Obama Re-Names The “Buffett Rule” Tax Hikes The “Regan Rule” Tax Hikes


This isn’t the first time President Obama has invoked conservative icon Ronald Reagan in his arguments for higher taxes.

From Politico:

“If it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan rule instead of the Buffett rule,” Obama said in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

“I’m not the first president to call for this idea that everyone has to do their fair share,” he said, quoting one speech in which Reagan said it was “crazy” for the rich to be able to use loopholes to get out of paying taxes. “He thought that in America the wealthiest should pay their fair share and he said so.”

The Reagan speech President Obama is one that happened in August 1982, when Reagan was reluctantly agreeing to a deficit reduction deal with a Democrat Congress that was supposed to include $3 in spending reductions for every $1 in tax hikes. “Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment?” asked President Reagan, rhetorically.

That certainly sounds like an Obamaesque argument for tax hikes, but remember that Reagan was supposed to be getting spending cuts along with the hikes. Unfortunately, those spending cuts never manifested themselves. “Congress never cut spending by even one penny,” Reagan said of that deal later, and by 1983 his tone had changed:

“I am unalterably opposed to Congress‘ efforts to raise taxes on individuals and businesses,” he said. His administration “did not come to Washington to raise the peoples’ taxes. We came here to restore opportunity and get this economy moving again. We do not face large deficits because Americans aren’t taxed enough. We face those deficits because the Congress still spends too much.”

Would Reagan be for the Buffett Rule? Reagan circa 1982 might have been, if it were tied to big spending cuts, but Reagan circa 1983 had learned his lesson.

By the way, the Buffett rule would apply to roughly 400 people in the entire United States. It would provide just tens of billions in new revenues, a drop in the bucket compared to the overall budget deficit that is well over $1 trillion.

Can we stop pretending as though this were a serious deficit-reduction proposal by President Obama and not an attempt to distract and distort the debt debate by injecting class war, playing on the public’s envy of the rich?

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • Sparkie Arbuckle

    You spelled Reagan wrong in the headline.

    • Gern Blanston

      Maybe he meant Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury at the time of this Reagan speech…

  • headward

    I don’t blame that kid.  Who really wants to listen to this guy lie?

    • bobby

      Policy disagreements should not be characterized as lies.

  • Wesbutte

    Obama is desperate and pathetic.

    • Bat One

      Desperate and pathetic is exactly right.  He’s been trying to get his tax hikes passed for years, and couldn’t do it even when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress.  The more he keeps pushing something that isn’t going to happen and doesn’t do what he says it will, the more desperate, and pathetic, he appears.

  • Gern Blanston

    Republicans should respond: “Yes, we will agree to the Reagan rule tax hikes. But this time, we want tripple the spending ciuts to go with the tax hikes, but we want them enacted first. Then if the cuts materialize, we will consider the tax hike. Who knows, maybe we will actually keep our word, unlike the Democrat congress of 1982.”

  • Bat One

    I’m not the first president to call for this idea that everyone has to do their fair share.

    How dishonestly convenient that Obama overlooks the 49% who are paying no income taxes at all… and the majority of those who receive money “back” via EIC from the rest of us who do pay taxes. 
    If Obama really wanted “fair” he’d stop spending money the we, and our children, don’t have!

  • cylde

    obama is a thief, he has stolen honor from a a half dozen former presidents by claiming policy associations.

    • awfulorv

      Obama, his wife, and children, have been shown to be thieves, will do…

  • TexasJew

    Why doesn’t he invoke Thomas Jefferson who would at least make him get off his worhless butt and go pick a bale of cotton?

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Raygun was the father of the Buffet rule.

    Ronnie in his own words:

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    If nutters ever catch on to the youtubes on the interweb, this Raygun feller would soon be known as a secret Muslim Socialistical Commie Marxist class warrior.


  • mickey_moussaoui

    Reagan’s policies created so much growth that taxible income rose along with it. Obama’s policies have only killed growth and taxable income.

    Obama is a bad joke on all of us. Romney needs to continue enforcing what a failure obama has been economically. It is funny that these sorry ass libs always invoke Regan when they try to compare themselves to past presidents. They never choose any comparisons to a past dummycrat president. They hate Reagan but need to compare themselves to him. Go figure