White House: Buffet Rule All About Income Redistrubtion, Not Deficit Reduction

Real Hope and Change.

By the Left Coast Rebel

Truth speaks to power from the White House:
(POLITICO) The Obama administration is emphasizing “fairness” over deficit reduction in its renewed pitch for the “Buffett rule” ahead of next week’s scheduled Senate vote.

Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “This is not the president’s entire tax plan. We’re not trying to say this solves all our economic problems, all our budget problems.”

Fairness? Really? Excuse me? Listen up before you just shrug this off along with the daily insanity from this bunch: we've all heard this canard so many times it's likely lost the sting of just how evil a term it truly is...

The term "fair" is what Rand called an anti-concept. Who could possibly be against fairness! If you think, you should be.

Quoth Ayn Rand:

Observe the technique involved . . . . It consists of creating an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concepts—a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a “package-deal” of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a “package-deal” whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. This last is the essence of the trick.

Let me remind you that the purpose of a definition is to distinguish the things subsumed under a single concept from all other things in existence; and, therefore, their defining characteristic must always be that essential characteristic which distinguishes them from everything else.

So long as men use language, that is the way they will use it. There is no other way to communicate. And if a man accepts a term with a definition by non-essentials, his mind will substitute for it the essential characteristic of the objects he is trying to designate . . . . Thus the real meaning of the term will automatically replace the alleged meaning.

When I hear BHO or any other nanny-stater utter the term "fair" I think of a few things: Fairness according to whom? Progressives? Communists? Liberals? Far-rightists? Fascists? Tree-huggers? War mongers? Defense hawks? Racists? Cultists? Atheists? Christian-rightists? Religious-leftists?

The list goes on.

The concept of fairness is entirely subjective; a floating defintion dependent upon one's upbringing, moral fiber, civic nature, worldview - hell, even whether or not you are a disgusting SOB. Conversely, though it is not taught in government union profit factories, America was founded on (among many other noble ideas) the concepts of rule of law and natural rights and the then-radical idea that an individual's rights could not be affected or infringed upon by the mob, a majority or minority.

Or, as we see in today's world, insane Hobbes-esque totalitarian nanny-stater fairness-preaching rotgut collectivists.

Put painfully plainly: one man's "fair" is another man's pursuit-of-happiness-shattering income confiscation.

In a just society, a (limited) tax code pays for the basic, limited functions of government. It doesn't know how much money you make. It doesn't care what color your skin is. It doesn't know your ethnic background, your religion or your political persuasion. Not only does it not know who you are, by law it is not allowed to. Your rights are safe that way.

Using the tax code as a weapon against certain classes (wealthy or not) is... tyranny.

Adding insult to injury, in today's body politic, the entire argument predicating the so-called "Buffet Rule" is insanely flawed economics, too.

But that's what we get for looking to government to enforce "fairness" upon society.

On this note, at the Cato Institute, I found an excellent 2008 commencement address given by P.J. O'Rourke, "Fairness, Idealism and Other Atrocities"...

Well, here you are at your college graduation. And I know what you're thinking: "Gimme the sheepskin and get me outta here!" But not so fast. First you have to listen to a commencement speech.
Don't moan. I'm not going to "pass the wisdom of one generation down to the next." I'm a member of the 1960s generation. We didn't have any wisdom.
We were the moron generation. We were the generation that believed we could stop the Vietnam War by growing our hair long and dressing like circus clowns. We believed drugs would change everything — which they did, for John Belushi. We believed in free love. Yes, the love was free, but we paid a high price for the sex.

My generation spoiled everything for you. It has always been the special prerogative of young people to look and act weird and shock grown-ups. But my generation exhausted the Earth's resources of the weird. Weird clothes — we wore them. Weird beards — we grew them. Weird words and phrases — we said them. So, when it came your turn to be original and look and act weird, all you had left was to tattoo your faces and pierce your tongues. Ouch. That must have hurt. I apologize.
So now, it's my job to give you advice. But I'm thinking: You're finishing 16 years of education, and you've heard all the conventional good advice you can stand. So, let me offer some relief:

1. Go out and make a bunch of money!

Here we are living in the world's most prosperous country, surrounded by all the comforts, conveniences and security that money can provide. Yet no American political, intellectual or cultural leader ever says to young people, "Go out and make a bunch of money." Instead, they tell you that money can't buy happiness. Maybe, but money can rent it.
There's nothing the matter with honest moneymaking. Wealth is not a pizza, where if I have too many slices you have to eat the Domino's box. In a free society, with the rule of law and property rights, no one loses when someone else gets rich.



  1. Silly peasants. We never said anything about balancing our budget or reducing the National Deficit. We just want to raise taxes on rich people to f*ck with them. However, if they're rich and liberal, they'll get a loophole. I mean, we need to support Hollywood, after all. And sports heroes on NBA teams. Oh, and Oprah, even though she is acting snobby these days and not returning our calls.

  2. the truth is always in the fine print. it's usually contrary to the headline.

    especially with this administration. for example, the ACA. "tax the rich" just means take money away from the non-entitled class. "fairness" might be the most frightening concept.

  3. A hearty thumps up Tim. The concept (rather anti-concept, see even I slip) of fairness is indeed subjective. Being subjective it lacks a rational ethical basis.

    Obama is merely the latest in a very long line of politicians, both conservatives and progressives as well as the ones in between that have sold the line.

    The question is really... Will America ultimately and thoroughly accept it?

    Runaway freight trains are indeed a very hard thing to stop.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.