E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd previews President Barack Obama's speech at Florida Atlantic University, in which he will urge Congress to raise taxes on millionaires and push his economic fairness message.
Is the Buffett Rule good politics for Team Obama?... Poll suggests it isn’t a homerun with independents… But it’s clear why the Obama camp is embracing the Buffett Rule: They’re personalizing it against Romney… Romney camp and RNC push back… New WaPo/ABC poll confirms the conventional wisdom about the 2012 race… Santorum returns to the trail… Paul’s new TV ad… And veepstakes watch: Why you might want to strike Susana Martinez off your VP lists.
Yuri Gripas / Reuters
President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the White House Forum on Women and the Economy in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington April 6, 2012.
*** Is the Buffett Rule good politics? Team Obama is stepping on the gas when it comes to the so-called Buffett Rule, the proposal to raise some taxes on the wealthy to ensure that the Warren Buffetts of the world don’t pay a lower effective tax rate (due to investment income) than their secretaries do. Today, in Boca Raton, FL at 2:55 pm ET, President Obama makes his case for the Buffett Rule. Yesterday, his re-election campaign held a conference call on it. And on Thursday in New Hampshire, Vice President Biden will address the topic as a campaign surrogate. But is this good politics? A poll conducted for the centrist Dem group Third Way suggests it’s an open question. For instance, 47% of independents in 12 battleground states -- including 51% identified as “swing independents” who are still up for grabs -- agreed with this statement (that Mitt Romney might say): “We need an economy based on opportunity, where hard work is rewarded, the government lives within its means, and economic growth is our top priority.” That’s compared with 42% of indies and 43% of swing indies who agreed with this statement (that Obama might say): “We need an economy based on fairness, where the rich pay their fair share, corporations play by the rules, and all Americans get a fair shot.”
*** Not a political homerun with indies, per poll: What struck us about this survey is how much time and effort went into testing the “tax fairness” argument. And unless it’s connected to something tangible like deficit reduction, fairness doesn’t seem to pop politically. Bottom line: This isn’t a slam-dunk political issue with ALL swing indies. What Team Obama sees is an opportunity to either connect better with working-class Midwesterners or use the issue to DISCONNECT these folks from Romney, which brings us to…
*** Making it personal: While the Buffett Rule might not be a homerun with independents and swing voters, it’s pretty clear why the Obama campaign is embracing it: You can personalize it against Romney. That’s why the campaign discussed Romney’s “Swiss bank account” and his unwillingness to release any tax returns before 2010 as much as it did the Buffett Rule on yesterday’s conference call. And today, the campaign is releasing a statement saying that Romney should stop playing “hide and go seek” -- similar words to what Romney said about Obama last week -- with his tax returns. From the statement: “Mitt Romney opposes the Buffett Rule - he thinks millionaires and billionaires should keep paying lower tax rates than middle-class families. In fact, Romney himself isn’t paying his fair share – in 2010, Romney paid a tax rate of only 13.9%, well below the rate paid by many middle-class Americans. And with each week, new questions are raised about whether Romney took unusual steps to avoid paying his fair share in taxes. Yet we can’t answer those questions because he simply refuses to release enough of his tax returns to give a clear picture of his finances.”
*** Romney camp pushes back: Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom pushed back against the Obama camp’s request that Romney release 23 years of his tax returns (what he provided the McCain campaign during the ’08 veepstakes) when Obama’s own released tax returns only go back to 2000. "Maybe they should adopt as their new slogan: Barack Obama — making the world safe for hypocrisy," Fehrnstrom told BuzzFeed. But did the Romney campaign here just make Obama’s returns the standard? Does this mean Romney will/should release his tax returns going back to 2000? Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee is also pushing back against the Buffett Rule, pointing out it would raise only $47 billion. “This is all the president has left to fix the economy – a plan to divide America with a tax that will raise one tenth of a percent of his spending spree."
