Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 9, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

"IT'S THE FOX DESIGNING THE HENHOUSE"....David Cay Johnston reports today that the IRS is outsourcing its writing of tax rules to the very lawyers and accountants who create tax shelters and exploit loopholes for the superrich:

John D. Graham, the official appointed by President Bush to streamline the federal rule-making process and give private interests a greater voice, said even he was surprised by the I.R.S. plan.

"Whoever's pen the first draft comes out of has a big advantage," said Dr. Graham, who ran the Office of Regulatory and Information Affairs for the White House before becoming dean last week of the graduate school at RAND, the nonprofit research organization.

....A single word, sometimes one letter, can change the meaning of a rule: "must" or "may"; "and" versus "or"; "could" or "would."

....In recent years there has been a quickening pace of moves to outsource the actual work of regulation, hiring contractors to write the rules. Now the I.R.S. is proposing that outside experts do it at no charge, opening up the possibility that some firms providing the draft would be working on behalf of an individual, business or association seeking to plant a favorable nuance in a rule.

What an outrageous thing to say. I'm sure all these guys are doing this work for free merely out of a sense of pro bono altruism and a desire to make sure our tax rules are clear and consistent. I really don't know where Johnston gets off implying that they might be trying to plant "favorable nuances" that they can later take advantage of.

Anyway, the IRS says this is just a pilot project limited to "technical and noncontroversial issues." So I'm sure there's nothing to worry about. And certainly no reason for the Democratic Congress to restore cuts in IRS staffing so that they can once again write their own rules and audit the rich with the same zeal they audit the working poor. Why, that would be tantamount to class warfare, wouldn't it?

Kevin Drum 1:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (54)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

David Cay Johnston reports today that the IRS is outsourcing its writing of tax rules to the very lawyers and accountants who create tax shelters and exploit loopholes for the superrich:

Great idea. The best way to know which loopholes the superrich are using is to ask the people who created and use them. By hiring those lawyers and accountants to rewrite those rules, we can use their expertise to rewrite tax rules for the benefit for the poor and middle class which is what we both want. It's certainly better to hire lawyers and accountants who know the subject of tax shelters best rather than those who don't know anything about the subject.

Posted by: Al on March 9, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Is anybody really suprised by this? Ever since the beginning of his presidency, Bush43 has been outsourcing the writing of regulations to memebers of the industries being regulated.

The difference now is that with the Democrats in control of Congress, they are in a position to do some actual oversight and maybe do something about it.

Posted by: mfw13 on March 9, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the instances of outsourced rule writing will be limited to the same degree the FBI testified secret warrants and searches would be limited. Ooops.

Posted by: steve duncan on March 9, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Those high-priced tax lawyers are almost certainly Republicans, because they understand the value of money. So you can trust them. It's not like the IRS is proposing to let liberals write the tax law. Now that would be outrageous!

Posted by: American Hock on March 9, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Under the current regime, the people with the most important jobs that make the most money have 50-60% of their income coercively taken from them by the state, whereas there are hundreds or thousands of programs that give the alleged "working poor" something for nothing. How much more do you want, Kevin? Will you not be happy until anybody with a college education is forking over 95% of their income to subsidize high school dropouts?

Posted by: American Hawk on March 9, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

actually, I think it's getting time to have some class warfare. Time to start bussing homeless Iraq vets into rich sanctuaries, dropping them off, and see what happens.

If the overloards started fearing for their safety, they might be a little more conservative, in the proper sense of the word.

fucktards.

Posted by: Trypticon on March 9, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Can someone please bring a "self-sufficient government" bill to the floor? I mean, did it every occur to anyone that (even if it costs more) there's value in having the expertise in-house? And just imagine what would happen if there were no incentive to create (for instance) complicated tax code?
Hey, that would be a great idea for the military too! No more Halliburton water trucks in Iraq. No more "private security firms" (aka mercenaries) running guns in the warzone. Wow, imagine what would happen if there were no profit-incentive to go to war? Hey, what would happen then???

