Bush's Ad claims Kerry cast "98 votes" to raise taxes, but the total is misleading.

Bush Still Fudging the Numbers on Kerry's Tax Votes
Ad claims Kerry cast "98 votes" to raise taxes, but the total is misleading.
August 30, 2004
Modified: August 30, 2004

Summary

The Bush-Cheney campaign released a television ad August 23 accusing Kerry of casting "98 votes for tax increases." The number is an improvement on Bush's earlier claim that Kerry cast 350 votes for "higher taxes," which we described as inflated. But even the new, reduced total is padded.

Of the 98 votes for "tax increases," 43 were cast on budget measures that only set targets and don't actually legislate tax increases. Often, several votes are counted regarding a single tax bill.

The ad also strives to blame Kerry for raising taxes on the "middle class" and says "There's what Kerry says and then there's what Kerry does." But a close look shows the votes cited in this ad are in fact fairly consistent with Kerry's promise only to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year.


Analysis

The ad released August 23 is called "Taxing Our Economy," accusing Kerry of voting repeatedly to raise taxes on the "middle class."

Bush-Cheney '04 Ad
"Taxing Our Economy"

Announcer: Now Kerry promises...

John Kerry: We won't raise taxes on the middle class.

Announcer: Really? John Kerry's voted to raise gas taxes on the middle class ....10 times....

He supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax increase.

Higher taxes on middle class parents.... 18 times.

He voted to raise taxes on social security benefits.

98 votes for tax increases.

There's what Kerry says and then there's what Kerry does.

Stretching for 98

Bush has scaled back an earlier claim that Kerry voted 350 times for "higher taxes," a number we previously described as bogus . However, Bush is still using misleading numbers.

Of the 98 votes "for tax increases," 43 would not actually have increased taxes. They were for budget bills to set target levels for spending and taxes in the coming fiscal years.

To be sure, such votes did express Kerry's general approval for the higher tax levels they contained. But strictly speaking, separate legislation would be required to bring about an actual tax increase. In fact, budget resolutions are not even suBathmateitted to the President, much less made into law.

The Bush campaign also exploits the complexity of the parliamentary voting system to pad the number. Most of the 98 votes were on procedural measures, such as votes to end debate or votes on amendments, and not on passage of the measure itself. More than once, the 98-vote total counts half a dozen votes or more on on a single bill.

For example, the total includes:

Sixteen votes -- by the Bush campaign's own count -- on Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction package, which raised taxes (almost exclusively on the highest-earning one or two percent of households) and cut spending. Only one of the 16 was on final passage of that measure, and the rest on various amendments and parliamentary maneuverings.
Six votes on Sen. John McCain's 1998 proposal to raise taxes on cigarettes by $1.10 a pack to deter youthful smoking. Four were votes for cloture (to end debate). One was a procedural vote to waive budget restrictions requiring 60 votes to approve the McCain bill. The sixth vote was against stripping the tax-increase provisions from a broader measure McCain was using as a vehicle for his proposal.
Seven votes that were cast on one budget resolution for the 1996 fiscal year, one of them a vote for a Democratic alternative to the Republican-proposed budget, increasing funding for Medicare, veterans' benefits, and education, financed by higher taxes on corporations and persons making over $140,000 a year. The other five were votes to increase spending on such things as student loans and health research, funded by closing tax "loopholes" or raising the tobacco tax.
Six votes on the 1997 budget resolution. Kerry voted variously for higher funding for education, Medicare, the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and veterans benefits, financed by "closing corporate tax loopholes" and extending expired tax provisions.

Kerry supported middle class tax increases?

–Gasoline Tax: The ad claims that Kerry voted to "raise gas taxes on the middle class 10 times," which is false. As we've noted before, five of those votes were on the 1993 Clinton package, which resulted in a 4.3-cent per gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax. And five of the votes were not to raise the tax, as the ad falsely claims, but were against Republican attempts to cut the gasoline tax. Four were against repeal of Clinton's 4.3-cent tax after it had gone into effect. The last vote was against temporarily suspending the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax entirely for 150 days during a period of spiking gasoline prices in 2000.

The Bush ad also recycles once again the statement that Kerry "supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax increase," which (as we've noted before) hasn't been true for a decade. Kerry once told newspaper interviewers that he deserved credit as a deficit hawk for supporting such an increase, but the fact is he had passed up a chance to cosponsor a Senate bill that would have done that, never voted for such an increase, and says he opposes such an increase now.

