The Buffett Rule is a cheap political gimmick to make the Democrats look good. It has a negligible effect on the deficit, and is simply being used to paint the GOP as favoring the rich. By opposing it, the GOP just hands the Democrats a huge political victory on a completely inconsequential issue.
What the GOP should do is publicly call this out for being a meaningless gimmick. Say that it is a serious attempt to address the deficit, but rather just playing politics so they can avoid addressing the tough issues.
So, call their bluff. Announce you'll pass the Buffett rule (as we all know, the effect is tiny anyway), then say that now that we've gotten the stupid political gimmick out of the way, let's get serious and talk about some real cuts in spending, and real deficit reduction. But you have to do that with some blunt, confrontational language on what the Buffett Rule really is.
All we do by opposing this is let Obama and the Democrats claim that they are the only ones willing to address the deficit. It is a false, ridiculous claim, but it will play well.
The mistake the Dems have made is playing this card with a bill that is so small. If you're going to play class-warfare politics, you need to be pushing something you know the other side won't support. Because if we do support it, it destroys the "GOP favors the rich" narrative, and puts the ball back in their court for some real deficit reduction. And more realistically, makes our claim that the Democrats aren't serious about reducing the deficit that much stronger for the election.
Flame away.
Libtards have an unlimited supply of stupid political gimmicks.
The takeaway from the Bluff-It Rule kabuki was meant to sucker just enough GOP RINOs into doing just what you advocated, and thusly enrage/turn off the Tea Party for this election cycle.
Sounds like something that Romney the RINO would do -political expedience trumping principle.
Get a clue.
I have a bridge you would be interested in buying.
I agree with you 100%. Why make the Republicans look like lackeys of the rich by saying that people earning multi-millions a year shouldn’t have to pay as high a tax rate as their secretaries who are earning 90k? Of course that strikes a majority of people as unfair. Why is it important to waste political capital defending it?