Posted by: Govt Skeptic on March 9, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Great... our national tax code is gonna be friggin Wikipedia...

Posted by: bubba on March 9, 2007 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Hawk,

You stupid fuck. I know you're just trying to get yours and are getting paid by the post by some rich pedophiliac christian hypocrit to support your meth habit while you avoid service in Iraq, but seriously, stop trying to convince people of your formulaic crap when you are too stupid to breath.

Posted by: Trypticon on March 9, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, "technical and noncontroversial issues" -- you know, like that technical, noncontroversial question about who would get to appoint replacements for a fired US Attorney and how long the replacements could serve.

Nothing to see, move along.

Posted by: paul on March 9, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

You can't have a bipartisan relationship with evil. It would be like your body having a bipartisan relationship with syphilis.

Posted by: cld on March 9, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

I don't like to rely on Al Franken too often, but once in a while he offers some pretty cutting quips. The following excerpt is from his book (of comedy) "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them":

"Anytime a liberal points out that the wealthy are disproportionately benefiting from Bush's tax politices, Republicans shout, 'class warfare!'

In her book A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century, Barbara Tuchman writes about a peasant revolt in 1358 that began in the village of St. Leu and spread throughou the Oise Valley. At one estate, the serfs sacked the manor house, killed the knight, and roasted him on a spit in front of his wife and kids. Then, after ten or twelves peasants violated the lady, with the children still watching, they force her to eat the roasted flesh of her husband and then killed her.

That is class warfare.

Arguing over the optimum marginal tax rate for the top one percent is not. "

- page 312

Posted by: Everblue Stater on March 9, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

OK, not only can the rich write the IRS rules, but we can pay them a 3% fee whenever the budget is balanced.


Posted by: Matt on March 9, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Under the current regime, the people with the most important jobs that make the most money have 50-60% of their income coercively taken from them by the state

Wow, soldiers in Iraq are paying those kind of taxes ? Firemen and policemen too ?

How about ministers and school teachers...

Or did you mean something else when you were mentioned "the most important jobs" ?

Posted by: Stephen on March 9, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

yeah. I think it's time to get at least a wee bit medieval on some rich ass mofos. It's not as if the peace isn't already being disturbed. We're just too pliant to notice. Frogs in the heating water, and we're already gumbo.

Public transportation is jacking your SUV, beyatch. Distributed criminality. Open source ownership.

Let's give them something to worry about. We might get more sober governance if the extremely priveledged and insolated realized that spiraling inequity was not in their best interests.

Posted by: Trypticon on March 9, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Long before the return of the ownership class in the 1980’s, Hannah Arendt, reflecting on the Victorian ownership class, pointed out that they were principally interested in taking control of the state away from the nation (i.e. the people) and turning the functions of the state to serve their particular interests of money accumulation. She came to the conclusion that imperialism was just using the war-making monopoly of the state for private interests. The new oil law in Iraq, crafted by the Bush administration in consultation with the oil companies, comes from the same desire as businessmen writing rules for the IRS. The ideal state for the owners is not a democratic commonwealth but a state where the rich are untaxed, the chamber of commerce runs the upper house and the military is used to get resources and secure markets for their own interests. The ancient political ideal of commonwealth is unthinkable.

Posted by: bellumregio on March 9, 2007 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Perfectly Legal should be taught in every high school.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on March 9, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Hate to break it to everyone, but the Congress is mostly lawyers, too.

Most complex tax regulations are written by politicians to benefit some favorite political donor or interest group, and always have been. Both parties. Smell the coffee.

Posted by: harry on March 9, 2007 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Hawk -

First of all, NOBODY pays 50%-60% of their income to the federal government. That is simply a blatant falsehood. You're about fifty years or so behind the times on that one.

