John Sununu has conveniently left two things out of the discussion.. First, while public pressure alone may indeed be unlikely to alter the vote of a senator, there is good reason to believe that that vote is made with keen awareness of which groups are in a position to make a credible threat to spend millions of dollars toward his or her electoral defeat. In most cases the mere awareness is sufficient to "guide" the legislator's vote, making both the threat and the spending unnecessary. Second, it is consequently no surprise that the class of income that is now lightly taxed is precisely that which constitutes the bulk of the income of the wealthiest citizens. While some continue to argue, even as our economic recovery is slowed by weak demand, rather than by lack of investement, that a low capital gains rate is good for the economy, the economic fortunes of most Americans were improving when that rate was high, and have generally been shaken or collapsing ever since they were lowered.

Look at the IRS statistics. Each time the tax rate was lowered on capital gains, it raised tax revenues from capital gains. This happened under Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush. Liberals are so beholden to "fairness" that they ignore economic reality, and conveniently forget that tax rates have a BIG influence on behavior. If the rate is raised to 30% for some people under the Buffet Rule, it will likely raise very little, if any additional revenue. But it is about "fairness", and winning an election,it is NOT a serious effort to reduce the deficit.

It is difficult to be sympathetic to Mr. Sununu's descriptions since as usual with ultra conservative thought much is left out. Maybe actual income has even decreased for the top 1%. They are not immune to this terrible recession they created but their store of previous wealth from the heady days when they amassed large amount of cash and property from their shenanigans still exists. Supposedly it is turned into things of value. Trophy homes, art articles, yachts, etc. Ownership of these objects although appraised at high amounts does little to add to the prosperity of the country. The so called "free market" as the salaries of CEOs for example is rigged by a closed club. The total wealth of the top 1% then soars to much higher numbers than actually earned and properly priced. If their purchases had more societal usefulness rather than putting so much cash out of use, no one would be asking for some of it back to maintain general services so economic progress will reach more Americans. Their fear of investing more broadly in the work force is short sighted.. For all their talk of entrepreneurship they are extremely overly risk averse. Not so patriotic. Certainly there is an unlikely risk of losing a portion of their wealth but it would allow better survival of their fellow cohorts who live in this country. It might even make life better for those who have so much. Gainfully employed and fairly compensated healthy citizens positively impacts everyone. Financial dealings that go sour dents everyone's bottom line little but those that hit the jackpot mainly shift funds from one place to another. There is little additive impact for the bulk of our citizenry. The 1% plays either a zero sum or lately a negative sum game. So there are two choices. Either the top 1% chooses wiser investments to improve the prosperity of the country they live in or have it taxed to accomplish the same thing. From the preamble of the constitution: ".......promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity....."

Cynical, or symbolic? None of the 60 percent of Americans who favor the Buffet rule thinks it is the end of the deficit, but we do see that it is the beginning of fairness. And that money might just save school lunches, help our disabled and homeless veterans, or any group of people that Republicans have been too willing to throw under the bus.

It's especially amusing when someone who lost his last reelection campaign accuses a member of the other party of being "hell bent on reelection". Envy perhaps?

Why is the fact that the deficit is primarily due to the tax cuts for the wealthy passed under Bush and his TWO unfunded wars always left out of the discussion. The solution is always to cut spending programs which benefit the majority (not wealthy). Perhaps we should stop pouring money into the military. If we did not have this stockpile of expensive military toys the boys in charge would not feel so compelled to use them requiring the purchase of more. Spend money constructively at home instead of destructively overseas. And no matter how you want to justify it I just do not understand how paying more taxes is hurting the wealthy. It is not helping the country. What does a hedge fund manager do to earn 3.5 billion dollars in a year or more than 1,000,000 per hour for a 60 hour work week. Why is he taxed at 15% also. If I were his investors I would want a better return. What on earth does one do with that much money? Obviously not create jobs unless it for luxury jets or yachts. Because the wealthy do not have to get their hands dirty and earn a salary is precisely why they should be taxed. They are not going to stop investing or being rich in anycase. The money should go to some common good instead of being allowed to buy political influence thanks to our Supreme Court.

