by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
No one should confuse the editors at Bloomberg Businessweek with full-fledged advocates of free-market, limited-government conservatism.
But even they take aim at President Obama’s proposed millionaires’ tax in a new editorial:
[W]e don’t support a special tax on millionaires. Not because it’s damaging to the economy in and of itself, but because it’s silly. And silly can be dangerous if it stands in the way of sensible reform. …
… The Buffett Rule plays right into Obama’s unfortunate tendency to vilify people and institutions (medical-insurance companies, banks and so on). The criticism may be appropriate, but the vilification isn’t. In accusing his critics on Monday of wanting to put “all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans,” the president casually expelled the wealthy from “ordinary” society.
If you read the full editorial, you’ll discover the unfortunate fact that Businessweek’s objections are somewhat objectionable themselves. The editors complain that those earning $900,000 would be off the hook for higher tax burdens under the terms of a millionaire’s tax.
For a more sensible critique of the “Buffett Rule,” consult John Hood’s archive.