Here are four quick tips to keep in mind as you’re working away on taxes:

1. Most people get audited because their deductions exceed the average of those in the same income and zip code bracket. So, if you’re making like $40,000 a year and give $8,000 in charitable giving, you definitely want to attach that substantiation.
2. First-time home-buyers are entitled to a tax credit of 10% up to $8,000 on the cost of a new house. And guess what…? You can still claim this credit if you’ve owned a house for investment purposes or vacation ecstasies.
3. As long as you’re earning money, YOU can claim the working-pay credit that comes to $400 ($800 on a joint return). Simply file schedule M to do so. Congress ordered the IRS to reduce the withholding tables in the expectation that many people will be claiming this credit. So claim it!
4. You are able to add the standard deduction of sales tax on purchasing a new car to that of any real estate tax you paid as well – up to $500 ($1000 on a joint return).

Good luck y’all! Remember, the taxman never stops!

Merry Christmas Eve y’all!

Guess what…? Our lovely Congress has just bestowed upon this nation a most wondrous gift of “universal” health care during this joyous season – a gift that will keep giving and taking.

Giving in the sense that never before have we seen such blatant kickbacks and special-interest deals to put another ol’ legislative “victory” on the mantel. Taking in the sense that it’ll be we taxpayers who will reap the long-term consequences of this “reform” through more taxes, loss of medical innovation, and (most importantly) the failure of enacting true, progressive revisions to a restraining, high-cost health care industry – an industry that’s for sure never been subject to an efficiently competitive market ever sense FDR’s wage ceilings, which first led to employer-dominated insurance packages to entice workers during such times of economic hindrances.

Let’s go with an example of giving – the Honorable Harry Reid on his legislative deal making:

I don’t even know if there is a Senator that doesn’t have something in this bill that was important to them. And if they don’t have something in it important to them, then it doesn’t speak well of them.

Well said Harry! Next time all of the senators will “pull a Nelson” and hold out on giving any support to a Democrat-initiative so that they can get their juicy kickback. Apologies to Senator Bayh; at least you got some extra time in front of cameras for your “opposition” through hesitation aka just enough to placate your constituents. I mean Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska got the “air time,” the “honor” of being the make-or-break vote, and the exemption for Nebraska to not have to pay any of the additional costs for Medicaid expansion ($100 million). Oh, wait, I forgot the approximate $6.7 billion in health insurance kickbacks to Nebraska-based Mutual of Omaha. Don’t forget a waiver of the insurance fee for Nebraska Blue Cross/Blue Shield as well. The icing on the cake? Nelson’s blatant admission on the Senate floor of his bought vote:

Three Senators came up to me just now on the floor and said, “Now we understand what you did. We’ll be seeking this funding too.”

Another gift from Harry Reid’s toy bag of political swindling and Tom Foolery: Senator Bill Nelson (I see a pattern here) of Florida, concerned about staying popular with his old-timer constituency in the midst of a bill that takes $400 billion from seniors, got an exemption for Florida seniors currently on medicare benefits from losing them – a $3-$5 billion gift in kind that has a price tag of “priceless” by ensuring those continual votes, while other American seniors are affected.

But, realistically, this whole sham of political theater and backdoor deals for health care “reform” do not wrap up a gift that quite keeps on giving. When costs (health procedure fees, insurance pricing, and taxpayer demands) weigh their due financial onus, most of these deals will have to be cut out like cancer; most of the the deals just serve anyway as short-term benefits (taxpayer detriments) for a long-term failure. And so it’s the taxpayer who will bear much of the fiscal and policy consequences in both the short-term and long-term.

I mean honestly! What the hell is going on?! It’s been 65 or so years since a statist form of health “reform” has been offered and it’s taken this long to perfect a real governmental screw-up. The CBO has written numerous reports on potential negative fallout from this bill. One of them, for example, focused on the passed rebate program, which targets the administrative expenses of particularly small group and individual market insurance companies (kickback to big biz) as these smaller companies have their profits (potential for pricing cuts) gutted by the government. Another case-in-point involves how the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services becomes an unchecked, unaccountable Nurse Mildred Ratched with the ability to decide when Medicare will only pay for a cheaper “alternative” treatment all while being exempted from judicial review as patients have no right to sue the government.

