Garrett Lectures EU on Hedge Funds

A hallmark of conservative principles used to be that we don't interfere with other nations, because we don't want them interfering with us. However, in this new world, our Representative Scott Garrett decided he should join in defense of hedge funds with Representative Paul Kanjorski in criticizing what is essentially a European Union decision. From Bloomberg:

Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat, told EU lawmakers today that proposed EU rules “scared the living bejesus” out of the industry. (London Mayor) Johnson said that the proposals threaten London’s role as a leading financial center.

The rules under consideration would limit the amount of borrowing hedge funds can use and require the use of European- domiciled banks. The initiative was designed amid the fallout from the financial crisis, in which the decline of the U.S. housing market triggered bank losses and triggered the first worldwide recession since World War II.

“Your focus should be elsewhere,” Congressman Scott Garrett, a Republican from New Jersey, told members of the European Parliament’s economic and monetary affairs committee. He said hedge funds weren’t the cause of the global financial crisis.

While Garrett has a history of defending hedge funds, one has to hope the characterization of Garrett's comments weren't actually Garrett saying they played no part in the problem. It would be the height if irresponsibility for him to suggest hedge funds played no part in artificially inflating the bubble.

However, Garrett's "focus elsewhere" comment is very much in line with his thinking. Readers have to remember, he voted against having hedge fund managers taxed like normal people, which would lay the groundwork for a permanent AMT fix for the 20% of our District who have to pay it.

Yes, apparently the opposition to the proposals are bi-partisan, but why are our Congressmen over in Europe telling them how to run their markets? What jobs are they costing our financial sector, if in fact hedge funds would move, should the regulations go into place?

The Tea Parties

Yesterday, in addition to being tax filing day, also became national "teabagging" day as thousands took to the streets to protest having to pay taxes. It's interesting that those leading the charge are many of the same people that looked the other way while the Bush Administration and his Republican Congress were saying deficits don't matter.

Our own Representative Scott Garrett got in on the action, mentioning the tea parties in an Op-Ed he got published in the Herald News.

Americans recognize that the government needs their tax dollars to function and provide essential programs for our country, and Americans have always been willing to pay their fair share.

As nice a statement as it is, the "fair share" thing depends who you're talking to.

The reason our District gets crushed by the AMT is because getting rid of it would force taxes and/or borrowing up for the rest of the nation. There was the thought of taxing 5,000 or so hedge fund managers like normal people, which actually would have been a huge step toward repealing the AMT, but Garrett and others rejected the approach. Is that fair?

And what's essential?

You're reading this, so you're benefiting from the investment of taxpayers in the 60's, 70's and 80's to build the technology and backbone of the Internet.

On top of that, chances are, you honed your reading skills thanks to the investment of those taxpayers working when you were a kid. And there's no doubt many of us survived childhood due to vaccines that were funded by taxpayers from the 1920s to present day.

If you're at your job, it's roads and transit that others paid for to get you there. Ever pay to pave your driveway? Imagine having to pave your own road to work.

And we all cheered when Captain Richard Phillips was rescued, but we can't forget that taxpayers footed a lot of bills to get the SEALS to where they needed to be to take those shots, starting in kindergarten.

Now, there's no doubt the government spends a lot of money it doesn't need to. Programs like Medicare Advantage, where taxpayers are paying more for services than they should be, are ripe throughout government. Any meaningful change in tax and spending policy has to start by sifting things like that out. However, we're coming out of eight years of tax cut and spend, which eliminated not only deficit hawks but true fiscal conservatives in government.

In addition to no-bid contracts, earmarks tend to be a top waste of money, or at the very least one of the biggest ways of preventing us from making sure we're getting the best bang for our buck. Unfortunately, there are only 35 Representatives who don't request earmarks.

If you're one of the teabaggers reading this, then hold your own Representative accountable. If they're earmarking, they're not helping reduce government spending. If they're talking about eliminating national programs, they're talking about raising your local taxes. If they're talking about giving you tax cuts, but won't cut programs we don't need like the F-22, they're talking about taxing your grandchildren.

Protests like yesterday don't mean anything when people re-elect their own elected officials 90% of the time. The whole mess is our own fault, and it hardly started with Obama. Sure, Republicans seized and nourished the rage, but that's the greatest con-job of all since they were the ones handing out no-bid contracts in Iraq and were in control of Congress and regulation agencies when things started falling apart in the financial sector.

