Axelrod: Unlike Romney, Obama Doesn’t Use Tax Shelters
Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:03 pm
At the verrry end of this Washington Times piece we see this:
Mr. Axelrod also hit Mr. Romney hard on taxes, pointing out that the United States loses $100 billion a year to offshore tax havens such as Switzerland.
“We know Gov. Romney takes advantage of these,” he said. “I’m not suggesting that he’s done anything illegal, but what I am suggesting is that he’s taking advantage of every loophole.”
“The president could do those things, but he doesn’t do those things,” Mr. Axelrod added.
April 13, 2012: Obama Sets Up Tax Shelter for His Kids:
President Obama and his wife, Michele, gave a total of $48,000 in tax-free gifts to their daughters, according to tax records made public on Friday.
The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.
There is nothing illegal about the president’s taking advantage of this tax shelter, but it does raise eyebrows given that he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy—“millionaires and billionaires” like himself—to pay less in taxes.
Time for Axerod to raise his own eyebrows!
Comments (69)
69 Comments » Someday many years from now, kids will ask,”where did the term Axelrodding come from?”, and parents will explain that it’s simpler than saying that someone is has a pathological lying disorder.
Just amazing…
Comment by the bhead — 7/15/2012 @ 12:14 pm
The real question is how long the media will let Axelrod get away with this.
Comment by Patterico — 7/15/2012 @ 12:15 pm
I predict sometime in 2025, we’ll get the hard-hitting reporting on this long after it’ll do any good whatsoever.
Comment by Pious Agnostic — 7/15/2012 @ 12:26 pm
The question to me is whether Axelrod is that stupid. I know Axelrod is that dishonest.
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 12:27 pm
the United States loses $100 billion a year to offshore tax havens such as Switzerland
so if we had a more competitive tax system than Switzerland we’d not only have 100 billion more monies a year we’d get monies from overseas too?
what’s stopping us?
Comment by happyfeet — 7/15/2012 @ 12:28 pm
The real question is how long the media will let Axelrod get away with this
Answer: 11/7/2012 or not until BO is re-elected, then our media darlings will start to ask some of the tough questions when it is safely within BO’s second term. That is how they will try to save face.
Comment by Ipso Fatso — 7/15/2012 @ 12:29 pm
Axelrod looks to much like Charles DeGaulle to be trusted.
Comment by jasond — 7/15/2012 @ 12:32 pm
Axelrod looks like someone I would not trust around my kids. Creepy dude.
Comment by Old Coot — 7/15/2012 @ 12:38 pm
Unlike Nixon, Democrats don’t tape conversations in the white house, or keep enemies lists or….
Except when they do, like JFK, LBJ, FDR…..
The media has always fallen for this drivel.
Comment by C. S. P. Schofield — 7/15/2012 @ 12:39 pm
Romney does the tax shelter thang. The 0bama’s henchmen are just tax frauds. I’d prefer an honest tax shelter than just “forgetting to push the right button on TurboTax”!
Comment by Milwaukee — 7/15/2012 @ 12:46 pm
It is all about “ fairness” and not about revenue (I would argue it is about control…):
Candidate Obama was asked by Charlie Gibson from ABC News why he supported an increase in the capital gains tax rate, given an historical record that repeatedly shows the government losing revenue as a result.
Replied Obama, “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
Comment by BfC — 7/15/2012 @ 12:47 pm
The real question is how long the media will let Axelrod get away with this.
Comment by Patterico — 7/15/2012 @ 12:15 pm
– ANSWER: However many days there are between now and the day after Election Day.
Comment by Icy — 7/15/2012 @ 12:55 pm
So according to Axelrod BO doesn’t take any advantage of tax shelters. What about a deduction for a mortgage? What about any retirement accounts BO and his wife have? What about charitable deductions? It would behoove Romney’s people to go through BO’s tax returns and point out all of the deductions our beloved leader, Peace Be Upon Him, has taken through the years and then gleefully point out what a hypocrite he is for taking any tax deductions given his belief that the government is the best option for spending private capital. I hope they do it.
