Chuck Schumer Thinks Only Republicans Hate Paying Taxes
The Senate minority leader mocked anti-tax, anti-government views held by most Americans.

If you're looking for a capsule summary of the Democratic Party's woes since losing the White House and both houses of Congress in the 2024 elections, consider Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D–N.Y.) recent appearance on ABC's The View. In a particularly cringe-worthy performance, he mocked Republicans as tools of rich elites who resent taxes and government meddling in their business. The problem, of course, is that most Americans think tax collectors are too grabby and want to keep government officials at arms length. And a majority of the wealthiest Americans vote Democratic. That disconnect between what Schumer thinks is good TV and the real world around him explains many of his party's problems.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
The Party of the Rich?
"The Republican Party is a different kettle of fish than it used to be and that's why we're fighting them so hard," Schumer told the credulous hosts of The View, which I watched to spare you the chore. "They are controlled by a small group of wealthy, greedy people."
This is what Democrats have claimed about Republicans for longer than I've been alive, so I'm not sure what's supposed to have changed in Schumer's assessment. But it's a silly accusation for a Democrat to throw around. Even before the 2024 election, Pew Research reported that according to voter registration, the Republican Party was the preferred party of middle income and upper-middle income voters. Lower-income, lower middle, and upper-income voter registration favored Democrats. Last year's election results emphasized the political divide.
"The Democratic party now appears to be the party of high-income voters, not those with low incomes," a Financial Times analysis revealed after votes were counted.
So, Schumer had that wrong. But he also sounded a false note when he tried to channel what his supposedly awful political opponents believe about politics and government.
"'I made my money all by myself. How dare your government take my money from me. I don't want to pay taxes,'" he said in a grating voice intended to mock "wealthy, greedy" Republicans. "'I built my company with my bare hands, how dare your government tell me how I should treat my customers.'"
Well, OK. If Schumer wants to fight his political battles under the banner of taxes and intrusive government, we can, maybe, give him credit for defending what he believes in. But I hope that Schumer—who has held elected office since leaving law school in 1974 and has never worked in the private sector—doesn't expect too many Americans to rally to his flag.
The Views Schumer Mocks Are Pretty Popular
Last year, two-thirds of Americans told A.P.-NORC pollsters that they think federal income taxes are too high. Even larger majorities said the same of states sales and local property taxes. According to Gallup, that's consistently been the majority opinion for decades except for a few brief periods, including one just before the pandemic.
Again, except for brief periods around the COVID-19 pandemic and back in 2001, a majority of Americans (55 percent in 2024) say year after year that "the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses," according to Gallup.
In 2024, Pew Research noted that a majority of Americans (51 percent) prefer "a smaller government providing fewer services" over "a bigger government providing more services."
Chuck Schumer picked a lonely hill to die on. But he's not entirely alone. In making fun of the people in his head for believing they made their money and built their businesses by themselves, Schumer echoes some of the clunkier comments of his fellow Democrats from years past.
Democrats Have a Problem Leaving People Alone
While there's some disagreement about whether then-President Barack Obama's infamous 2012 "you didn't build that" line referred to the businesses people create or the infrastructure on which they rely for their businesses, it's obvious he was dismissing claims of being self-made. "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help," he insisted on his way to arguing that people who have built prosperous businesses should pay more to the government "because we do things together."
Even clearer was then-Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in 2011 huffing, "there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for."
The mythology here is not just that everything is a collective endeavor, but also that government represents that collective and is therefore owed whatever it wants to claim from those who have built and prospered. The first point mistakes building on voluntary cooperation and trade in a society for some sort of hijacking of others' achievements. The second point is even more arguable, since it leaps to the conclusion that government and its officials have any claim to speak for the people who engaged in all that trade and cooperative activity.
Voters Heard Democrats' Message and Rejected It
"They hate government," Schumer marveled about his imagined opponents, in closing that particularly painful View segment. "Government's a barrier to people to stop them from doing things. They want to destroy it."
This may be the closest Schumer came to accuracy, given the majority's view of taxes and the role of government. As polls and the outcome of the 2024 elections demonstrate, Schumer and his party are on the losing side of these issues.
