Tax Tea Party Movement Growing!

(photo from Instapundit)

I have avoided writing on this as many other bloggers have been taking the ball on organizing that advertising Tax Tea Parties all over the countrty. There have been significant events in Kansas, Denver, Seattle, Chicago and DC in the past two weeks. It has been enjoyable to watch but it really seems to be building.

From Michelle Malkin:

Seattle on Monday. Denver on Tuesday. Mesa AZ on Wednesday. Overland Park, Kansas today. What a week, huh? We got the anti-stimulus, anti-entitlement protest ball rolling — and now the movement, spurred further by CNBC host Rick Santelli’s call for a “Chicago Tea Party,” is really taking off.

David Hogberg at Investor’s Business Daily has a nice piece out today spotlighting the growing taxpayer revolt the rest of the MSM won’t cover. He interviewed our registered commenters Liberty Belle Keli Carender, who spearheaded the Seattle anti-pork protest, and HuskerGirl Amanda Grosserode, who organized today’s anti-stimulus demonstration against Democrat Rep. Dennis Moore in Overland Park, KS.

Read the entire post by Michelle here. If this thought has crossed your mind, you will not be disappointed following these links. I would also recommend Instapundit's coverage of some of these events including some awesome pics!

---

West New York, NJ 27% Tax Increase Nightmare!

Last night we received an email from a reader(We witheld the name, not the writer):

I'm not sure if you've read about a town called West New York, NJ but we've recently been hit with a 27% tax increase. Is this even legal? The town website explains its due to a deficit. Please provide some if any feedback.

Thanks

Before I go on to explain what is going on in the town, I should answer the question. What your town has done is absolutely legal. Towns all across New Jersey have been raising taxes for the past 12 years almost at will. They can raise your taxes property taxes for any reason:

- town expenses go up like garbage pickup
- pension costs for town employees increase
- an unfunded pet projects by a city council
- general budget deficits caused by mismanagement
- on and on and on

In addition to this, the town can through a variety of means increase your taxes not by raising the tax rate but by re-assessing your property for reasons such as building improvements, non-building improvements (a new fence or deck) or because your property value is deemed below market rate outside of a threshold.

Only school expenditures and significant borrowing (I love that one because a town can just spend the money without borrowing and then raise taxes due to the operational deficit) require voter approval. And as most people in New Jersey know of should know, after you reject the school budget the state can come in and declare your rejection of that same budget as invalid (as happened all over NJ last year).

The net is that the only way to force change in your town is to remove the offending town officials via ballot or impeachment if your town charter allows it.

For those of you who have not heard this story, this article from wcbstv.com will make it clear. Here is the gist of the story:

WEST NEW YORK, N.J. (CBS) ― Angry residents in West New York packed a town meeting Thursday to protest a 27-percent tax hike.

Among the residents there was Sila Rodriquez, who said her blood pressure is going through the roof because she can't afford her property taxes.

"[It's] scary because our income is too low," Rodriguez said.

Rodriquez and her husband said they've seen an $800 increase in their property taxes this quarter. They anticipate paying an extra $3,000 this year.

"We have to lose the house because this is unbelievable," she said.

I looked up the town stats (here) on City-Data and found this information to support what is said in the article:

Estimated median household income in 2007: $40,999 (it was $31,980 in 2000)

West New York: $40,999
New Jersey: $67,035


Estimated median house or condo value in 2007: $435,115 (it was $168,900 in 2000)
West New York: $435,115
New Jersey: $372,300

These poor people are well below the New Jersey income level but are well above the state average in terms of housing. I suspect this chart may have something to do with the revenue shortfall. Maybe the local politicians thought this housing value growth was going to last forever and spent as such.




This situation is sad but all too common. It is the result of the absolutely abysmal management of the state, massive government expansion and spending directed by Trenton politicians and questionable spending policies by local governments around the state. It has also been fed by a tremendous amount of corruption at every level of local and state government.

It is also the reason why we started this blog site. It is also the reason that New Jersey needs a top to bottom scrubbing of government.

---

Hope and Change - Trenton style

So here I am this morning walking into the newly renamed Trenton Transit Center to catch a train to New york. Standing outside speaking very loudly about Obama's speech were two maintenance employees for the station smoking cigarettes. Here's what I heard:

State employee 1: Do you hear what I am saying? All these people going to school and all these technology jobs. Doesn't mean anything anymore...