The partisanship, the name calling, all of it needs to stop. We're in a hole we allowed ourselves to be put in, and now we're going to have to dig ourselves out. It is possible we will, but the anger expressed yesterday needs to be transformed from name calling into concrete ideas. And voters need to wake up and realize where we're at has been decades in the making, and it's likely going to take a decade to fix.

Will the Borrowers Win Again?

Back in December, I wrote about how Representative Scott Garrett had joined the tax cut and borrowers in voting against meaningful AMT reform. Well, today he did it again.

Once again, the $61.5 billion in projected borrowing to provide relief to 20 million families is being off-set by targeted tax increases directed at 5,000 or so hedge fund managers. Here's how the AP explains it:

The offsets in the package before the House Wednesday include a measure that would raise $31 billion over 10 years by increasing the tax rate on the share of investment profits received by private equity and hedge fund managers, also known as carried interest. Managers of private equity and hedge funds are now generally taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rates on the profits they share instead of the 35 percent individual income tax rate that would normally apply to high-income individuals. The bill would tax most of their profit-sharing income at the higher 35 percent rate.

That's right, there are roughly 5,000 people paying an average of $620,000 less in taxes than they would be if they were taxed like normal people. Many Americans won't make that much money over 20 years of work, let alone skip the taxes annually.

As a deficit hawk, it's extremely frustrating to watch this debate every year. The dream used to be getting the Democrats around to supporting balancing the budget. Then, almost as soon as it happened, the Republicans became the deficit spending lovers. What gives?

While I haven't seen a comment from Garrett this time around, Representative Jim McCrery provides a decent soundbite as to the Republican logic:

Republicans believe that Congress should not raise taxes on one group of
taxpayers in order to prevent an increase on another set of taxpayers.

So instead, Republicans want to raise the taxes on entire future generations payable to the Chinese?

Taxes today are about 25% higher than they need to be because of interest due on previous deficit spending. How high are we going to go if these special interest driven partisan games continue?

Garrett Shmorgishborg

So much to read, this is a round-up of Representative Scott Garrett and other news from the web:

*A lot is being made of the polls released by Camille Abate, and particularly Dennis Shulman, each shows Garrett being unknown and unpopular in the District, causing CQ Politics to remove our District from the Safe Republican category.

*Blue Jersey's Scott in NJ took the time to compile a great chart tracking the money race. It's no different surprise Garrett holds a large lead in cash on hand.

1. Garrett: $457,521.36
2. Shulman: $245,549.80
3. Abate: $103,193.05

*Garrett railed against government spending over at The Hill Blog. He and his colleagues at the RSC hope to introduce an amendment to tie spending increases to growth in the GDP. This is one way to defund the Iraq war in a hurry.

*Garrett also used a bit of revisionist history in his Op-Ed calling for the end to the AMT. He neglected to mention a patch could have been passed much sooner than it was, however Garrett was one who led the charge to protect a loophole enjoyed by less than 60,000 people at the expense of the millions impacted by the AMT.

That's it for now...

The Borrowers Win

The AMT bill without any offsets to prevent further borrowing was passed by a whopping majority. This is a good thing for the taxpayers next year, but a bad thing down the line. It also does nothing to change the fact 120,000 families in our District already pay the AMT. Representative Scott Garrett voted for the patch, and the continuation of our District's disproportionate share of the Federal tax burden.

Garrett and the AMT Standoff

In the four years Representative Scott Garrett served in the Republican majority he never got a single bill he wrote enacted into law. Of particular disappointment to the people I spoke with last year was the AMT and Garrett's inability to prevent people in our District from being forced to pay it.

Right now, 120,000 people from our District pay the AMT. Garrett's solution is to eliminate it and borrow the money so people's children and grandchildren get to pay compound interest on the debt. Sadly, when the Republicans went from the debt reduction PAYGO party to the tax cut and borrow party, Garrett and those who agreed with him created an awful bind. The second round of Bush Tax cuts, which Garrett co-sponsored, couldn't have been passed without eliminating PAYGO, expanding the AMT, and borrowing TRILLIONS.

