President Obama renewed his call for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to help reduce the deficit during his State of the Union speech, a proposal that became known in 2011 as the “Buffett Rule” after Obama mentioned that Warren Buffett paid a lower tax rate than his secretary last year.

Obama’s State of the Union speech offered the first concrete details about the oft-mentioned idea, as he called for a 30 percent minimum tax rate for millionaires. And according to the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) will introduce a bill this week that could make the Buffett Rule law:

Today, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse will unveil a new proposal — first reported on this blog — to bring the tax rate of millionaires paying less than middle class taxpayers up to 30 percent. While we don’t know if the Dem leadership will act on this particular proposal, the “Buffett Rule” will get some sort of Senate vote. Republicans are all but certain to oppose it, perhaps unanimously.

Whitehouse told reporters today that he plans to introduce the bill Wednesday, after it is scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation. As Sargent noted, Senate Republicans are likely to rule out the proposal unanimously. Republicans have, indeed, gone a long way to protect the low tax rates of the wealthiest Americans. They insisted on a one-year extension of the budget-busting high-end Bush tax cuts in December 2010 and their intransigence on taxes repeatedly took the government to the brink of shutdown and default in 2011, even costing the U.S. its first credit downgrade.

Up until now, Congress has tried to reduce the deficit through spending cuts alone, many of them to programs that disproportionately affect the poor and middle class. The one tax hike the GOP has supported, meanwhile, would primarily affect working class Americans. Whitehouse’s legislation, however, gives Congress a chance to ask the rich, who have benefited from falling tax rates even as their incomes have skyrocketed, to share in the sacrifice.

The Commerce Department reported last week that the economy grew at a 2.8 percent rate in the fourth quarter of 2011, higher than GDP growth has been recently, but still not enough to significantly bring down unemployment. And as the New York Times’ David Leonhardt explained, one of the major drags on growth has been the budget-cutting that has been going on at all levels of government for the past year and a half:

The public sector has been shrinking for the last year and a half — mostly because of cuts in state and local government, with some federal cuts, especially to the military, playing a role as well. In the fourth quarter, government shrank at an annual rate of 4.5 percent.

Over the last two years, the private sector grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent, while the government shrank at an annual rate of 1.4 percent.

The combined result has been economic growth of 2.3 percent.

“The obvious conclusion seems to be that economic growth, and employment growth, would have been significantly stronger over the last two years without government cuts,” Leonhardt noted.

Of course, Republicans in Congress have been staunchly opposed to helping states weather the nation’s continuing economic storm, forcing them to resort to layoffs that not only hurt the economy, but leave communities worse off, with fewer teachers, firefighters, and police officers. (Some teachers in Pennsylvania have decided to work without pay, while one school district in that same state decided to use sheep to cut its grass in order to minimize costs.) More than half a million public sector workers have lost their jobs in the Great Recession.

For those conservatives pushing austerity as a solution to the nation’s economic woes, these numbers should come as a bit of a warning, as should the fact that the United Kingdom’s austerity program has led it’s economy to do worse than it did during the Great Depression.

Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist has long held a tight grip on the marionette strings of the GOP. Wielding undue influence as the head of the Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist ensures that Republican lawmakers sign his anti-tax pledge and threatens them with electoral defeat should they even think of deviating from it. Norquist has marked a successful few years, killing the deficit super committee agreement, batting down a tax increase on millionaires, and, of course, ensuring the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Pleased with his headway, Norquist is now mapping out how he can ensure further anti-tax victories by securing Republican majorities. In an interview with the National Journal, he mused that a GOP mandate would obviously enact an extension of the Bush tax cuts, work to maintain a repatriation holiday for corporate profits, and even pass House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan that jeopardizes Medicare. But when asked what Republicans should do if faced with a Democratic majority that won’t keep the tax cuts, Norquist had a simple answer: “impeach” Obama.

NJ: What if the Democrats still have control? What’s your scenario then?

NORQUIST: Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress.

Norquist certainly revels in his power, but suggesting Republicans impeach the president over tax cuts is wildly outlandish. According to the constitution, the president, vice president, or public officials can only be impeached for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Preserving a tax cut that gives more to the top 1 percent than the average income of the 99 percent hardly qualifies. But if Norquist’s only goal is to “crush the other team,” it seems he’ll stop at nothing to do so.