State employee 2: I know what you are saying.

State employee 1: It's a waste. Did you hear it? Going to college is a waste. there is no point to it.

State employee 2: I heard it. The government is going to take care of everything.

Clearly this conversation is not representative of what Barack Obama said last night. But I think it is very instructive of the continuation of the "I will hear what I want to hear" that may in the end by Obama's biggest achilles heel. Since none of the national discourse is being matched to the reality of what is happening (for example the stimulus that was anything but stimulative to the economy), people are left to fill in the blanks. And they are. And one day soon, reality will set in along with a healthy dose is disappointment.

---

Will NJ Property Tax Rebates be cut?

This just in from Newsday:

Gov. Jon S. Corzine said Friday that he is considering suspending property tax rebates next year as New Jersey faces a multi billion dollar budget gap.

The governor said all options are on the table for his 2010 budget proposal, which he plans to present to state lawmakers on March 10. State budget makers are looking for ways to close an estimated $6 billion deficit. That figure doesn't include federal stimulus money the state expects for budgetary relief.

It was just a matter of time that the Governor would notice that the state cannot afford the homestead rebate program. Last year, he tried to take it away but only pared things back a bit:

New Jersey residents get about $1.7 billion in property tax rebates annually.

Some homeowners saw their rebate checks cut or canceled last year. Those making more than $150,000 got no rebate, and those earning $100,000 to $150,000 saw their rebates decline by an average of $295.

While he said he is considering suspending the property tax rebates for some or all homeowners, Corzine on Friday would make no promises or predictions about next year's budget.

My issue with this program starts with the entire concept. If rebates are needed because property taxes are too high, the state should actually look at why. They would find that the unfunded mandates from Trenton and the wasted suctioning of school funds from non-city school districts into the inner city has put too much of a strain on local municipalities. That in addition to the fact that the state frankly has too much government. Too much local government. Too much county government and too much state government. I have mentioned before in this blog that I have lived in several states and New Jersey extracts more money for the least services of any state that I have lived.

So the underlying motivation for the rebate is to ignore the fundamental problem and patch it by sending out checks to homeowners. This is a kick the can strategy that does nothing to solve the problem, just postpones it to another day. And if that were the only issue with the rebate it would be bad, and irresponsible of our politicians and a demonstration of sheer government incompetence, but it would at least be understandable.

There is a built in bias in the rebate system against people who actually pay taxes in our state. This program has morphed into a giveaway program designed to put out checks ahead of elections to Democratic constituencies. This program provides checks to citizens that DO NOT EVEN PAY PROPERTY TAX. And it has continued to exclude the highest property tax contributors in the state due to income. Sort of a double progressive tax (you pay more for your taxes on income and then pay more for your property tax).

Now, I have heard from people who make the case that property taxes are built into rents but most studies will tell you that the market and location determines rental prices. Frankly, if you are going to make the indirect argument, retail shoppers pay a higher premium on property taxes as local prices for goods sold in retails shops are much more sensitive to property tax costs than rental units.

But the main point is that this program is no longer affordable. My suggestion would be to look closely at the Senior citizens impact and retain the program for SENIORS WHO PAY PROPERTY TAXES. They are often impacted severely for growth in their community. For seniors who rent, no rebate.

It's time for the adults in the room to eliminate their political pay-for-vote schemes and look toward helping New Jersey come out of this fiscal situation a stronger and more vibrant state. The alternative is that we can become Michigan. And that is not a pretty sight.

---

When will Obama stop bad mouthing the economy?

It was just a week ago that Barack Obama stood up and told the country that unless the economic stimulus package was passed last Friday, doom and gloom would occur. He proceeded to set up an environment where it was physically impossible to read the entire disasterous pork bill. Well, the bill passed and Barack Obama signed it....4 days later. And the economy tanked again.

I am starting to wonder at what point Obama will be forced to stop his strategy of declaring everything a disaster so he can continue to push through policies in this country that would NEVER be passed when examine in the light of day. We now finish the week much worse than when we started it. And Obama wants another 1 trillion for banks and also wants to bail out people who cannot afford their mortgages.

The media love to compare this president to Lincoln, Roosevelt and JFK. Why is that I keep thinking that he is more of Millard Filmore than not.