The cut and borrow philosophy has caused the deficit to explode a staggering 60% in the last seven years, to over $9 trillion, causing our economic policy to be dictated by the likes of China. When I was campaigning last year, someone reiterated Cheney's "deficits don't matter" line when I was talking about the need to re-institute PAYGO and I reminded them of this from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

The AMT debate has come down to a standoff between the borrowers and the true fiscal conservatives in both parties in both chambers of Congress, and our District is caught in the crossfire. When 20% of the District is impacted by something, one would hope Garrett would be the one to come through with the compromise that gets the job done.

Unfortunately, as usual, Garrett has chosen partisan rhetoric over substantive work. Garrett hasn't offered a deficit neutral solution of his own, he's voted against the Democrat's deficit neutral proposal, and now has come out and slammed the Democrats for inaction on the AMT even though it's the borrow happy Republicans in the Senate getting in the way of the patch getting passed.

This hasn't been funny or cute for a long time.

In his closing remarks about the omnibus spending bill passed last night, which neither Democrats nor Republicans were 100% happy with, Representative David Obey made the following statement:

The difference is that this year we are recognizing that in an adult world, win, lose, or draw, we have an obligation to reach some final decisions. We have an obligation to compromise and move on. And that's what we are trying to do with this legislation. It is a responsible thing to do.

Nearly 20% of the population of our District are about to pay the price for Garrett's entrenched ineptitude. Garrett has an obligation to the 120,000 taxpayers in this District, and to future generations, to work toward a compromise. A compromise involves both sides giving up something.

If Garrett doesn't like 50,000 hedge fund managers paying the same tax rate as everybody else, he has an obligation to propose something else. Not some borrow more scheme endorsed by the Club for Growth and their 3 donors that live in our District; but a solution that can get passed and doesn't continue to cripple the American Dream for future generations.

If Garrett continues to substitute rhetoric for action, this being a Republican district, then the obligation Garrett abdicates falls on the shoulders of Republican primary voters. I cannot believe the Republicans I worked for years ago are pleased with Garrett's ineptitude and deficit exploding stances. There has to be a point where Garrett's reckless stances are taken to task.

Republican Primary Wars

With the announcement by Representative Mike Ferguson that he'd be retiring, NJ's political class (PolitickerNJ, Blue Jersey, Red Jersey, Conservatives With Attitude) has started full tilt speculation as to who is going to run.

This is likely to be a heck of a fight between the Conservatives and moderate Republicans. AJ Sparxx over on CWA-NJ has already started beating the Conservative drum:

Now is the time to find a Conservative to win this seat and take it away from a moderate like Ferguson, keep it out of the hands from a moderate like Kean, Jr. and most importantly, keeping the Democrats from picking it off.

One group that is likely licking their chops is the Club For Growth. Back in September, they were already very pleased with their prospects for next year. The question is, outside of our District where they spend and raise a ton of money backing Representative Scott Garrett, how successful can they be in New Jersey?

Robert Novack pointed out that The Club was "founded to support conservatives and punish liberals in Republican primaries." They claim 40,000 members, and their bundling ability is rivaled by very few. Even though it seems they've only given Garrett $16,192 in donations, it's nearly impossible to guess how much of the $4.6 million he's raised over the years have come from Club members. I'm sure they let him know, which likely is why he switched his vote on Greenwood Lake funding once they came out against it.

The Club cost Republicans the Senate with their attacks on former Senator Lincoln Chaffee, and they are already targeting several Republicans. As with Rhode Island, we're a relatively blue state with several purple Districts, so it would be interesting to see how their tactics play here. Here's their list of priorities:

Club for Growth Policy Goals:

• Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
• Death tax repeal
• Cutting and limiting government spending
• Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
• Expanding free trade
• Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
• Replacing the current tax code
• School choice
• Regulatory reform and deregulation

Notice balancing the budget, paying down the deficit, fixing the AMT and creating jobs are not on the list. As I pointed out earlier, the Bush policies Garrett pledged to back have caused the deficit to grow and the dollar to sink. I suppose it could be called the "Club for Foreign Wealth and Power Growth."

The point is, Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) in the 7th, 3rd, and here in our Fifth need to fight to have a Representative who isn't a slave to the special interests. While the Club's 40,000 members can raise a lot of money and they'll spend a lot on ads calling people names, a Representative in NJ has about 700,000 constituents.

Garrett's a lost cause on this front, but in the interest of a better government and economy, my hope is that the Reps and Dems running in those Districts will put the special interests aside. Voters there should demand it. An open seat is the ultimate chance to change politics as usual. We'll have to see what primary voters make of the opportunity.

