ABC Trumpets ‘Fairness’ of Obama’s ‘Buffett Rule’ Tax Hike Quest
“President Obama has declared it is time to take action on taxes because people in the middle class are paying a larger percentage of income tax than the super-rich,” ABC anchor Diane Sawyer announced Monday night without bothering to note, as neither did CBS nor NBC, that the super-rich are already paying a disproportionate share of income taxes.
ABC reporter Bianna Golodryga, who is married to former Obama OMB chief Peter Orszag, assured Sawyer that Obama would not raise taxes immediately, but insisted “the more secure a plan is right now the better it will be in the long run.” (For who?) Sawyer, as if there is a rebound now: “So let the recovery continue?” Golodryga: “Continue now, but have a plan in place to raise taxes over the next few years.” Sawyer related: “They say for fairness.”
Golodryga began by touting:
Today, an unassuming secretary who lives in Omaha and happens to work for billionaire Warren Buffett may be the arbiter of what is fair and not in America. Buffett, worth $50 billion, recently expressed outrage that under the American tax code, he paid just 17.4 percent of his income in taxes while his secretary paid double that rate at 33 percent.
She saw nothing but popularity and more justified revenue for the government in Obama’s plan:
They proposed a new rule, the Buffett Rule, which would require millionaires to pay the same rate as middle class Americans. So is it fair for the richest to pay at a lower rate? Some 72 percent of
Americans say no. They support higher taxes on folks who earn more than $250,000 a year to help reduce the deficit. So how much money would we raise if millionaires and billionaires were required to pay the top tax rate of 35 percent? Based on IRS figures from last year, the new rule would add some $37 billion a year to the nation's coffers.
One wonders if that is simple static analysis or takes into account what the wealthiest would do to reduce the percent of their wealth subject to the higher rate?
Unlike the stories on ABC, CBS, and NBC, over on FNC’s Special Report, Ed Henry pointed out: “IRS data shows the top one percent, with adjusted gross income of at least $380,000, already paid 38 percent of the total income tax in 2008.”
Later in the program, during the panel, Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard observed:
Remember back when the Republicans brought up health care repeal for a vote? Everybody in the media called it a political stunt said this is crazy, there’s no chance of it passing, the President is never going to sign it, this is a political stunt. Now, when the President does something that’s manifestly a political stunt, you have the media asking questions about the substance of a proposal that we know is never, ever going to pass.
Indeed, CBS and NBC led with Obama’s political stunt.
CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley began by stressing how the public agrees with Obama’s approach:
Good evening. President Obama called today for one and a half trillion dollars in new taxes to reduce the deficit, but the Republican leadership said in effect read their lips and, well, you know the rest. With that the Campaign 2012 battle over taxes has begun. Our latest CBS News/New York Times poll finds that most Americans agree with the President on one thing. When we asked whether budget deficit reduction should include both tax increases and spending cuts, overall 71 percent said yes. And among Republicans, 57 percent agreed.
On the NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams opened:
The President’s thinking appears to be this: We’re in a recession with rampant unemployment. The government needs money. Rich folks have done well and have a lot of money and need to pay more of their fair share in taxes. The President even invoked the name of a famous billionaire to help make his case. Well, that's where the Republicans come in. They have made it very clear they won't have it, and they insist it would be the best way to hurt the economy and slow down growth and investment. So on another issue as basic as taxes and who should pay what, the split right down the middle was very clear today.
From August 15: “Networks Embrace Buffett’s Call for Higher Taxes on ‘Mega-Rich,’ ABC Salivates Over Spending It”
The story on the Monday, September 19 ABC World News:
DIANE SAWYER: The billionaire and his secretary who have ignited a giant battle about taxing the rich in America. President Obama has declared it is time to take action on taxes because people in the middle class are paying a larger percentage of income tax than the super-rich and he said he wants Congress to close the loopholes and create a minimum tax the rich must pay.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share on taxes or we’re going to have to ask seniors to pay for Medicare. We can't afford to do both. This is not class warfare. It's math.
SAWYER: And tonight we'll beak it down with three big questions. Do Americans think it's fair to raise taxes on the rich? How much money will that bring in and the big question, will it help or hurt job creation in America? ABC's Bianna Golodryga begins it all with the billionaire and his secretary who lit the fuse on the whole fiery debate.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Today, an unassuming secretary who lives in Omaha and happens to work for billionaire Warren Buffett may be the arbiter of what is fair and not in America. Buffett, worth $50 billion, recently expressed outrage that under the American tax code, he paid just 17.4 percent of his income in taxes while his secretary paid double that rate at 33 percent.
WARREN BUFFETT: I don't think our tax system is very equitableStory Continues Below Ad ↓
GOLODRYGA: The reason for this difference is that she has a regular job and gets a simple paycheck, while he gets tax breaks because of his high-flying investment income. Enter the White House today.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.