---

Stimulus ideas you disagree with are still ideas!

This morning I read an editorial in the Trentonian written by Donna Brazile decrying the fact that the GOP was "nitpicking" on the stimulus. Even more so, her contribution to the discussion was that Republicans had no ideas to add to the discussion. I am paraphrasing here because I do not want to dignify her statements by quoting them because they are so disingenuous.

During this stimulus debate, there were several alternative ideas put forward to create something that was stimulative and not just a Democratic party spendathon. Some of the Republicans ideas were as follows:

1. Real tax relief - The Obama plan offered 13 dollars per paycheck for those who qualify. This will have zero is no impact because everyone knows they are temporary. Republicans continuously fought to increase the return of taxpayer money back to those who earn the money. Apparently, this doesn't qualify as an "idea" because it is a core principle of conservatives.
2. Eliminate all non-stimulative spending from the package - We do not even know half the mess that this congress has showered upon its special interests. Every single spending item in this plan should have been evaluated in the context of real impact on the economy.
3. Small business tax relief - Small businesses add jobs. Government spending on welfare doesn't. Isn't it interesting that the small business breaks to stimulate job growth were stripped from the bill.
4. MORE spending on infrastructure. Republicans agree on the infrastructure ideas and wanted them more immediate and more stimulative. Of course, Republicans were not trying to stage this money for Obama's next election as Democrats were apparently trying to do.

Even the Republican Study Committee submitted their own bill of which the summary is shown below:

The Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009

“Responsible and immediate economic stimulus for every American family and business without burdening future generations.”

Financial markets are tumbling worldwide. The unemployment rate is climbing. It is clear that more Americans are struggling to make ends meet and that the economy needs a boost. The question is: from where should that boost come, Washington or the private sector? Conservatives believe the answer is the private sector. History shows that the best way to encourage an economic turnaround, help preserve jobs, and spur widespread economic growth is to ensure that job-creators face a lower
tax burden.

That’s why the Republican Study Committee (RSC) is introducing the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009—to provide some much-needed, incentive-based relief to jobcreators and to reduce the cost that government imposes on middle-class families. The RSC’s Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act is designed to provide broad, growth-oriented, permanent incentives for economic activity across all sectors and industries, with immediate application and sustained, long-term implications. This will ensure that Washington takes a back seat to Main Street and job creators are empowered to do what they do best—create jobs.

Highlights: The RSC’s Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act is based on three main themes:

1) Support Families through Tax Relief; 2) Provide Economic Relief for American Businesses and Entreprenuers; and 3) Save Future Generations from a Crushing Debt Burden.

Support Families through Tax Relief
1) Five Percent Across the Board Income Tax Cut. This provision would reduce the six federal income tax rates by 5% beginning with 2008, and make the new rates permanent. Under current law, by contrast, income tax rates will increase in 2011.
2) Increase the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to $5,000. Under current law, families are eligible for a $1,000 tax credit for each child under the age of 17. This provision would increase, and make permanent, an increase in the child tax credit to $5,000 beginning in 2008. This will provide a substantial, immediate tax cut for middle-class families. The increased credit would not be refundable.
3) Make the Lower 15% Rate on Capital Gains and Dividends Permanent. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 lowered the top tax rates on capital gains and dividends to 15%. Under current law the lower rates currently in effect expire at the end of 2010, which means that the top capital gains rate will go back to 20% and the top tax rate for dividends will be 39.6%. The last time the capital gains tax rate increased (1987), capital gains tax collections fell by 54% over
the first five year and then took a full decade to recover. This provision makes the 15% rate permanent.
4) Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax on Individuals. The AMT was created in 1969 to prevent 155 wealthy taxpayers from using loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying taxes altogether. Under current law, the tax will hit more than 30 million people in 2009. There is a broad consensus that this is both an unintended result and an unfair one, which is why Congress has repeatedly passed an “AMT patch” to limit the scope of the tax. The legislation would permanently repeal the AMT.
5) Permanently Repeal Required Distributions on Retirement Accounts. Under current law, senior citizens, beginning at the age of 70-and-a-half, are required to make mandatory withdrawals from their IRAs and 401(k)s. Though temporarily suspended for 2009, this provision in the tax code is scheduled to go back into effect in 2010 and for every year thereafter. This provision in the tax code needlessly complicates financial planning for retirees, restricts the freedom of seniors to make
their own decisions on when to make withdrawals, and in the short-term will force many seniors to sell a portion of their assets at a loss. The bill permanently repeals this provision.
6) Make All Withdrawals from IRAs Tax- and Penalty-Free During 2009. As a general matter, the purpose of 401(k)s and IRAs is to incentivize retirement savings. However, individuals who are facing foreclosure or some other financial emergency during the current recession should have penalty-free access to all of their savings. Especially since, without any other alternative, some
families facing hardship will have no choice but to take the penalty. The bill would, for 2009, make all withdrawals from IRAs penalty- and tax-free.
7) Increase by 50% the Tax Deduction on Student Loans and the Tax Deduction on Qualified Higher Education Expenses. Under current law, the tax code provides a tax deduction of $2,500 for interest on student loans and a tax deduction of $4,000 for higher education expenses. This provision would increase the value of both by 50% or to $3,750 and $6,000 respectively, and apply both provisions to a larger number of middle-class families by allowing any individual earning up to $75,000, or any family earning up to $150,000, to claim the full deduction.