Garrett Votes for $1.5 Trillion Tax Increase

For the second time this week, Representative Scott Garrett voted against the people of our District. Today, the House voted against a temporary fix to the AMT to prevent it from creeping further into the middle class of our Fifth District and other parts of the country.

At issue, and why the bill was approved largely along partisan lines, is the provision changing the way 50,000 or so hedge fund managers are taxed. Currently, they pay at the 15% capital tax rate and avoid the AMT. Herb Jackson has the audio of Garrett's statement here, as well as Representative Bill Pascrell smacking his logic around.

As Garrett himself cited, 120,000 taxpayers in our District alone will be subject to the AMT without the patch Garrett just voted against. Here's how the Record broke down the impact not having a patch would have in our District:

If Congress takes no action this year, the alternative minimum tax would hit an additional 21 million taxpayers, including 1.5 million in New Jersey, with higher income tax rates. Here's what that would mean to a family in Ridgewood:

• Married couple, two children, filing jointly with $150,000 in income, $14,000 in property and state income taxes, $20,000 in mortgage interest and $500 in charitable contributions.
• 2006 federal tax bill: $18,690
• 2007 federal tax bill: $21,970
• Difference: $3,280 more

So even if every hedge fund manager in America lived in our Fifth District, which they don't, Garrett would put a $3,280 tax burden on 120,000 taxpayers to protect them? To be fair to Garrett, he has proposed a bill to completely eliminate the AMT. However, Garrett's bill has no chance of getting out of committee because it would cause the national debt to mushroom. This is another example of Garrett's lack of fiscal responsibility.

Playing the semantics game Garrett likes to play, by opposing the tax relief Garrett is in essence supporting a $1.5 trillion tax increase over the next ten years. We can add this to the list of assaults on the family budget by Garrett this year. How many families will see Garrett's lack of support for their family wallet as an issue next year should be an interesting story to follow, if not directly participate in.

The Budget Spin Cycle

Well, with passage yesterday of the House Budget, the spin season officially began. From now until every expenditure bill is passed, we'll have pleanty of spin to point to. Garrett and the entire Republican delegation from New Jersey voted against the budget. At issue is the lack of an extension of the Bush Tax cuts, so let's see what Representative Scott Garrett's website had to say about the budget (underlining his).

So what does this Democrat plan mean for taxpayers in North Jersey? According to the non-partisan taxpayer advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform, the average New Jersey taxpayer will see their taxes skyrocket by an average of $3,780.

Sounds and looks scary. Obviously, Garrett touting a study by the New York Times that I'm really starting to think doesn't exist wasn't scary enough. So, in an effort to ratchet up the fear factor Garrett turned to Americans for Tax Reform. They're about as non-partisan as I am when the Mets play the Braves or my best friend is when the Yankees play the Red Sox. They started the scheme known as the K Street Project and were the middle man for Jack Abramoff's defrauding of Native American tribes. In my completely non-legal yet morally grounded opinion ATR's Executive Director Grover Norquist belongs in jail with his good friend Jack Abramoff. However, these are the folks Garrett looks to for information.

Here's what the AP says about the future of the tax cuts.

As a practical matter, the future of the Bush tax cuts will likely be decided after the 2008 presidential election, with their fate depending on the balance of power after the election and on the fiscal outlook at that time.

Basically, your taxes aren't going up next year or the year after (unless you're pinched by the ever expanding AMT). The question will be what is done before the tax cuts expire after 2010. In an effort to deal with it before then, unlike the last few years, a Republican budget plan was put forward that preserved the tax cut as is. Here's what Garrett's site had to say about that.

In contrast to the Democrat budget, Congressman Garrett supported a budget alternative that would have balanced the budget and stopped the raid on Social Security funds without raising taxes.

Sounds pretty good, especially if you consider Garrett had previously supported the Bush Budget which, as I've pointed out before, would have raided Social Security to balance the budget. Yet here, from the AP once again, is exactly how that proposal balanced the budget.

Republicans countered with an alternative plan cutting $279 billion from federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years — far greater cuts than Bush proposed in February.

