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?

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.

While the Bush administration has been conducting its international war on terror, it has forgotten the fact that safety starts in one's own backyard. For the second year in a row, the number of violent crimes in the United States has increased. To me, it doesn't come as a great surprise.

After 9/11, the Bush spin doctors latched on to world-wide terror as a way to win votes. Keep the eye on those terrorists in the Middle East. Make sure they don't attack us. While the sky was falling in the U.S., Bush was able to divert the voters attentions away from the problems at home.

States around then nation lost federal funding after the attack. Income taxes were decreased and money was diverted to the war effort. How could a voter place a value on this war against terror? Though Bush couldn't spend enough in the Middle East, the same concept did not hold true at home. States lost money and cities and towns lost funding. Police, firemen and teachers were laid off. Cities and towns tightened their belts and moved on.

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.

Of the six current front runners in the race for the presidency, only Senator Barack Obama has publicly released his tax returns for 2006. That's right. Clinton, Romney, Edwards, Giuliani and McCain have all decided to keep their income shielded from public scrutiny. Why is this matter important. Here's Obama on the subject:

"I think it's critical that people know who their candidates are, what our sources of income are, whether we have any potential conflicts," Obama told ABC News Monday afternoon just before a campaign rally in Trenton, N.J. "It's just a matter of transparency, accountability and good government. It is something I've done throughout my political career."

None of the 'big six' is what you would exactly call strapped for cash. But just how they took in their millions may be of interest to the electorate. Why? So that we don't have to endure another four years of taunts along the lines of "Halliburton!" If there are potential conflict of interest dealings out there for our current crop of candidates, let's find out now. Time to tell the other candidates to step up and follow Obama's lead.

George W. Bush is vilified by liberals for being a strong conservative, but is he? Yes, he reduced taxes as promised but he has not reduced spending and that is the thing that conservatives were counting on. Lower taxes plus lower spending means higher revenues and surpluses. Bush just left out that reduced spending thing:

So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record.

Excellent, another example of lower taxes yielding higher revenue, the basis of fiscal conservatism. People will spend more money if they have it and lowering taxes allows that to happen. But wait:

For the first seven months of this budget year, which began Oct. 1, revenue collections and government spending are at all-time highs.

However, the spending total of $1.585 billion was up at a slower pace of 3.2 percent from the previous year.

If President Bush had not signed the prescription drug bill and cut spending in areas such as the National Endowment for the Arts and Public Broadcasting as well as putting his own party and the Democrats on notice that he would expose every earmark and not sign any bills containing them, we would be in a record surplus situation.

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."

The Democrats are making a flanking move on tax reform, and soon it will be a fight for the right to claim leadership on the issue. There is a huge tax problem that's been looming for awhile and everyone agrees it needs to be fixed. The problem is that dealing with it realistically means that the Federal government is going to have a lot less money.

Still, the AMT is hated by just about everyone, and, because of home interest deductions, it primarily hits the coasts, where real estate costs more. Coincidentally, these states are up to their eyeballs with Democrats:

A new analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal research group, predicts that almost one-quarter of all taxpayers in Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts will have to pay the alternative tax in 2007 unless Congress freezes it again. About one-fifth of all taxpayers in New York and California would be exposed.

For those who believe that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the climb out of the tech crash and the 9/11 recession, winning the 2008 elections are of the utmost importance. The Democrats intend to raise taxes, the only question is which, when and where.

The Democratic plan predicts a sizable surplus in five years, but only if Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010 as scheduled. Democrats said the $2.9 trillion plan for next year would point the way to a surplus after years of red ink under Bush and a GOP-controlled Congress.

...

The future of the Bush tax cuts will likely be decided after the 2008 presidential election. While in the majority, congressional Republicans never held votes to make all of them permanent, despite Bush's annual calls to do so.

Under Congress' budget process, the annual budget resolution is a nonbinding outline that guides future legislation. It lets the two parties show voters their competing fiscal visions, often without having to take the politically difficult votes to implement them.

The bottom line here is that the Democrats have telegraphed their position on the future of the budget and it is all about getting more money out of the American taxpayer. To be sure, there are some portions of the tax cuts that are political third rails, like the per-child credit (brought to you by the Gingrich Congress). But there are other parts that are anathema to the Democrats and that includes a cap on the top rate.

