The TaxProf reports on the new study by the Tax Foundation on The Rising Cost of Complying with the Federal Income Tax.

The study estimates that complying with the federal income tax code during 2005 cost U.S. taxpayers $265.1 billion (up from $134.2 billion in 1995 (in inflation-adjusted dollars)), or 22 cents per dollar of tax revenues collected (up from 15 cents per dollar of tax revenues collected in 1995). By 2015, compliance costs are projected to grow to $482.7 billion.

Why does this matter? According to the study:

It is important for taxpayers to have an estimate of their compliance cost because the performance of the economy is dramatically
affected by the level of complexity in tax law. If lawmakers create an Internal Revenue Code that is unnecessarily complex or that changes rapidly, taxpayers will face uncertainty about how taxes will affect a business plan or investment. When the tax consequences of economic activities are unpredictable, tax policy handicaps the growth and dynamism of the U.S. economy.

Studies of the federal income tax code consistently find that the current system is excessively complex. This study concurs, quantifying the code’s complexity in a way that makes clear how unnecessary much of it is. If the high cost of complying with the federal income tax were a necessary price to pay for a fair and effective tax system, there would be little room for complaint.

And this gem, along with the accompanying chart on page 5 of the report:

The Tax Foundation has determined that during the past 45 years the number of words detailing income tax law has grown from 172,000 in 1955 to 1,286,000 in 2005, a staggering 648 percent increase.

One would think this is a joke, but apparently the AP doesn’t think so.

The flamboyant former congressman is selling a dozen paintings he created at a federal hospital prison in Minnesota. The works feature pastoral scenes and horses. They’re available for up to about 200 dollars on the Web..

In case you didn’t know… your burned CDs can’t be counted on for more than a couple of years. Print those family photos and put them in a physical album!

From Reuters.

A western Colombian town has angered the influential Catholic Church with a novel scheme to cut AIDS infections, threatening males over age 14 with fines if they fail to carry a condom.

Young men in the community, most of whom start having sex at about age 15, according to a poll, should carry condoms just as they have to carry identification cards, Tulua town councilman William Pena told El Tiempo newspaper.

Those who fail to show a condom would have to pay a small fine or take a three-hour course in AIDS prevention in Tulua…

ABP has a great analysis of each Senator’s bloviations at the Alito hearings.

Democrats
Joe Biden 78-22% (DE) (3,673 - 1,013) (a 1,879 word, and 13 minute opening “question”)
Chuck Schumer (NY) 75-25% (3,555-1,165)
Ted Kennedy (MA) 69-31% (3,439-1,539)
Pat Leahy (VT) 60-40% (2,714-1,874)
Russ Feingold (WI) 56-44% (2,976-2,364)
Diane Feinstein (CA) 42-58% (1,912-2,593)
Herb Kohl (WI) 37-63% (1,835-3,094)

Republicans
Mike DeWine (OH) 72-28% (3,398-1,323) (Corrected from 82%-18%)
Lindsey Graham (SC) 65-35% (3,032-1,643)
Jeff Sessions (AL) 61-39% (2,827-1,773)
John Cornyn (TX) 56-44% (3,407-1,900)
Jon Kyl (AZ) 53-47% (2,594-2,255)
Orrin Hatch (UT) 54-46% (2,686-2,242)
Chuck Grassley (IA) 51-49% (2,305-2,183)
Arlen Specter (PA) 50-50% (2,232-2,194)

Wow.

And the fact that Alito kept his cool during Ted Kennedy’s questioning today says a whole lot about his personal restraint. Alito emphatically denies any sympathy for any of the radical views expressed on the CAP magazine, he says he does not recall reading any of the articles that Kennedy quoted from, and now Kennedy wants to subpoena the records of CAP from that time. Incredible.

Watching the hearings yesterday was great. Alito came across as brilliant, polite and yet very down to earth. He didn’t have quite the polish of Roberts, but was more forthcoming and clearly and convincingly defended his prior decisions. He completely schooled the questioners, at least in my average Joe view. There is so much commentary all over the web about the hearings, that I really don’t have a lot to add, but I did want to point out two things. One from Biden and one from Schumer.

First, is this rich speech from Biden. (From the WaPo transcript).

BIDEN: Well, it was a pretty outrageous group. I mean, I believe you that you were unaware of it. But here I was, University of Delaware graduate, a sitting United States senator, I was aware of it because I was up there on the campus. I mean, it was a big deal. It was a big deal, at least in our area of the Delaware Valley, if Princeton, Penn, the schools around there had this kind — because the big thing was going on at Brown at the time as well.

And by the way, for the record, I know you know when you stated in your application that you are a member — you said in ‘85, “I am a member” — they had restored ROTC. ROTC was back on the campus.