Yet, it’s easy for these details to get all lost in such a large bill all while our courageous, senatorial representatives are championing the cause of health care “reform” based on firm principal and concern for the many disadvantaged. in our country But the list of discrepancies, special-interest deal making, and fiscal fallout became too apparent already to have been ignored. And so we get to the crux of why this bill passed. It was not just the “gifts” Democrats received that brought the troops around for an “aye” vote. As left-leaning economist Robert Kuttner recently (so beautifully and unabashedly) admitted on Bill Moyers’ Journal, the Left and all Democrat senators have an obligation to support this health care bill – though riddled with shortcomings, false promises, and much catering to industry – because of the political necessity to win in 2010. Good thing many of the bill’s provisions don’t go into effect until afterward. I mean who cares? It’s not like this bill affects almost a fifth of our country’s economy, will have devastating fiscal consequences, will still ignore many of the disadvantaged, and will limit the opportunity to expand choice and a more effective manner of lowering health costs. The exigency for political expediency wins the day. Now we know what is really meant by the Democrats when they claim “victory” with this bill.

Though I’d like to say most of the Democrats who voted “yes” had nice intentions, a good number of them should be receiving coal in their stockings every Christmas now. And the American taxpayer, well I guess we’ll just have to hope for change to this current bill as we’ll be receiving a much larger “wish list” from the government sooner or later otherwise every April 15th; except, this wish list has has to be seen through – regardless if government’s been naughty or nice.

So I posted info about our little Nobel Peace Prize fun on campus earlier. Here’s the result. Below you’ll find the text of the email I sent to the University Republicans about the video. Enjoy!

Ladies & Gents,
Recall that a couple weeks after Obama was announced as this year’s recipient for the Nobel Peace Prize, some University Republicans spent a couple hours going around campus asking students what they intend to do or what they did to deserve a Prize – except, in this case edible, chocolate ones were given out.

It’s been difficult to find any time to edit all the videos we collected. Thankfully, with the end of finals came Obama receiving the award, so I threw together what we had to create a hybrid (and hopefully entertaining) policy critique of Obama with the various, amusing student responses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-LwgTbgbHE

Apologies on the sound: the balance seemed fine in the video editor but when rendered a couple spots were drowned out.

There are some student responses at the beginning; then a hypocrisy-and-inaction montage of news clips; then back to student responses after Professor Pape’s commentary at 3:13.

I hope you enjoy – encourage each of you to post it to facebook and share with friends.

Dispersed between the speakers we bring in (great success with Amb John Bolton last week btw) and activist projects we work on, the University Republicans like to have some fun in adding to the political discourse on campus. This upcoming event is a great example. I thought readers would find the event info quite amusing and so pasted the event info below.

If you’d like to support the efforts of the University Republicans, please make a check out to the University of Chicago (memo: College Republicans donation) and mail with marked attention to “College Republicans”, 5706 South University Avenue, Chicago IL 60637. Your gift in kind will be processed and you will receive a receipt from the university for tax purposes.

Be on the lookout come Monday from 12:00-1:30 on the University of Chicago Quad as YOU have a chance to become a Nobel Peace Prize recipient!

Yes, you could join the venerable ranks of activists like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, Elihu Root, Woodrow Wilson, and Mohandas Gandhi (wait, he never got it).

Feeling unsure about your credentials? Don’t worry! John Bolton was considered for the prize just because of his awe-inspiring stache. Rush Limbaugh…for sharing his drug cabinet with irascible world leaders.

The committee, which will be donning UChicago Nobel laureate “Milton Friedman Freedom” t-shirts, will be awarding deserving students with edible Nobel Peace Prizes. Though we will duly note you holding open the door to Cobb for others, we would prefer it if you would tell us how you WILL hold open the door instead of already doing it.

Other laudable, student undertakings meriting a Nobel include:
*Committing to not beating up the “That Kid” in your SOSC class next quarter.
*Having lunch with a white UCPD officer and a black UChicago professor
*Pledging to refrain from “housecest” this year in a move to stifle ever prevalent drama.
*Lobbying Robert Zimmer with an Oprah-look-a-like to bring the 2010 Rose Bowl to campus.

The students who give us the best and most amusing reasons on why they should receive a Nobel Peace Prize will be featured in a short film on YouTube.

So get the word out to all your friends!

***The UChicago Nobel Peace Prize Committee is a contingent of the University Republicans, a rag tag band of right-leaning students who advocate for individual liberty & government accountability while engaging their fellow peers with educational, political, and fun events. The committee meets every Monday at 7:00 in the Bartlett Trophy Lounge.***

(Written on April 6th, 2009)

Today the Congress with sure verbosity and fanfare passed the president’s budget proposal (55-43 in the Senate). Many politicians, as all too often, are patting themselves on their backs while claiming they’ve backed true solutions for the economy.