Provide Economic Relief for American Businesses and Entrepreneurs
1) Full, Immediate Expensing. The bill would allow all businesses to immediately expense—or fully deduct on their tax returns—the costs of assets (including buildings) they purchase for their business in the year that they buy such assets (“Section 179” expensing). Under current law, businesses can only take limited deductions in pieces, over several years. By uncapping and accelerating the expensing, this provision would encourage the purchase of assets with which to
grow a business.
2) Significant Reduction in the Top Corporate Income Tax Rate. The bill would immediately cut the top corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%, aligning it with the average rate in the European Union. By allowing businesses to keep more of the money they earn, this provision would encourage the expansion of businesses, the hiring of more workers, and an acceleration of investment, while making American companies more competitive internationally.
3) End the Capital Gains Tax on Inflation. The bill would index for inflation the cost basis used when calculating the capital gains tax on assets acquired before the end of 2009. Under current law, the capital gains tax is based on the difference in the original purchase price of the asset and the sale price of the asset. However, some of this difference, or “gain,” can be attributed to inflation. By effectively reducing the amount of a gain that is taxable, this provision would encourage the
movement of capital in 2009 and spur voluminous economic investment.
4) Simplify the Capital Gains Rate Structure. The bill would allow corporations to benefit from the 15% capital gains rate. Under current law, individuals pay a top capital gains rate of 15%, but corporations are subject to a 35% top rate. By encouraging corporations to sell unwanted assets, this provision would unleash funds and materials with which to create jobs and grow the economy.
5) Make the R and D Tax Credit Permanent. The Research and Development tax credit is currently due to expire at the end of 2009. Originally enacted as party of President Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, it has since been extended on 13 separate occasions without being made permanent. The purpose of this tax provision is to spur research and development in the private sector.
6) Extend the Carryback Period for Net Operating Losses to Seven Years. A business incurs a net operating loss when its tax liability is negative in a given year. Under current law, there is a twoyear carryback period for businesses to receive refunds on previously paid taxes. In other words, a business may receive a refund equal to their negative tax liability up to the amount of taxes paid
over the previous two years. This legislation would extend this period from two years to seven years, which will smooth out changes in business income, and incentivize private sector investment and job creation.

Save Future Generations from a Crushing Debt Burden
1) NO Trillion Dollar Spending Spree. Even before Congress enacts one penny of spending from a “stimulus” bill currently being put together by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid, this year’s deficit is projected to be, by far, the highest peacetime deficit in the history of the country—8.3% of GDP. And this is because federal spending is projected to be 24.9% of GDP (also the highest figure in American history, excepting World War II), even before any new spending is
enacted. This legislation does not contain one penny of new spending, and rejects the idea that massive new government spending will lead to an economic recovery. Borrowing from one part of the economy and redistributing it to others will not grow the economy.
2) A Down-Payment on Spending Restraint. The bill includes a one-percent reduction to FY 2009 discretionary spending, excepting the Defense and Military Construction-Veterans appropriations bills. This is a modest limit on the extent to which spending will otherwise increase compared to FY 2008, and is a first step toward a commitment of spending restraint.

