Every so often, a Democrat actually proposes a bill that shows exactly how they would act if they were given a clear majority in both houses and the presidency. Rep. John Dingell is doing that now:

Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like - a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

First off, 52 years in Congress? If that isn't a reason to propose term limits, what is?

Dingell wants gas constantly over $3-4 per gallon and he'll use the money to fight "global warming," a crisis that scientists can't even agree on, right? Well, not exactly:

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

If that is not a Democratic plan, nothing is. The esteemed Representative wants to raise taxes under the guise of fighting global warming and will instead use the money to pay for social programs created by Democrats that have grown to large for the government to support. This show exquisitely that every single program the Dems enact needs a huge tax burden to support: Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. The list goes on. The fact is, this is all a drop in the bucket if socialized medicine ever passes.

Ultimately, the upcoming election may be an election in which the have-nots (almost all Americans, really) strike a blow for democracy by overthrowing the very few haves. Let's face it, under the Republican-led administration and Congress combo, the have more and more have made out extremely well. Remember how much of the tax breaks President Bush and his Congress passed went to the wealthy?

That wasn't enough. They want more. How much? Unbelievably much. They rarely miss a trick (or the opportunity to pass laws favoring themselves) and they get a great return on investment.

Who are these intrepid envelope-stuffers? Let's find out, courtesy of Billionaires for Bush. This Onion-style Web site does with humor what stats themselves don't. Almost all of America is getting taken to the cleaners for the benefit of the very wealthy class. It's one thing to be the land of opportunity and another to be the rigged game of patronage and inheritance. America was founded as a representative democracy and not an economic oligarchy. If this country is to act like a responsible adult and even thrive again, it is going to need a level playing field and a real sense of fair play.

Should the wealthy get a tax break that can only be balanced by keeping the middle class down and the less than middle class poorer than ever? Is there a hit out on the middle class? Is having much of the country (and its voters/workers) owned by an aristocracy what we want? Economic inequality just doesn't sound the same as 95% of America are getting ripped off. The 2006 election may have put the repeal of the estate tax on hold but for how long? Even now the Gucci loafers are whining and dining Congress while on the summer break. Your thoughts?

I was under the impression that we already had a gas tax to pay for highways, roads, and bridges and stuff. But apparently some folks (Democrats) don't think it's high enough. From the Star-Tribune:

President Bush said Thursday that he would be opposed to any steps by Congress to increasing the gasoline tax to raise revenues for national bridge repairs in the wake of Minneapolis' bridge collapse.

"Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities," Bush said, accusing lawmakers of focusing on their own parochial concerns above such national concerns as bridge conditions.

Right on! It's been rare enough to hear something from President Bush that makes me say that, but this is one of those times. Currently the system is that congress takes money from the highway trust friend and allocates it according to their priorities set in Washington, D.C. Then any money left over can be allocated by the state governments. That's exactly backwards.

The state departments of transportation can allocate money themselves, thank you very much. And they might be more interested in making sure an existing bridge is safe rather than building new bridges to nowhere.

And then there's the situation where Ohio's gas money goes to Montana because Montana has a congress critters with better committee assignments. Bad idea all around. Bush calls Congress on it, but does he have the guts to follow through on it? History says no.

Remember when the current Congress took office amid the hype of "transparency" and "ethics"? Well, it took them less than one whole summer to throw that by the wayside.

It started with the esteemed Rep. David Obey and his little sleight of hand maneuvers and grew to full on hostility of anyone who would question the earmarks of a great man like Rep. Murtha. The Democratic Congress began their retreat from reform almost immediately, yet the media didn't care and the representatives and senators knew it.