GOLODRYGA: They proposed a new rule, the Buffett rule, which would require millionaires to pay the same rate as middle class Americans. So is it fair for the richest to pay at a lower rate? Some 72 percent of Americans say no. They support higher taxes on folks who earn more than $250,000 a year to help reduce the deficit. So how much money would we raise if millionaires and billionaires were required to pay the top tax rate of 35 percent? Based on IRS figures from last year, the new rule would add some $37 billion a year to the nation's coffers.
CLINT STRETCH, DELOITTE TAX LLP: There is an opportunity to raise a fair amount of money there, but it's not going to be the way that we solve a $4 trillion or $5 trillion deficit problem.
GOLODRYGA: Republicans say the increase in tax revenues could come at a high cost, American jobs.
CONGRESS PAUL RYAN, ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY: It will attack job-creators, divide people and it doesn’t grow the economy.
SAWYER, TO GOLODRYGA: So, what is the White House answer to that, that it would hurt job creation?
GOLODRYGA: Well, all experts say right now that the White House shouldn’t come out – the White House even says that they’re not going to come out and raise taxes any time soon. This would be a plan that would go into effect the next few years, but the more secure a plan is right now the better it will be in the long run.
SAWYER: So let the recovery continue?
GOLODRYGA: Continue now, but have a plan in place to raise taxes over the next few years.
SAWYER: They say for fairness. Okay, thank you, Bianna.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments






Today, an unassuming secretary who lives in Omaha and happens to work for billionaire Warren Buffett may be the arbiter of what is fair and not in America. Buffett, worth $50 billion, recently expressed outrage that under the American tax code, he paid just 17.4 percent of his income in taxes while his secretary paid double that rate at 33 percent.
Americans say no. They support higher taxes on folks who earn more than $250,000 a year to help reduce the deficit. So how much money would we raise if millionaires and billionaires were required to pay the top tax rate of 35 percent? Based on IRS figures from last year, the new rule would add some $37 billion a year to the nation's coffers.
Remember back when the Republicans brought up health care repeal for a vote? Everybody in the media called it a political stunt said this is crazy, there’s no chance of it passing, the President is never going to sign it, this is a political stunt. Now, when the President does something that’s manifestly a political stunt, you have the media asking questions about the substance of a proposal that we know is never, ever going to pass.
DIANE SAWYER: The billionaire and his secretary who have ignited a giant battle about taxing the rich in America. President Obama has declared it is time to take action on taxes because people in the middle class are paying a larger percentage of income tax than the super-rich and he said he wants Congress to close the loopholes and create a minimum tax the rich must pay.









Comments
On the one
Submitted by Bob K on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 8:54am.
hand I cannot understand how they think they can get people to not realize there is a difference between Fed Income Tax rates and Capital gains rates. But then, I realize that they can do it by just repeating the lie over and over and over. And sad to say, a good many people ARE stupid enough to buy it.
I've got a better
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 8:57am.
I've got a better idea.............why not LOWER the tax rates of the 'middle class', since it's the 'income' earners who get hit the hardest. 'Rich' people have all kinds of ways to protect their money, and they do. These dopes are always looking for the least sensical solution to any problem.
And I'm sick of hearing about Buffet flapping his jaws about how unfair the tax rate is. Why isn't his secretary paying 17% ??? And why isn't he paying the top rate anyway??? He can give her a big raise AND cut a fat check to the government all in one fell swoop - maybe that will make him feel better.
And, seriously, if Boy Barry and the REGIME tax the blood out of the 'rich', do you think people like me are going to notice it??? Yeah, maybe so..........there will be LESS people hiring us to do work. That's spelled W-O-R-K, Barry.............something that you have no concept of!!!
It's been said that Obama
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 11:25am.
It's been said that Obama created more millionaires in this country than any other president. Yeah, they used to be billionaires.
Fair my arse
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:01am.
Wouldn't it be 'fair' for those who pay no income tax to pay some now? After all, we should all 'share' the pain. shouldn't we? How about a fee for being an American, maybe $100,000 a year? Illegals would be exempt, of course.
Why don't we do away with the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:09am.
Why don't we do away with the preliminaries and just declare all income as property of the government. Then teh government in their benevolence and infinite wisdom can determine how much we get. Simple and it would eliminate all teh carping.
My 1st question is, how does this create a job?
Submitted by Tomorama on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:17am.
From the AP of all places fact checking the lying gutless fraud of a Presendent:
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Of course those BELOW that paid nothing.
The media whores per usual run with the WH talking points and they DON'T question the facts (the whores on TV anyway).
Bush farted and there was an investigation and questions on the "odor", Obama, nah, not nearly the quizical nature, more like cheerleading.
Dimwitted, leftist dingbat
Submitted by TE on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:30am.