None of this means that Republicans are the perfect vehicle for lowering taxes, reducing government, and letting people build and prosper by their own efforts. The tariffs the Trump administration wields like a favorite toy are taxes. The FCC's attacks on opposition media aren't exactly a restraint of state power. And the modern GOP often seems too willing to coerce individuals and businesses to its own ends.
But Republicans won on a program that touted reining in D.C. after years of a big-spending, highly meddlesome Democratic administration. Former President Joe Biden and his allies championed a large, intrusive state that attempted to manage the economy and imposed behind-the-scenes censorship on critics of government policy. In November, voters made it clear they weren't buying what Democrats have been selling.
If Chuck Schumer wants to make fun of people who dislike taxes and intrusive government, he's unlikely to win back Americans who have heard it all before and rejected that message when they had the chance.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Shanna, they (Democrats) bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.
I can see why Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren would sputter and froth about this sort of thing. After all, the millions they've made came tax moneys, and other graft.
Treason pays pretty well for the democrats.
Oh, I mean, there are plenty of Republicans who have made back from it as well. I suppose in one sense, the Democrats are at least less hypocritical about it. They're vocally pro-taxation. Of course, they're also vocally anti-rich, so that does rather balance out the "hypocrisy" scale.
That may be the first "boff sidez" I can get behind.
DOGE doing the Lord's work:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/fmcs-slush-fund-abolished-by-trump
According to its most recent annual report, Planned Parenthood received around $699.3 million in federal funding in 2022-2023. That is about 34% of the organization’s annual revenue.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-report-reveals-planned-parenthood-ceos-staggering-salaries
Why does PP receive any government money? It's in the business to make money by selling gruesome services and enrich its management.
Elon, please investigate, Trump please zero out their funding.
Because it helps trim the poor people down?
You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for."
Yeah, businesses who move goods on public roads don't pay a gas tax that was levied by states and fed to pay for roads, that is just everyone else!
The "rest of us"? Can we get some stats for the percentages of (D) and (R) voters who paid significant taxes last year?
The bigger effect which probably skews a lot of perceptions is that because "progressive" governance explodes the cost of living so thoroughly there are a lot of people in the "Deep blue" states who think they're middle class because it takes an income of $200k/year to be able to live below your means in those areas.
And as if they wouldn't build the roads themselves if givermint hadn't usurped that responsibility.
Nuh unh! It was governments that invented the entire concept of roads! Before government, nobody ever went anywhere!
The real problem with "you didn't build that" is that the people sleeping under the freeway underpass that's being used to move stuff in and out of the factories had all the same infrastructure (arguably, they're getting even more use from it than the factory owners) and public schools as the people who founded the business that operates the factory.
Income taxes are theft. They should be abolished immediately. A National Sales Tax plus import fees on foreign goods are the only fair taxes. Let the government shrink to match that revenue stream.
Oh bullshit again. ALL taxes are theft.
Shrinking government to match revenue is a great idea, except it hasn't shrunk squat since the last balanced budget. What makes you think a change in revenue source will do the trick?
* Imports are 2/3 of income tax revenue. Any tariff high enough to generate an appreciable replacement value would drive imports down and generate even less revenue.
* Consumption taxes are just as nosy and corrupt as income taxes, because they are income taxes, but only on businesses, not individuals. The EU VAT regulations have something like 100 different tax categories, so schools don't pay VAT on school supplies, farmers don't pay VAT on farm supplies, etc. You think those categories are any simpler and clearer than US income tax exemptions?
* Consumption taxes have to be high to match income taxes. You want a 20% tax on homes? Oh, no, we'll exempt homes. Great, then we have to jack it up to 30%. How about cars? Oh no, that's too much, just ordinary stuff, you know, TVs and computers. Great, now it's 40%.
* The auditing is incredibly intrusive, just as with income taxes. Yard sales? Whoops, too many of those makes you a business, let's see all your receipts and records. Flea market attendee? Show us your receipts and records. Trading dental work for roof repairs? Records and receipts, and no please about it.