Yes, as many entitlement programs sink the governmental budget further into a fiscal abyss while threatening fiscal disaster for the United States, there is an exigency to address and reform these programs as addressed in the budget. Yet, the direction the Obama administration desires to take these programs, like health care, will only escalate budgetary misallocations and inefficiency much to the citizen’s detriment: ex. one cartel of employer-dominated healthcare will be traded for another government-dominated one mired by special interests. Still, the politicians claim that they have the solution.

I was not able to pay that much attention to this last week’s budget debates in Congress as I’ve been quite busy with the first week of classes and flying to NYC for an intimate, lunch event with Giuliani and Steele (still need to write on this); however, I heard from a friend who works in the House Budget Committee yesterday morning. It seems that many of Obama’s key budget programs from the “Making Work Pay” tax cut, to health care reform, to initiatives to combat global warming did not find their way in the details of both the House and Senate versions of the budget. This could be from congressional Democrats taking a more reserved approach to the budget in order to have greater liberty in crafting future legislation relevant to the budget and not being confined to any quantifiable limits. It could also be from congressional Democrats taking a more reserved approach to the budget out of political prudence allowing them to not bind themselves politically to a difficult vote that could be held over their head.

Polls from CBS, to Newsweek, to Pew have shed light that many Americans are beginning to become more jaded by some of Obama’s recent policies as well as skeptical at any future bailouts and so-called “stimulus” plans. So let us hold to an “audacity of hope” that more and more fellow Americans will (as many are daily) become aware of the emptiness and fiscal irresponsibility in government’s claims. Let us demand a “change we can believe in” that makes government accountable for all its failed claims. Such seems quite improbable now as, even still, the finger-pointing onto Wall Street by politicians and the claims of necessary beneficial intervention persist.

For the last couple months, Obama has been uttering the singer Shaggy’s infamous line of ignorant culpability: “wasn’t me”. We get it. The last administration was an utter failure with so many of its fiscal policies (as well as others); yet, condemning past governmental errancies in wasteful spending and devastating deficits to justify your obviously exponential errors of the former seems quite far-fetched to me. When the administration and Democrats aren’t able to point the finger at the pernicious policies of the prior administration, the old stand-by of Wall Street for vilification serves its purpose.

As millions in taxpayers’ dollars found its way in the pockets of AIG executives who had run the company in the ground, Obama called such bonuses “shameful” and Congressional Democrats preached against the iniquities of corporate greed. Obviously none of the onus could stem from the government crafting a stimulus plan laden with back-door deals for corporate, special interests or from the government overseeing a botched intervention due to its prior failures to adequately supervise AIG. Instead of those behind such legislative lacking coming forward with their “Jimmy Swaggart” moment of culpability, they proposed even more legislation (H.R. 1586 – see my analysis here) to pat themselves on the back and claim they solved the errors of others, while actually omitting to mention the apparent loopholes that again favored special interests or the nondisclosure regarding where the stimulus money was actually going.

As executives from the Big 3 came squabbling to Congress for a bailout that would end up costing taxpayers billions, Democrats came to the pulpit waving their hypocritical fingers at the executives for daring to take private jets to Washington. Now, the Big 3 (particularly GM) clearly carried out business in counter-productive manners not in respect of market demand and capabilities; clearly, the executives mismanaged their companies in various ways. But obviously, none of the onus could stem from the over 70 years of governmental manipulation and intervention in limiting the cost effectiveness and managerial capabilities of companies like GM with various initiatives and programs from the 1935 Wagner Act to the 1975 implementation of fuel economy laws bringing about the “two fleets” curse. Since then, the UAW has held GM captive by forcing the company to produce its cheaper, smaller cars (the more fuel efficient ones) in high-wage, domestic UAW factories. Thus, though the government claimed such was to maintain a fuel-economy standard, the main purpose (to ensure the continual UAW monopoly inside Detroit irrespective of necessary reforms) is obviously the driving factor causing substantially higher costs for the company (and the consumer), inhibiting greater production of actual fuel-efficient vehicles, and stifling cost-effective, managerial innovations.