You're also conveniently ignoring the central point of this post: the super-rich don't pay anywhere NEAR what they're supposed to because of these shady tax shelters and evasion scams. The middle class gets comparatively screwed even with a much lower rate of taxation because they don't have an extra five to ten thousand dollars to pay the high-powered tax evasion specialists to whittle their tax bill down.

You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that the ultra-rich only make their money because of the protections and order provided by the government. That's the price you pay. If there were no government, or an excessively weak or ineffectual one, Bill Gates would have gotten his ass kicked by one of those high-school dropouts you love to heap scorn upon, who would then make off with all of his loot.

Posted by: Epsilon on March 9, 2007 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

The National Treasury Employees Union is on the case. Go to http://www.nteu.org/contractingout.aspx and scroll to the bottom to send a letter in support of legislation in Congress to prevent the IRS from using private collection agencies to collect taxes.

Thank you!

Posted by: allys gift on March 9, 2007 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Epsilon:

The vast majority of tax revenues still come from the very top percentages of income. Obviously, they are paying their share. Unless you put the top of the bar for "middle class" at 250,000 a year.

The old gag about the rich getting "more" from the government doesn't stand up. Tell me exactly where the military, regulatory agencies, highway departments, or any other government entity spends much more on Bill Gates in terms of actual money spent than they do on some middle class guy. It's not like he gets his own lane on the freeway.

But hey, the delusions are just great for justifying further looting. After all, if you have to admit they earned their wealth, then you're just another pickpocket.

Posted by: hayek on March 9, 2007 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Mr. Hawk:

When you get a paying job, you'll have to learn the difference between total tax rate and marginal tax rate. Also, the bottom twenty percent in this country pays about 16% of their income in taxes. The top 20% pays about 24%. Not a huge difference. The top 1%? About 26%. That's because many taxes (Social Security, State sales taxes, State income taxes) are regressive. Can you say regressive? I knew you could.

Posted by: Jose Padilla on March 9, 2007 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Mr. Hayek:

"Tell me exactly where the military, regulatory agencies, highway departments, or any other government entity spends much more on Bill Gates in terms of actual money spent than they do on some middle class guy. It's not like he gets his own lane on the freeway."

Interesting concept. And if you don't have any kids, you shouldn't have to pay school taxes. If you don't have a car you shouldn't have to pay keep the roads and bridges. I don't get anything out of the war in Iraq except heartache, so I shouldn't have to pay for that. Oh, and Bill Gates has gotten a hell of a lot out of our society (see, for example, the enforcement of intellectual property laws) and I think he'd be the first to agree.

Posted by: Jose Padilla on March 9, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK
The old gag about the rich getting "more" from the government doesn't stand up.

Yeah, it does. One of the primary effects of organized society under government is to enable the division of labor, enforcement of property, and thereby facilitate the accumulation of large fortunes (largely at the expense of self-sufficiency.)

The larger your accumulation of wealth, the more its accumulation and continued existence is a product of the government.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 9, 2007 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

But hey, the delusions are just great for justifying further looting.

Facts not introduced in to evidence.

After all, if you have to admit they earned their wealth, then you're just another pickpocket.

Wingnuttery. When you can bring some facts rather than loosely-hinged suppositions and innuendo, then maybe you can discuss a relevant issue with the adults who presently are dismantling your specious comments.

Buh-bye.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 9, 2007 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

I hope they put some nice tax breaks for bloggers like me:

- allowing me to write off the money my mom makes me pay to use the computer

- write off the money I spend on purchasing Matt Sanchez videos

- write off the money I spend stalking Ann Coulter.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on March 9, 2007 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Of course the vast majority of tax income still comes from the ultra-rich. That would be because the vast majority of MONEY is controlled by the ultra-rich. I love how right-wingers point that out as if it's some sort of earth-shattering revelation.

The fact is, though, that if they are cheating the system, they DON'T pay their fair share, because those who don't have as much don't have the luxury of paying less than the code dictates they pay.