The incoming Congress pushed a bill for transparency that got unanimous support and gave them a shot in the arm, albeit a short-lived one. N.Z. Bear shows what was voted on and what's in the new version. It ain't pretty:

Based on what we're hearing from those who would know, key changes include:

• The old version (passed by the Senate) required conference / committee reports to list all earmarks and required the chairman of the relevant committee to distribute the earmark list. But the new version of the bill allows the Majority Leader (as opposed to the Senate parliamentarian, a more objective judge) to determine whether or not a conference report complies with the disclosure requirements.
• The new version removes the requirement for earmark lists posted online to be in searchable format.
• The new version removes the provision that prevented any bill from being considered at all prior to the disclosure of earmarks; now the text only prohibits a formal motion to proceed, which leaves open a procedural loophole that would allow bills to slip through without disclosure.
• The old version prohibited earmarks which benefit a Member, their staff, or their family/their staff's family. The new version waters that down and only prohibits earmarks that would "only" affect those parties --- which means so long as you can make a case that your shiny new project affects at least one person other than you positively, you're all set.

Here's a handy chart that lays it out in technicolor.

Harry Reid surely has changed the way Congress does business, hasn't he? It is now more difficult to track earmarks than it was in January.

End note: This is a truly bi-partisan effort, perhaps we won't have the "Pork King" Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to kick around after too long. Good riddance senator and take all of the other corrupt bastards with you.

Update (7/31/07 1541): The bill passed and shocka! Murtha voted against it. No silly, not because he's had a sudden outbreak of ethics, he knows the bill will shed a sliver of light on his shady ways. Old John thought he perfected his schtick since his unindicted co-conspirator ABSCAM days.

Once again, the conservative view that lower taxes and decreased spending increases revenue is proving factual yet again:

The new figure is considerably smaller than original estimates. In February, the White House predicted that this year's deficit would be $244 billion because of stronger-than-expected revenue collections. The deficit hit a peak of $413 billion in 2004 and was $248 billion last year.

At least President Bush got half of the equation correct -- he forgot the reduced spending portion that usually goes along with it. Conservative are rightly upset with the outsized spending bills the Congress submitted and the president signed.

It's been proven time and again, when John F. Kennedy came to office, he sought reduced taxes for everyone -- including the rich -- almost immediately (although the actual cuts were not implemented until after he died.) And that action led the country into an economic boom. Jimmy Carter raised taxes when he took office and the nation plunged into a recession that featured high unemployment, stratospheric inflation and enormous interest rates. Once Reagan was inaugurated, he pushed through massive tax cuts and the nation prospered throughout his two-terms.

Back in 1776, a group of men met and created an incredible document. At the time, a rag-tag group of Continental soldiers and state militiamen were fighting against the British and Hessian mercenaries. The colonists had scored victories at Bunker Hill in Boston and Montreal.

Thomas Paine wrote the pamphlet "Common Sense" and immediately was labeled a rebel and traitor by the British. Later in the year, the British evacuated Boston Harbor and started heading south.

On July 4, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence from England that began:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

They sound like tame words today but at the time, they were words of incitement to England and to loyalists to the Union Jack who felt we could work out our differences with King George III and Lord North. This document was a secession document from the most powerful nation in the world. If Britain allowed the colonies to rebel, they'd face rebellion throughout the world.

The Declaration was officially signed on August 2 and those men who signed it were not only to be labeled traitors but would most-likely be put to death if caught or at the very least imprisoned for a long time. They risked everything, their land, fortunes (many were well-off) and death for attaching their signature to the seditious document. It was collection of senior statesmen and younger visionaries.

I ask you now, do we have any such men as this today who would risk all for the greater good? Would they go against the worlds greatest nation for freedom and the chance to maintain a fledgling nation?

Remember when the Democrats took over and promised the most ethical Congress ever? It seems as though they themselves have forgotten.

The leader of this shady brigade of public do-gooders is Representative David Obey. Obey is upset that the GOP has called out the Dems for hiding earmarks--targeted spending dollars that Representatives get for projects in their districts--from public view:

The chairman, Wisconsin Democrat David Obey (news, bio, voting record), also said that his House Appropriations Committee will publicize proposed "earmarks" before House-Senate conferees resolve differences in the government's annual spending bills this fall. But Republicans said the offer falls far short of Democrats' January promise to disclose lawmakers' earmark requests before the bills reach the House floor, a process that begins this week.

