There seem to be two very crappy albeit popular arguments against increasing marginal tax on people making over a certain very high dollar figure (let's call it "the Buffett rule"). I am not aware of any good arguments against the idea, but if you are, feel free to direct me to them in comments.
One argument involves denying that the Buffett rule will solve the debt problem. Another argument consists in pointing out that no one has voluntarily given extra money to the US Treasury. The first argument is something of a weak or hollow man, depending on how it's deployed. It's a weak man if someone makes this claim among many others; it's a hollow man if no one, as I suspect is the case, has actually made this specific argument.
The second of the two arguments, a textbook tu quoque, got another shot at life yesterday from the ever clueless Chris Wallace:
[I]f I may, David, the question I have for you is: if the president feels so strongly about tax fairness, is he going to he contribute money to the Treasury and they have a special department just for this, to help with the deficit?
What would make the President a hypocrite in this circumstance is if he advocated for higher taxes on earners such as himself and then refused to pay. Not, as Wallace seems to suggest, that he isn't currently just donating money to the Treasury.
I don't know how this stuff gets into people's brains. But Wallace gets paid a lot of money, and he went to Harvard. Doesn't Harvard owe us some kind of apology?
I happened across two related items on the Atlantic Wire, a blog of the Atlantic Monthly. One reports that liberal filmmaker Michael Moore has a very nice vacation home on the shores of Torch Lake, near Traverse City, MI. The other wonders whether George Will should disclose his political consultant wife's clients.
The Moore item carries the water of ubertroll Andrew Breitbart, who alleges that Moore is a hypocrite for being rich and criticizing the rich:
No one begrudges Moore his wealth, but it is deceitful for him to claim poverty while encouraging class warfare among other Americans. It is also purely narcissistic and selfish for Moore to back radical and destructive socialist policies that would deny other Americans the opportunity to become as rich as he is.
Torch Lake is a nice lake, Michael Moore is a rich guy. How rich? It does not matter. Has he made his money on Wall Street. No. Boo to the Atlantic for running this kind of intellectual garbage.
The other item on George Will is almost as dumb.
But it does seem that in all his words written about the Republican field so far, and particularly in the broadside against Romney, there might have been room for Will to note that he's related to someone who is actively working with some of the very campaigns he covers. Then, this is an improvement over earlier election cycles, when Will played both sides of the journalistic line, all by himself.
George Will is not a journalist. He is a pundit, a professional arguer guy, he's paid to have opinions about stuff. You can look through the archives here for what we think of his opinions (not much).