No big surprise that Roy Blunt does his best to pay off his Big Oil patrons. Alternet’s Tara Lohan didn’t characterize him as “Exon’s man”  for no reason after all.

Yesterday he voted against the Buffett Rule. No big surprise there either. What’s the connection? Check out what Blunt had to say on his Facebook page about his Buffett Rule vote (and try not to laugh out loud):

I voted against the Buffett Tax today because it would do nothing to jumpstart job creation or lower gas prices – a fact my colleagues across the aisle readily admit. Americans are struggling with high unemployment and skyrocketing fuel costs, and the last thing job creators need is greater uncertainty. We must work together to pass bipartisan solutions like the Keystone XL Pipeline and a pro-growth tax structure that will encourage businesses to invest and hire more workers.

Tell me again what tax fairness has to do with gas prices – or Keystone XL? Apart from the big tax subsidies with which we the taxpayers gift the oil companies – thanks to GOP pols like our Senator Blunt – most of us, I’m pretty sure, would say not too much. Unless, of course, like Roy, you’ve been working double-time to use higher gas prices to club the opposition while drumming up support for letting the oil companies run wild and free.

Given that Blunt’s so worried about gas prices that have nearly reached levels that last prevailed under his pal George W. Bush, he will surely be pleased to support the President’s latest initiative to deal with factors that actually affect prices – and no, they have nothing to do with the Buffett Rule:

With average gasoline prices at $3.90 nationwide and higher in various regions, the Obama administration will announce this morning new measures to boost federal oversight of oil markets, tougher penalties on market manipulation and requirements for empower energy traders to put more money behind to back their commodity transactions.

You’re correct, of course, that I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Blunt’s endorsement. We all know that while he’ll come out swinging in defense of the big guys who, incidentally, richly finance his political campaigns, he’s no more interested in asking oil company execs and financial types to do their part and act responsibly than he is in taking a stand for tax fairness.

* Last paragraph slightly edited for clarity.

Greg Sargent has noticed that our careful-to-toe-the-center-line Senator Claire McCaskill is betting that the Buffett Rule is a winner (something we commented on last week):

Dems point out that even Claire McCaskill, who’s facing a tough fight in Missouri, has been flogging the issue – proof, they say, that it can gain traction even in difficult states or districts.

Of course, McCaskill’s a smart cookie (as they say in the old movies), and understands that the Buffett Rule not only appeals to our desire for a fair tax code, but makes palpable the contrast between Democratic policies that favor the middle class and the GOP’s rich man fetish. It doesn’t hurt either that, in Sargent’s words,  the GOP presidential contender, Mitt Romeny, is a “walking emblem of all the ways the economy and tax system are rigged against the middle class and in favor of the rich.” Hence the DSCC Web ad reproduced on the right side of this post.

Another indicator that, in addition to being the right thing to do on a moral level, this direction will be politically effective lies in the weak GOP response. Sargent notes that the GOP leadership is attempting to dismiss the upcoming vote on the Buffett rule as a “show” vote, taken for political purposes. All this claim does, of course, is underline the fact that if it is a show vote, it is only so because of GOP obstructionism. When the vote fails, we’ll know who’s to blame. Nor does it help the GOP cause that the Republican dominated U.S. House has staged any number of such show votes this session, most recently the vote for the Ryan Budget.

UPDATE: Not only is the GOP response weak, but the response from the Mitt Romney camp is downright dispicable. Romney’s spokesmen tried, in the wake of the President’s speech yesterday, to slime the eponymous Warren Buffet:

The rule, I think, is also an example of Washington at its worst,” Hassett said. “It exempts municipal bond interests from the harsh capital treatment and you might wonder why, given that we’re calling it the Buffett Rule – I think it’s no coincidence Berkshire [Hathaway, Buffett’s firm] has been a big player in municipal bond markets.”

The exemption of municipal bonds from the proposed top rate, is, of course, intended “to prevent city and state taxpayers of all income levels from picking up a bigger tab for loans taken by local governments.”

But, hey, par for the course for the GOP to go after anything that benefits the middle class directly.

There are some signs that Democrats may finally be getting it together and, when it comes to playing an effective role in government, approaching the task as if it is a team exercise, and one that needs to be carried out aggressively at that, rather than an exercise in individual camouflage. Case in point: The Buffett rule, which aims to insure that “no household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle class family pays.”  According to Greg Sargent, Democrats will bring up legislation to implement the Buffett rule repeatedly, “until Republican opposition cracks.” Sargent notes that:

Dems view the Buffett Rule as a good way to make one of their most important arguments: The battle over the deficit is actually one over who should sacrifice to reduce it. Dems like this fight because they’re hoping continued GOP opposition to the Buffett Rule will starkly reveal the true nature of GOP priorities on this score to the electorate.

It doesn’t hurt that under the Buffett rule the likely GOP presidential nominee, the obscenely rich Mitt Romney, would see his tax rate nearly double. Let him see just where it gets him to whine about the Buffet rule while touting the Ryan budget, notable for the pecuniary gifts it delivers to the 1%, folks like Romney, and the hard knocks it delivers to the middle class and those dependent on the safety net.

Best evidence that this strategy will be effective? Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, who has learned to be somewhat risk averse, appears to be solidly on board and, undeterred by the GOP’s stale evocation of the rich as “job creators,” has been calling for implementation of the Buffet rule during her April recess visits in the state:

“When the millionaires paid more in the 1990’s, we were creating jobs over jobs over jobs,” McCaskill said. “Compare job creation when taxes were slightly higher for millionaires, verses job creation after we gave them this tax cut in the Bush administration.”

“I’ve never seen the Republicans say there was a good time to raise taxes on multimillionaires,” McCaskill said, saying the issue boils down to the question of fairness in the tax code.

When McCaskill’s in good form, she’s very good indeed.

UPDATE: According to the the New York Times‘ Jonathan Weisman, McCaskill will have good company in this crusade. The President will jump into the fray with a speech on the Buffett Rule in Florida next Tuesday. Part of the goal is to ratchet up the pressure on Republicans in order to:

… increase the chances that some sort of minimum tax level for the rich would be part of an end-of-year deal, when the Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are set to expire.