Well said!

Mr Sununu, what is it you do to make ends meet these days, after our neighbors to the north gave you a negative job rating? Do you "work", besides penning anti-Obama pieces every week, or are you able to live off your investments in America and just opine for the civic good?

Yes please, let's engage the real discussion. Before the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy, there was money for alternative energy, job programs and a balanced budget. Money earned from capital gains is overwhelmingly earned by very wealthy Americans. So, your proposal is to tax wages at a differentiated rate - burdening the middle class and upper middle class(that's $100,000 - 200,000 per year - in case you have forgotten who they are.)Then, you propose to tax the income earned by the very wealthy at an across the board 15%? So you defend this massive loophole for the wealthy? Wow, and you are a family man from NH?? Hard to believe.

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a [higher] tax rate than Warren Buffett. . . . And that basic principle of fairness, if applied to our tax code, could raise enough money [to] stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. . . . This is not politics; this is math." **** Barack Obama *** Sorry Mr. President, you must have failed math in school, given the hundreds of years of the Buffet Rule's application needed to offset last year's deficit. Given that, may I propose renaming said legislation, The Buffoon Rule?

Myopia on your part. The greater revenue came from increased regular income tax that made a more balanced budget possible. Prosperous times with more taxpayers was an another key factor. Have you been watching the effect of Europe's austerity programs. The richer countries speculated in more modest economies, driving up the prices to levels that could not be paid back. Now these same well off countries want to extract more out of the proverbial stone. Also you live in a true/true unrelated world, meaning the context is off. Pres Reagan raised taxes as did Pres Clinton. Pres Bush lowered them with 2 wars, Medicare Part D, financial malfeasance, a housing bubble and gave us a disastrous recession. You seem to have no empathy for your fellow citizens who are suffering and who wonder why their hard work has landed them without proper wages or adequate health insurance, or some left over to pursue a little happiness. The job generation by the top 5% is a myth. The pricing of stocks has strong speculative component and has little effect on its up side but a great deal on the down side.

Where is the evidence that "tax rates have a BIG influence on behavior"? The historical evidence indicates otherwise. Let's explore the recent history of capital gain tax rates. [If we are to believe conservative dogma, the capital gains tax rate should have a major influence on US economic growth.] The maximum long term capital gains tax rate was: 28% in 1979-1980 (Carter); 23.7% in 1981 (Reagan); 20% in 1982-1986 (Reagan); 28% in 1987 (Reagan); 33% in 1988-1990 (Bush); 28.9% in 1991-1992 (Bush); 29.2% in 1993-1996 (Clinton); 21.2% in 1997-2002 (Clinton); 16.1% in 2003 (Bush); 15.7% in 2006-2007 (Bush); 15.4% in 2008-2009 (Bush); and, 15% in 2010-2011 (Obama). [Please note that the so-called "socialist" President Obama has overseen the lowest capital gains tax rates since 1916.] If tax rates have such a big influence on behavior, please explain why was there economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s when capital gains tax rates were in the 30%s and 20%s, while there was economic stagnation in the 2000s when capital gains tax rates were just above 15%. [BTW if you really think tax rates affect behavior, how do you explain US economic growth in the years 1951 through 1964 when the top personal income tax rate was 91% and the capital gains tax rate was 25%.]

I find it funny that "fairness" is now defined by an individual's effective tax rate. Why is this? Because the standard metric, of measuring who pays the most in taxes, already shows that the wealthy pay the overwhelming majority of the income taxes in this country. Nearly 50% of our citizens pay NO income taxes. Obviously, it is measured this way, to support a narrative of envy, which is needed for Obama to win a second term.