*** Confirming the conventional wisdom: The latest national Washington Post/ABC poll pretty much confirms the conventional wisdom: Obama leads Romney among registered voters by seven percentage points (51%-44%) in a head-to-head contest; he’s viewed as more likeable and better on women’s issues and handling foreign affairs; and his approval rating stands at 50%. Yet his vulnerability remains -- drum roll, please -- the economy. “[O]n the two most pressing issues of the campaign — the economy and jobs — the contest is considerably more competitive, with about as many trusting Romney on the issues as Obama,” the Washington Post writes. “Despite positive economic indicators, Americans remain deeply pessimistic about the overall direction of the country and largely consider the economy still mired in a recession.” This poll explains why the Obama campaign wants this to be a choice election with Romney and why the Republicans want this to be a referendum on Obama/the economy -- which we saw on FULL DISPLAY last week from both sides.
*** Santorum returns to the trail: Late last night, the Santorum campaign announced that daughter Bella had been released from the hospital, and that Santorum is returning to the campaign trail, although it canceled the day’s first two events to allow the Santorums to settle at home with Bella. "Rick and Karen are happy to announce that their daughter Bella has been discharged from the hospital and returned home earlier Monday evening,” campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley said. “The Santorums are truly overwhelmed by the prayers and support they've received -- and wanted to attach a picture of their daughter Bella so everyone could see their precious gift from God.” Santorum stumps in Gettysburg, PA at 2:00 pm ET and appears in Lancaster, PA with evangelical leader James Dobson at 7:15 pm ET.
*** On the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: Elsewhere today, Romney stumps in Delaware and Pennsylvania… Gingrich visits the Tar Heel State, speaking at two events in New Bern… And Gingrich’s wife, Callista,, delivers a speech to the Women's National Republican Club in New York City… And Paul host a town hall event at Texas A&M in College Station, TX.
*** Paul’s new TV ad: Speaking of Paul -- who still hasn’t won a state yet -- his campaign announced it’s airing a cable TV ad in Texas that his Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney. “Let’s get this straight: We’re debating between a big-spending, debt-ceiling-raising fiscal liberal,” the narrator says, referring to Santorum. “A moon colony guy. A moderate from Massachusetts. Or a Texan with a real plan to balance the budget.” By the way, an image of an Etch A Sketch appears in the ad…
*** Veepstakes watch: When New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) now says “no” to the vice-president slot on the GOP ticket, we now believe her. “The rising GOP star told an Albuquerque newspaper recently she couldn't do it if she got asked because of family considerations, particularly her developmentally disabled sister and her father with Alzheimer's,” USA Today says. “Martinez is the legal guardian for her sister, Lettie, who lives in Las Cruces, and she says her father, who is in El Paso, is still able to recognize Lettie. ‘The family has to be a consideration, and for me to take (my sister) to Washington would be to separate her from ... the family that's down there, and that would be devastating,’ Martinez told the Albuquerque Journal. ‘I just couldn't do it.’”… Also, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) was on “TODAY” this morning, and he said he hadn’t given the VP slot any thought. That’s code for: “I’ll listen.”
Countdown to the CT, DE, NY, PA, and RI primaries: 14 days
Countdown to Election Day: 210 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
all this wasted effort to give a talking point for the election. nothing the govt projects ever comes true anyway. even if this was absolute fact the results will be a rounding error result. please note how they stay away from the fundamental problem of how to pay for the govt policy of the growing warfare-welfare state. people, wake up and look at the big picture. has anybody even thought about the concept of infinite compound growth of anything in a finite space. how do you manage that without a big fail?
If I planned strategy for the Republicans I'd tell them to pass the tax unanimously, let the President get his whopping $4 billion a year in tax revenue and then turn around immediately and press him on his ideas for making up the remaining $996 billion in deficit in this budget year alone let alone the 13 trillion deficit. Okay, Mr. President, we taxed the rich, now what? I think the real "unfairness" in the current tax code is that 50% of Americans pay not one dime in Federal Income Tax. Everybody needs to pay something. Let's get right on that one too as long as we're talking fairness.
Wow, okay look the reason the Buffet rules is simply dumb is it does not change anything. The Amount of revenue it raises is insignificant when you compare it to the budget, there simply are not enough wealthy people to make it meaningful. You take the money from them because you can and they don't need it? So it is okay to take someone's property if they do not HAVE to have it? I am sorry that is wrong on so many moral levels that I simply get sickened when I hear it.
