Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama have put forth their tax plans, with specifics falling in line with party ideology. As election season progresses, we’ve also seen an infusion of religion—Obama’s firebrand pastor, McCain’s issues with far right evangelicals and an anti-Clinton priest who would be right at home alongside the fruitcake on your Christmas table. I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the US tax system through the lens of religion.

For starters, consider the marriage penalty. McCain wants to keep the Bush tax adjustments; Obama wants to nix them. Note my use of the term “adjustment.” Bush didn’t so much cut taxes. A major adjustment in what many call tax cuts rested on the marriage penalty. According to calculations by Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), this penalty cost each couple $3,000. I find it hard to believe the government prefers I live with a man and bear children without benefit of marriage. Ergo, the marriage penalty is a significant marginal tax sin. Obama’s plan could reinstate it, at the least on a selective income basis, because details on his plan are a little vague at present, if you compare his and McCain’s plans at The Tax Foundation website.

Marginal sin No. 2 relates to accountability which I loosely and creatively perhaps even whimsically relate to theft. If a politician happened to be a person of faith (pick one, this is the U.S.), and happened to truly believe in conscience, he would agree with me. Our tax dollars are often squandered. That is one declaration politicians from both parties frequently agree upon. The government does not keep promises made about our money. Rather than list pages of justification for that statement, I’ll make it easy. Enter at your leisure the following terms in your search bar: “medicare fraud,” “social security fraud,” “food stamp fraud,” and if you really want to have a field day, “Oil for Food.” You will come to realize defrauding the US government is an active livelihood for some. Many.

So I have this crazy idea that absolutely no tax increases should occur until the government accepts responsibility for the tax dollar authorities we have vested. My basis for this marginal sin is actually one of the commandments—the ‘shalt not steal’ rule because if you take money and apply it unethically or in a manner not agreed upon, well, you come fairly close to theft. The ‘bear false witness’ might also apply, because of all those earmarks politicians love to sneak in.  Even if you don’t agree with my statement, there’s still a stink about things like $90,000  in US cash accumulating freezer ice in a congressman’s home. I confess this isn’t a perfect analogy.

Adding to the confusion over taxes is the emergence of what some call class warfare. Rob the rich; give to the poor. Hollywood celebs love this concept—Robin Hood returns wearing Oakleys, khakis and a white dress shirt scored by just the right amount of wrinkles. Our modern day RH has jetted to some gathering or rally, fresh from the waters of maybe Miami or Maui, to enlighten us and imbue us with The Spirit.  I have often in a rather heathen frame of mind asked the Lord to save us from such do-gooders. I have a parable to offer.

Imagine this: you’re standing by a woman in the grocery store. She takes out her wallet to pay and you snatch a $20 bill from her hands. That of course is against the law which is exactly my point. I am the woman about to pay and the politicians are doing the snatching.

In the US I grew up in, everyone wanted to make more money; few people would admit they didn’t want to earn enough to be comfortable. Many of us didn’t want rich so much as security, having personally known more than our share of rich miserable people via our business dealings in the advertising world. [Disclosure: I have also known some cash-strapped miserable people.]

But today there seems to be a great deal of covetousness going on. That was one of my favorite commandments because my mother thumped it into our skulls every chance she got. Almost literally. Anyway, just because you want to rob the rich and give to the poor doesn’t make it ethical. Furthermore, when you say the word, ‘poor,’ you assume no one elects to be poor. Based on my own family experiences, I can assure you that is not the case. Having begun my adulthood with nothing, I am an expert on poor. My grandfather, for instance. He sometimes quit a job if it was a good day to fish, a habit that employers frowned upon even during those more tolerant times. What’s missing from all the sermons on poverty and related matters? The near-pagan tale of the Little Red Hen.

Here’s a factoid from The Tax Foundation: With the nation’s tax burden now so concentrated at the top—the top 20 percent of taxpayers pay about 86 percent of all the income taxes—any tax reform plan is caught in a rhetorical Catch 22; tax reform equals “tax cuts for the rich.” A couple more tax increases and you will have 1/5 of taxpayers bearing almost 100 percent of the burden for the rest of the country—an amazingly undemocratic approach.

Consider this. We are taxed on our income. We are taxed on the interest our savings earns. We are taxed if we purchase a house we can actually afford, thereby decreasing the amount of home mortgage interest available for itemizing. Then consider state and local sales taxes and property taxes, cell phone taxes, gasoline taxes and taxes on other items as well. In the 1980s, Congress succeeded in passing one of the largest unremarked-upon tax increases of all time by eliminating credit card interest as a tax deduction. If I were as feisty as my ancestor, I’d be gathering up tea and heading to Boston right now.

At the moment, both presidential candidates are suggesting changes in taxation will only affect upper incomes negatively. I’ve got 3 words for you that’ll turn your smile upside down. Alternative Minimum Tax. McCain’s plan would repeal it. Obama doesn’t have a plan which sort of constitutes a plan. The government is like a junkie, and right now it is hooked on all that revenue the AMT brings in with increasing amounts coming from the middle class courtesy of inflation.  Like I said both candidates’ plans run alongside ideology.

Yet it astounds me that neither candidate (and none preceding the presumed nominees during primaries) has tallied up the impact of all those taxes on the economy. The economy is front and center in the news and campaign rhetoric right now. By increasing the amount of money we shuttle to the federal government, we have no guarantees that money will benefit our own economy. It would be a brave politician who would raise a red pen to the federal budget. I find it very hard to believe our forefathers envisioned a central government dominating this country as our present situation presents.

Being an idealist, what I’m hoping is that our next president and our congress (some members could stand a serious confessional right now if you know what I mean) will see the error in the ways of marginal sin, repent and return some of what is Caesar’s to his loyal subjects. And praises could possibly be heard throughout the land.