Lack of ideas indeed. I had lived through this silly assessment in New Jersey which goes essentially unchallenged in the press. The sad thing is that too many people believe it and do nothing, read nothing and do not act.

---

Incredible Graphic of Stimulus Package

This is sooooo worth checking out. It's an incredibly well-done graphic by the Washington Post detailing all of the ways your money's going to be spent.

It makes so much so clear, but doesn't hide its unpleasantness, like one of those 19th century drawings of an infection that's killing a man.

---

Earmarks vs Porkulus

Barack Obama and congressional Democrats keep touting a canard that this wonderful stimulus bill they are ramming through is "completely free of earmarks". Let's examine that statement. The definition of an Earmark is as follows (from Wikipedia):

In US politics an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.

Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding.[1] Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.

So if we parse the words, to be an earmark it should:

a. the direction of funds in a bill
b. be inserted by a senator or member of congress
c. to benefit their states or districts financially

I have reviewed the drafts of pieces of this legislation and the summaries. I would estimate that more than half of this entire bill is an earmark. Just because the spending size is so large that multiple senators and members of congress are taking home the loot, doesn't negate it fact that it is for an earmark.

Some favorites rumored to be in the final legislation:

- LA to Vegas train (Reid)
- $30 million dollars in wetlands preservation for San Fran (Pelosi)
- $200 million dollar power plan in IL (Obama)
- Major funds for building govt building projects in Maryland, Virginia and Georgia
- 80 billion for outright payments for state who have through their out of control spending are in financial trouble (see California, New York, Michigan and New Jersey)
- 6.5 billion for National Institute of Health as a buyout for Republic Arlen Specter


If it looks like an earmark, costs like an earmark, is hidden into legislation like and earmark with no attribution....it's an earmark.

---

Misguided Spending

An article from the Chronicle of Higher Education laments a rule that "lacks teeth":

Under the rule, states must spend at least the same amount of money for colleges each year as they spent on average in each of the previous five years.

Forget whether or not it lacks teeth. (The issue there is that the feds haven't established a federal monitoring process. Not my point.) Look at why they created the mandate:

Advocates of the spending mandate, enacted in part to encourage states to provide consistent levels of aid to colleges to help them rein in costs, worry...

So if I am to understand this correctly, forcing the states to pump more money into education is supposed to decrease costs. Which is funny, because on my planet, people cut costs when there's less money to spend.

Maybe the mandate's advocates should retake Econ 101.

---

An Open Letter to Republicans in the Senate

To All Honorable Republican Senators

After watching President Barack Obama's speech to his friends in the Democrat party at their retreat this evening on national news, it should be as clear to you as it is to citizens of the United States that you are not negotiating with a partner that values your opinion nor does he think you have any value to this process in any way shape or form.

The President just negated any opposition to the most outrageous spending plan in the history of the United States as pure politics. And even worse, he frankly dissed you as a pack of losers who are only trying to "advance failed policies of the past".

Gentlemen and Gentle Ladies, you have no role in this administration. You should not choose to accept any position within this administration nor should you trust this President.

Real bi-partisan agreement means that everyone comes to the table and act like statesman and stateswoman. It is give and take and doesn't mean that you take a 900 billion bill and offer a couple of weak senators 50 billion and then pretend that it is good for the country. This kind of concensus has already destroyed the Republican party and will destroy the country.

Please stand by your principles. The American people are against this bill and the only reason Obama wants to advance it now is that the trend is so against the bill that by next week, 3/4 of the United States will be against this massive endeavor. For the sake of our country, please stand up. So we won't have to!

Regards

NJ Tax Revolution

---

Liveblogging Obama talk at Democrat retreat

Obama starts with two jokes in questionable taste:
- Thanks for giving me a reason to waste fuel on Air Force One
- Rahm Emmanuel teaches underpriveledged profanity in his spare time

Then he gets serious.

His initial remarks suggest that the stimulus plan is to help the downtrodden.
Has mentioned seriousness but not anything yet about stimulus.

Michelle thinks he is imperfect.

He is now rousing the troops by acting like all Republican ideas are about tax cuts. He isn't mentioning the 600 billion dollars of pure waste.

We aren't supposed to get bogged down. Don't listen to cable chatter. I am sure he doesn't mean MSNBC.

Leadership as the test of our times. Sounds like PAP to me. Liberals all stand up.

