Biden

Did you see the vice presidential debate last night?

I’ll admit that I didn’t watch the whole thing. For one, the Phillies were busy taking Game 2 of their series against the Brewers (go Phillies!). But also because I’m not a big fan of political debates. Rarely do you discover anything significant because these debates are like court: it’s not whether you speak the truth but how well you speak it. And that, I find bothersome.

In the early stages of the debate, that’s exactly what happened. In particular, the exchange about voting history on taxes was all about presentation and spin. For example, Palin began by claming that McCain has never supported a tax hike in his tenure. This is, strictly construed, true. However, McCain has opposed several tax cuts, including the 2001 Bush cuts (which he now supports extending) but opposing tax cuts is not the same as supporting a tax hike, right?

Not really. Because McCain’s campaign doesn’t use the same definition when it applies to Obama. The campaign has continued to imply that Obama voted time and again for tax hikes. During the debate, Palin said, “Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people’s side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times.”

That sounds like a lot more than the “no tax hikes” claim from McCain’s camp, right? Only it’s a different standard. Biden responded to this, saying:

“…[u]sing the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. It’s a bogus standard…”

And he’s right. Whether you agree or not with the substance or policy of the votes, you can’t use one standard for one party and another standard for a different party when you’re making a comparison. It’s ridiculous. It’s like comparing quarterback pass completion rates in a football game and only counting interceptions for the one team; the standards have to be consistent.

Interestingly, in the midst of the debate, which I was following on twitter, I raised this same issue. One of the folks at Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), an organization headed up by Grover Norquist, took issue with my statement (which I stand by) that it was semantics. Comparing “tax hikes” while only including opposing tax cuts as hikes when it suits the campaign is disingenuous. The twitter user (taxplaya) disagreed, saying: “there is only one definition–ours. we’re atr. we own the tax pledge. mccain is clean. mccain has never voted for a tax hike.” So now you know how ATR feels about it - and, apparently as a taxpayer, your own interpretation of tax hikes and cuts is irrelevant.

But back to the debate. In that same exchange on taxes, Palin accused Obama of “supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year.” Biden pointed out that McCain cast the same vote as Obama - it was a procedural vote.

C’mon folks. Procedural votes, votes against extending cuts and votes against cuts are not tax hikes. So let it go. Both of you.

The rest of the debate on taxes was mostly slinging accusations back and forth about what their running mates’ respective tax proposals would accomplish. Both Biden and Palin focused on what tax cuts would mean to the middle class (nothing new there) and how tax policy would affect other arenas, like health care (nothing new there either).

In the end, I felt kind of like I feel after eating rice cakes. The whole thing was kind of bland and empty, leaving me feeling pretty unfulfilled. I was hoping for something more rich and interesting - the flourless chocolate cake of debates. Not so.

It would be great if all of the candidates could stop with the phony stats and accusations and focus on the real issues. Is that really too much to ask?

(If case you’re interested in reading what Biden and Palin had to say, you can read the entire transcript of the debate here.)

{ 14 comments }

For years, the GOP has been viewed as having a lock on the link between God and politics - and I am not claiming that to be a good thing.

But maybe that’s changing - and I am not claiming that to be a good thing, either.

Senator and Vice Presidential hopeful Joe Biden recently announced that raising taxes on the rich is the “patriotic” thing to do. Later, he reportedly claimed at a dinner that he also has Jesus in his corner, a reply to the GOP claims that Jesus is in their corner (c’mon guys, isn’t he in everyone’s corner?).

Suddenly, the third most important party in this election is not Biden or Palin, but God. That’s interesting (and scary) for a lot of reasons… but the most interesting to me, as a tax attorney, is how often God/Jesus/”insert your favorite deity here” is referenced when it comes to money and taxes - not the environment, not health care, not even women’s rights. But money and taxes.

I’ve alluded to this before in a prior post - and my priest has even chimed in…

Money and taxes seem inextricably linked to our feelings about God. Why do you think that is?

{ 2 comments }

Oh, don’t even get me started.

But there are a number of folks who are actually making a run at it this year, some expected and some, well, not.

I have contacted each of the candidates several times to ask their positions on various tax issues. And a number of them responded promptly and their replies were posted earlier this month on taxgirl.com. To recap, you can check out the posts from these presidential candidates, in order of posting:

- Tommy Thompson
- Sam Brownback
- Joe Biden
- Ron Paul
- Mike Huckabee

I’ve been in contact by phone and email with John Edwards’ campaign and Mike Gravel’s campaign, each of whom have assured me that their answers are forthcoming, so look for those in the next few days.

