Warren Buffett for Treasury Secretary

Frankly, at this point, I'd go with Jimmy Buffett, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&hp

The Sage of Omaha - or whatever they call him - has come out and pointed at two essential absurdities in our tax debate.

First, carried interest and other loopholes mean that people who work with investments pay a pittance in percentage of their income in taxes.  Buffett's rate is about 17%.  That's roughly the same percent at the fry cook at Wendy's.

Second, increasing taxes on investors does not preclude them from investing.  People do not measure themselves against abstract standards, they measure themselves against their contemporaries and colleagues.  For instance, my material well being is probably superior to John D. Rockefeller's.  I mean, I have an iPod and penicillin.  He had piano recitals in the parlor and mustard poultices.  I win.

But I'm doing a lot worse than his great grandkids.

If you raise taxes on the capital class, they won't stop working, they won't stop investing.

Buffett's position should not be controversial.  Taxes on the mega-rich (Buffett's term) are historically low.

I would like to see Obama talk about a job's program funded by new taxes on the mega-rich.  Yes, it won't pass.  But 75% of the country will support it and give him some reason to explain to voters why the employment picture sucks.

From what we've heard Chicago DLC Third Way Party Hack White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley and 2008 Wunderkind Plouffe Diddy have argued that he should not pursue plans he cannot achieve.

Which begs the question: do these idiots pay attention?  Is there ANY plan you could see the GOP agreeing with?

People have noted that all the economists have left or are leaving Obama's team and being replaced by hacks like Daley.

But a jobs program wedded to a tax on the mega-rich is a winner on all fronts.

Only a Teatard would see it otherwise.