesterday: "1,470 the people paid no federal income tax on $1 million incomes in 2009. The Buffett Rule will change that." That is almost word-for-word how they gave us the now-loathed and despised AMT. Except it was about fewer people. What was the number? It was under a hundred people or something that were legally not paying any tax. They were taking advantage of the tax code. They were millionaires and they owed no taxes. And somebody said, "Well, that just isn't right." And they came up with the AMT, alternative minimum, meaning no way nobody pays nothing anymore. So this is just AMT 2 named after Warren Buffett who's fighting his own tax bill. (chuckles)