–Child Tax Credit: The ad further claims that Kerry voted 18 times for "higher taxes on middle class parents." All these were votes against Republican proposals for granting tax credits for families with children, going back to 1994, and many were votes against broad Republican tax packages that included expanded child credits as one element. Strictly speaking, those weren't votes to raise taxes as the ad implies, but votes to keep taxes unchanged. Now, Kerry says he'd preserve the child tax credits currently on the books.

–Social Security: It's true as the ad states that Kerry voted to increase taxes on Social Security benefits, an increase included in the 1993 deficit-cutting package. That increased tax goes to help pay for Medicare, and is paid only by those making $44,000 a year or more for a married couple, falling on roughly the highest-earning 18% of Social Security recipients.

–Middle Class:Generally this ad attempts to discredit Kerry's promise not to raise taxes on the "middle class," but in fact many of the votes cited by the Bush campaign are votes to do pretty much what he promises to do if elected: raise taxes on upper-income taxpayers. The votes on the fiscal '96 budget are a good example, as the increases would have fallen on those making over $140,000 a year.Currently, Kerry promises to repeal the Bush cuts only for those making over $200,000 a year.

Picking Through 6,000 Votes

By our tally, Kerry has cast more than 6,000 recorded votes over his nearly 20-year Senate career. It's fair game for the Bush campaign to pick through those looking for votes that are contrary to Kerry's stated positions. But as this ad demonstrates, voters have reason to be skeptical of such exercises. Bush's claim that 98 of those 6,000 votes were to "raise taxes" is still misleading.

Sources

Bush-Cheney '04, "Ad Facts: 'Taxing Our Economy'," news release 23 Aug 2004.

Kerry-Edwards '04, "Bush-Cheney Ad Factcheck 'Taxing Our Economy'" news release 23 August 2004.

Factsheet supplied by Republican National Committee, "Sen. Kerry Has Voted 98 Times For At Least $2.3 Trillion in Tax Increases," 23 August 2004.

Related Articles
Taxing Social Security & Gasoline: Bush Attack Lacks Context
Kerry supported an increased tax on Social Security benefits, but he also supported a repeal and Bush didn't.

Bush accuses Kerry of 350 votes for “higher taxes” Higher than what?
Bush campaign falsely accuses Kerry of voting 350 times for tax increases. Bush’s own words mislead reporters.

And I'm sure no other politician has EVER stretched the numbers before. Is it misleading? Yes. Is it a lie? Not really.

So what's your point?

Just sifting through the bullshit. Maybe its not a factual lie, but its a lie in the sense that its outta context. Like if I took your above statement and only quoted this part:

"no other politician has EVER stretched the numbers before"

Did you say this? Yes, but it is COMPLETELY outta context. Hell yeah it is. Next time you see this ad, laugh at it, or tell somebody your with about how misleading it is.

Casey,

Kerry has already admitted that he will raise taxes. To me, it does not matter if it is for the highest earners, or all earners. Just the thought that government can put earnings to use better than individuals is wrong. There should be no income tax. Just use taxes. Let people do with their money what they wish.

Concerning your other posts: Do you really think Kerry would be a greater hawk than Bush?

Bigger

Who cares Bush is up 11 points in Time and NewsWeek's polls and 7 points in Gallup. He will win now stop all this banter kindly

So, if I tell all my friends he only voted to raise taxes 57 times instead of 98, do you think they'll think he's a lot better and vote for him? He has admitted to being in favor of raising taxes... Does anybody here besides me remember Walter Mondale? I think he carried one state.:D

I like this line:

Casey said:

fairly consistent with Kerry's promise only to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year.

Click to expand...

Actually, though, "fairly consistent" is and should be a real point of pride for today's Democrats.



This one is cute as well, as if this makes it OK:

Casey said:

Kerry "supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax increase," which (as we've noted before) hasn't been true for a decade.

Click to expand...

Once a tax and spend Democrat, always a tax and spend Democrat... a zebra simply can't change his stripes. Face it, the guy wants to take our money because he thinks he knows better than you and I how to spend it.

I love how much Americans hate taxation but expect such a high quality of life.

DO we really think people would just go out and donate money to the government to fix our roads? Build our schools and educate our children?

If the fire department comes to your hosue to put out a grease fire in your kitchen, the amount of cost taken by the state is probably more than the total amount of taxes you paid in the last five years prior.

Maybe your taxes increase slightly? What kind of money do you all blow on alcohol, hobbies, junk food, your cars, even Penis Enlargement?