Look this is an emotional argument by the left not a logical one. That is what bothers me so much about it. IF it made a significant difference in the amount of money it raised in comparison to the deficit that we are accumulating I would at least be able to say it had SOME point in talking about it but the truth is that the deficit is SO large right now, the revenue raised by this so small in comparison, that it can only be described as a straw man argument, a red herring, something to incite the population rather than a REAL logical solution.
It actually has caused me to lose all respect for the Obama administration since it is so hollow an argument. I get angry every time he brings it up. I mean seriously the only reason Buffet pays as little as he does has more to do with the the Capital Gains tax rate, which almost no other nation even has! The reason? Investment and 'earned' income are two different sources of income and taxing an investment that you might lose is silly as far as economic s go.
Anyway I could go on and on, yes it was a dumb thing for Obama to embrace. Yes for people who are logical and thoughtful which I hope most independents are, it is a dumb move, and in the end it is little else but class warfare.
Look the Bush tax rates can support a Government that spends about 18% of GDP, the Clinton tax rates can support a Government that spends at about 19.5% of GDP. Currently we are spending what between 23.5% and 24% of GDP? Lets face facts that we are spending WAY too much money and that the only real solution is to place a tight reign on Government Spending. I mean they increase Social Security at the rate of Inflation, lets tie ALL government spending increases to the same thing! GDP should increase faster than inflation and if so then over the course of a decade we would FINALLY get spending in line with what it should be at. Hey after a little while we would actually be able to 'decrease' taxes on everyone and the Federal government would be come a smaller and smaller portion of everyone's lives, seems like a win win situation to me lol.
Romney is a very rich guy who is desperately trying to persuade American voters that he is "just one of us." It is an impossible task, and he'll never make it. He is on record saying he believe corporations are people and off-the-wall stuff like this:
"I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." (Romney's campaign later said he'd been hunting twice, once when he was 15, and once in 2006 at a Republican fundraiser.)
After President Obama was elected in 2008, the GOP took the position that he would be so unpopular that any Republican opponent could easily beat him. We'll, now they've got a "just any" opponent in Romney, and the strategy will be tested in November.
Can you name a poor President?
Hunting does not a President. The current state of the GOP is why Romney is going to lose. Romney is a joke, now we have to see who he wants to take down with him; by selecting the VP.
Obama is a rich guy also. He too is trying to convince the avg voter he is just like them.
Duane your a liar and it's that simple, liar
I can't think of a single President who was elected or re-elected by pitting the classes against one another. Obama has turned 180 degrees from the man he originally campaigned as. It's like he had a secret agenda. And hearing the comments about his so-called "flexibility" after re-election on the open microphone to the Russian envoy, it made it clear that he plans on unleashing many more surprises if he is re-elected.
Dumber: Can you think of a single President that from the day he was elected, the opposing party said their main objective was to make him a one-term President?
Can you think of a single President that from day he was in office, opposing pundits and polticans said they wanted him to fail?
President Obama has done much of what he said he would do, even with a dsyfunctional Congress and GOP focusing on making him fail.
President Obama will be re-elected n 2012...even Repubs don't want Romeny!
All President have their challenges..think of all the scandels Bill Clinton went through. But Clinton changed and became popular despite his shortcomings. We did not see that change with O'Blamer, just more arrogance. He promised Hope and change but has only delivered socialism and misery.
Would you care to re-phrase that as "manufactured" scandals? Vince Foster dead in a DC park came long before the woman in the blue dress. Whitewater and Hillarycare were forced on the American debate by the likes of Limbaugh and a well financed noise machine. Clinton's shortcomings were hamburgers and women. He's overcome at least one of those. But he became popular not because of this, but because the American people finally saw through the charade/fraud that was the GOP. It's only too bad that Bush/Cheney put so much crap in the water over their 8 years, that a large segment of America became effectively brain dead.