Rudy Giuliani’s campaign is difficult to contact; they don’t respond to email and I was unable to get a fax number. I sent a letter to them via USPS, so I’m not sure what the outcome of that will be.

Senator Obama’s office sent me an email that someone would get back to me, so hopefully I’ll have something to post from his campaign shortly. He’s recently unveiled a tax strategy to pay for health care (which sounds similar to John Edwards’ plan) so I expect his answers to address that issue.

Senator Clinton’s office has been strangely silent - no emails, no faxes, no calls - odd since she’s been taking a beating in the press on her stance on corporate tax.

I am similarly surprised to not hear from Senator McCain’s office. He’s been making the rounds in the press, and seemed to pose the most well thought out plans during the debate, so you’d think he’d take advantage of the momentum.

That’s where we stand for now. Keep checking in to see what your favorite candidates have to say about taxes. And of course, if they won’t tell you, you know that I will!

{ 0 comments }

Our next presidential candidate to be featured in our series of interviews is Joe Biden, a Democrat and Delaware Senator.

Here are his unedited answers to my six questions:

1. What’s the single most important tax issue facing Americans today?

As I travel across this country, I see the middle class in trouble. For the past six years, the middle class has been burdened by an unfair tax code that doesn’t do anything to help working families at the same time it rewards the super-wealthy. It is bad tax policy and bad economic policy. A strong middle class is what drives our economy. Our tax policy should reflect that instead of betting that enormous tax breaks for the most wealthy will trickle down to the rest of us and not disappear into an offshore account. We should give tax breaks to those who need them and pay for it by taking back the tax cuts from those who don’t - those in the top one percent who make an average of $1.4 million dollars a year.

2. If you could only make one “quick fix” in terms of an extra credit, a disallowed deduction, whatever - what would it be?

I would repeal the billions in tax breaks that the oil industry gets for exploration and drilling. These companies will even admit they don’t need the money. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, I asked six executives from the largest energy companies in America if they needed the tax incentives. Not only did they all say they didn’t need the tax incentives, but they also said they would support my bill repealing President Bush’s handouts. It is an example of wasteful tax incentives. Instead we should be spending the money on research into renewable energy, new battery technology to build highly efficient vehicles here in the United States and other programs that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and oil.

3. Which is a more egregious tax on the American public: the AMT or the federal estate tax?

The AMT must be fixed. Tax Policy Center estimates that in coming years nearly 90 percent of married couples with two or more children and incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will be subject to AMT. It is a stealth tax on middle class families.

4. It has been suggested that the IRS should be eliminated. Do you believe that this makes sense, and if you do, what would you establish in its place?

I would not eliminate the Internal Revenue Service. The real problem is not the organization, but the policies the organization must implement. Reversing President Bush’s unfair tax policy is the first step in improving the way we view our tax structure.

5. Do you think that significant tax cuts are possible considering the current state of the economy, specifically the escalating cost of the war in Iraq?

First, we can save revenue by ending the war in Iraq and bringing it to a responsible conclusion. We are spending $100 billion a year on Iraq, and we will have to address this boulder in the road before we can deal with other critical issues like healthcare and education. In addition, I would protect tax relief that benefits the middle class, but I would roll back
President Bush’s tax cuts for those in the top 1% income bracket in America - those making over $435,000 a year.

As President, I won’t spend $1 trillion dollars to repeal the estate tax for millionaire heirs like Paris Hilton. Instead, I would exempt estates up to $7 million dollars and leave the tax in place for the remaining 7,000 or so estates that would have to pay it.

I would also roll back tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. In the 1990s, there was no lack of incentive to invest under the tax rates that were then in place. The current rates on capital gains and dividends were enacted as a short-term stimulus and then were extended. Allowing them to expire would not harm our economy.

Finally, we should eliminate tax loopholes. If someone owes taxes on investments, they should pay them. I would promote legislation that clarifies the definition of offshore tax shelters and imposes tougher requirements on U.S. taxpayers using secrecy definitions.

6. And just for fun, if Uncle Sam handed you a huge refund check right now, what would you do with it?

(left blank)

–

Thanks, Senator!

For more information on Senator Biden’s policies, visit his website.

{ 0 comments }