Kerry wants to cut taxes for the middle class and raise them on people making around and over 250,000 dollars a year. If you're not making that, you're going to be getting a better deal in April under Kerry. If you are making that, you aren't going ot be devistated, especially after the enormous tax cuts you've had for the last four years.

Why the hell do people hate taxes? Sure, we'd all like to have more money, but no taxes = no government. Would you all prefer we continue to run massive defecits, so you can sell out your children's future to have a couple hundred extra dollars a year now?

DO we really think people would just go out and donate money to the government to fix our roads? Build our schools and educate our children?

Click to expand...

Lol

Think of all the families who are at a disadvantage because of taxes. Democrats think that taking money from one family so another's child can go to public school is fair.

Do they ever think of the family who, now by being taxed, couldnt afford to send their kid to prviate school like they wanted?

Honestly. Taking from one and giving to another is not fair and not everyone benefits from it.

Fire, police, FBI/CIA/intelligence, military, and some research. Other than that, privatize the schools, hospitals, etc. Privatizing = competition in pricing and quality.

Give people back there money so they can choose where to go. I dont mind taxes, I know some things are completely necessary and benefit us all, but many programs are wasteful and many of the people paying those taxes are not benefited by them. If they are, they are benefited less than they would be if they were able to keep the taxes they paid for that specific service.

People complain our public school systems are failing, especially in California. Well, we are a liberal state with liberal officials, throwing money at the problem. Even with current programs that cut funding to failing schools, it makes no difference, if they are able to stay afloat and the staff is still paid.

Privatizing schools would cause more competition in pricing and quality among them, and allows parents to choose where to send there children. It also allows people without children, or with children in college and not K-12, to put there money to better use.

I love how much Americans hate taxation but expect such a high quality of life.

Click to expand...

I think, deep down, we like our money, and hate to think that as much as half the money you make is going to someone else, sounds screwy doensn't it?

Maybe your taxes increase slightly? What kind of money do you all blow on alcohol, hobbies, junk food, your cars, even Penis Enlargement?

Click to expand...

So what, it's my money, the government didn't work for it, I did. If I want to buy aerosol spray and just spray it all day, I'll do it, because I bought it. The government funds tons of bullshit foundations and research programs. There are plenty of lists all over the website about research about crap like the effects of Champion Socks versus Tube Socks between the months of August and December in Georgia. The difference is, I choose to spray my aerosol spray, and I can, because I bought the can, but I'm not choosing to do research on socks in Georgia.

especially after the enormous tax cuts you've had for the last four years.

Click to expand...

To be honest, those tax cuts wern't shit. I mean, don't get me wrong, the idea is good, but I want more money. And as for being affected, who are you say that? It's my freakin' money, let me use it because I made it!

Why the hell do people hate taxes? Sure, we'd all like to have more money, but no taxes = no government. Would you all prefer we continue to run massive defecits, so you can sell out your children's future to have a couple hundred extra dollars a year now?

Click to expand...

I say we fund what we need. Defense, Education, roads, and all that stuff. Give private companies a chance to do the job of the government, and do it better and more efficiently.

Amen, for the most part, Brother Santoro!

Well I am American farmer! part of a dying breed Why? low crop prices? nope taxes!!! Some peeps whine about farm subsidy's so I'll tell you one thing all the money I got back didn't pay 1/2 of the property taxes I payed in last year. > much less any of the sales taxes or any of the other taxes I payed in last year > >

It's not that American's don't want to pay taxes... OK well yes it is, but this nation was not founded on the principle of a big federal government confiscating our money and reappropriating it how they see fit.

What happens to our tax money? A huge part of it gets redistributed back to the states, if they act in accordance with the way the Federal government tells them to act (examples: environmental regs, traffic laws, liquor laws). The real problem for me is that we don't need some NY senator who thinks she knows it all telling us how we can spend our money to take care of us here in Texas. Let Texas revenues stay in Texas and be distributed according to the will of the people of Texas. If the roads need fixing, we'll fix them. Same for Mass., Kansas, or Cali.

I don't have a problem paying some taxes for the common defense, etc. But States (read citizens of the states) do not need their money filtered through the Washington bureaucracy so that we can be told how we are allowed to spend it.

Hmm, well, what I'm hearing from many of you is that "well schools should at least be privatized."

Are you aware that our public school system is considered one of the crowning American achievements? Guranteeing Americans a free education through high school is one of the great progressive moves of American history and point of national pride. If anything there needs to be more funding for public schools as they're already cut back to bare bones and barely functional in many parts of the country (mostly ethnic and poor of course.) America wouldn't be the nation it is without our public school system, and handing it over to private contractors might sound appealing, but the amount of funding saved isn't going to buy anybody here a new boat, and it's a drop in the budgetary bucket compared to everything else we spend tax dollars on.

