Conservatives Encouraged by Republican Framework for Tax Reform

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Any tax reforms passed by Congress should give relief to middle-class families and small businesses, bring jobs and capital back to the United States, and make the tax code more fair by ending loopholes and breaks for special interests, congressional Republicans said Wednesday in what they call a framework for debate.

The framework from House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and other GOP leaders calls for creating a larger zero-tax bracket (an individual’s first $12,000 of income would become tax free, and the first $24,000 for married couples), roughly doubling taxpayers’ standard deduction, and condensing the current seven tax brackets to three.

“This is a historic day,” Ryan said at an afternoon press conference. “This is a day that is a long time in coming. In fact, it was on this day, under this dome, in 1986 that Congress took the final vote on the last overhaul of our tax code. That long. After that vote, President Reagan said Americans would ‘finally have a tax code that they can be proud of.’”

“It was true then, but things look very very different today, don’t they?” Ryan added. “Instead of a source of pride, our tax code has become a constant source of frustration. It is too big. It is too complicated, it’s too expensive. Today, we are taking the next step to liberate Americans from our broken tax code.”

“Tax reform that follows the outline we heard today will deliver significant benefits for all Americans,” Adam Michel, a tax policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, said in an email to The Daily Signal, adding:

The outlined tax reform will raise wages, increase job creation, and create untold additional opportunities. The plan goes a long way toward fixing our business tax system that makes it hard for businesses to invest in America.

Depending on their income, individual taxpayers currently may be taxed at one of these percentages: 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 35, or 39.6.

The three brackets in Republicans’ proposed tax framework are 12 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent.

The framework would end personal exemptions for dependents and increase the child tax credit.

President Donald Trump has made overhauling the tax code a major agenda item during his first year in office, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has promised to deliver it by the end of 2017, now three months away.

Republican lawmakers’ plan would repeal the alternative minimum tax, created in 1969 to ensure that more affluent taxpayers could lower their tax bill only via deductions a certain amount. Many lawmakers, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, previously have called for an end to the alternative minimum tax.

The framework for tax reform would eliminate most itemized deductions, taken from a taxable adjusted gross income and “made up of deductions for money spent on certain goods and services throughout the year,” as Investopedia explains it.

The plan also calls for repeal of the estate tax—which opponents call the death tax—and the generation-skipping transfer tax, what the Tax Policy Center calls an “additional tax on a transfer of property.”

The plan includes tax benefits to incentivize work, higher education, and retirement security and promises to repeal many provisions “to make the system simpler and fairer for all families and individuals, and allow for lower tax rates.”

The framework also would:

Limit the minimum tax rate for small businesses and sole proprietorships to 25 percent.

Lower the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, “below the 22.5 percent average of the industrialized world.”

Allow expensing of “new investments in depreciable assets other than structures made after Sept. 27, 2017, for at least five years.”

Lower rates for domestic manufacturers and update rules for various industries and sectors “to ensure that the tax code better reflects economic reality and that such rules provide little opportunity for tax avoidance.”

The Republican plan also seeks to keep companies from moving overseas by taxing both businesses and foreign profits of U.S. corporations at a reduced rate.

Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the largest GOP caucus in the House, praised the newly released details.

“At first glance, the policies released today are good news to the American people,” Walker said in a formal statement. “I am proud to see that a large part of the Republican Study Committee’s submission to the tax reform task force was incorporated into today’s framework. We need to begin acting on this framework legislatively as soon as possible.”

Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., chairwoman of the House Budget Committee, said the goals would put America at an advantage:

By simplifying the system and getting the government out of the way of our free-market economy, America is made more competitive on an international scale and the potential for unprecedented job creation is unleashed. We believe this will be a catalyst for more jobs, bigger paychecks and fairer taxes—this framework is pro-America. Plain and simple.

Alfredo Ortiz, president and CEO of the Job Creators Network, said the plan shows promise.

“I’m encouraged to see that the administration is moving forward with tax cuts for small business,” Ortiz said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal, adding:

While many details still need to be filled in, this is a crucial and positive step in the right direction. Make no mistake: the recent progress in the campaign for tax relief should bring optimism to the 29 million small business owners and the roughly 56 million people that depend on them for their livelihoods.

In a statement provided to The Daily Signal, David McIntosh, president of the Club for Growth, said the plan will foster economic development.