But again, this is just by way of why some of us are puzzled. Because if I was aware of it, and I didn’t even like Princeton…

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, I really didn’t like Princeton. I was an Irish Catholic kid who thought it had not changed like you concluded it had.

I admit, one of my real dilemmas is I have two kids who went to Ivy League schools. I’m not sure my Grandfather Finnegan will ever forgive me for allowing that to happen.

But all kidding aside, I wasn’t a big Princeton fan. And so maybe that is why I focused on it and no one else did. But I remember it at the time.

Aside from the factual error of the suggestion that in 1985 the ROTC was free and clear back on campus (info provided by the RNC) …

“[Prospect Editor Dinesh] D’Souza Added That CAP Is ‘Concerned’ About The Formation Of A Third World Center, A Campaign To Eliminate The Army ROTC Program, And What It Perceives As The Decline Of Princeton Athletics.” (Charles Stile, “A Conservative Voice Targets The University,” The Princeton Packet, 2/12/85)

… the real fun part of this speech by Biden (because that is what it is, Alito said 72 words in Biden’s 30 minutes) is that he, “all kidding aside” was not a “big Princeton fan.” Check out this excerpt from a speech that Biden gave at Princeton on 2/24/2004.

It’s an honor to be here. It would have even been a greater honor to have gone here. I have three children who have merifully have all finally completed undergraduate and graduate school, and I tried to get all three of them to apply here…I committed a serious mistake, Dean. I’ve learned now, any advice I give…when you become parents, whatever school you want your child to go to, don’t mention it. And so I had been pushing Princeton, and this magnificently attractive, intellectually and physically, beautiful young girl, was a sophomore, was showing us around, and I figured we’ve got a lock now. My son is going to really be interested, and I know Senators aren’t supposed to say things like that, but if he hadn’t been interested, I would have been worried…

Radio Blogger’s got great audio of the Joe Biden Princeton Waffle.

And rather than discuss the Schumer excerpt I wanted to mention, since I’m long on words and short on time, I’ll just point you to the Captain, who excerpted this and then said just about what I was thinking.

SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?

ALITO: Certainly it does. That’s in the First Amendment.

SCHUMER: So why can’t you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?

ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can’t be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.

UPDATE: The Daily Princetonian has picked up the story.

Because of a new computer system installed by the Traffic Violations Bureau in Maine has created a ten month backlog of contested traffic tickets.

“The system, and training people to use the system, really slowed down our ability to process cases,” he said Friday. “We had to look for some way to continue to do our work while we learned to use the new system and worked the bugs out. One decision we made was not to schedule violation cases in court to give the violations bureau a chance to catch up.”

Wonder how much they paid for that system.

No, this is not a post to file under the “humor” category. Sadly, the reason you can’t get a good shower anymore is that the government regulates shower heads.

The Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandates that “all faucet fixtures manufactured in the United States restrict maximum water flow at or below 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) at 80 pounds per square inch (psi) of water pressure or 2.2 gpm at 60 psi.”

Or as the Department of Energy itself declares to all consumers and manufacturers: “Federal regulations mandate that new showerhead flow rates can’t exceed more than 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) at a water pressure of 80 pounds per square inch (psi).”

As with all regulations, the restriction on how much water can pour over at once while standing in a shower is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.

Jeffrey Tucker reports on Zoe Industries, a company that has Al Deitemann, head of conservation for the Seattle Water Board, all upset.

The Department of Energy may soon be paying a visit to a certain shower-head manufacturer in Arizona. The company is Zoe Industries Manufacturing. It runs Showerbuddy.com, a popular site that sells amazing equipment for bathrooms.

Consumers love the company but one man doesn’t. He is Al Deitemann, head of conservation for the Seattle Water Board. Al ordered some products and sent them to BR Laboratories in Hungtington, California, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. And sure enough, Bureaucrat Al gained enough data to report Zoe to the feds, accusing Zoe of “blatant violations of environmental protection laws.” Now the heat is on.

What is it that Mr. Deitemann is upset about? It’s the Nautilus II Chrome, which complies with the letter of the law.

As for Zoe Industries, they set out to address this strange problem that has made our showers less functional than they ought to be.

They are not water anarchists; we aren’t talking about shower-reg secessionists here. But the company did insightfully observe that the restriction applies on a per-shower-head basis.

So Zoe sells full units that have three full heads per shower! What a solution — truly in the spirit of American enterprise in the best sense. These remarkable units are both brilliant and beautiful, and they comply with the letter of the law.

This reminds me so much of the children’s book that I received yesterday from Mind & Media, entitled Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has picked up the story.