Shut Fox Down

Previous Page

Transcript by http://www.newsy.com BY VICTORIA CRAIG ANCHOR LAUREN GORES Not happening. Not even a debate. That's the message from Monday night's procedural vote in the U.S. Senate on the much talked about Fair Share Tax, or Buffett Rule -- a proposed tax on Americans earning $2 million or more per year. San Diego's KGTV has the details. "The president's going to have to find another way to tax millionaires after the Democratic-led Senate turned down his so-called Buffett Rule 51 -- 45. Under the plan, the nation's top earners would pay a 30 percent tax rate." The vote was along party lines with two abstaining. Although it received a majority vote, it required 60 votes to advance. The legislation would have raised about $47 billion over the next decade. But that wouldn't do much to offset the $6.7 trillion projected to be added to the debt over the same time span. Fox Business says the legislation would have also repealed the alternative minimum tax, costing $840 billion over ten years. "So, net net, the legislation would have added about $800 billion to the deficit over the next decade." With those statistics, you might think the Buffett Rule was unpopular among Americans and business owners. But HLN says according to a new CNN/ORC poll, that's not the case. "They like the Buffett Rule, even a majority of Republicans and yet, the Republican lawmakers blocked it in Congress." So if so many people were in support of the idea behind the Buffett Rule, why couldn't it pass even a procedural vote for debate? A contributor for MSNBC has the answer -- saying there's no question the vote was a quote "political stunt." Contributor 1: "They say it's about money, $47 billion over ten years. The deficit this year is $1.6 trillion. Contributor 2: "It's a start" Contributor 1: "I'm just saying, let's not say it with a straight face this is about fiscal responsibility." A New York Times op-ed contributor writes the Buffet Rule is a good idea in theory, but explains why this particular piece of legislation is just quote "bad law." "The Fair Share tax is not the right tool for this job. It is bad policy. If it became law, it would needlessly complicate taxes and create new inequities. In so doing, it would repeat an egregious error made 43 years ago when Congress created the first minimum tax in a poorly executed effort to rein in tax breaks for millionaires." Still, a columnist for MarketWatch says simply putting the debate about the Buffett Rule in front of the American public is valuable because it serves as a tool for understanding the tax code. "What this does is it points out there are inequities in the tax code and every time we assault the tax code, with criticism and have to come up with these corny solutions like the buffett rule, then we're starting to get at the heart of the matter." The Christian Science Monitor agrees, saying the debate over the Buffett Rule gets at the issue of fair taxation -- an issue and debate that's likely to continue through the remainder of the 2012 campaign season.