Comment by Ipso Fatso — 7/15/2012 @ 12:55 pm
so if we had a more competitive tax system than Switzerland we’d not only have 100 billion more monies a year we’d get monies from overseas too?
what’s stopping us?
Comment by happyfeet — 7/15/2012 @ 12:28 pm
– The tax-and-spend-ocrats, that’s what . . . or “who”.
Nah, stick with “what”.
Comment by Icy — 7/15/2012 @ 12:58 pm
______________________________________________
Time for Axerod to raise his own eyebrows!
And even more so when a bigger irony — so thick it can’t be cut with even the sharpest knife — involves another person in the current White House, the same guy who will be overseeing the introduction of Obamacare and the IRS’s need to enforce it (and, btw, the Secretary of the Treasury also performs the role of head of the IRS):
powerlineblog.com, April 2012:
Instead of the Buffett Rule, How About the Geithner Rule?
President Obama has now admitted that the “Buffett Rule,” formerly the centerpiece of his re-election campaign, is a silly gimmick that will raise hardly any money for the treasury. (Actually, it might cost the federal government money, as increases in the capital gains rate have been known to do.) So how about if, instead, we start talking about the Geithner Rule, which is: everyone pays what he owes under existing laws?
Most tax evaders don’t wind up in prison. In fact, some wind up working for the government. Take Tim Geithner. Geithner, Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, is a tax cheat. When he worked for the International Monetary Fund, the fund did not pay withholding taxes on his income, but rather paid Geithner a specifically-designated additional amount which Geithner was supposed to use to pay self-employment taxes. Geithner kept that money, but didn’t pay the taxes.
When the IRS audited Geithner, he paid what he owed for 2003 and 2004. But he didn’t pay what he owed for 2001 and 2002. Why? Because the statute of limitations had run on those years, so the IRS couldn’t sue him to collect the money or charge him criminally for failing to pay it. Only when he was nominated as Secretary of the Treasury did Geithner go back and pay what he owed for 2001 and 2002.
Geithner is not the only tax cheat working in the Obama administration. As Glenn Reynolds has pointed out repeatedly, no fewer than 41 of Obama’s White House aides owe back taxes to the IRS, adding up to $831,000. But they aren’t alone: 638 Congressional staffers owe another $9.3 million, and federal employees, altogether, owe $1 billion in back taxes.
Warren Buffett may be eager to pay more in personal income taxes–not that he is actually mailing any checks to the treasury–but his company, Berkshire Hathaway, is embroiled in long-running battle over its IRS tab. Experts [say] Berkshire Hathaway may owe an additional $1 billion.
Comment by Mark — 7/15/2012 @ 1:01 pm
lying liars lie… what a surprise.
Comment by redc1c4 — 7/15/2012 @ 1:02 pm
The question to me is whether Axelrod is that stupid. I know Axelrod is that dishonest.
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 12:27 pm
– He isn’t stupid, but he is counting on what he regards as ‘the stupidity of the average voter’ to allow him to get away with his dishonesty.
Comment by Icy — 7/15/2012 @ 1:02 pm
Time for Axelrod to raise his own eyebrows!
Where is teh Richard Gephardt when we need him?
Comment by Colonel Haiku — 7/15/2012 @ 1:06 pm
Obama was thinking about tax shelters; but, since his financial advisor is doing a dime at the Federal Shelter for Bad Boys . . .
Comment by Icy — 7/15/2012 @ 1:18 pm
Where is Mitt Romney?? Why isn’t he raging about the hypocrisy non-stop instead of getting hooked up in the bullsh*t baiting of Bain? It’s getting really frustrating to not hear some non-stop push back from his campaign. Now that they’ve meekly demanded an apology from Cutter and got slapped down with a “no apology”, we don’t hear anything more…. get the gloves on, man.
