Some Modest Proposals Emenating From The "Buffett Rule"

In the past few days, we have seen the articulation of a public policy guideline that has been labeled "The Buffett Rule." While it would have been nice if it had been the Jimmy Buffett Rule (as in One More Ticket To Margaritaville), this rule comes from the mouth of billionaire Warren Buffett (Omaha is quite a far way from Key West). As we attempt to fix our economy in the face of TeaPublican vows of "No tax increases no matter how idiotically we define tax increases," Buffett was quoted as saying he should be paying his taxes at the same rate as his secretary at a minimum.

This attempt at creating some fairness in a tax code corrupted by the failed premise of supply-side economics demanded by TeaPublicans and acquiesced to by fearful Democrats got me thinking about other areas of public policy that could be improved by Buffett's definition of fairness.

1. Constituents must have the same health insurance and health care options as their elected representatives. This is a no-brainer. Every federal legislator who deliberates and votes on health care has a range of options for health insurance coverage. They cannot be denied coverage for preexisting conditions. So what's good for the Congress critters should be the standard for everyone else. A corollary to this rule, is that if you vote against government regulated equity in health coverage, you must get your own health insurance in the so-called free market.

2. All available safety devices should be standard on all automobiles. For years I have noticed more luxury car advertizements that point to safety features as their chief selling point. My question is, "Are rich folks more deserving of safe cars than the rest of us?" If a safety feature is demonstrated to save lives and prevent injury, shouldn't they standard on all cars. Yes, I know, this is an example of the free market in action, but that is my point: safety only for those who can afford it or safety for all (with the concomitant reduction in the costs incurred by cars that are less safe).

3. If someone holding elective office wants to change party affiliation, they must resign and run under their new party banner. When you are the object of a "bait-and-switch" scam, you have civil and possibly criminal means to rectify the situation and punish the miscreant. When you vote for a D who turns into an R after the election (or the other way around), that should be considered fraud. This is not like reneging on a campaign promise. The candidate who uses the resources of a political party and its supporters to gain election who then switches parties is guilty, at a minimum, of theft of services, if not alienation of affection. So, if you change parties, go back to the voters.

So, here are some things to talk. Maybe we can start a true grassroots movement around one of them, as opposed to the AstroTurf techniques of the folks behind the Tea Party Express. Maybe I'll send these off to Jimmy for consideration.

[Note: My use of the terms Congress critters and D & R is an homage to the late, great Molly Ivins]