The only part you got right is that the problem is spending, but your wishful thinking has been proven false time and again.
Spending doesn't depend on the method of taxation. The government is going to get that money one way or another, and that means taxes, borrowing, or inflation, or more likely all three.
Spending depends on spending and nothing else. If you don't focus on cutting spending, you may as well wish for a fish.
Look at the Jesse sock that understands economics, but is otherwise still an insufferable cunt.
Mute his ass. That'll show him!
I played around with muting when they first introduced it, but it's easier to just scroll down as soon as I see sarc or jeff in a comment thread.
The really useful mute would be his own self-applied mute at the source. I bet half the comments on most articles would disappear.
Sarc will never self-mute. He craves the attention too much.
Actually, a really useful feature would be the basic ability to expand or collapse an individual comment thread. You know, like every other comment section in the universe. But like everything else, that's a little too sophisticated for Reason.
"the Jesse sock"
If people are wondering how Sarc reached this new point of lunacy, let me explain.
SGT and Jesse have had several arguments here. Sarc, thinking that "the enemy of my enemy will be my dearest friend", and desperate to troll Jesse, started to white knight for SGT.
SGT was naturally grossed out by the retard's attentions and told him to fuck off.
Now, like a woman scorned, Sarc has been following SGT around and attacking and harassing him.
Yeah, it's been weird. I keep thinking there must be some fun to have with this, but for sarc? There's nothing there. A sarc by any other name would be as vapid.
I know you’re retarded, but this is one of your more infamous comments I’ve seen. Are you seriously suggesting that SGT who is at odds with Jesse over tariffs is actually Jesse!?! This is one of the most deranged comments I’ve ever seen from you in a long line of deranged comments. Your Jesse Derangement Syndrome is off the fucking charts.
While I agree with your final point about how the critical thing is getting spending under control, a lot of your arguments against consumption taxes are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
The EU VAT regulations have something like 100 different tax categories, so schools don't pay VAT on school supplies, farmers don't pay VAT on farm supplies, etc. You think those categories are any simpler and clearer than US income tax exemptions? [...] Consumption taxes have to be high to match income taxes. You want a 20% tax on homes? Oh, no, we'll exempt homes. Great, then we have to jack it up to 30%. How about cars? Oh no, that's too much, just ordinary stuff, you know, TVs and computers. Great, now it's 40%.
So just don't do that. Yes. One tax rate, levied on goods at the first point of sale to an end consumer.
The auditing is incredibly intrusive, just as with income taxes. Yard sales? Whoops, too many of those makes you a business, let's see all your receipts and records. Flea market attendee? Show us your receipts and records. Trading dental work for roof repairs? Records and receipts, and no please about it.
Again, doesn't have to be done this way. (I will grant, the historical record suggests that it might well happen that way, but it's not baked into the very DNA of the concept.) Only charge the consumption tax on goods at their first sale to the end consumer. That eliminates yard sales, and anyone going to the flea market who isn't primarily selling new goods there. "Dental work" is a service, so the dentist will have already paid the consumption tax on the tools and materials necessary to perform the work, and the roofer is in the same position with regards to the sheathing and shingles.
Income taxes discourage work and having an income. Property taxes are (personally, at least) flamingly appalling in terms of making it impossible to ever truly own anything, and discourage trying. Consumption taxes discourage consumption.
Sure, some measure of consumption is essentially mandatory, unless one wishes to grow all of one's own food and make all of one's own clothing. But a lot of consumption is far more optional than that, and again, I strongly dislike the idea of discouraging people to work.
There may well be some very good arguments to be made against consumption taxes. The ones presented here are, in my opinion, not necessarily contained within that set.
Only charge the consumption tax on goods at their first sale to the end consumer.
If I buy lumber and plywood at Home Depot, but it's for my home business of making and selling raised flower beds, am I the end consumer? How will Home Depot know to charge me tax or not?
Well, presumably the same way they would know that now.