McCain was Mr. Nice Guy and look what happened. Is this the path Mitt is going to take, too, in hopes that a misplaced sense of gentility and decorum will be enough to draw in voters? Obama and his team play hard and dirty and relentlessly so. We need to stop being surprised and shocked at the hypocrisy and expect it in more brazen outlandishness – and then hit back aggressively with the truth. The left knows it can get away with it – who will hold them accountable? So, why not hit back twice as hard. It seems like “aggressive” is a dirty word on Team R. Stop letting the left bait Romney to a defensive position and get on the freaking offense. This is getting ridiculous.
I guess I’m not alone in the frustration.
Comment by Dana — 7/15/2012 @ 1:29 pm
This argument is ungood. The Obama parents gave their own money to their offspring. The tax authorities take a piece of gifts, starting above $12k/year. There are complicating issues, like 529 plans, but in general, it amounts to the Obamas doing what anyone would do and think right: giving money, and not expecting to have to pay tax just to do it.
That does not compare well to avoiding taxes in off-shore companies. Neither is illegal, but even the average voter would approve Obama’s acts, which are available to all, while average voters would tend not to like Romney’s acts, which are unavailable to most.
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 1:35 pm
Just Some Guy, nonsense. The tax code taxes gifts. But there are exclusions if you follow the tax law, such as the gift tax exclusion. Likewise, Romney took advantage of an exclusion to avoid a tax just like the Obama’s did.
The idea that some exclusions are different than others is horse manure.
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 1:44 pm
Just Some Guy,
I understand it’s an issue of optics, however, given the economy we have, $48,000 gifts to children isn’t small change. This might difficult for the out-of-work middle class/lower-middle class individual to approve of as well as Romney’s taking advantage of loopholes.
I would think both are a no-go and would cause resentment in a segment of our population.
Those that already resent Romney and his wealth aren’t going to go into fits over this. It may just solidify their view.
However, those who are wavering re Obama and the state of the economy, may see this indeed as hypocritical, considering he is attempting to be the every-man candidate working class I feel your pain candidate.
Comment by Dana — 7/15/2012 @ 1:45 pm
Axelrod is the scum who magically comes into possession of sealed divorce records. Don’t be surprised if he magically comes into possession of Romney’s tax records.
Comment by drjohn — 7/15/2012 @ 1:47 pm
When the people start to realize that there are a separate set of rules for those in power, Anarchy will seem like not only a good idea, but the only choice.
I could care less where Romney keeps what belongs to him. I could care less how much Obama gives his kids. But when the average citizen realizes that the rich and powerful don’t have to pay the same taxes we do, more and more people will opt out of paying theirs as well.
And what a glorious day it will be…
Comment by Ghost — 7/15/2012 @ 2:00 pm
I am assuming that they found all these “secret” bank accounts and companies by reviewing public records and Romney’s 2010 (or whatever) tax returns.
When will see Obama’s school records (and his sources of funding), campaign funding records (including all of those foreign credit card contributions), his medical records (we saw Bush’s dental x-rays from his military days). And what about his spouse’s no-show job at the university medical center which seemed to track Obama’s political career.
Comment by BfC — 7/15/2012 @ 2:08 pm
SPQR said: “The tax code taxes gifts. But there are exclusions if you follow the tax law, such as the gift tax exclusion.”
You make it sound like some fancy loophole. It’s not. The IRS charges taxes– real money– for individual gifts >$12k per person per giftee. It’s really that simple. If you give your kid a car worth $20k, you’re on the hook.
Of course, it’s badly enforced, except on the rich, because most people don’t have enough money to get into this kind of tax trouble.
It’s not complex. It’s actually quite sinister, and something most non-wealthy people don’t encounter: the government demands to take money from people just because they give money to their kids (or others)!
The Obamas went under the limit so as to roll some money downhill to their daughters. Painting that as a tax dodge is ridiculous.
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 2:34 pm
Just Some Guy, it is a “fancy loophole” as its used as a way to avoid estate taxes.
The Obamas are “dodging” estate taxes just as much as Romney is “dodging” taxes. No more. No less.
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 2:35 pm
SPQR, how is either party “dodging” taxes? Do you propose that upon your death, your >$12k bequest should rightly be a taxable thing?
That’s something worth arguing about!
