Watch your wallet, Dear Reader, Congress is back in session. Sometime today, Dusty Harry Reid and his merry band of senate democrats will take up a burning fiscal issue vital to the economic stability of the United States. No, they’re not going to hammer out the final details of the federal budget for fiscal year 2013. Never mind the fact this country has been operating without an official budget for over three years now. How dare you insinuate that Dusty Harry and Company are unwilling to do the fundamental job for which they were sent to Washington, DC. Haven’t you heard about the “new tone”?

Shame on you. Dusty Harry is going to resume senate consideration of the “Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012”. Commonly known as the Buffet Rule, it would require Americans who make more than $1 million to pay at least 30% of that income (regardless of how it is earned) to Uncle Sam. I’ll spare you the legislative details and just give you the bottom line answer to the question “is this rule the solution to the $1.6 trillion hole in the current federal operating budget?

Short answer? No. The long term (10 year) budget projections with and without the Buffet Rule are roughly the same.

So the question really is, why is the President of the United States hell bent on adding this legislation to his collection? And the answer to that question has nothing to do with tax policy, spending priorities, or anything remotely related to fiscal discipline. No, Dear Reader, Barry and Company want to tax the rich at a higher rate to make people like you and me feel better about the fact that we don’t have as much as they do. Team Obama wants to do this in the name of “fairness”.

Don’t believe me? Ok. Fine. Here’s Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center:

It’s not solving the problem and it’s not fixing the tax system. It’s just addressing an issue that might viscerally bother people. There’s something about really rich people with great lifestyles paying less than you or me that’s offensive.

I don’t know what the qualifications are to be a “senior fellow” at a place like the Tax Policy Center, but evidently general math isn’t one of them. Guys like Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney paid more in taxes last year than I’ll most likely make in my lifetime. I don’t find that offensive. I see that as a goal worth pursuing. I don’t begrudge either of those two guys their wealth. In the immortal words of Tevye, “if riches are a curse, may God smite me with it, and may I never recover!”

What lies at the heart of this debate isn’t fairness. It’s envy. Yeah, bright green envy. Barack Obama is envious of guys like Mitt Romney because they are wealthy regardless of political position and he is not. Take away the big blue airplane, the green helicopter, and all the other accoutrements associated with the White House and Obama goes back to Chicago and the house Tony Rezko bought for him. His presidency cannot be defined by any other term than “Epic Fail” thus he’ll try and make you feel better about his government’s effect on your life (and your wallet) by making a few thousand successful Americans pay dearly for having dared to make a whole lot of money.

Yes, Dear Reader, the target of the Buffet Rule is about 4,000 Americans.

The One would have you believe that if the “rich” just paid their “fair share” all of our fiscal problems would be solved – and we could all feel better about America’s future. There’s only one problem with that logic – its entirely illogical. Facts are very stubborn things, and the fact of the matter is, you could tax all the money from all the “rich” people in this vast nation and barely come up with enough cash to fill the hole in one of Barack Obama’s spending plans. I’d call it a federal budget, but evidently we don’t have those anymore.

To illustrate just how vast the spending problem is, I yield the floor to Bill Whittle and his nine minute lecture as to just how laughable the reality of “eating the rich” really is.

Go ahead, watch the whole thing. I’ll be here when you get back.

The bottom line here is Washington doesn’t have a tax problem. The Federal Government takes in about $2.4 trillion during the course of any given year. Washington has a serious spending problem in the fact that in addition to the $2.4 trillion it takes in, it lays out another $1.6 trillion. That’s the dictionary definition of “unsustainable” and the only solution The One can seem to find is raising taxes, which actually reduces revenue.

Never fear, Dear Reader, it’s all done in the name of fairness by a taxing President who’s only idea of a “fair share” is him getting more of your money. How much more? Well, that’s all up to him. For now, just send more.

Comments