The Dems are playing a game of hide the pork from the citizenry and clearly breaking their own pledge made a few months ago. Obey said today "If they think they can demagogue the earmarks process all the year long and expect Democrats to carry the burden of passing earmarks, they're wrong.... There will be no earmarks for anybody." While that sounds like a great idea, Obey knows that it will never happen so his threat is devoid of any substance.

In the interest of fairness, earmarks are clearly not a Democrat-only issue. How does an Alaskan Congressman pushing for funding in Florida sound?

But it wasn't even the congressman in the district who slipped the road into the bill. The Naples News discovered that it was Rep. Don Young, a Republican from Alaska -- yes, Alaska. In fact, the local congressman, Connie Mack, didn't know anything about it. And, yes, this is the same Don Young who steered $200 million to the "Bridge to Nowhere" to serve an Alaskan island with 80 people.

If you think this sounds suspicious, you know Congress all too well. It seems that the developer wanting this interchange -- for 1,000 acres he owns on Coconut Road -- helped raise $40,000 for Mr. Young's re-election just before he introduced the measure.

Now that is pure and simple corruption on the part of Young. You can see if it were a land owner in Alaska, but Florida? Don Young is so shady he thinks that he can attach an earmark to a bill without even consulting with the district's congressional representative and in a state that didn't elect him. Now that my friends is chutzpah on a grand scale.

You can read more about outrageous earmarks here here and here.

Last week I posted on the the tax increases that the Democrats were proposing in their 2008 Budget Resolution. At that time, the House had proposed letting the Bush tax cuts expire pretty much en masse, which would result in a tax increase of well over $500 billion dollars over the first several years of the enacted budget.

When the House budget resolution went to the Senate, somewhat cooler heads prevailed. The concurrent resolution that finally passed kept some of the Bush tax cuts in place, primarily those targeting the middle class and the lowest tier of the federal income tax. But even with that, the estimated tax revenue increase would be about $217 million over the first two years of the proposed budget. And even with those numbers, it's still the largest tax increase dollar wise in history, using constant 1992 dollars as the measure.

FactCheck.org had a piece yesterday, Counter-rotating Tax Spin, that took issue with both the Democrat position (not one dime of a tax increase) and the Republican position (largest or second largest tax increase in history). I took issue with the author's view of the Republican position, and e-mailed her with my comments. Since it is also material to several posts I have up here, I'm going to summarize how I came to my position that the Democrats' 2008 budget proposal would be, in fact, the "largest tax hike in history."

ABC News' Rick Klein has an article up (No Lip Service: Dems Trade Higher Taxes for Social Programs) on how Democrat presidential candidates are not even bothering to hide the fact that they are going to raise taxes if they are elected.

Democratic politicians have long played the "tax the rich" card, playing to their base, but lately it's been a way to attract support in non-presidential cycle election years for a party out of power. It positions the Democrats as the "for the people" party and the Republicans as the "for the rich" party.

That dynamic has been changing recently, with the population that the Democrats have historically defined as the "rich" now including retirees living off of their investment income. That's because the traditional bedrock of retirement, Social Security, simply doesn't supply enough income these days to pay for living expenses. We're no longer talking only about the Kennedy-type retirees that have benefited from the Bush tax cuts. The tax cuts on investments (capital gains, etc.) now benefit the majority of middle class people -- anyone with a retirement account with their employers. They are now vested in the success of the stock market. And opposition to any policy that might adversely effect their retirement income.