I'm not sure what it's like in other states, but in New Mexico we have a "Gross Receipts Tax" instead of "Sales Tax". And if you have a business, you are required to collect and submit that gross receipts tax. The other side of that, however, is that if you are in business -- let's say, making and selling raised flower beds -- you can get a Non-Taxable Transaction Certificate and file that with vendors, such as Home Depot, who will then not charge you gross receipts tax on items you purchase as raw materials for your business.
Alternatively, if you didn't want to deal with that, you could simply pay the tax to Home Depot, and pass that cost along to your end customer. That's the sort of scenario I was envisioning for the roofer and dentist example above. My primary angle with the "first sale to the end consumer" part was to give an example of a way in which a person would not have to pay a consumption tax (as a "tax" qua tax) on a used car, and more to the point, an individual selling a used car would not have to collect that tax. It was meant to counter the insistence that a consumption tax would necessitate the state coming down on and auditing people who hold yard sales or sell things at the flea market, unless they are doing it as a primary business. In which case, either that person has already registered for a business license and has a tax ID number they can use to generate NTTCs through which they can acquire the goods they are selling without paying that tax at the time they purchase them, with the understanding that this obligates them to collect it at the time they make the sale to their end customer, or they are paying that tax when they purchase the items they are selling, and the state has already collected tax on it, so they have no further interest in the transaction.
The point being, it doesn't have to be incredibly complex.
And to emphasize the theft point, I want to eliminate income and payroll tax withholding. Come April 15, let's see what happens when everyone has to send a check to Uncle Sam. (And teach the idiots who think a tax refund is a gift.)
Milton Friedman invented withholding, more or less, during WW II, and said it was one of his biggest mistakes.
Taxes should hurt. One reason sales taxes seem so tame is because we're so used to them and they just nibble a little at a time.
As ever, I will state that the elimination of withholding should be accompanied by pushing Tax Day back by six months, with either one happening twice in one year only six months apart, or better still, by eliminating withholding say, next year on April 15th, and then waiting 18 months for the next Tax Day and having it on October 15th, 2026. Y'know, right before the midterms.
And then every year, two weeks or so before elections, every time.
https://x.com/RepPatHarrigan/status/1902072109263663189
Congressman Pat Harrigan
@RepPatHarrigan
You know it’s bad when even Whoopi Goldberg tries to get Schumer to stop talking.
Democrats are mocking hardworking Americans for wanting to keep what they earn—while defending the government’s right to take more.
The Democrat Disconnect is real, this party is completely out of touch.
Well it appears they have a lot of NGOs to fund.
Republicans love tariffs, which means they love taxes. They're also so fucking stupid that they believe Trump when he says tariffs on Canadian goods are paid by Canadians.
The problem, of course, is that most Americans think tax collectors are too grabby and want to keep government officials at arms length.
Chuck either lives in a bra - er, I mean bubble - or, more likely, he's desperately clinging to the narrative that the Democrats are for the working class, as though Trump hasn't claimed that voter for himself (with ample help from the Democrats).
I think at this point, Schumer is operating near Biden levels of autopilot and is probably not aware of much at all.
Paying taxes sucks. But it is the price we pay to live in a safe community. We have police, fire, and EMS. Conflicts are resolved using the legal process, not violence. Our country is safe from military invasion. We have clean water and clean air. We have highways and an air traffic control system. The list goes on and on.
There is not such thing as a government-free society. A power vacuum will always be filled. I personally prefer our system of government over being ruled by local warlords.
It is healthy for a society to debate how big (or not) government should be, but it is nuts so say zero government is a good idea. I strongly push back on the notion that most Americans are anti-government.
The list goes on and on only for people who want the government to provide for all their needs, plus idiots who want the feds to redistribute wealth.
Military (including border control), fire and police (under strict oversight), and courts, including contract enforcement. After that, fuck off.
None of that requires government. Private people and companies built roads and canals and railroads before the government came along.
You know all this, you've been told many times, given many examples, like my ATC link showing ATC began in 1929 and was taken over by the government 20 years later.
http://reason.org/news/show/air-traffic-control-newsletter-133#f
Governments murdered 100-200 million civilians last century, outside of war. Is that what you consider peace? The Mafia would kill fewer people.
