How a 'plumber' named 'Joe' shook up the election

His first name isn't actually Joe. He isn't a valid plumber. And he still has back-taxes to pay.

And yet, he has become the recent hero of the McCain campaign (frighteningly backwards economic plan and all) since his name came up in last weeks debate. Not only that, he has helped bolster his ratings in major swing states like Ohio. The media is all over him, even though he's effectively a non-story.
Joe the plumber: one of the most appalling political ploys of this election season (up there with the Obama-Ayers connection).

If there's one thing Americans can't stand, it's taxes. Americans have some of the lowest income taxes in the developed world, and yet, even when we've got a burgeoning deficit and a war to pay for, the thought of raising taxes if only for a few is painful, and, for some, unpatriotic. Because it's unpatriotic to give a slice of your — to be fair — well-earned income to your government.

Heaven forbid the developed country with the greatest income inequality — that's America, folks — tries to bridge the gap with a more fair, graduated tax system that doesn't benefit the wealthy, using the bogus 'trickle-down' claim as an excuse for unfair taxes.

So let's all feel sympathy for a man in the top 4% income bracket ($250,000 per year) who will feel a slight pinch in taxes, in fact, since were fighting one of the most expensive wars in modern history and facing a massive recession, lets give him a tax BREAK. That makes economic sense. Not like he hasn't already gotten a massive one under the Bush administration.

The news media deserves some blame too. Although there has been some skepticism, the outrageous amount of coverage is unwarranted and largely spreads the propaganda the McCain campaign itself is sending out into the mainstream.

Oh, and, for the record Obama was correct in his statement about small business taxes that started this mess. As 'Joe' plans to campaign across America with McCain, warning the masses about the 'socialist' radicalism a fairer tax system would bring more and more ACTUAL "average Joes" are feeling the pinch of the current economic crisis. If only people like Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher and Sarah Palin could be less greedy and actually give a damn about their own country's economic health instead of accusing their fellow Americans of being unpatriotic.

If American politics has been reduced to feeling sympathy for a man — an invention of the McCain campaign — who has already received more tax breaks than is healthy for this country's economy, then this really isn't the America I want to live in.

Net tax: coming to a computer near you?

In no way is a tax on the internet a good thing. Other than online shopping, I see no validity in such taxes. But that won't stop the American government from imposing web taxes as early as this fall. Two taxes are being proposed: a sales tax on online shopping, which already exists in some areas, and the more daunting access tax. So far there have been legal loopholes and complications for online retailers and shoppers. As recently as a few years ago sales taxes on web purchases were virtually nonexistent.

On 1 November the ban on taxing internet access (the Internet Tax Freedom Extension Act of 2007) in the United States expires. Later this year is when the real trouble may begin. Just like the net neutrality battle last year — with technology know-nothings in charge of regulating the internet like Alaska's Sen. Ted Stevens pushing for a two-tiered internet favoring the telcos' revenue stream — there is bound to be a net tax battle this year. They are similar in that these issues not only deal with the web itself, but the openness and freedom of it. That is the essence of the World Wide Web. An internet too tightly controlled by the government is not good; nor is one wrapped around the finger of the ISPs good.

Between the privacy violations by the government in the name of anti-terror and the tax and net neutrality issues — and the issue of who ultimately controls the web — there is a lot to be done on the growing issue of how the internet will continue. I think a net regulation body should be independent under the auspices of the United Nations, instead of a potential pawn of the US Department of Commerce — and the private ICANN before that. The WWW is exactly that: worldwide. Why not have it controlled by the UN — the worldwide body — instead of one nation? That question will have to be confronted at an official level someday soon.

Taxing me for the land I own or when I buy food is fine, but taxing my email is something I won't stand for.