Texan makes the most persuasive point, that there ought to be greater state control over what is done with tax dollars. The thing is, our nation is founded on a strong central government with certain powers of taxation. As many of you remember from high school history, before there was a constitution we had the articles of confederation, which left the federal government powerless to tax and the states had more or less total control over their own affairs. The country nearly collapsed. We've become a monolithic federal system dominated by the national authority because it's the most stable and the most fair to all Americans. It's a democracy, and certain elected officials aren't going to appropriate funds the way we see fit at all times. That's how it goes in a democracy. Rule of the people, to a point. Just because we don't always like or agree with the way every dollar is spent, doesn't mean we ought to tear down the system. It actually works pretty well as it is.

So far as taxes hurting many families, I'd say the worst hit are the middle class and working poor. Guess what? Democrats want to give them tax relief and up the tax burden on the top 1%, which will result in greater revenue. Here's a fact - some 17% of all Americans think they're in the top 1% of earners, but, 16% of them are wrong. I believe over 30% think they're in the top 5%. You get the pattern. Nobody here and not likely too many people you know will suffer more under the Democratic economic platform (by the way Kerry is more fiscally conservative than Bush. Bush is the most reckless spending president of modern times, and that's according to analysts on both sides of the line. How does he do it without raising taxes, so he remains popular? He runs giant defecits and slowly sucks the life out of our economy, placing the burden on the future. Real great fellas, real great).

A good majority of people in this country rely on federal and state (read tax dollar funded) programs to get by, and government programs do many incredible things. You see, the idea is that your tax dollars better all of society, not just do things that directly improves your life right away. It's called CITIZENSHIP, where by which we all contribute so that our fellow citizens and our nation can prosper. You can cut out "all the bullshit programs" and education you want, and it won't even be a good percentage slice of what we spend on missiles and weapons systems we never use or fully develop, but I doubt anybody here would ever advocate rolling back the ultra-exorbanent defense spending (that's too close to liberal right? Not funding anything and everything the pentagon asks for, that's just national suicide, right?).

You may not think it's fair that you end up paying more numerically in your taxes, but everybody is getting hit. Let's get down to brass tacks here; you all are talking about welfare programs and government support for the poor, which are mostly minorities in this country. You don't like the idea that any money you make might go to a single mother's welfare check down in the bad neighborhood. I say it is fair - she's got a rougher situation than you, maybe through no fault of her own. It's fact that a black woman won't make as much money working in the same position as a white man. Land of opportunity? Higher ideals? Maybe government support helps keeps some kids in school and off the streets, lowering crime rates and raising your personal safety.

Society is a more complicated thing than "I don't wanna pay no more maney than I have to if I ain't gonna see every penny of it at work outside my doorstep." With all the services and protection we get for our tax dollars we're actually getting a goddamned bargain. How much of your tax money goes to supporting people leeching off the system? $30? $40? How much of it goes to support the federal weapons programs and such that everybody here hates Kerry for occasionally questioning the need for? Think about your logic on this.

So, try thinking about your tax dollars at work tomorrow when you collect your mail, drive down your paved and lighted roadways, monitored by police, with sewage and water lines running underneath them. Public works, public safety, national security, education, the judiciary system, all the branches of government regulation, it's boggling. You think that can all be privatized easily, and then some kind of massive savings passed onto you, the taxpayer? Don't act like it's anything higher than a basic concern for yourselves, lookin' out for #1, as it were. I pay my taxes gladly and proudly, and you won't hear a grumble from me if they go up.

Swank,

>Are you aware that our public school system is considered one of the crowning American achievements? Guranteeing Americans a free education through high school is one of the great progressive moves of American history and point of national pride.<

No, I am not aware of this. How so? I believe the US is toward the bottom in the world in educational acheivement.

>If anything there needs to be more funding for public schools as they're already cut back to bare bones and barely functional in many parts of the country (mostly ethnic and poor of course.)<

Hmmm. I believe we are at or toward the top, globally, in spending per student considering federal, state and local funds. It would appear we are not getting value for the dollar.

>America wouldn't be the nation it is without our public school system, and handing it over to private contractors might sound appealing, but the amount of funding saved isn't going to buy anybody here a new boat, and it's a drop in the budgetary bucket compared to everything else we spend tax dollars on.<

A million here a million there, and soon you are talking about real money.

