Gothamist
A non-profit newsroom, powered by WNYC.
Gothamist
Listen Live
News
Senate Republicans Block "Buffett Rule" Debate, Protecting Fat Cats Once Again
By
Jen Chung
Published Apr 16, 2012
Modified Apr 16, 2012
Share
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Never miss a story
Email address
By submitting your information, you're agreeing to receive communications from New York Public Radio in accordance with our Terms .
By
Jen Chung
Published Apr 16, 2012
Modified Apr 16, 2012
Share
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
We rely on your support to make local news available to all
Make your contribution now and help Gothamist thrive in 2026. Donate today
Gothamist is funded by sponsors and member donations
Want to know what the GOP thinks of the Demcorats' "Buffett Rule", which would require those earning at least $1 million dollars a year (or more!) to pay at least a 30% tax rate so they can pay the same tax rate as their secretaries? Senate Republicans blocked debate on the measure, ensuring that it won't even come up for a vote. Thanks a lot, cloture!
According to UPI, "The cloture vote failed 51-45 along mostly partisan lines. Sixty votes were needed to end debate on the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012 and move it to a vote. Prior to the vote, Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., ridiculed the reasoning behind the Buffett Rule, saying it would only open the door to higher taxes on the middle class." You know, the middle class would love to earn over $1 million/year!
The Democrats had said the measure would have generated $47 billion between 2012 and 2022, which would help pay down the deficit. But the measure would have applied to investment income, which is now taxed at a lower rate—that's why Mitt Romney only paid a 13.9% tax rate on over $21 million in investment income in 2010.
The Washington Post points out, "On Thursday, the GOP-led House is scheduled to vote on a counterproposal championed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) that would cut taxes by 20 percent for businesses with 500 or fewer employees. Neither measure will be signed into law; the business tax cut proposal is likely to win approval in the House but be rejected by the Senate. But in a gridlocked Congress, passage was never the point. Instead, both parties aim to force their opponents into the politically uncomfortable position of killing proposals they are convinced are broadly popular." Thanks a lot, politicians! We're just going to watch MoveOn's pro-Buffett Rule ad to feel better because at least we're seeing pictures of fat cats.
Tagged
buffett rule
election 2012
income inequality
mitt romney
paying a fair share
republicans
tax code
tax code reform
typical
warren buffett
Jen Chung
Jen Chung is a former WNYC and Gothamist editor.
Read more
Gothamist is funded by sponsors and member donations
Gothamist is funded by sponsors and member donations
MORE news
Bronx woman found dead and infant in critical condition after balcony fall, NYPD says
Police say it's still unclear whether the pair jumped, fell or were pushed.
By
Brittany Kriegstein
Published Oct 6, 2026 at 7:28 a.m. ET
After Trump defunding, thousands losing rental assistance in NYC may finally have relief
The Trump administration issued new guidance outlining a plan to replace expiring rental assistance vouchers with a new program.
By
David Brand
News
After Trump defunding, thousands losing rental assistance in NYC may finally have relief
The Trump administration issued new guidance outlining a plan to replace expiring rental assistance vouchers with a new program.
By
David Brand
Blind man dismissed from grand jury duty can sue NY for discrimination, judge rules
By
Samantha Max
Gatorade recall affects drinks sold in New York and New Jersey
By
Giulia Heyward
Gov. Hochul declares upstate NY measles outbreak a ‘disaster emergency’
By
Caroline Lewis
Never miss a story
Catch up on the most important headlines with a roundup of essential NYC stories, delivered to your inbox daily.
Sign upEmail address
By submitting your information, you're agreeing to receive communications from New York Public Radio in accordance with our Terms .