The Buffet rule - a slippery slope if there ever was one.

Why is $1,000,000 the Buffet  level? What is the magic of applying the Buffet rule only to those Americans that earn a $1,000,000 per year? Of course, the Obama premise, for those who care, is that people who earn over the magic number, $1,000,000 per year, have not been paying their fare share.

I do not even know what fair share means so it is hard to have an informed opinion. But without an objective definition, the fair share concept is a house of cards, a slippery slope if there ever was one.

For example, why not make people that earn only $900,000 pay their fair share? Or $700,000? Or $500,000? Or $100,000? Or $50,000? Wait maybe we are all paying our fair share now, even the richest people. Who will cast the first stone? The subjective Obama notion of "fair share" is a rocket with a ruinous trajectory aimed squarely at the tax code. Romney should embrace this rocket and then detonate it.

Perhaps only Ron Paul or Gingrich has the intellectual firepower to highlight the faulty Buffet rule premise and ask the American people-Whose fair share is next?  Fair share is a notion of an entitlement state where the definition of fair share is defined by a few intellectual elitists, a class that despite his rolled up shirt sleeves, Obama is a dues paying member. When the government arbitrarily takes based on "have," and distributes based on "want," we have a government centric society, or something worse.

Obama's concept of an entitlement state only works when there are more entitilees than entitilers. And America is getting there quickly.

Should not we all pay our fair share? Of course, that is the premise of the tax code in the first place, is it not?

Who is to say, whose fair share is sequestered next?

Robert J. Sherwood