The Senate kills Obama's "Buffet Rule"

Republicans block debate on minimum tax rate but polls show public support.

US billionaire Warren Buffett's famous observation that he pays less tax than his secretary gave Barack Obama the political opening he needed to shift the tax debate to the left. The US President proposed a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent for those earning over $1 million (£630,000) a year, a measure that became known as the "Buffet Rule" (the inspiration for Nick Clegg's "tycoon tax").

But last night the resultant bill - the Paying a Fair Share Act 2012 - was blocked after the Senate voted not to open debate on it. The chamber backed the measure by 51 votes to 45 but this was nine short of the 60 votes the Democrats neeeded to overcome a Republican filibuster. In total, forty four of the 47 Senate Republicans voted against a debate, with just one - Senator Susan Collins of Maine - voting in favour.

Obama responded by arguing that "It's just plain wrong that millions of middle-class Americans pay a higher share of their income in taxes than some millionaires and billionaires." But he will be comforted by the knowledge that it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are on the right side of public opinion. A CNN poll published yesterday showed that 72 per cent of the US electorate, including 53 per cent of Republicans, support the Buffet Rule. As Charles E. Schumer, the Democratic Senator for New York, observed, for the first time in decades, the GOP is on the defensive on the signature issue of taxation.

Uncomfortably for the Republicans, their presidential candidate of choice - Mitt Romney - is a major beneficiary of the current system. As his 2011 tax return revealed, he paid an effective rate of just 15 per cent on an income of $20.9m. Obama paid 20.5 per cent on an income of $789,674, a lower rate than many US voters but higher than Romney. Moreover, the President can point to the fact that he is at least trying to solve the problem. As the White House noted:

Under the president's own tax proposals, including the expiration of the high-income tax cuts and limitations on the value of tax preferences for high-income households, he would pay more in taxes while ensuring we cut taxes for the middle class and those trying to get in it

Unsurprisingly, then, Romney is under pressure to release his tax returns for before 2010. The longer the Democrats can keep this story on the front pages, the better for Obama. Romney may quip that the Buffet Rule would only raise enough to fund the government for 11 hours but he should never underestimate the symbolic force of taxation.

Barack Obama speaks during a visit to the Port of Tampa on April 13, 2012 in Florida. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

There's something missing from our counter-terrorism debate

The policy reckoning that occured after the 2005 terrorist attacks did not happen after the one in 2016. 

“Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun.” That satirical lyric about Nazi rocket scientists has come to mind more than few times watching various tech giants give testimony in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, one of the underreported sub-plots of life at Westminster.

During their ongoing inquiry into hate crime in the United Kingdom, committee chair Yvette Cooper has found a staggering amount of hate speech being circulated freely on the largest and most profitable social media platform. Seperately, an ongoing investigation by the Times has uncovered how advertising revenue from Google and YouTube makes its way straight into the coffers of extremist groups, ranging from Islamist extremists to white supremacists and anti-Semites.

One of the many remarkable aspects of the inquiry has been the von Braunesque reaction by the movers and shakers at these tech companies. Once the ad revenue is handed out, who cares what it pays for? That’s not my department is the overwhelming message of much of the testimony.

The problem gains an added urgency now that the perpetrator of the Westminster attacks has been named as Khalid Masood, a British-born 52-year-old with a string of petty convictions across two decades from 1982 to 2002. He is of the same generation and profile as Thomas Mair, the white supremacist behind the last act of domestic terrorism on British shores, though Mair’s online radicalisation occurred on far-right websites, while Masood instead mimicked the methods of Isis attacks on the continent.  Despite that, both fitted many of the classic profiles of a “lone wolf” attack, although my colleague Amelia explains well why that term is increasingly outmoded.

One thing that some civil servants have observed is that it is relatively easy to get MPs to understand anti-terror measures based around either a form of electronic communication they use themselves – like text messaging or email, for instance – or a physical place which they might have in their own constituencies. But legislation has been sluggish in getting to grips with radicalisation online and slow at cutting off funding sources.

As I’ve written before, though there  are important differences between these two ideologies, the radicalisation journey is similar and tends to have the same staging posts: petty criminality, a drift from the fringes of respectable Internet sub-cultures to extremist websites, and finally violence.  We don’t yet know how closely Masood’s journey follows that pattern – but what is clear is that the policy rethink about British counter-terror after the July bombings in 2005 has yet to have an equivalent echo online. The success of that approach is shown in that these attacks are largely thwarted in the United Kingdom. But what needs to happen is a realisation that what happens when the rockets come down is very much the department of the world’s communication companies. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.