Under the cover of the Iraq war funding bill and the immigration amnesty announcement, Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats quietly passed their 2008 budget outline on Thursday, which contains the biggest effective tax hike in current dollars in American history, as well as ignoring wasteful spending and the oncoming insolvency of major social programs:

• Raises taxes by $721 billion over five years, and a projected $2.7 trillion over 10 years, or more than $2,000 per household;
• Includes 23 reserve funds that could be used to raise taxes by hundreds of billions more; Increases discretionary spending by nearly 9 percent in FY 2008 and does not terminate a single wasteful program;
• Completely ignores the impending explosion of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs;
• and creates rules that bias the budget toward tax increases.

How do I come up with this being the largest tax hike in history, some (including my editors) might ask? Easy. In 2006, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Tax Analysis updated a scholarly article, Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills (pdf file) that records the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted since the modern tax system was put in place to pay for World War II. Take the above numbers (and the actual effect of the Democrats' suggested budget might even be as high as an increase of $900 billion over five years and a projected $3.3 trillion over ten years, a $2,641 per household tax increase) and compare them to all the other bills in the study using today's dollars. Even $721 billion over 5 years and $2.7 trillion over 10 years dwarfs anything we have ever seen before.

John Edwards is running a horrible campaign; from $400 haircuts to revelations of him working at a hedge fund since the last election and then saying he was there "It was primarily to learn (about poverty), but making money was a good thing, too," he has made mistake after mistake. I can forgive Barack Obama for such missteps, it's his first Presidential election and the rigors of daily campaigning are new to him. Edwards, however, has been through this before and should know better.

Today, the costs associated with his proposed programs were released and boy, he would have to raise taxes through the roof to implement his strategy:

The question is whether other voters will cheer when they see the price tag - more than $125 billion a year.

Edwards is quick to acknowledge his spending on health care, energy and poverty reduction comes at a cost, with more plans to come. All told, his proposals would equal more than $1 trillion if he could get them enacted into law and operational during two White House terms.

Yes, that is trillion, with a "T". In other words, he's planning on taking taxing and spending to levels Jimmy Carter could have only dreamed of. This is only government spending, what's it going to cost businesses to implement his plans? He would push for businesses to pick up more healthcare costs, environmental costs and surely raise gas txes to cover his programs. In other words, the economy will come to a screeching halt, just like when the aforementioned Carter inhabited the West Wing.

It cannot be a good thing when a news article about you compares your campaigning to Walter Mondale who was absolutely crushed by Ronald Reagan in 1984 losing 49 states.

"Taxation Without Representation" is the unofficial motto of Washington D.C., where residents pay their fair share to the IRS but have nobody standing up for them with a vote in Congress. Could the District's situation soon change? Maybe. A bill seeking to give D.C. a voting Representative has cleared the House and is being considered in the Senate. Sixty-one percent of Americans favor such a move, according to a new Washington Post poll.

One of the measure's sponsors, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), says the issue is bi-partisan:

"This is not a party issue, except to the insiders," Davis said. He noted that the poll found clear majorities of Republicans, as well as Democrats, supporting the broad idea of giving the District a full House vote. "Most Americans feel this ought to happen," he said.

Legal scholars have differed over the bill's constitutionality. Supporters say the Constitution gives Congress such sweeping power over the District that lawmakers can give the city a House representative.

Not surprisingly, Davis and his co-sponsor -- D.C.'s non-voting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) -- have mucked up their bill in the typical inane way: by attaching a less popular measure to it. The other half of the bill looks to add another Representative for Utah. That idea is not favored in Congress nor among Americans polled. Only 37 percent of respondents think it would be a good move. The Utah half of the bill could end up tanking the whole thing, which would set back the D.C. Vote movement yet again.

What do you think? Does D.C. deserve a voting voice in Congress?

The NY Post today calls for the demise of tax-funded PBS due to their political correctness and the pressure that can be applied with the political parties in power:

Latino activists object that the 14-hour series - which traces the war's impact on four separate U.S. cities - contained no stories about Hispanic-Americans. They demanded that Burns - creator of such acclaimed documentaries as "The Civil War," "Baseball" and "Jazz" - re-edit the programs to include a Latino presence.