With all the persistent talk in Washington about cutting taxes even further on profits from selling stocks and bonds, it might be useful to point out who pays those "capital gains taxes" under current law. The attached table provides details. A few items stand out: Just over two-thirds of American taxpayers make less than $50,000 a year. Their average federal income tax in 1999 will come to $1,045. Of that, only $12--or 1.2%--represents taxes on capital gains. Just over a fifth of all taxpayers make between $50,000 and $100,000. Their average income tax on capital gains is $179--which is only 2.3% of their total federal income tax. In contrast, 2% of all taxpayers make more than $200,000 a year. The average income tax paid on capital gains by this top-income group is $20,675. Overall, taxpayers making more than $200,000 now pay more than three-quarters of all income taxes paid on capital gains.

JS doesn't want to talk about the .01%. These folks earn such an astronomical amount of money that it's bad for the economy to have all that cash tied up. They're not doing anything with it. You can argue about whether our tax code should allow for such enormous sums of money to be in the hands of so few. I'd argue that the United States should simply no longer allow this to happen. It's bad for everyone. Saying that doesn't make me a Socialist and doesn't have anything to do with how I feel about capitalism in general. It's just something that needs fixing. That's all.

50% pay no taxes because their incomes have fallen so low that they incur no tax liability. To claim "envy" is juvenile. With the concentration of wealth that has occurred, of course the wealthy pay more in taxes. They have much more of the money.

Once again, Sununu has earned the "Pants on Fire" prize for just making stuff up. Yes, he can have his own opinion, but he can't have his own facts. Not if he's going to foist his falsehoods upon us in a public forum. As Disraeli said, there are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. He will misrepresent stastids, bend any factoids and warp any logic in support of his ultraconservative radical right-wing agenda. Since he will probably never get re-elected to congress, he should do the smart and get a talk radio show. That way he can line his pockets, tell all the lies he wants and continue to support the 1% that he is still not really a member of.

Well said John. Liberals fixate on figuring out to divide the pie, thinking little of how best to grow the pie. As for the Obama administration - perhaps the most cynically bankrupt administration in decades - certainly since Nixon.

Wow! First off, since it's not email, I didn't get the attachment. That said, I read this, read it again, and once more. Wow!

"It is the way that Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has structured the tax code." The fact that it was 'bi-partisan' doesn't make it any less wrong. Strangling the middle class goose that for generations laid the golden egg of prosperity. Does Mr. Sunune fail to see it? The trickle down theory is wrong, only trickle up can ensure our nation's future economy. Cut spending and raise taxes - now - any thing else is self-serving mendacity.

John as usual goes off the pipe on taxes and his explanation of the code. The code as he well knows is established to reward certain activities. It used to be a means to encourage manufacturing. Now it is a means for playing the stock market, in other words legalized gambling. Could Pres. Obama seek to raise the capital gains tax, sure he could, but he wouldn't get it, just like he doesn't get this tax on the wealthy. Why? Because the wealthy have more political power than the middle class and two because certain people in a desire to feather their own nests have convinced a naive public that, "no the rich shouldn't have to pay more." That progressiveness in the tax code is unfair. We should have a flat tax they cry, totally unaware of the inherent unfairness of that form of taxation. Even when shown the math some reject it because these self-promoters have somehow convinced them that is the American way. I will paraphrase an old saying for those who support the propaganda of the wealthy, "there's one born every minute."

They pay payroll taxes; if unemployed, those benefits are taxed. The only envy going on is that the wealthy are jealous that they pay anything at all, believing themselves entitled to some sort of free ride.

I'd just like to point out that you could raise my tax rate to 100% and it would do virtually NOTHING to balance the budget. But you could drop my tax rate to 0% and my quality of life would be vastly improved. So the greatest good is done by cutting my taxes to nothing. Yeah!!

The 50% that pay no taxes is because of the Bush tax cuts, look it up.

Two types of people in America, some that want to keep their own hard earned money to spend, and some that believe government knows best, take a look around, government is not doing a very good job.