One of my favorite scenes from the classic musical comedy Fiddler on the Roof is when the lovable lead character in the Russian Jewish village of Anatevka, Tevye, is trying to referee an argument between two men.
When one of them finishes his point, Tevye turns to him and says, "You know, you are right."
Then the other man, furious, makes his argument, and Tevye turns to him and says, "You know, you are right."
Both men are now furious. One says, angrily, "How can we both be right?"
And Tevye says, "You know, you're right."
So it goes for Obama and Romney debating the Buffett Rule -- except they are both right and wrong at the same time. Here's why:
The Buffett Rule (named after its originator, the famous, sagely business billionaire Warren Buffett), which is supported by President Obama and most Democrats, would require everyone earning more than $1 million per year should pay a minimum income tax rate of 30 percent.
Romney's response is to mock this proposal as not seriously addressing our economic problems -- and he is right. But he is also wrong when he attacks the Buffett Rule as divisive: "Let's find the very most successful in our country and say they're bad guys. Go after 'em. And let's divide America."
Oh, puh-leeze. Raising taxes on millionaires is no more divisive than the Ryan budget, which Romney supports and which gives wealthier people more tax breaks while cutting needed social and educational programs that help the poor.
But how much benefit does President Obama's proposed Buffett Rule really offer? Budget experts say it would affect only 217,000 households, even if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, and would produce just $47 billion in revenue over 10 years.
That's less than $5 billion per year -- which is about three-ten-thousandths (.0003) of the current national debt.
Even President Obama admitted, to his credit, that the proposal would do little to close the annual deficit. Then he added: "But the notion that it doesn't solve the entire problem doesn't mean that we should not do it at all." He's right about that, too.
Yet on Monday, I received a press release from a Democratic pro-Obama group called the Main Street Alliance, proclaiming that delay of passage of the Buffett Rule -- called the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012, would "hurt small business."
Huh?
A tax increase leaving untouched the tax rates of more than 99 percent of the American people is about fairness and, if not enacted, would hurt small business?
So Romney is right to mock the Buffett Rule as more about politics than economic fairness, and Obama is right that even if it's a drop in the bucket, it's still worth doing.
Both are wrong to make a big deal about the Buffett Rule as having a serious economic effect one way or the other -- and both must know that, nevertheless, that's politics in today's America.
One of my favorite economic analysts, Ezra Klein, recently pointed out in the Washington Post that Republicans and Democrats share a common hypocrisy on the issue of taxes and deficits. Republican conservatives oppose all tax cuts, he wrote, while President Obama supports increasing taxes only on those making over $250,000 per year -- just 2 percent of the country.
"Republicans don't want to raise taxes on anyone, and Democrats don't want to raise taxes on almost anyone," Klein wrote. "The argument between the two parties rages over that sliver of territory between 'anyone' and 'almost anyone.'"
In other words, both President Obama and Mitt Romney are right about criticizing the other's over-hyped position on the Buffett Rule, and both are wrong not to endorse the one honest bipartisan proposal that would honestly attack the national debt: the Simpson-Bowles commission's proposal to cut spending, raise taxes by closing loopholes and reform and reduce future hemorrhaging of Social Security and Medicare.
How can they both be right and wrong at the same time?, you might ask.
You know, you're right.
# # # #
Mr. Davis, a Washington D.C. attorney specializing in legal crisis management, served as Special Counsel to President Bill Clinton in 1996-98 and served as a member of President Bush's Privacy and Civil Liberties Board in 2006-07. He currently serves as Special Counsel to Dilworth Paxson. He is the author of the forthcoming book, "Crisis Tales - Five Rules for Handling Scandal in Business, Politics and Life," to be published by Simon & Schuster.
Follow Lanny Davis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@lannydavis
Sanjay Sanghoee: Why America Doesn't Need a CEO
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
(government_spending = tax + debt)? The answer is NO. The correct equation is
(Federal Deficits = Net Private Savings+ net imports), applies to USA and other nations that create money! Yet the mainstream economists use the household model to explain the economy with wrong predictions and nobody seems to care,with notable exceptions ( http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/18/deficit-cut-danger-budget-jobs-leadership-managing-employment.html )
"the govt is your enemy", "small govt is better", "taxes fund every thing",etc are all myths.
Govt “debt” which should be renamed "tdeb" because it means the opposite of personal debt, is the sum of all deficits and appears on one side of the equation whereas the private sector “debt” means negative savings. Govt deficit could be renamed "source" because it is exactly that.
Govt “debt” is the same as private savings .In fact
(National total debt of the govt in $) = (National wealth of the people in $), for proof in numbers see
http://pshakkottai.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/national-debt-and-national-wealth-compared/
The only way to grow the economy is by deficit funding which is safe and effective. Also read
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/the-art-of-misdirection-how-to-keep-the-99-in-bondage-by-seeming-to-punish-the-1/
crickets
one responder suggests that those opposing it must be just one tax cut away from joining the 1%.
or... to a teacon, paying no taxes is the way to leave this country better for your kids
Correction - Messers Simpson and Bowles themselves made this proposal - the commission never reached ANY conclusions, and its two most conservative members created a report of their own with those recommendations.
Attention, Conservo-bots - Incoming Bulletin ... Paying Taxes is NOT PUNISHMENT! It is, in fact, PATRIOTIC!"
http://pshakkottai.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/national-debt-and-national-wealth-compared/
http://pshakkottai.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/another-proof-of-mmt-4/