So to save Social Security, the alternative budget attacked the elderly and the defenseless more than the original Bush Budget. The vote was actually a Garrett to 12 on this one, with the rest of our fair state's congressional delegation voting against the alternative. Garrett obviously didn't get the memo, but I'm glad to see the rest of our delegation accepts the fact that the budget shouldn't be balanced on the backs of our society's most vulnerable members.

Eventually, some version of the Bush Tax cuts will be enacted with some major revisions. In all likelihood, gone will be the provisions that trap more families with the AMT; gone will be the provisions that give foreign companies an advantage over domestic ones; and gone will be the myriad of loopholes that have those with incomes over $1 million (240,000 filers in 2004) paying a lower tax rate than those making $500,000 - $1 million (433,000 filers in 2004

I realize as a co-sponsor of the 2003 cut, Garrett either isn't allowed to acknowledge or can't see these issues as a problem. He'd have the tax cuts reenacted as they are, and continue indefinitely the errors he and others made with the original round. Fortunately, the majority of Republicans and Democrats largely acknowledge the benefits of the tax cut in certain areas and the problems with it in others. Rhetoric like Garrett's doesn't help fix the problems and further isolates him from the negotiating table when making the tax cut better comes up

Good Votes, But We need a Source

So far, it's been a pretty good week for the Fifth. Representative Scott Garrett has voted pretty much the way I think most of the people in our District would have, with the exception of a vote against outlawing blades used to make cockfights more gruesome. Other than that, we've seen him vote for environmental protection, money for transit security (as a daily rider of NJ Transit, this is a big one for me), more money for disabled veterans, and probably most surprising, his vote for limiting the term of interim Federal prosecutor appointments.

As great as all this is, one thing about this week is more problematic than supporting the cockfighting blades. In both the Garrett Gazette and on the floor the other night, Garrett imparted this little bit of "wisdom."

Let’s take a look at what the Democrat budget proposal would do to a family of four from Bergen County earning $70,000 per year. According to a study done by the New York Times, that family saw their tax bill slashed by 20% after the Republican congress passed tax relief measures between 2001 and 2003. To roll those tax cuts back now would take around $1,500 out of that family’s budget today.

The reason I used the quotes up top is because I can't find the article. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just can't find the article. I've searched the New York Times website using several keywords including "Democrats Budget", "Bush Tax Cut", "House Budget", "Bergen Family of Four" and "$70,000".

The search turned up a lot of recent stuff, including: The Garrett co-sponsored 2003 Bush Tax cuts are giving foreign businesses a competitive advantage over domestic ones; The Democrats balance the budget without providing AMT relief (same as Bush); The AMT now impacts 23.4 million of the nation's 90 million taxpayers with help from the Bush tax cuts; and a story about how long term health insurers are denying care for thousands of senior citizen policyholders. With all of this and much more, I couldn't find the study Garrett cited.

My hope is that this is not another example of Garrett misrepresenting the truth after having such a good start to the week. A link or where we could find the article in a hard copy would be helpful if somebody has one. With all sides firing up the spin machines over their budget proposals, I'll have enough to write about without needing another example. However, if in fact the article doesn't exist, that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Budget Double Talk

Overall, yesterday's interview of Rep. Garrett on The Brian Lehrer Show was actually interesting. The one point to make, to his credit, is that he criticised the President's budget for not dealing with the AMT. He laid out the importance of such a reform for our area, and much of the Northeast. It seemed as though he was on a roll, but then he applauds the President for proposing a budget that can be balanced in five years. By the time of the interview, Garrett had to know the way the President's plan is drawn there won't be AMT relief. While he sounds sensible in the interview, he is once again engaging in double talk and being "disingenuous" (must have been his word of the day, because he kept saying it). If the only way, in a real sense, that the President's financial outlook can balance the budget is by ensnaring more middle income families in the AMT, we need Garrett serving as a roadblock and not simply a worn down speed bump talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Talking 'bout Money, Money, Money...Money

Representative Garrett's still on the defensive about his vote against a round of Hurricane Katrina aid. His website now is running an "In Case You Missed It" spot touting how the government is trying to recoup funds from fraud, waste and abuse related to the recovery efforts. When voting against the package, to his credit, he gave as his reason for voting against the aid a lack of controls against such fraud. Granted, it's unclear which pot the money that was abused came from, the package he voted against or the package he voted for, but we'll let him have his moment of prideful chest beating.