>Texan makes the most persuasive point, that there ought to be greater state control over what is done with tax dollars. The thing is, our nation is founded on a strong central government with certain powers of taxation.<

Actually, that is totally wrong. The US was "founded" on a weak central government, with almost all power at the state level. The states retained all power not specifically delegated to the federal level.

Further, please site exactly where the federal government got it's "powers of taxation". You will find they actually have none.

>As many of you remember from high school history, before there was a constitution we had the articles of confederation, which left the federal government powerless to tax and the states had more or less total control over their own affairs. The country nearly collapsed.<

Please site where and when the US "nearly collapsed".

We've become a monolithic federal system dominated by the national authority because it's the most stable and the most fair to all Americans. It's a democracy, and certain elected officials aren't going to appropriate funds the way we see fit at all times. That's how it goes in a democracy. Rule of the people, to a point. Just because we don't always like or agree with the way every dollar is spent, doesn't mean we ought to tear down the system. It actually works pretty well as it is.<

You have got to be kidding.

>So far as taxes hurting many families, I'd say the worst hit are the middle class and working poor. Guess what? Democrats want to give them tax relief and up the tax burden on the top 1%, which will result in greater revenue. Here's a fact - some 17% of all Americans think they're in the top 1% of earners, but, 16% of them are wrong. I believe over 30% think they're in the top 5%. You get the pattern. Nobody here and not likely too many people you know will suffer more under the Democratic economic platform<

Wrong again. The vast majority of new jobs are created within the framework of small businesses, many making at or above the $200K "Kerry" cutoff. If they have to pay more taxes, what is their incentive for expanding their business? Further, taking more money from them will make it less likely that they will add jobs, and more likely that they will CUT jobs.

>(by the way Kerry is more fiscally conservative than Bush. Bush is the most reckless spending president of modern times, and that's according to analysts on both sides of the line.<

He is not more fiscally conservative. Kerry's proposed programs will blow out the deficit. His tax increases do not come close to paying for his proposals. But Bush spends WAY too much.

>How does he do it without raising taxes, so he remains popular? He runs giant defecits and slowly sucks the life out of our economy, placing the burden on the future. Real great fellas, real great).<

Actually, as a percentage of GDP, the deficits now are not too bad. But IMO, Bush is spending WAY too much. You are correct that he is a big spender. Hopefully, if he gets a second term, he will cut back. WAY too compassionate IMO.

As far as future burdens, that is a crock. The federal deficit is the greatest deal for each American that they have right now. That's right, the deficit is GREAT! Within limits. Where else can the average guy get such low interest rates, with such a great payback plan, Present Value of the debt is reduced by inflation, and you never really have to pony up the money?

During times of war, and economic downturn, a deficit is the right way to go. The war gets paid for, the economy gets a boost, and steady growth pays off the debt eventually. It has been PROVEN to work.

As long as total debt, as a percentage of GDP, does not get above a certain level, we are fine. Kind of like a house note. Usually, a mortgage company wants to see home debt payments at less than 1/3 or so of total income. A person with a note on a $100K house will have payments around $1000, and needs to make at least $36K per year. This is ballpark, I did not really do the math. So, for this example, and for most homeowners, their home debt is several times greater than their yearly income. Sabe?

Now, the US current debt is about $7.4 trillion dollars. Sound like a lot? But our GDP is at or above $12 trillion. The US makes more in 7.5 months than it owes! So the actual debt level means nothing without taking into consideration GDP.

Now, if inflation gets out of hand, or money becomes tight, things begin to change. But for now, the debt is easily manageable. In fact, it provides a great vehicle for investment for older investors. Very very safe.

Further, running a debt, and negative trade imbalance are a function of a growing economy. Compare the US economy with European economies.

>A good majority of people in this country rely on federal and state (read tax dollar funded) programs to get by, and government programs do many incredible things. You see, the idea is that your tax dollars better all of society, not just do things that directly improves your life right away. It's called CITIZENSHIP, where by which we all contribute so that our fellow citizens and our nation can prosper.<

It is called SOCIALISM, and does not work so well. Look at the studies done that show how inefficient the federal system is. The feds do not even have a clue where much of the money goes. There is no effective audit system. Very little accountability. Government waste is rampant. It is a crock.

