To perpetuate his narrative of fairness, Obama’s minions have decided to take Ronald Reagan out of context to make it seem as though he wanted the same thing as the so-called “Buffett Rule”. Here’s Obama touting it in a recent speech:
Phillip Klein, from the Washington Examiner, explains why this simply isn’t true:
Yes, it’s true that on June 28, 1985, Reagan gave a speech to Bloom High School in Chicago Heights, Illinois about problems with the tax code in which he told an anecdote about an executive who was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. But if you read the whole speech, it’s clear that Reagan was telling the story as part of his pitch for tax reform.
You don’t need to read the whole speech to understand what Klein is referring to. This excerpt from Reagan’s speech that day sums it up quite nicely:
Just a few moments ago, I told some people inside the building here of a letter that I just received the day before yesterday. It’s a letter from a man out here in the country, an executive who’s earning in six figures — well above $100,000 a year. He wrote me in support of the tax plan because he said, “I am legally able to take advantage of the present tax code — nothing dishonest, doing what the law prescribes — and wind up paying a smaller salary than my secretary gets — or I mean, paying a smaller — I’m sorry, paying a smaller tax than my secretary pays.” And he wrote me the letter to tell me he’d like to come to Washington and testify before Congress as to how that’s possible for him to do and why it is wrong. So, this is the kind of spirit that is going on throughout the country.
It stands to reason that the more complex our tax code is, the more open it is to abuse. So, we’re making it simple to make it fair. America’s tax plan will do away with special breaks for a few so we can lower the tax rates for all. Our simpler, three-bracket design will assure that no American pays one penny more than his fair share.
The last paragraph proves that Reagan’s intent was a far cry from what Obama is trying to for, to raise taxes on the rich (aka everyone).
Phillip Klein continues:
So there are several key differences with Obama. To start, Reagan was talking about simplifying the tax code, whereas Obama’s Buffett Rule would add another layer of complexity. Reagan was arguing for allowing people to keep more of their own money and reduce the burden of government. By contrast, Obama is arguing for instituting the Buffett Rule so that more money is available to pay for government programs.
Reagan’s push for tax reform helped lead to landmark reform legislation the following year that broadened the tax base, consolidated the nation’s 14 brackets into just two and lowered the top marginal income tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent. This is actually pretty close to the framework that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., outlined in the House GOP budget and couldn’t be more far off from Obama’s Buffett Rule gimmick.
Obama tries to represent himself as Lincoln, then Reagan, but he never seems to want to embrace those he’s most like, Clinton or FDR. Imagine that.