In the same vein though, let's apply the same "In Case You Missed It" attitude to the President's budget proposal. There are two very big problems for our area in the proposal. First are the myriad of cuts to police, fire departments and hospitals which will inevitably lead to increased property taxes as the state and towns are forced to pick up the tab. In addition, there would likely be an increase in health insurance premiums as hospitals diligently continue providing care for those whose funding is being taken away, passing the cost to those of us fortunate enough to have health insurance.

Second, is in order to project a budget surplus in 2012 while making permanent the "temporary" tax cuts enacted a few years back, the President needs to bring in a trillion (with a t) more dollars from the alternative minimum tax (AMT). While a temporary fix is in place preventing more NJ families from falling into the AMT trap this year, it expires after next year. It has been documented for years that the AMT entrapment is spreading, and this is a large part of how the President's plan balances the budget.

But now, due to inflation coupled with administration tax policies, the AMT is hitting millions of ordinary families, many earning well under $100,000 a year. Within five years, 37 percent of people earning between $50,000 and $75,000 and 73 percent of those with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay the AMT, compared with less than 3 percent three years ago. Nearly all families earning over $100,000 will pay it, according to a Brookings Institution study.

So, realistically speaking, as laid out the President is planning on a massive tax hike for families in our District. But, now to the "In Case You Missed It" part, here's what Garrett's had to say about the budget so far:

From The Record:

Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, said the president's budget represents "a positive step" toward that goal, and warned against Democrats' raising taxes to afford more spending.

"Every family in America must set priorities and make difficult decisions when putting together a household budget, and the federal government should be no different," said Garrett, a member of the House Budget Committee. "I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will remember that ... every dollar that goes into the federal budget is a dollar that comes out of a family budget."

From The Courier Post:

However, Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, saw things the opposite way. He praised Bush for adopting the "common sense, bipartisan goal" of balancing the federal budget within five years.

And this from Garrett's Website:

For instance, the budget request projects a drop in the Federal deficit over the next four years, leading to a $61 billion surplus in 2012. Also, the budget plan will balance the Federal budget within five years.

I saved that one for last, because it's important to note the projected $61 billion surplus is for the BUDGET in 2012 and not, as is inferred, wiping out the $8 trillion federal deficit we are currently saddled with. Now, it's going to take a while to get through all the source material, and truth be told I'll be relying on both conservative and liberal media to point me in the right directions, but this proposal is by all early accounts a very raw deal for New Jersey. Granted, the budget is months away from being complete, but I just can't believe in the early stages, with his support, Garrett is advocating higher property taxes and the extension of the AMT to more families in our area.

If you hate the AMT, vote in 2007

One of the issues I heard the most about, and one I know Rep. Scott Garrett and I believe is desperately needed for our District is Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief. Scott's website sums up the problem for many in the District fairly well:

The Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT, is a parallel tax universe that was initially established to keep high-income taxpayers from avoiding a significant portion of their tax liability. But, the arcane structure has spread into the middle class and applied to more than 4 million families in 2005. These are solidly middle-class families, such as couples that make more than $58,000 a year and itemize their deductions.

The Record also covered the problem recently, with Rep. Bill Pascrell discussing his plans:

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-Paterson, who was recently named to the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said one of the areas where he would concentrate is on the alternative minimum tax, which in many cases deprives North Jersey families of tax breaks enjoyed by people in other parts of the country who do not pay such high property and state income taxes.

My tax adviser used to refer to the AMT as the SST (Seven States' Tax), because those doing the heavy lifting of this burden largely live in seven states. The reason this has not been fixed is because the majority of the nation doesn't have to deal with this, and therefore there isn't a majority within Congress or the Senate who are willing to tackle the problem.

Effectively, AMT relief for the seven states would likely lead to slightly higher taxes in other parts of the nation. Not a popular proposition among legislators, no matter how unjust the situation is. This injustice also accounts for why our return on tax dollars continues to decline year after year as more middle income families are ensnared. We send more money to Washington in terms of AMT and receive about the same level of funding year after year.

While we wait for Congress to address this problem, we need to take certain matters into our own hands. This year the entire legislature is up for re-election, and lasting property tax relief is the only way to combat the AMT. Only 34% of voters showed up in 2003 (the last off year without a Governor's race). If people want real relief and real reform, people have to show up to vote and hold accountable those ultimately responsible to fix the problem.