It turns out that “Joe the Plumber” has more tax issues than were spotlighted during the final presidential debate. He doesn’t just not like taxes, he apparently doesn’t like to pay them. He owes the State of Ohio nearly $1200 in back taxes; Ohio has filed a lien against him to recover amounts due.
“Joe the Plumber” is really named Samuel J. Wurzelbacher and before moving to Ohio, he lived in John McCain’s home state of Arizona. He became a household name when he told Senator Obama during the debates that he was worried about Obama’s tax proposal. McCain used the opportunity to criticize Obama’s tax plan, saying, “what you want to do to ‘Joe the plumber’ and millions more like him is have their taxes increased and not be able to realize the American dream of owning their own business.”
Wurzelbacher has said in an interview on “Good Morning America” that high earners shouldn’t be “penalized for being successful.” Apparently, he believes that includes paying his taxes. Under Obama’s tax proposal, Wurzelbacher’s tax bill would be an additional $900 if he netted, not grossed, $280,000 of income.
Interestingly, though Wurzelbacher talked about wanting to buy a plumbing business, he doesn’t have a plumber’s license. According to the State of Ohio, where the business is located, he is not registered as a plumber.
[Author's note: While I do enjoy spirited debate, I will not tolerate those commenters that spam by posting numerous versions of the same comments under different names. That's not commenting, it's spamming and it's rude. I realize that "Joe the Plumber" is a political topic and you want to get your point across. But posting the same comment under different names ten times in a row, as has happened on this post, doesn't add anything to the same conversation. Comments are in moderation: if you post spam, it will be marked as such and your comment will not appear. For more about my comment policy, click here.]
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.)
