In a rare moment of Washington bipartisanship, The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act beat the odds and was signed into law recently, passing both House and Senate by overwhelming margins.

This bill reduces burdensome and outdated regulations, and is designed to help small businesses, entrepreneurs and startups do what they do best: innovate, expand and create jobs. I wrote one of the act's key sections. It allows community banks to raise more capital that can be loaned to small businesses, by increasing the number of bank shareholders permitted to invest from 500 to 2,000, without costly approvals by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

When President Barack Obama signed the bill, he emphasized the importance of U.S. entrepreneurs and small businesses. "America has always had the most daring entrepreneurs in the world," Obama said, "... when their businesses take off, more people become employed." He pledged, "We're going to have to keep working together so that we can keep moving the economy forward."

Nonetheless, five days later, the president went off in the wrong direction - championing the "Buffett Rule" tax, and pushing the Senate to approve it as soon as possible. Ironically, the Buffett Tax would likely punish the very job creators that the president said we should encourage to expand and hire more people.

Unlike the Jobs Act, which encourages more opportunities for startups and entrepreneurs, the Buffett Tax would do the opposite. If it becomes law, what could be the next Google or Facebook might never move beyond a business plan or mom's garage.

The Buffett Tax is a roundabout way of raising the capital gains tax on investors willing to risk providing seed money for early-stage startup businesses, particularly tech startups. If and when one of these new enterprises becomes successful enough to be acquired or go public, the Buffett Tax would take a much bigger bite out of investors' profits.

This would discourage risk-taking, and drain away private investment capital that entrepreneurs and startup businesses must have.

The president argued initially that the Buffett Tax is needed for deficit reduction. But the Treasury Department estimates that the Buffett Tax would raise no more than $5 billion annually.

That's less than .005 percent of this fiscal year's $1.2 trillion deficit, and barely a drop in the $15+ trillion ocean of national debt. But it's a crucial $5 billion that the President would drain from the pool of private capital available to help entrepreneurs.

Even after Obama conceded his tax proposal would have no impact on deficit reductions, he has continued to argue the Buffett Tax should be enacted as a matter of "fairness." In other words, big tax increases on small businesses and on investors who fund start-up companies - the businesses that he described as responsible "for almost every new job created in America." That doesn't seem "fair" to the millions of Americans looking for jobs.

Our economy has been the most dynamic job-creating machine in world history. One big problem holding it back now is an incredibly complicated, inefficient tax code that imposes some of the highest taxes in the world on businesses and job creation.

Bipartisan cooperation is needed to pass comprehensive tax reform. Lower, flatter tax rates and a fairer, simpler tax code would unshackle job creation in the private sector.

That's what we should be working on now. Not an election-year ploy that would make our economy worse.

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) is the ranking member on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

Click here to read Sen. Hutchison's op-ed on Politico.com