But don’t worry…the Obama administration claims they have the intention to oversee a “quick and surgical” reforming of GM through bankruptcy. Don’t worry…after wasting billions of taxpayers dollars and after weeks of prudent, conservative recommendations to allow for bankruptcy, suddenly Obama has claimed the bankruptcy option as his. Just with other governmental claims, there should be no reason for skepticism, right? It’s not like the UAW plays a key role in Democratic electoral politics and clearly will not be abandoned by the Party. It’s not like the Democrats, who inserted themselves into GM’s corporate governance to order the resignation of a CEO, won’t defer to the prescribed legality of a bankruptcy judge to rewrite GM’s business relationships. It’s not like President Obama has replaced Rick Wagoner with a corporate suit more in cahoots with the UAW than before. It’s not like the government’s buy-in of GM provides the UAW cartel greater shareholder domination in a reogranized GM. It’s not like President Obama advocated for and worked to ensure the continual permanence of “two fleets” in affirmation to his UAW backers while in the Senate.

The President came into office claiming “to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day”. Yet we find the bad habits of “politics as usual” lie at the core of and find the greatest example in Obama’s budget proposal.

• Like the one who came before him, President Obama has chosen to hide the extent of the nation’s debt under his presented policies by formulating a 5-year budget versus the preferred (though rarely done) 10-year budget.

• Like the one who came before him, President Obama has decided to consider “budget reconciliation” as a way to carry out some of his budget proposals while forgoing democratic debate, shutting out Republican input, and ignoring moderate Democrats – Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) have outspokenly urged the president against “reconciliation”.

There are some key measures in Obama’s budget that truly should be seriously debated and executed. It would be ignorantly short-sided for Republicans to wish “failure” at all on these proposed policies:

• The already noted recognition and acknowledgment for entitlement reform (question is how).

• Means-tested Medicare part D premiums.

• Budgets for AMT Reform.

However – like the one who came before him and others who’ve opted for substantial, fiscal tinkering – still greatly overriding these couple budget pluses is a lesson in politics, the number game, and half-truths. President Obama has dramatically and deliberately distorted his budget and deficit numbers:

• Obama’s budget already increases federal spending by 34% over the budget adopted for the previous year under Bush with an expenditure tag of $4 trillion this year alone – enough to tower over a quantifiable quarter of our nation’s economy. Obama’s plan would result in an exploding deficit, a doubling of the nation’s debt in five years, and an increase of that debt to more than 82% of our nation’s GDP by the last year of the budget resulting in currency debasement and reductions in standards of living.

• Numerous other programs like the resurrection of the “death tax”, a $1.5 trillion tax increase that will directly burden small businessmen and investors, and a dramatic increase in energy costs for families due to “cap-and-tax”. Though some may nobly defend all of these expenditures, even the manner in which Obama attempts to sale his budget is disturbing along with being downright dishonest.

• The president has repeatedly claimed his intention to reduce the deficit from 12.3% of GDP to a mere 3% within the next four years. Using claims that the total value of U.S. economic output will increase by a quarter over the next four years, Obama omits telling the citizenry how GDP, as determined in year-to-year growth as a function of real growth and inflation, will magically be inflated down the road due to the Fed’s policies thus making the deficit as a percentage of GDP appear less.

• With its purchasing of $300 billion in long-end Treasurys and $1250 billion in its direct purchase program of mortgage-backed securities, the Fed has lost all semblance of independence as it is openly monetizing U.S. debt and providing the balance sheet to back Obama’s budget and Congressional spending…much to the inevitable detriment of the voter down the road.

• Coupled with the White House’s evidently exaggerated GDP claims as countless, reliable forecasts (ex. see Blue Chip Consensus or adjacent graphic from the WSJ) affirm GDP estimates almost $800 billion below Obama’s, it becomes apparent that, if anything, inflation will drive GDP and skew the numbers allowing the White House to spew their claims still.

More and more citizens are recognizing each day the shortcomings of all of these governmental claims as evident in recent polls, in the skepticism of many politicians (including Democrats) to support Obama’s proposed policies, and in the emergence of an impassioned “tea party” movement of concerned citizens and grassroots efforts.

We can only hope this political awakening across America spreads to individuals from all backgrounds and ideologies as we demand true accountability from Washington in its implementation of policy and its handling of our tax dollars.

The time for mere claims must end. The time for real change must begin.

(Originally posted on August 16th, 2007)

(Chicago, Illinois) – After shocking many by suggesting that teaching sex education in kindergarten is the right thing to do, Barak Obama decided to more fully explain what he believes to be “age appropriate” sex ed for public schools.

“People are out of control on this,” said Obama. “I wasn’t talking about giving condoms to 5-year-olds. Our schools should wait until at least age 7 to begin educating our children about condoms, abortion, and oral stimulation. A 5-year-old needs to know basic anatomy and understand that his or her anatomy can make a baby if they are not careful. So watch out! But we also need to teach them that they are protected by the Constitution to not have a baby if they choose. So be careful. But not too careful.”

And parents should be given the right to opt their children out of these programs until age 10. But they would be foolish to do that, as I am convinced that the vast majority of today’s parents are not prepared to teach their children about sex education. The public schools are much better equipped to do so. It’s never too early to start teaching these things to children. They need to know that having sexual feelings about their friends and their teachers at that age is completely normal. I bet most parents aren’t teaching that to their 5-year-olds, which is a prime example of why our schools need to take action. I hope this better explains my position on the issue, and now we can move on to other issues. Like banning children from bringing their lunch to school so that the teachers can monitor the diet of each and every child to ensure it conforms to government standards.”

(Written on November 5th, 2008)

Well, it’s going to be close (cough) but Obama might pull through…

What I’m focusing on now is the Senate. I love checks and balances — especially when they cause the ever loved “political gridlock”. You see, whenever the governmental bureaucrats smoothly are able to implement their policies for the betterment of the general welfare, you can bet that most likely special interests will reap their rewards, inefficiency will ensure the attempted policy’s failure, and taxpayers will take care of the bill.

I don’t have a double standard. I was happy that the Republicans barely controlled the Senate a few years back ensuring that the Democrats could always threaten using their filibuster power. And now, we have the prospect that the legislative, the executive, and (in a little over two years or more probably) the judicial will have leftist ideologues at their helm. It is imperative that the Republicans hold on to 41 seats in the Senate to bear through these next couple years.

Such an electoral sweep places Obama in a politically awkward situation. Here we have a candidate that has promised an agenda centered on unity and political healing. Numerous times, Obama surrogates have emphasized this point. When Obama voted in favor of FISA legislation, for example, Harold Ford told ABC news that Obama’s “not running to be the left’s president” or “MoveOn.Org’s president”. However, with such an impressive, electoral mandate, Obama tomorrow has a heavy burden to sort through. His base expects so much from him; he has made his promises of change and has promised to accomplish them with his hope-filled audacity. He is entering office with the exigency to address our delicate foreign affairs situation in the Middle East and an economy that might suffer more in its cyclical recession. The Democrat-controlled House (as less Blue-Dog Democrats were elected this time compared to 2006) and Senate will hold Obama to expectations.

So…Obama must now decide whether he will radicalize Washington and implement an encompassing leftist agenda, or will he walk a safe, moderate, Clintonian line. The worst things for the Democratic Party, in my opinion, would be for Obama to follow a very leftist agenda; there will be backlash in 2010. The Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 not because the country has decided on a referendum of Republican principals but because the country has decided on a referendum of politics as usual. Over the last few years, when I’ve looked at the debates and votes in Congress and the policies of George Bush, I often couldn’t differentiate between party and ideology. The Republicans became complacent; the power became corrupting; the principals became forgotten.

Trust me. Come 2010, if the Obama administration thinks he has just became the left’s Reagan and they now have the citizen’s backing to implement a far-reaching leftist agenda, then the Republicans will definitely be back in the House and Senate in two years. Being out in the cold might just make the Republicans retake the principals they so lackadaisically abandoned and organize themselves into a well-oiled, political machine.

Come 2010…

(Written on November 4th, 2008)

Last night my dad was telling me about his early voting experience.

He and my momma (don’t know if she held on to her PUMA tendencies when she voted) had found their way to the nearest church/polling place. What they saw made them lose more faith in “the great fabric of democracy” than even McCain reminding us of ACORN’s piercing threat to America.

Waiting in the swarming line, they realized that maybe only two other voters had even showered in the last week. As the line began dissipating and the booths came into sight, my parents became victim of voter intimidation. Standing at a forboding 3′ 4″, the six-year-old, African-American (probably a Black Panther even) Obama plant was carrying out his diabolical scheme. Like a fox, the impassioned ideologue sneaked up to lingering voters, gave a threatening tug on their clothing, and spewed forth (in his deafening pre-pubescent voice), “Are you voting for Obama or that white guy?”

Where are the McCain lawyers when we need them?