>You can cut out "all the bullshit programs" and education you want, and it won't even be a good percentage slice of what we spend on missiles and weapons systems we never use or fully develop, but I doubt anybody here would ever advocate rolling back the ultra-exorbanent defense spending (that's too close to liberal right? Not funding anything and everything the pentagon asks for, that's just national suicide, right?).<

Actually, the pentagon asks for much LESS than it receives. Most members of Congress have a pet military project, or two or ten, that benefits their district or state. They love to increase funding so their constituents get a greater benefit. It is a money wasting cycle. Just go back and look at the crap that occured when the pentagon was attempting to close military bases, saving the country billions of dollars.

But all in all, the military is one of the few programs that actually benefit the entire country as a whole, which should be the only function of the federal government. Anything that benefits individuals or groups should be left to state and local government.

>You may not think it's fair that you end up paying more numerically in your taxes, but everybody is getting hit. Let's get down to brass tacks here; you all are talking about welfare programs and government support for the poor, which are mostly minorities in this country. You don't like the idea that any money you make might go to a single mother's welfare check down in the bad neighborhood. I say it is fair - she's got a rougher situation than you, maybe through no fault of her own. It's fact that a black woman won't make as much money working in the same position as a white man. Land of opportunity? Higher ideals? Maybe government support helps keeps some kids in school and off the streets, lowering crime rates and raising your personal safety.<

The above is NOT the function of the federal government. There is no accountability when checks are cut from the feds. Who would know better the actual situation of an individual, the feds, or someone living in the same town as the needy?

>Society is a more complicated thing than "I don't wanna pay no more maney than I have to if I ain't gonna see every penny of it at work outside my doorstep." With all the services and protection we get for our tax dollars we're actually getting a goddamned bargain. How much of your tax money goes to supporting people leeching off the system?<

Please explain how and why $two trillion federal budget, without audit, is a "goddamned bargain".

>$30? $40? How much of it goes to support the federal weapons programs and such that everybody here hates Kerry for occasionally questioning the need for? Think about your logic on this.<

The logic is, the federal government should not have it's thumbs in most of the programs it funds. It is too big, too slow, too stupid, to be able to moniter and track the funds. It does not work. And Kerry wants to put our health care system into this mess?

>So, try thinking about your tax dollars at work tomorrow when you collect your mail,<

The US postal service is a semi- private company. It has not been truly federal in a long time, and is working great! It is a user based system, not funded by income tax dollars. Great point!

>drive down your paved and lighted roadways,<

Only the interstate highway system is federally funded, to a degree. Much of it is funded by the states. All other road projects are state or local. Very efficient. Great point!

>monitored by police, with sewage and water lines running underneath them.<

Once again, all state or local. Very efficient. Great point!

>Public works, public safety,<

State and local taxes at work. Very efficient.

>education,<

Mostly local, some state, little federal. Local funding seems to be most efficient.

>the judiciary system,<

Except for the federal system, all state and local. Great point!

>all the branches of government regulation, it's boggling.<

Very interesting. All of the pluses you named are a function of state and local government. State and local taxes are a small percentage of the overall tax burden. It seems we are getting good value at the local level.

For an average family, if they make $100K per year, 30% goes to the feds, and 20% to state and local taxes. Look at the value from the 20% you outlined above, and the value from the 30% the feds squander.

The big ticket items fall under the heading "Federal", and boggling is a good term for it. Very inefficient.

>You think that can all be privatized easily, and then some kind of massive savings passed onto you, the taxpayer?<

Better than that: Much of it can be ELIMINATED. The federal system is full of redundancy, waste, fraud, etc. The system does not work. You have 535 congressman, all fighting to get as many tax dollars for their district or state as possible. It is a vicious cycle. There are precious few, such as John McCain, that try to put the breaks on this farce. What is funny is, there is no constitutional basis for the income tax.

>Don't act like it's anything higher than a basic concern for yourselves, lookin' out for #1, as it were. I pay my taxes gladly and proudly, and you won't hear a grumble from me if they go up.<

I have a tip for you. You can pay WHATEVER you wish in taxes! That's right. There is a form you can fill out, and send in along with your check to Washington. You can actually pay as much as you want, above your requirements, in federal taxes! Isn't that great!

If you do this, those of us who believe we are over-taxed can pay a little bit less, and you can have this warm feeling for sending in more! It works out for everyone!

Bigger

Bib said:

If you do this, those of us who believe we are over-taxed can pay a little bit less, and you can have this warm feeling for sending in more! It works out for everyone!

Click to expand...

:D

Swank said:

It's a democracy, and certain elected officials aren't going to appropriate funds the way we see fit at all times. That's how it goes in a democracy.

Click to expand...

Actually, we are a democratic republic, which is significantly different.