We must move swiftly to enact this massive spending bill. He is really spending a lot of political capital on one of the most indefensivable bills of all time.

He has not mentioned one thing that has concrete validity. He is repeating that magnitude means - quickly - if we don't - it will get worse - Democrats are apparently working around the clock. But still no concrete suggestions or any meat.

Scale and scope are right! What the heck does that mean?

Now he is blaming Bush for the National Debt today. Good news, right after this bill the national debt will be at least 5 times what it is right now. Why would he set himself up this way?

Best minds tell us to spend this money. But apparently those minds don't seem to agree.

No earmarks. You don't need them. The entire bill is an earmark.

This is a spending bill. He admitted it. I am sorry. His arrogant attitude has now turned me off. I have now had enough of you Mr President. You have no class and you are the most partisan president and it now clear.

Good luck to you.

---

Democrat Stimulus Bill must be rewritten - CALL YOUR SENATOR!

As we have written in the space before, the "stimulus bill" is primarily a collection of Democratic party detritus and paybacks to donors from the Presidential campaign. Since the urgency of this legislation was to stimulate the economy, this bill should be killed in the senate. There are many valid programs in the bill and they should be given the time and daylight the legislation process normally provides. This middle of the night robbery of a 900 BILLION dollars (more than most Presidents spend in an entire term (4 years not 2 weeks) is actually a massive spending bill and should not be fast tracked in its present form. If the Senate believes that a stimulus package is needed, they ought to get to work and actually produce one.

A vote is possible today so you should contact your Senators immediately.

For New Jersey residents(don't hold your breath getting any real fiscal responbibility out of these two), here you go:

Lautenberg, Frank R. - (D - NJ)
324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3224
Web Form: lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/

Menendez, Robert - (D - NJ)
317 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

For everyone else, follow this link to find your Senator.

---

Who's the dope now? Obama and Biden

We just spent 8 years listening to the mainstream media about the stupidity of George W. Bush. There is no doubt that W could really mangle a participle. But the real comparison is whether or not the team surrounding the President have their act together. And while W did an ok job early on, Barack is failing miserably.

. Before he even starts, several key Democrats have scandal problems
- Barney Frank on fannie something
- Chris Dodd on Countrywide
- Charlie Rangel can't pay his taxes
- Pelosi's husband on conflict of interest
- Harry Reid's land deal
- No lobbyists in the admin until there are
And then, we have nominees who are completely unsuited
- Geithner(Treasury) - taxes
- Daschle(HHS) - taxes
- Clinton(State) - Influence
- Panetta(CIAE) - Banking fees
- Steven Chu(Energy) - The sky is falling, run for your lives
- Joe Biden(VP) - taxes are patriotic except for Democrat nominees

And then there is Barack Obama who thinks we should ram the most pork laden non-stimulus bill spending more than the Department of Defense in wartime and no-one seems to be paying attention?

This is like the circus. With no disrespect to the real ones, Ringling or Big Apple. They are even amateurs at that. Is our new President paying attention?

---

All I Want...

...is a tax code simple enough for Democrats to understand, and with rates low enough that they'll actually pay.

Is that too much to ask?

---

Giethner and Daschle are traitors! - Joe Biden

During the last campaign, we heard from a familiar source of gaffs that people need to pay more in taxes to enact Barack Obama's agenda. In case you haven't forgotten exactly what he said, list to Joe Biden here:

">

Last week we found out that Tom Daschle didn't realize that he had to pay taxes for a chauffeur driven car given courtesy of a Democrat donor. Ask yourself, if a friend of your boss walked up to you and said, "hey dude, here's a car and a driver to do your work". Would you not question whether or not this is something you should at least mention to your tax preparer or if you don't have one, the IRS hot line. I know what they would tell you.

But that wasn't all. Daschle also receive $88,333 in consulting fees that he failed to report. This was fraud pure and simple. And today, Daschle bowed out to save Obama the embarrassment of difficult questions.

We already documented the trials and tribulations of Timothy Geithner and his tax issues. Well according to Joe Biden, they are unpatriotic. We heard all about how bad Republicans were in accusing treasonous Democrats and the NY Times regarding their extensive efforts to aid and abet the enemy. This time it is a Democrat-the Vice President speaking truth to power.

---