Generals criticize how the war is conducted. They are removed. A volunteer worker criticizes how soldiers are taken care of at the Walter Reed, they are asked not to return. U.S. Attorneys don't move fast enough to indict Democrats, they are fired. What is going on?

As soon as President Bush was elected, he started to advocate "outsourcing of federal jobs." He has a hard time circumventing Civil Service laws that limit the manner in which an elected politician can place his friends in jobs. Notice, I said it makes it "hard." But not impossible.

I worked for the IRS for 35 years and am now working as an attorney representing people before the IRS. It is a fair organization that is trained to carry out the laws with understanding and compassion. You might find that hard to believe but I was there. The president controls the direction of the IRS with his power to appoint the commissioner. He has never controlled the employees. President Bush has done his best to outsource the IRS jobs. One area of outsourcing has been the Collection area. Imagine, private business handling the problems of taxpayers. For those Republicans who think this is good, beware. Someday, the Democrats will take over the White House. It might not be in 2008 but it will happen. Turnovers are inevitable. We cannot allow United States enforcement agencies to be political. Nixon tried with his enemies list. Regardless of party affiliation, speak up against outsourcing. It does not save the government money. Instead, it breeds corruption.

Can't wait to see the Left's heads collectively explode over this one. Last fall the Democrats had no policy plans or ideas to run on, so it concentrated on attacking the very large target that the Republicans had created of themselves on corruption and special interest spending coupled with promising to repeal many of the Republican "abuses" by either direct legislation or by the budgetary process. Thus, they were able to promise their constituents that they'd be able to stop the Iraq war by staving it of funds, roll back the Bush tax cuts, etc...

According to this morning's USA Today, the Democrats, in their first budget, are going to do neither. In the first budget written by Senate Democrats in 13 years, there is no repeal of the Bush tax cuts, as was promised, nor is there any decline in the Administration's Defense Department budget requests. There are some new programs, such as increased spending for children, students, and veterans - but no way to pay for them.

Senate Democrats will unveil a 2008 budget today that would boost spending for uninsured children, students and veterans without cutting funds for defense or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The budget also would not roll back any of President Bush's tax cuts after 2010, when they are set to expire. It says the tax cuts can be extended if they are paid for.

It all depends on which election cycle we're talking about. Bob Novak helpfully reminds us that when John McCain ran against George Bush in 2000, he was against the soon-to-be president's tax cut proposals, even though the country had a big surplus at the time -- but has recently changed his tune:

Sen. John McCain, who echoed Teddy Kennedy on taxes when he ran for president in 2000, now sounds more like Jack Kemp as a 2008 candidate. "I've never voted for a tax increase in 24 years," he told me last week. "Never, ever, not under any president including President Reagan, and I will never vote for a tax increase, nor support a tax increase."

He wants to make permanent the Bush tax cuts. ("If I didn't vote to make those tax cuts permanent, it would have the effect of a tax increase.") He supports radically scaling down the estate tax and does not now favor upper income increases in the Social Security tax. McCain gets tax policy advice from conservatives, including supply-side founding father Arthur Laffer. "I may have changed some of my views," the senator said in an interview. "You learn over 24 years."

Novak thinks that McCain's switch on tax policy is one of the reasons why the senator is no longer a favorite with the mainstream media. I agree, but still think that the main reason is McCain's stance on Iraq. If McCain came out against the surge, or called for the immediate withdrawal of troops, he'd be battling Hlllary for who has the most positive news stories every day. If McCain repudiated conservative tax policies, it'd only be good for one or two positive articles.

Under Bush's guidance, the numbers on the economy are very, very good, not that you can hear about it from the media. This article is a great example.

The one thing that President Bush has going for him in these grim days of wartime worry and low poll ratings is an economy suddenly showing new signs of life.

The Commerce Department said Wednesday that the economy turned in a sparkling performance in the fourth quarter of last year, growing at a better-than-expected 3.5 percent annual rate despite a soft housing market.

Note the words suddenly and new. This economy has been very strong since 2002, as Bizzyblog clearly shows in his excellent takedown of another biased article.