Replies

I thought the point of the article was to attack Edwards' hypocrisy, though you are right that it could be clearer. But when you say "[i]t is not a loophole, it is not illegal," I don't follow what you are saying. Do you think that to call something a "loophole" implies that it is illegal? I have the opposite reaction: a loophole is legal by definition. I don't think you can argue that this isn't a loophole, and certainly it is legal. I think the article is clear on both those points. I believe the issue is candidates who complain ceaselessly about "the rich" who "don't pay their fair share," etc., etc. all the while making darn sure that they use every, admittedly legal, means to shelter their own income. To me, the point is that if someone (say, a Republican) is going to be attacked for using a legal method to minimize their taxes, then a Democratic candidate is subject to the same scrutiny, particularly if the Democrat is complaining that we don't pay enough taxes.