WM._375815 - You just made my point EXACTLY about what most Americans think of Obama, Thanks!.. "brain dead"
And as to presidents who ran on dividing America - FDR was famous for marginalizing the wealthy. Nixon's "silent majority" language was a jab at those who took to the streets to protest the war, poverty and civil rights. And lest we forget TR that great Progressive radical:
“It may well be that the determination of the government (in which,
gentlemen, it will not waver) to punish certain malefactors of great
wealth, has been responsible for something of the trouble; at least to
the extent of having caused these men to combine to bring about as much
financial stress as possible, in order to discredit the policy of the
government and thereby secure a reversal of that policy, so that they
may enjoy unmolested the fruits of their own evil-doing. . . . I regard
this contest as one to determine who shall rule this free country—the
people through their governmental agents, or a few ruthless and
domineering men whose wealth makes them peculiarly formidable because
they hide behind the breastworks of corporate organization.”—Theodore Roosevelt, Address at the Pilgrim Memorial Monument, Provincetown, Mass., August 20, 1907
Get obamy's books from the library, do not buy them, he wants the U.S. to become a 3rd rate country, when his wife said this is the first time she was proud to be an American she meant it. They only want to see this country fall, he wants to disarm the military and civilians, then this country is ripe for the taking by anyone(his fellow brothers-muslims).
The Buffet rule is only the first of many reforms that must be made to make this country greater.
It has been well over 30 years that the poor and middle classes in this country have been under attack from the rich and the conservatives. It is going to be a long hard (30 year) slog to get to where there is a more equitable society in the United States. Even poor people deserve the chance to persue happiness.
The buffet rule is a red herring. Even if it is enacted it will do absolutely nothing to help economy or deficit. It may make you feel better for now but you will pay dearly (once again) in the end.
I think its hard to make an argument that the middle class is under attack when, consistently, 50% of Americans do not pay one dime in federal income tax. Wake up everyone. There is absolutely no way to pay for all the things this president wants without taxing the middle class. That IS where the money is... it's not large dollars, but it's large numbers and we can't fund what we're doing without engaging those large numbers. It's time to pay the piper and stop looking at your rich uncle to pay for everything. Or, and this is what I prefer, scale back the government to at least Clinton era spending which is what Ryan's plan does. Pray tell me, how can this country go to heck in a handcart by simply going back to those spending levels?
The serfs and the peasants didn't pay any taxes, but they were hardly better. I'm sure most of the middle class would grudgingly, but gladly, pay more in taxes if there was just a little more trickle down, trickling down to them. What changed since the 1950's and '60's? Do we now have too many old people, too many sick people, too many lazy, non-productive people? Is it all due to the global economy? Must our middle class now mirror that of countries like Thailand or Argentina? Are all or even a large percentage of our teachers, police and firemen paid too much? What happened to the pensions and retirements that our parents had? Who spent it or who is holding on to the increase in GDP that the US has had over the last 30 years?
Why is it necessary for our President to be poor to be successful?
Think people!! If you owe a lot of money, you have to increase your income AND stop spending! Romney wants to decrease income and continue tax breaks for the wealthy. People who earn their income from investing don't create jobs. Obama wants to tax the upper income level and continue to spend. I don't want my taxes to go up either, but when the government gets desperate enough where do you think the money will come from? Lower and middle class don't have it to start with and we are the ones that drive the economy. Congress, not the president control the US pocket book. I have no faith in them, either party! Looks like another election where it's the lesser of two evils!
Larry: It is ironic that GOP says giving tax cuts to weathly will motivate them to work hard and create jobs, but giving breaks to the middle-class and poor will make them lazy....backasswards logic from GOP....as usual.
It was republicans that gave tax breaks to the lower and middle class, Obama and democrats want them to expire. After the Bush tax cuts, the rich paid an even higher percentage of the tax burden.
The Buffet rule is a red herring. Even if it is enacted it will do absolutely nothing to help economy or deficit. It may make you feel better for now but you will pay dearly (once again) in the end.
Sure its good politics. It incites class warfare and this is what Obama is all aobut.
