So, why do we need to raise taxes?

Well, so that that the NIH can study the effect of penis sizes in the gay community.

The federal government helped fund a study that examined what effect a gay man's penis size has on his sex life and general well-being.


The study was among several backed by the National Institutes of Health that have come under scrutiny from a group claiming the agency is wasting valuable tax dollars at a time when the country is trying to control its debt. This particular research resulted in a 2009 report titled, "The Association Between Penis Size and Sexual Health Among Men Who Have Sex with Men."

The study reported, among its findings, that gay men with "below average penises" were more likely to assume a "bottom" sexual position, while those with "above average penises" were more likely to assume a "top" sexual position. Those with average penises identified themselves as "versatile" in the bedroom.

Though it's difficult to trace exactly how much federal funding went to the project, the study was one of many linked to an $899,769 grant in 2006. The grant was administered by NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse, and went first to a group called Public Health Solutions and a researcher with the National Development and Research Institutes before going to individual researchers.

Those researchers then compiled data from a survey of more than 1,000 gay and bisexual men at events in New York City for the gay community.

"This country is broke and we cannot spend money on this kind of stuff," said Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, which drew attention to the report as part of a six-month investigation into NIH grants for examples of "institutional waste."

"We're spending money on wacky stuff," Lafferty said.

But one of the researchers involved with the report told FoxNews.com that NIH funding was only used to help "analyze and write up" data that had already been collected without the use of taxpayer funds.

Well, then it's okay.

*Sheesh*

Part of the 53%.

Tax Policy in Action.

According to Reason:

The Alternative Minimum Tax was created in 1969 to prevent 155 extremely wealthy taxpayers from using deductions and credits to avoid paying any federal income taxes. Yet as Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy explains in her latest appearance on Bloomberg TV, today the tax overwhelmingly impacts non-millionaires living in just a handful of states. By separating economic myths from economic realities, de Rugy explains the facts about the Alternative Minimum Tax.

All you need is one good year and a single years income approaching $300k to have an extra $10k gouged out of your hide over what you would pay under the normal tax schedules.