If the government only provided those services you mentioned, we could easily have a flat tax of 5%, period.
I hate that motte and bailey argument.
While Americans across the board think they pay too much in taxes, the fact is they get government services at a discount rate. That is why they also oppose cuts in the services. It would be easier to cut service it people were taxed at a level appropriate to the services provided.
American also believe that they themselves are being taxed too heavily but others are not. Some say rich should pay more, others the poor should pay more.
On income taxes, it's not really that the "poor should pay more," but perhaps we shouldn't give income tax refunds to people who didn't have any income tax withheld. Just a crazy thought.
What you are describing is a negative income tax. An idea once suggested by conservatives in place of welfare. We don’t have a negative income tax so what you are suggesting doesn’t actually happen.
We do have refundable credits that can be cashed out whether you pay income tax or not. So in fact, some lower income people do have a negative tax bill.
And as someone in the middle if the income continuum, I absolutely want the poor to pay more income taxes so they stop voting for the party with the biggest teets.
First let me say I don’t like using the tax code for social funding. I think we need a lot more tax bracket and everyone should pay in even the poor at a very low rate. This gives everyone skin in the game. I would also include higher rates for the wealthiest as they are likely to benefit most from government spending.
Really, so people receiving more money than they put in isn't a negative income tax. Humm, who knew.
Appealing to polls is weak. It is well documented that the wealthy have been constructing a media eco-system bent on sowing distrust of government. People can be manipulated. This is the weakness in Livertarianism and it is staring us in the face. The giant pools of wealth that have grown in the past half century have become enboldened and softened us up. We now distrust everyone to the point of wanting to wish away government.
But who will organize the economy and society in its wake? You all think this will be some anarchist utopia? Ha ha. It will be brain-adled people like Musk ruling by whim and extracting money from you for his Mars fever-dream. Our president is a multi-level nmarketing enthusiust who jumps at any scheme to play you for a mark. That's the world we are creating. Scam or be scammed. But at least your taxes will be lower.
Musk is ‘brain addled’? Sure he is, you fucking retard. He’s the richest man in earth and recently managed to parallel park a fucking rocket.
But a worthless pinko like YOU is smart, eh comrade?
He’s the richest man in earth and recently managed to parallel park a fucking rocket.
Hey now, let's not forget the part where he catches the first launch stage with a pair of chopsticks. Yup, he's definitely a complete idiot.
Yeah Musk is brain-addled - only created an electric car company, battery storage company, a space launch company that lower the cost to space access, create internet sats that provide internet all over the world (even in Ukraine).
He's so horrible! Oh he brought Twitter that was supposed to go bankrupt in a week remember? Never be popular. Oh it just made a profit, never mind.
He wants to go to Mars because he pushed the envelope. I'm sure you think the earth is flat. You aren't too bright. It's ok. The world your team created and wants to create is shown in every blue city (How many died in Chicago this weekend?), every socialist country and you know history but you be you and complain about a guy who is improving society
I say we put a 200% wealth tax on Schumer.
Or copious amounts of lye.
'Chuck Schumer Thinks Only Republicans Hate Paying Taxes'
Chuck knows that Democrats love the idea of Republicans paying taxes.
Does Chuck Schumer think Wesley Snipes is some sort of Republican?
Does he know that you're supposed to grill a burger before you put cheese on it?
Does Chuck Schumer think
No.
I wouldn’t mind seeing Schumer tortured.
I would. Torture demeans the torturer, and he's not worth it. You don't torture a dangerous animal, you just put it down.
And even that would be too far for ol' Chuck. Just confiscate his wealth to compensate the victims of his actions, and strip him of any sort of power, authority, or influence. Let him get a real job for the first time.
"Does he know that you're supposed to grill a burger before you put cheese on it?"
Holy shit, I forgot that happened. What a goddamned idiot.
Politician lies. News at 11.
Schumer is a lying, thieving dirt bag. You couldn't find a better poster child for draining the swamp. He's never had a real job and yet is worth $100 million. Nobody wants another nickel of their money going to people like him. I would be shocked if Schumer and McConnell weren't skimming nine figure sums off the top of the Ukraine aid. The government could get by on $4 trillion a year in outlays like they did in 2019 before the pandemic insanity. They certainly don't need $7 trillion.