Dimwitted, leftist dingbat Brianna Golodryga predictably offered NO EVIDENCE to support her allegation that Warren Buffett "paid just 17.4 percent of his income in taxes while his secretary paid double that rate at 33 percent."
Not only did Golodryga fail to offer ANY EVIDENCE to support her allegation about the tax rates allegedly paid by Buffett and Buffett's alleged, so-called "secretary", but Golodryga substituted a freakin' black and white silhouette for Buffett's alleged, so-called "secretary". Is Buffett's alleged, so-called "secretary" in the Witness Protection Program?
She might be, if her boss
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:37am.
She might be, if her boss keeps hanging out with Boy Barry.............maybe she's complicit in the few billion that ol' Warren supposedly owes to the IRS.
talk about dumb
Submitted by D'saredumbpeople on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:33am.
they just need MIKA and they would be a modern day version of the three
stoges.
I think Killa may be on to
Submitted by inquiringmind on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:35am.
I think Killa may be on to something guys and gals. Since the top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of all income taxes collected, to reduce the tax burden on the bottom 50% means you are reducing the governmet take by 3%
If fairness is your end game then that makes perfect sense to me and we won't affect the government revenue intake dramatically.
We have already established that raising taxes on the wealthy won't create jobs nor will it reduce the deficit by that much. Fairness is what the libs are after so lets accomadate them.
Why don't they release their own tax returns?
Submitted by ohio granny on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:45am.
Lets see them put their money where their mouths are. They certainly make more then the middle class. Would be interesting would it not to see exaclty how much of their income they pay in federal taxes???
His Secretary Could Be One of Them Undertaxed Millionaires
Submitted by PAT09 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:48am.
Apparently, Buffett pays his secretary very well, as one would expect. According to the 2011 Federal Tax Rates, in order to be in the 33% tax rate your income has to be between:
Single: $174,400 to $379,000; Obama Millionaire Threshold $200,000
Joint : $212,300 to $379,150; Obama Millionaire Threshold $250,000
It is good to know that Obama could have her paying her fair share as well..............
And That’s “taxable income!”
Submitted by scottyusmc on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:05am.
Wonder what the gross was???
Doonseberry
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:50am.
Sunday's strip was an editorial on the 400 wealthiest people. Does Trudeau realize he's most likely one of those 400? He's more than welcome to redistribute his own income, but like a typical liberal his own money is off limits to the public.
Balancing Act Achieved with this final straw!!!
Submitted by scottyusmc on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:59am.
What these idiots don't care to recognize is that many have already reached a balancing act in their business. I use to employ 23 people... Two have recently left and I have not replaced them in anticipation of paying additional taxes. I've also adjusted my business profile to allow for me to close the business in 12 years when I reach 65. No longer trying to hand it down to the kids... I've decided to not hire any new or replacement workers and simply reduce my output accordingly.
Bottom line is that they're not going to get a dime more in taxes out of me!!! For each tax increase they impose, I'll reduce output and workforce accordingly. I'm done fighting government - I'm going on a cruise...
The fact remains: raising
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:20am.
The fact remains: raising taxes on people who own businesses results in reduced productivity, decrease in employees (thus higher unemployment), and less income to the Federal government. This is a fact proved by historical precedent yet the libs want to do it again.
Now what was that definition of insanity....? Something to do with doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results...
So which is further? To
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:10am.
So which is further? To Duluth or by bus?
To compare Capital Gains tax rates with personal income tax rates makes about as much sense as my comparison above.
So, we double the taxes on
Submitted by jessieH on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 11:16am.
So, we double the taxes on the media! If they love Obama's insane plan so much, they will be happy to pay double.
Measure Of Distractions
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 12:57pm.
Obama's American Jobs Act and Deficit Reduction Plan (Tax Increases on the Wealthy) are smokescreens he is creating to distract the public from finding out about or thinking about his White House scandals.
He is also more likely as not devising all manner of covert, underhanded regulatory schemes in the background.
Among these purposeful obfuscations, he is also keeping the GOP controlled House of Representatives preoccupied with having to deal with his initiatives, instead of allowing them to focus on the real solutions to our nation's problems.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Let's be fair
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 1:22pm.
I can't believe that these morons keep reverting to the 'fairness" argument! Just HOW is it "fair" to take money from one person and give it to another who didn't earn it and, therefor, doesn't deserve it? That's as unfair as it can get! Let's call it what it is: the unfair tax proposal.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Wait! She's in the 33% tax bracket
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 6:47pm.
and she's not investing??!!. She doesn't have any discretionary money to invest and receive capital gains returns and lower the total average tax burden on her income? I call BS.
Something is out of tune when the secretary is rich enough to be in the 33% bracket, but submitted as "poor", simply because she is so in relation to Buffet. Obama already wants more of this woman's money, anyway. She's one of the ones who need to pay her "fair share".