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 2:43 pm
Actually, upon death, the taxes don’t come in until much higher– $1m or so. But let’s say you see a homeless person on the street, and you talk to him for a minute and decide that $20k would really put him on the road to a great life. Should that be taxed?
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 2:45 pm
Let’s say Bill Gates walks down a street in Detroit. He keeps running into kids who are trying hard, but stunted by crappy schools and bad parenting. Bill doesn’t have a lot of time on his hands to set up a fund, so he decides to start making out $50k checks, just for the hell of it, asking each kid to use it for education and to get ahead in life.
Tax it!
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 2:48 pm
Just Some Guy, you seem to not understand some basic things. For example, do you think that the Obama’s are worth less than a $1 million?
Secondly, if you had ever actually done an estate tax return, you’d realize that the gift tax exemption has significance in estate planning.
Your comments remains just silly and nonsensical. The Obama’s use of the gift tax exemptions are just as much, and as little, “dodging” taxes as Romney’s actions.
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 2:50 pm
Just Some Guy, I also find it very instructive that you don’t even know what the current estate tax exemption is.
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 2:50 pm
SPQR, I don’t understand taxes and all?
There is a big myth in America about estate planning. Even conservatives like to think that the rich keep getting richer and pass it all on to their kids with no penalties. It don’t work like that, SPQR. It’s pretty complex.
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 2:52 pm
But let’s say you see a homeless person on the street, and you talk to him for a minute and decide that $20k would really put him on the road to a great life. Should that be taxed? … so he decides to start making out $50k checks …
Both are taxed currently. You really don’t get this, do you?
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 2:52 pm
SPQR, what’s the current estate tax exemption? Quick, now!
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 2:53 pm
Just Some Guy, I do estate planning. Please inform me more …
sheesh, what an idiot.
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 2:53 pm
SPQR, you said “Both are taxed currently.” No, not true. The taxable event is the gift, and it falls on Mr. Gates. He pays. The lucky Detroit kid pays nothing. You really don’t get this, do you?
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 2:54 pm
Just Some Guy, the estate tax exemption is five million (to oversimplify) … at least for the next six months.
You really need to figure out when you are clueless.
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 2:54 pm
Just Some Guy, I wrote that both are taxed. I meant that both situations are taxed, not both parties.
Grow up.
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 2:54 pm
SPQR, do you know what a tax is? Doesn’t seem like it. Both situations are taxed? Please explain.
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 2:56 pm
I’m a fast reader and a fast typist. Please go on.
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 2:56 pm
Just Some Guy, no, you are a clueless troll.
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 2:56 pm
SPQR, I’m not trying to embarass you. No, wait, I am!
The point is important, though: the government takes money from people who try to give money to other people, even when the gifts are to their kids. The Obamas are doing what any idiot would do and does do.
If the electorate knew about the gift tax, it would repeal it. The estate tax, too, by and large. They are both theivish acts.
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 2:59 pm
Based on recent evidence, even the lefty trolls are cruising on fumes. It’s kind of sad to watch them go through the motions when they know they support a miserable failure.
Comment by Ag80 — 7/15/2012 @ 3:00 pm
Ag80, I hope so. I’m voting Romney.
Comment by Just Some Guy — 7/15/2012 @ 3:02 pm
Comment by Dana — 7/15/2012 @ 1:29 pm
What Romney has to do every time he’s asked about it is to of course say it’s inaccurate but also say that Obama is focusing on Bain because he wants to change the subject from his own failed record. In other words counter punch. That’s what Walker suggested in your linked article.
His commercials responding to the Bain attacks which I’ve seen on TV take a different tack, accusing Obama of dishonesty, which is not bad either. But they can say both I think.
Comment by Gerald A — 7/15/2012 @ 3:11 pm
Just Some Guy, that’s your point? Really?
Comment by SPQR — 7/15/2012 @ 3:16 pm
Overseas tax shelters….
It will be interesting to see how much of the “stimulas” money that went to “green energy” and was used to “purchase” alternative energy components overseas will be channelled back into the campaign coffers of Teh Won.