Chuck doesn’t need $100 million. He could get by on half a million. So let’s confiscate his wealth.
He shouldn’t have a problem with that.
It is morally okay to tax people according to their beliefs. It is proper and just to tax socialists and communists 100%.
From each according to his beliefs.
Yes. There should be no such thing as a rich socialist. Although 100% of socialists should be in landfills.
Although 100% of socialists should be in landfills.
That's a waste of good compost. I support all communists getting to truly participate in their agrarian ideal.
Schumer has been in government since 1974 and has never held a private sector job.
Let that sink in. You do not need any more explanation on this situation.
He should have been executed for treason long ago.
He's been in government longer than I've been alive.
"... mistakes building on voluntary cooperation and trade in a society for some sort of hijacking of others' achievements."
This is the single most important point in the whole article! The problem is that it's a subtle point that would go over the heads of most casual observers. The position that government built that road, therefore government is good is a logical fallacy. The position that if government had NOT built that road that it would not have been built at all is a logical fallacy. If the government had not built that road there someone else might have built a better road there or somewhere else at a lower cost that might have better met the needs of the people who build the factories. Because we use the roads that the government built whether we would have approved that road or not, Schumer and his ilk think that it justifies forcing us all to pay taxes to maintain that road and build new roads and bridges and everything else that government fiat has appropriated - is also a logical fallacy. In my opinion, government OBSTRUCTS the building of roads and factories far more than it encourages them. One day the American people will realize the spurious nature of the demagogues and their slogans and put their collective foot down in opposition. In fact, I think The Donald represents the first hesitant steps in that direction whether I like him personally or not!
One day the American people will realize the spurious nature of the demagogues and their slogans and put their collective foot down in opposition.
Hey man, where can I get some of whatever it is that lets you maintain that sort of optimism? 😀
Consider the MSM is losing big time.
CNN is at the bottom of the ratings barrel.
Michael Bloomberg said the only good tax is the one that taxes the other guy.
The View is still on?
I thought Whippee was moving to Ireland with her girlfriend
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/11/entertainment/rosie-odonnell-moved-ireland/index.html
Haven't the Irish suffered enough already?
St. Patrick returns: https://babylonbee.com/news/ghost-of-saint-patrick-appears-to-drive-rosie-odonnell-out-of-ireland
The libertarians hate taxes too. Maybe Reason should hire some.
To do what? Balance their books? Lololol
consider Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D–N.Y.) recent appearance on ABC's The View.
I think that line just by itself sums up the death of the Democrat Party. Literally explains everything wrong with it. Because that IS the Democrat Party, right there.
You guys are SO detached from reality. The woke mind-virus ate your brains, and you let it.
I just read the little Chuckie Schumer is now in Georgy Soros' crosshairs for removal.
The Democrat party is now eating itself.
Donald trump's election not only set the dems back but may very well have led to its own self destruction.
Now where's my popcorn?
Sounds completely inline with everything Democratic [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] have been selling all along. Not just Schumer.
Least we forget the very DNC platform...
"Trump hollowed out our ?public? institutions!!!"
Democrats think Gov-'Guns' against *SUPPLIERS* / EARNING is how "the people" get supplies because at their core they're professional con-men (i.e. 'armed-theft' criminals) with a whole bag of excuses and endless self-projection ad-campaigns for their criminal mentality.
...and too GREEDY and self centered to even realize Gov - 'Gun' THEFT doesn't make sh*t so it's all but a zero-sum poverty stricken path. Your business isn't going to succeed with a store full of 'armed-theft' robbers; just like the USA is never going to survive socialism / communism.
LOL! Of course Chucky cheese would go on the view to puke up his lies and propaganda. Where else could he find a panel of "dumb as a bag of rocks" snaches to promote his horse shit?
Who knew that Schumer would actually raise the iq of the view a few points
Wait, if Democrats love taxes so much, you know since no one builds anything, why are they upset about the SALT? Get rid of it completely!