And you're looking at the whole government issue from the wrong angle, of course. It's not that the government provides direct services to Bill Gates in any greater capacity; it's that Bill Gates stands far more to lose if the government ceases protecting his right to self-determination. He would never have been able to make the money he did in the first place, and certainly wouldn't be able to retain it, without the protections of the rule of law that only the government can consistently and non-arbitrarily provide.

Posted by: Epsilon on March 9, 2007 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

And certainly no reason for the Democratic Congress to restore cuts in IRS staffing so that they can once again write their own rules and audit the rich with the same zeal they audit the working poor.

Congress retains final authority to approve or disapprove the rules. Write to your Congressional representatives.

Posted by: spider on March 9, 2007 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

I hear Hawk is good roasted on a spit.

Or is it just good to spit on Hawk? Can't remember.
(Surely we can find some grizzled old Vietnam protesters to do the job;)

Love these guys who just gosh-darn-it want to help out the super-rich for later—you know, when they get something better than that job at Kinko's.

Posted by: Kenji on March 9, 2007 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK
Great... our national tax code is gonna be friggin Wikipedia...

I'd say more like Conservapedia.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 9, 2007 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

This is excellent news!

Posted by: filthy_rich_guy on March 9, 2007 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

So according to Hawk we should outsource the Presidency.You know someone who knows how to run a country,Not some dumb hack from Texas who couldn't even find his way to the base for TANG.

Posted by: john john on March 9, 2007 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Epsilon, you seem to argue that middle class taxpayers do have the option of paying 5 or 10 grand to a tax advisor to find tax shelters, but that it would not be cost effective for them to do so. If that's your point, it's not true -unless you want to get into some silly scheme for setting up trusts that will eventually cost you a whole lot more than $10,000 in lawyer fees if the IRS catches you.

The advantage the rich have is that they control the amount, the timing, and character of their income. They are the executives who control the corporate boards that make sure that they get their pay in the form of lightly taxed dividends, capital gains, deferred gains, passive income, nonpassive income, fringe benefits, or even as those pedestrian salaries. Whatever their unique tax situation, they've got banks and corporations and other entities that can make it happen for them.

If you are just a wage earner, there is very little you can do to shelter your income. If you are middleclass to poor and self-employed, it is ridiculously easy to cheat, and very unlikely you will get caught (hence the prevalence), but you don't have many options to legally shelter your income.

But if you are one of the high priests of American Society, those Capitalists from whom all goods, freedoms, and virtue flow, your legal options for sheltering income are endless, because YOU are the ones writing the rules. And Mr. Bush and friends don't even think they need to hide that fact anymore because they think it is so selfevident that they deserve anything they want.

This issue reminds me of all the NAFTA negotiators that made a mint after NAFTA started, when they hired themselves out to sell their expertise in the exploiting the loopholes they deliberately put in there. Funny how NAFTA only worked out for big business; and labor, the environment and consumers got screwed in the wazoo.

I believe "non-controversial" is French for "we're trying to keep it secret, otherwise there would be controversy".

Posted by: jussumbody on March 9, 2007 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Americans need to decide if they want to live in a real country or a joke.

Posted by: Nemesis on March 9, 2007 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK
Americans need to decide if they want to live in a real country or a joke.

I think they did decide on the "real country" option, hence the 2006 midterm results. Nevertheless, certain factions still prefer the "joke" choice, notably the present Administration.

Example:
The first rule of polar bears is you don't talk about polar bears.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 9, 2007 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

jussomebody -

I think we're pretty much at the same destination via a slightly different road. Thanks for clarifying.

Posted by: Epsilon on March 9, 2007 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Do Al or Hawk even have spinal cords?

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on March 9, 2007 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Folks, do you know how much the Wal-Mart Waltons pay on their dividend income?