The Billion$ that were shovelled out the Energy Dept door (and other portals in the Beltway) will probably make the “address challenged” credit-card donations of the ’08 cycle look like chicken-feed when they start showing up in this year’s campaign. Plus, I wouldn’t doubt that a significant portion has already been set-aside for “honoraria” for Post-WH speaking engagements by the World’s Greatest Speech-reader.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/15/2012 @ 3:33 pm
Comment by Ag80 — 7/15/2012 @ 3:00 pm
What with the Million$ that the U.S. Taxpayer is shelling out to support Barry & Michelle’s life-style,
what exactly does he have to be miserable about?
But, you’re absolutely correct:
He is a Failure – but we’re the ones who are being made miserable!
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/15/2012 @ 3:37 pm
Sorry just some guy. I can see I misunderstood where you were going.
Comment by Ag80 — 7/15/2012 @ 3:46 pm
Irony, it’s crunchy like skippy peanut butter;
senseoncents.com
Comment by narciso — 7/15/2012 @ 3:48 pm
Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is not tax evasion; rather, it’s a legal and rational exercise of self-interest.
It stuns me that the Dems can build their opposition to Romney around the fact that he’s a rich businessman. Hell, he’s no richer than Teddy Kennedy was, and has less than half of John Kerry’s net worth. But the Dems are masters of ignoring any and all cognitive dissonance.
Finger-pointing by and at candidates aside:
The real problem, of course, is the commonly shared sense of many Americans that there are special rules and loopholes that are deliberately obscured and preferentially available to some people, but not others. The solution to that problem is to dramatically rationalize and simplify the entire business and personal tax codes, doing so in a revenue-neutral fashion that lowers basic rates while eliminating almost all exemptions, deductions, credits — “loopholes.”
There is no principled argument against doing this, but there are very compelling unprincipled barriers to it actually happening. Of course, it can’t possibly happen if the Dems have the White House or a majority in either chamber of Congress. Even if Obama is defeated and the Dems lose the Senate, though, there are large numbers of politicians on both sides of the aisle in both chambers who will resist real tax reform precisely because they’re bought and paid for already by some combination of the special interests who benefit from the current system.
Comment by Beldar — 7/15/2012 @ 3:57 pm
X for me and mine, but not for thee and thine. Some people, even Constitutional Law Scholars just don’t get the idea of the rule of law.
Comment by htom — 7/15/2012 @ 4:04 pm
Is it time to quit allowing the use Constitutional Law Scholar and Barack Obama in the same sentence? I think maybe it is.
Comment by elissa — 7/15/2012 @ 4:08 pm
Mittens has trouble counterpunching democrats. I wonder what the strategy team is working on? More apology notices?
Comment by mg — 7/15/2012 @ 4:24 pm
The real issue is that ALL TAXES are fundamentally about taking money from people who earned it (for certain values of earned, in some cases) and giving it to people who didn’t; i.e. government functionaries. True, some of it does, eventually, find its way into the hands of people who are not government parasites, but that is increasingly a pretext.
Some government is necessary, at least to me (a fifty-ish gout sufferer with bad teeth and no great facility with firearms). And, no, I don’t want to get involved in a huge debate on what is necessary and what isn’t. And if some government is necessary, then some taxes are necessary. But we could trim the federal budget with an axe for years before we had it pared down to a reasonable size.
So Axelrod’s argument, even if it were true (which it isn’t) is that Obama is too stupid to keep the government from picking his pocket any more than he has too.
Comment by C. S. P. Schofield — 7/15/2012 @ 4:25 pm
There’s something about the Chicago way;
breitbart.com
Comment by narciso — 7/15/2012 @ 4:50 pm
eyes of a dead fish
body made for a tutu
Rahm Emanuel
cdn.stripersonline.com
Comment by Colonel Haiku — 7/15/2012 @ 4:56 pm
here’s my fave…
thelookingspoon.com
Comment by Colonel Haiku — 7/15/2012 @ 4:58 pm
Great post.
