Thursday, April 12, 2012

James K. Galbraith — Obama needs more than symbolism of 'Buffett Rule'

In the early 1980s when I served on the staff of the Joint Economic Committee, we invited the Republican deficit scourge, Peter G. Peterson, to testify on Reaganomics, but he wouldn't come. Somewhat understandably, he declined to sabotage his own team. This week, when I was asked to comment on President Barack Obama's proposed "Buffett Rule," I had a similar urge to duck. But it passed.
The Buffett Rule would increase taxes on a handful of Mitt-Romney-like figures in today's America, raising a few billions of dollars in new revenues each year from the very rich. It is perfectly tailored to the Obama political style, which is to nod symbolically leftward while reserving big concessions for banks, venture capitalists and insurance companies.
Read the rest at CNN Opinion
Obama needs more than symbolism of 'Buffett Rule'
By James K. Galbraith | Professor, University of Texas at Austin
(h/t Kevin Fathi)

3 comments:

Matt Franko said...

"And it is directed, at least in principle, toward a notorious nonproblem, namely the deficit and the public debt, on which we waste far too much ink as things stand."

I guess this is better than nothing....

Resp,

Райчо Марков said...

" The Buffett Rule would increase taxes on a handful of Mitt-Romney-like figures in today's America, raising a few billions of dollars in new revenues each year from the very rich."

Revenue for the government?!

And pushing the minimum wage won't do much without Job Guarantee Program, which will set the real minimum wage.

Would have expected more from the author of 7DIF's foreword.

tyler said...

That was a weak endorsement of the Buffett Rule, but an endorsement nonetheless. I'm not sure why he is supporting contractionary fiscal policy when we're in the midst of a depression. Oh, right, inequality. In my extremely humble opinion (James Galbraith is a god of econ), efforts to reduce inequality should be focused solely on lifting the non-rich.