Thanks to the "it's our due" Cheney administration, they pay 15%, far less than the 25% marginal tax rate of the average middle-class taxpayer (who also has to tithe 7.65% via FICA & Medicare).

The Democratic Congress should fix this now.

Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago on March 9, 2007 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

Why do I hear crickets to the left?

Oh yeah, because of this: Teddy Kennedy's latest attempt to give AnAmnesty to millions of IllegalAliens is being written with the input of outside lobby groups. And, some of those groups have some quite disturbing links.

Posted by: TLB on March 9, 2007 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

TLB - perhaps you can understand the difference between a Senator getting input from other people when writing legislation, and the executive branch farming out the job of writing regulations?

Legislators are supposed to get input! Duh!

The IRS is supposed to write its own tax code!

I suggest you go back to college and pay a bit more attention this time. Your attempt to draw equivalences is failing miserably.

Posted by: Rick on March 9, 2007 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, who had "7:48 pm" in the "Time of the first specious non-comparison made by a right-wing racist nutjob" pool?

Posted by: Phoenix Woman on March 9, 2007 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

Epsilon:

And you're looking at the whole government issue from the wrong angle, of course. It's not that the government provides direct services to Bill Gates in any greater capacity; it's that Bill Gates stands far more to lose if the government ceases protecting his right to self-determination. He would never have been able to make the money he did in the first place, and certainly wouldn't be able to retain it, without the protections of the rule of law that only the government can consistently and non-arbitrarily provide.

The fact is, the government does not spend one more nickel keeping Gates' wealth safe than it does keeping mine safe. And frankly, a billionaire can afford his own cops if things hit the fan.

What you should do some time is go into the Federal budget, and see exactly how much money is actually spent on the regulatory agencies, banking regulators, courts, and all the other trappings of law that protect all of our wealth and property.

I think the entire Department of Justice budget is in the $20 billion range. What percentage of the Federal Budget is that compared to, say, entitlements?

Do you think it costs a local government more to give Bill Gate's neighborhood police protection, or a neighborhood in the inner city?

Be honest enough to admit that the reason the government soaks the rich is because that's where the money is, and everything else is just an attempt to justify it. Once you accept wealth redistribution as a moral imperative, why bother to gild it?

Bill Gates is probably a bad example to use for someone sheltered by a benevolent government since the government recently tried to wreck his company and break it apart.

Posted by: hayak on March 9, 2007 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

Not some dumb hack from Texas who couldn't even find his way to the base for TANG.

Did someone say "tang?"

Where?

Posted by: Newt Gingrich on March 9, 2007 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

Class warfare?? Ronald Reagan and conservative Republicans declared war on the American middle class in 1980 and the casualties have been one-sided and catastrophic.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on March 9, 2007 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Kevin. I agree with Johnston. Attorneys usually work for similar clients. Besides, the code is gobblegooked enough now. The law profession is the one that invented doublespeak & burying loopholes under stacks of paperwork. Come to think about it, most of the bills that go before the Congress are written by lawyers

Posted by: bob in fl on March 9, 2007 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

They HALLIBURTONIZED Iraq, Walter Reed, Schools,and why not the IRS. It is the looting of the nations treasure and they are getting better every day, never mind the incompetence otherwise.

By the time they get kicked out of office the little oink, oinks have it all.

Posted by: Renate on March 9, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Can the Republican Party get any more corrupt????

Posted by: The Oracle on March 9, 2007 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

"What you should do some time is go into the Federal budget, and see exactly how much money is actually spent on the regulatory agencies, banking regulators, courts, and all the other trappings of law that protect all of our wealth and property."

You're off the mark here. What protects the wealthy is not so much defense by the government or organized force, but restraint on the part of the masses, which requires a social bargain and some legitimacy in the social/economic system as reflected in laws that citizens are willing to obey. Because legitimacy of the system is the glue that holds everything together, it is perfectly fair to wonder why a billionaire is NOT taxed at 90%, leaving him $100,000,000 still. And whether that $100 million is sufficient incentive to keep creating wealth, which is the only extraordinary public service that the wealthy perform.