Comment by DRJ — 7/15/2012 @ 5:26 pm
I understand what Sammy is saying about dirty national politics going on for a long long time. He’s correct that it did not start with Barack Obama. However, with respect to these candidates and this campaign, (and like all the ones preceding it where Obama ran) it’s Chicago politics all the way. The “narratives” and shenanigans and payoffs and ugly games and personal destruction that got Obama on the ballots and elected in Illinois and to the US senate and to the presidency (and to speak at the convention as an “unknown”) is the Chicago way. Look who were his main surrogates on the morning shows today. Axelrod and Rahm. Look who is his most influential ear and “adviser” in the white house besides Michelle–Valerie Jarrett. In every way this thuggish administration epitomizes Chicago Democrat/Union politics at its worst.
Comment by elissa — 7/15/2012 @ 6:06 pm
It stuns me that the Dems can build their opposition to Romney around the fact that he’s a rich businessman. Hell, he’s no richer than Teddy Kennedy was, and has less than half of John Kerry’s net worth. But the Dems are masters of ignoring any and all cognitive dissonance.
I think this begs the question – not “why” can the Dems build their opposition against Romney’s wealth, but how is that they know we on the right will let them get away with it? Why is the GOP so predictably weak that our side consistently ends up on the defensive?
The Dems have set up their own hypocrisies and all Romney has to do is simply point it out – constantly, and without a tone of pettiness. Just a matter fact Now there they go again…
Comment by Dana — 7/15/2012 @ 6:40 pm
Egyptians pelt Hillary Clinton motorcade with tomatoes… ‘Monica, Monica’ chants taunt…
They throw shoes…
No!… not teh shoe treatment!
Comment by Colonel Haiku — 7/15/2012 @ 6:41 pm
OTOH, well didn’t they have fundraisers in Gaza;
smh.com.au
Comment by narciso — 7/15/2012 @ 6:47 pm
when all said and done
may Bubba declare chubwa
on teh Kimberlin
Comment by Colonel Haiku — 7/15/2012 @ 6:49 pm
Obama camp holding fundraisers in Switzerland Sweden France and China. But I’m sure none of the contributions represent the interests of, you know, foreign banks or corporations, because that would be wrong. Corporations aren’t people and moneyed interests shouldn’t be influencing American elections.
Comment by elissa — 7/15/2012 @ 6:59 pm
Use the “foreign sourced funds” to pay for the event/travel costs/overseas campaign–And send 100% of the “legal citizen” money back to the US.
Problem solved.
Comment by BfC — 7/15/2012 @ 7:13 pm
Problem? What problem? There’s no controlling authority. Throw your shoes, one at a time, in opposite directions. Now toss your pants over here.
Comment by gary gulrud — 7/15/2012 @ 7:43 pm
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
<!--XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
-->
Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.
Your comments must follow our copyright policy. Commenters who do not use a consistent name, and/or who use a proxy to post, are subject to banning. Profane language will place your comment in moderation. If you are following the rules and your comment does not appear, do not assume I banned you; instead, e-mail me. Live Preview <!--Comments posting:
Recent Comments - gary gulrud on Axelrod: Unlike Romney, Obama Doesn't Use Tax Shelters
- gary gulrud on Why Illegal Immigrants Killing People Is Especially Galling: An Observation
- BfC on Axelrod: Unlike Romney, Obama Doesn't Use Tax Shelters
- elissa on Axelrod: Unlike Romney, Obama Doesn't Use Tax Shelters
- happyfeet on Ironman 70.3
- Colonel Haiku on Axelrod: Unlike Romney, Obama Doesn't Use Tax Shelters
- narciso on Axelrod: Unlike Romney, Obama Doesn't Use Tax Shelters
- Colonel Haiku on Axelrod: Unlike Romney, Obama Doesn't Use Tax Shelters
- Dana on Axelrod: Unlike Romney, Obama Doesn't Use Tax Shelters
- Dana on Ironman 70.3
Help keep the site alive!
PayPal only (no credit cards):  Credit Card donations (PayPal takes a bite): Subscribe for $9 per month:
Advertise on Patterico's Pontifications
Blogads
|