When PBS and Burns offered to run supplementary material about Latinos and Native Americans, rather than re-edit the work, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rejected the offer - with Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.), the chairman, calling it "a knife in [our] heart."

I have never watched any TV program and thought about the racial makeup of the cast. That is old school racism in my book. That would be akin to me saying that I refuse to watch the NBA because there are too many black players or being black and refusing to watch hockey because blacks are under represented.

Anyway, the Post has a point. There are already too many stations on the tube and PBS is not one that is watched often. They grovel for money twice a year while showing the Grateful Dead live and offering the latest version of Dick's Picks for a hundred dollar donation. I don't want my tax dollars supporting something that could not survive on its own. My local government owns a golf course that is in debt, I hate that as well. The government never has and never will be good at turning a profit. We see what happens when the government grabs industry for the "public good" and within months that industry collapses. Hugo Chavez is in the midst of nationalizing many industries and is threatening others. Watch how badly that turns out.

End public financing for PBS and NPR now.

Federal, state and local governments have been preaching fuel efficiency and pushing for the citizenry to purchase vehicles that use less gasoline. They've outsmarted themselves:

Under the headline: "Fuel-Efficient Cars Dent States' Road Budgets," reporter Robert Guy Matthews writes that drivers, answering the call to conserve energy, are driving cars which use less gas. Less gas used means less gas purchased. Less gas purchased means fewer tax dollars collected. Way fewer. According to Matthews:

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that by 2009 the tax receipts that make up most of the federal highway trust fund will be $21 billion shy of what's needed just to maintain existing roads, much less build new roads or add capacity.

Emphasis mine. This is what will happen in a lot of sectors if the government continues to be our nanny. A great example would be state legislatures increasing revenue by adding so-called "sin taxes" every time they need to make up a shortfall. If you increase the taxes on items such as cigarettes, people have only three choices: either suck it up (no pun intended) and pay the extra tax, go out of state to get smokes cheaper or quit smoking.

Increasingly, people are choosing the latter two, which means that the state that levied the tax is losing out on projected revenue and they still have a shortfall. This theory has also manifested itself in banning smoking in bars and eating establishments, people are smoking less or not frequenting cities where such laws are in effect. That means fewer sales tax receipts and a need to make up the money in other areas.

How do you get people excited about a tax issue? Is this a party issue? What causes the Alternative Minimum Tax to kick in and cause you to pay more in federal income taxes? Being a Tax Controversy Attorney, I thought that during this tax season, I might as well talk taxes on the Internet. Afterall, for the last three months I have been living and breathing taxes.

Nobody is to blame for this tax. At the time it was created, in 1969, Richard Nixon had just become president. I had just gone to work for the Internal Revenue Service. Lyndon Johnson had escalated the Vietnam War and there was no end in sight. More money was needed for the war effort and that wasn't going to sit well with the voters. Even worse, the word was out that the rich were not paying their fair share. Let me correct that, the rich were paying zero taxes. According to the article linked above, "there were a total of 155 individuals with incomes over $200,000 who did not pay any federal income taxes; twenty of them were millionaires." Because of tax shelters and scams, they had reduced their taxes to next to nothing. The middle-class guy that just went to work and got his W2, was being hammered. He was carrying the load.

Richard Nixon read the report, recognized the serious problem that existed and proposed the bill to Congress that created the Alternative Minimum Tax. In 1982, with a growing deficit, Senator Dole took charge and made changes to the ATM. Those changes resulted in a tax increase. The baby was growing. The baby AMT insured that taxpayers at a certain income level would be required to pay 10% of their income as a tax. That figure is now at 26%. Under President George H. W. Bush, the percentage was raised to 23%. This tax increase raised $500 billion over a five year period. Finally, Bill Clinton joined the act and increase the tax to 26%/28%. "The measure included yet another increase in the AMT, this time to 26 percent for people who earned between $100,000 and $175,000, and 28 percent for those who earned above $175,000."