Posted by: whichhayak on March 10, 2007 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

hayak--

"The government does not spend one more dime keeping Bill Gates' wealth safe..."

Well, it probably does spend a LITTLE bit more, but that's not even the main point. The money that is spent to keep a civilized society cannot usually be determined as being directed towards keeping any individual's wealth safe. But that is the end result. Bill Gates benefits, I benefit, whatever. You can't parse it out that cleanly.

And "spending money" is of course not the main way the government sustains the wealthy. That would be fairly cheap things like, printing a license to practice law or medicine, or issuing a patent. Or a US Birth Certificate, for that matter. All of that might cost virtually nothing to the government. But these things are of enormous benefit to the wealthy. In fact, they're the only reason why wealth can survive.

Posted by: kokblok on March 10, 2007 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

Under the current regime, the people with the most important jobs that make the most money have 50-60% of their income coercively taken from them by the state, whereas there are hundreds or thousands of programs that give the alleged "working poor" something for nothing. How much more do you want, Kevin? Will you not be happy until anybody with a college education is forking over 95% of their income to subsidize high school dropouts?

Are we certain this isn't parody? I mean, even the top marginal rate isn't 50-60%. And having lots of people doing an honest day's work without getting an honest day's pay is not only unjust but endangers everyone's economic stability.

But this really is how conservatives think, isn't it? They believe that working people should pay taxes, but only the rich should benefit from those taxes. Programs that do anything from the rest of us are "theft".

So we pay for a judicial system that serves only the rich, pay for wars that enrich the rich but kill and maim the poor buggers who fight in them, pay for an electoral system that disenfranchises the majority, and the rich can just claim they are "too important" to have to pay anything for the system themselves.

I understand why the immorally rich support such a system, but anyone else who is a modern conservative is just plain stupid.

50-60%! Haha! That's how much they use, but it's certainly not what they pay.

Posted by: Avedon on March 10, 2007 at 7:10 AM | PERMALINK

I think the entire Department of Justice budget is in the $20 billion range. What percentage of the Federal Budget is that compared to, say, entitlements?

Hahaha! More comedy!

They are called "entitlements" because the people who get them have paid for them.

Posted by: Avedon on March 10, 2007 at 7:25 AM | PERMALINK

I've always regarded Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century as 'Back to the Future' for historians.

She pretty much spells it out in her foreword that she saw parallels to the trajectory of our times...I can't seem to immediately lay hands on my copy...damn.

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 10, 2007 at 8:20 AM | PERMALINK

The IRS is supposed to write its own tax code! - Rick

Maybe you're the one who needs some remedial education here, sweetie.

Ummm....no. That's Congress' job. Check the Constitution. It's pretty clear that the power to tax is reserved to the legislative branch.

Although they've mostly out-sourced that function to lobbyists. The Service does not make tax law, it merely tries to interpret and enforce (very selectively of course) the specially tailored and often contradictory gibberish that comes out of Congress.


"That's not only bad government, it's bad capitalism. It makes legalized bribery and political connections more important factors than performance and competition in the corporate marketplace. Beyond that, it's just plain fucking offensive to ordinary people. It's one thing to complain about paying taxes when those taxes are buying a bag of groceries once a month for some struggling single mom in eastern Kentucky. But when your taxes are buying a yacht for some asshole who hires African eight year-olds to pick cocoa beans for two cents an hour ... I sure don't remember reading an excuse for that anywhere in the Federalist Papers."

Maybe We Deserve to Be Ripped Off By Bush's Billionaires By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 10, 2007 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK


MsNThrope: Maybe We Deserve to Be Ripped Off By Bush's Billionaires By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com


just another example of...

we told you so..

now look...

Posted by: mr. irony on March 12, 2007 at 8:13 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly