With the release of his tax returns from the year 2000 forward, Senator Barack Obama has performed a service to voters that the other candidates should emulate.  While not a exactly a right, the American people do deserve to have openness and transparency with regards to their candidates, and the candidates themselves deserve accountability to the electorate.

The information portrayed in those tax returns provides for some interesting commentary.  In the years 2000-2004, prior to the dramatic increase in the Obama household income due to the publishing of his two books, the Obamas' Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) averaged about $240,000.  During that same period, their average income tax bill was approximately $60,000 per year, and they averaged about $2,100 in charitable giving annually.  According the the US Census Bureau (www.census.gov), income above $200,000 is in the top 3% of all households:  does this qualify as "rich"?  As a note of comparison, the median household income is $48,451.

In his campaign for the Presidency, Barack Obama has railed against the "Bush tax cuts" that were "for the richest Americans" — people, according to Obama, who "don't deserve" and "don't need" tax cuts.  Would he consider the top 3% of all incomes among those who neither "deserve" nor "need" tax cuts?  If so, that sets up an interesting dichotomy between his policy position and his wife's campaign anecdotes.

On the campaign trail in Ohio, Mrs. Obama told of how, before the income from Barack's books starting flowing in, they were "struggling" with college loans, and trying "to figure out how we would save for our kids."  Interesting that a couple in the top 3% of incomes — both of them Ivy League-educated — would find such "struggles".  More interesting that in the midst of such struggles, they believe that the government deserves more of their money.  On average, without the "Bush tax cuts" of 2001 and 2003, the Obamas would have paid an additional $9000 in taxes each year.  That's not an insignificant amount to most people.

This is where the charitable contributions come in.  How much a person or family donates to charity is a highly personal thing, and I find somewhat distasteful the propensity of the news media to pick through the charitable giving of politicians, looking for embarrassing details; did anyone really need to know that Bill Clinton was donating his underwear to charity?  I think not.  However, in terms of public policy, it can be instructive.  According to a study cited by Minnesota Public Radio, the average household gives approximately 2.1% of their income to charity.  The Obamas averaged less than 1% during the years in question — as mentioned above, approximately $2100 per year average.  The Obama campaign's official response was that they gave what they could afford to give.  Fair enough.  But wait a minute:  Obama official opinion is that families in his former income range, a range in which giving more than $2100 to charity is difficult, should be forced to "donate" $7000 more each year to the government.  How much Obama's family, or any other family, donates to charity is a choice made by that family; how much a family gives the government, as we all know, is not voluntary.

I often make the economic case for limited government and lower taxes, but there's a more human element as well.  Individuals and families know better than the government what is best; every tax dollar a family is forced to send to the government is a dollar that the family can't spend on retirement, college loans, math tutors, vacations, or summer camp.  It is easy to play the class warfare game and promise to raise taxes only on "the rich".  Instead of deciding who "needs" or "deserves" tax cuts, I think the onus should be the other way around:  the government neither "needs" nor "deserves" tax increases.  The fruits of our labor belong to us; the government should have to justify every cent it takes from us — even those considered "rich".