Is it good economics. No, it would only generate about 43 Billion over 10 years and that is only if the people that it is aimed at don't take their money and invest it somewhere else that will not be effected. Which is the more probable case.
If you want to solve the problems with goverment here is the solution.
"QUIT SPENDING MORE MONEY THAT YOU HAVE COMING IN"
I believe the best way to solve this dilemma would be for Buffet to chip in and pay a portion of his secretaries taxes to even up the discrepancy. This would hopefully make them both happy and we could be discussing more urgent topics like say, economic recovery. Just a thought.
The Buffett rule applies only to income taxes as opposed to capital gains taxes. Since Buffett has already reduced his income taxes below his own secretary, it's easy for him to volunteer to pay for more income taxes.
As far as the Buffet rule being smart politics, Obama doesn't have a choice. He can't run on his own economic record- he has to blame somebody else to get re-elected.
For a long while, I wondered why does our President have a "pet" billionaire, Warren Buffet; then I read the reason why President Obama nixed the oil pipeline from Canada. It is because one of Warren Buffet's companies actually owns the rights to ship the oil coming from Canada via railroad.
So it turns out that the President does not have a pet billionaire. It is the billionaire who has a "pet" President.
The "Buffett Rule" is probably lousy politics. But it's a good idea. Politics and good ideas seldom share the same bed these days.
Again, it's a $4 billion solution to a $1.3 trillion problem. Totally useless. Even democrats agree it's pure politics.
It's not a solution - it's a start. It shifts the debate. Obama isn't saying this can all be done with tax increases alone. However, the GOP IS saying that this can all be done with spending decreases AND MORE tax cuts.
Forbes had it right. Straight accross the board flat tax. Start with 15%, and include the first $5000 in income for anyone making less than $20000.
Everyone shold have to pay something and YES I do mean everyone. If you don't pay some taxes you should not even have the right to vote.
No loop holes no write offs no double taxation. If you make a buck Uncle Sam gets 20 cents. Period.
the majority of the wealthy became as such via the federal government. by either getting financial assistance, subsidies and secret information about property that the government is planning to buy and people with the inside info buy that land first.
further, there are many "many" millionaires that don't pay any taxes at all. just google for it and find out for yourself.
but to be fair, i also think that there is unfairness with taxation on the rich too. for example, taxes for winning the lottery and taxes on inheritance are simply outrageous and greedy by the government and states.
the buffet plan is a step in the right direction but basically its time a flat tax.
Meant to say 15 cents on the dollar.
??? "the majority of the wealthy became as such via the federal government. " Guess that blows my theory of hard work. I guess Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, etc owe their fortunes to the government, Bwahahahahha!
Now read my username and go back to your cell!
Over 87% of millionaires are first generation, they went out and earned it. Government isn't about getting rich, it's about getting richer. You already have to have money to buy influence. Buffet and Soros are a prime example.
Hey let's elect a truly middle class President so we can all finally be successful.
Herr Barry. I have an idea. Instead of raising taxes on Buffett, why not lower his Secretary's you miserable a hole?
Excellent Blamo
pure classic common sense
Is not rewriting the tax codes until after the elections good for our country or just another cop-out by our government. It's too bad We The People couldn't make it policy that all government works on a commission basis. I wouldn't pay none of them jack until they show marked improvement. In fact I say we should be garnishing most of our governments wages because they haven't earned any of it!
The GOP are running on the idea that the poor have way too much and the rich do not have enough.
If you take from the poor and middle class and give to the wealthiest corporations and individuals, everything will get better for all of us.
Reagan championed this conservative ideal which is worshiped by the party faithful...
Obama is owned and operated by Buffet and his cronies.
Does everyone need to have 6 dollar a gallon gas to prove it?
As the gas prices go up it takes all other prices on consumables with it.
Who made $$$$ off the cancelled pipeline from Canada? Warren Buffet that's who.
OMG OBAMA MUST GO and then throw the next bum from the GOP out again after 4 maybe that way we'll actually govern ourselves.
newbook. What exactly is currently taken from the poor and given to the rich and evil corporations?
Interesting that Willard Romney would be so adverse to releasing his tax returns from before 2010. Most of the time he's so proud of what he's accomplished, and he tells us he can do the same thing for all of us if we'll just elect him President.
Well, let's see the records of just exactly what he has accomplished.
Didn't the President release over twenty years of tax returns when asked by the McCain campaign in 2008?
What is Willard Romney trying so hard to hide?
Romney is not yet the nominee. Tommy Boy. Now let's talk about Barry's birth certificate.
The birth certificate is out. Why are people still harping on this nonsense? Romney should follow his father's example and release several tax returns. Is it possible the older returns look worse?
It took a long time for the "birth certificate" to be produced. That was my point. Once again, Romney is not running for President yet. Why should he release his tax returns? Did Obama release his when he was in the Senate?
For a long while, I wondered why does our President have a "pet" billionaire, Warren Buffet; then I read the reason why President Obama nixed the oil pipeline from Canada. It is because one of Warren Buffet's companies actually owns the rights to ship the oil coming from Canada via railroad.
So it turns out that the President does not have a pet billionaire. It is the billionaire who has a "pet" President.
Obama is very negative toward wealthy people ...isn't it strange that he and Buffet are such good friends? You think Buffet really likes Obama or perhaps sees some tactical advantage? He didn't get his billions by associating with people like Obama.
Obama is not negative toward wealthy people, that's just rhetoric. During his three plus years the rich have gotten way richer while the poor and middle class have been decimated.
The biggest mistake people make is listening to what he says and ignoring what he does. Ignore everything everybody says and just concentrate on the results of their actions, that's how you judge a person.
Was the stimulus really a stimulus? No, it was a union payoff
Was Obamacare really health care reform? No it was a payoff to big pharma and insurance companies
Was his jobs czar a jobs czar? No, he shipped an entire division of his own company to China.
Democrats have controlled government for over 5.5 years now, (house/senate, then house/senate/presidency, then senate/presidency). Again ignore the rhetoric and look at the results.
Average 5% unemployment increased to average 9% unemployment
Deficits from $250 billion to $1.3 trillion
Record number of food stamp recipients
Rich getting richer
Poor getting poorer
Obama respects the voters. Romney overestimates the power of empty platitudes and voter venality. Obama has lived among us but Romney is used to buying whatever he wants.
Obama doesn't respect the voters. He is one of the elite who believes that you don't have the brain power to function on your own. All Obama is , is another polished up version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
If Obama respected voters why did he shove Obamacare down our throats? From the 2010 results apparently voters don't think so.
Obama has not lived among you, he has extorted whatever he wants. It's the Chicago way.
Obama wants people to have health care, no matter who they are. Everyone is susceptible to having a breathing tube shoved down their throats and everyone should be responsible and prepare for the future.
Also, since when does the President have to be some average joe to qualify. Personally, I don't want just some average joe, I think that everybody would want the candidate to be very intelligent and successful.
Affinity, you need to get with the program, do you really think that you will be getting free healthcare. You might if your one of those who do not work for a living. This is just another entitlement program for those who don't work
Obama is a Smoke and Mirrors politician that is just trying to win votes since about 50% of US citizens do not pay any income taxes. Is that fair? How does raising anybody's taxes help this ailing economy and create jobs or reduce the government spending under the massive spending proposed by Obama. I am a middle class taxpayer, and I do not support Obama's vision. Obama, Pelosi and Reid's vision would result in this country resembling Greece in a few years with rioting in the streets.
Those not paying federal taxes are paying sales taxes, gasoline taxes perhaps, state taxes, and pass-through property taxes. Federal tax laws and programs protect them from paying with their lives. Some begrudge that, yet subsidize the rich without complaining by making up the difference left by loopholes and tax shelters.
I would rather feed a person than a high lifestyle. You would not. No problem, we still pay.
Affinity, before the government asks ANYONE for more money, they should first have to get their house in order. All the WASTEFUL SPENDING and FRAUD that takes place on a daily basis are numbers that we can't even imagine. If they did that we probably wouldn't have a problem. If your not sick of the give me more mentality, then shut up and enjoy it.