“Club for Growth is very encouraged and pleased with the long-awaited tax reform outline that the Big Six released today,” McIntosh said. “Fundamental tax reform comes around only once in a generation, and this is our chance. The outline is both aggressive and very pro-growth with its rate reductions.”

Mike Needham, chief executive officer of Heritage Action for America, the lobbying affiliate of The Heritage Foundation, said the plan is a call to action.

“While today’s announcement marks an important and encouraging first step, it is imperative the administration and congressional leaders work hand-in-hand with conservatives to push back against the radical left and the special interests that will pull out every stop to preserve the status quo,” Needham said. (For more from the author of “Conservatives Encouraged by Republican Framework for Tax Reform” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NSA Leaker Told FBI That She Was Triggered by Fox News Being on at Her Workplace

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The National Security Agency contractor who leaked a top secret report about Russian activities during the election told FBI agents that she was upset with her employer because Fox News was played on TVs at her office.

“I’ve filed formal complaints about them having Fox News on, you know?” Reality Winner, the contractor, told FBI agents during a June 3 interview at her home in Augusta, Ga. “Uh, just at least, for God’s sake, put Al Jazeera on, or a slideshow with people’s pets. I’ve tried everything to get that changed.”

Federal prosecutors disclosed the interview transcript in a court filing on Wednesday. Politico first reported details of the document.

Federal prosecutors have charged Winner with mishandling classified information for leaking a top secret report that laid out evidence that Russian hackers had targeted U.S. voter registration databases. Winner, who faces at least nine years in prison if convicted, printed the document from her NSA office at Fort Gordon and then sent it to reporters at The Intercept. (Read more from “NSA Leaker Told FBI That She Was Triggered by Fox News Being on at Her Workplace” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Obscure Law Affecting Puerto Rico’s Ability to Recover After Hurricane Maria

/0 Comments/in , /by

A relatively obscure maritime law is in the spotlight after the devastation of Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria.

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act, has typically been confined to debates about energy independence, trade, and regulation. The law requires shipments between two U.S. ports be on U.S.-built, U.S.-manned, and U.S.-owned vessels.

The Trump administration has granted temporary waivers to the law after recent hurricanes in Texas and Florida, but has yet to do so in Puerto Rico, despite pressure from Congress. The previous waivers were primarily for the purpose of transporting fuel.

“Puerto Rico didn’t need this storm to be ground zero on the harm done by the Jones Act,” Salim Furth, a senior fellow in macroeconomics at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “They were already being cut off from the main market, effectively paying double the shipping costs.”

It’s also a problem for other U.S. regions apart from the continental United States, noted James Coleman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University, the author of a forthcoming white paper on the subject for the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project. He writes:

The Jones Act has also long imposed particularly heavy burdens on far-flung domestic ports like Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, because they often import commodities from the United States.

This problem is particularly salient in Puerto Rico, which just declared bankruptcy because it is $74 billion in debt.

Economists estimate that, just from 1970 [to] 2012, the Jones Act cost Puerto Rico’s economy $29 billion. Reforming the Jones Act could save consumers in Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii as much as $15 billion per year.

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that her department hasn’t rejected a waiver outright yet, and said the department is researching the matter.

“There’s two issues with Puerto Rico. One is the potential shortage of carriers with the U.S. flag carriers,” Duke told the committee Wednesday. “The second is tariffs and other things that make the fuel cost high in Puerto Rico, and that’s what we’re hearing, too, that people are suffering from the tariffs.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a longtime advocate for repealing the law, wrote a letter to Duke this week asking for a waiver for Puerto Rico. He also tweeted about it Wednesday.

Eight House Democrats also have asked for a waiver for Puerto Rico, in a letter to Duke, writing:

The island is now facing an unprecedented, uphill battle to rebuild its homes, businesses and communities. Temporarily loosening these requirements—for the express purposes of disaster recovery—will allow Puerto Rico to have more access to the oil needed for its power plants, food, medicines, clothing, and building supplies.

President Barack Obama declined calls to waive the Jones Act to help in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. President George W. Bush did waive the law after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

The American Maritime Partnership, the U.S. shipbuilders lobby, contends that lawmakers are making false assumptions about the law’s impact, and released what it calls a “fact check” on Wednesday, disputing assertions from what it labeled “a parade of politicians and ‘experts.’”

Claim: The Jones Act prevents cargo from foreign vessels to reach Puerto Rico.

False. Any foreign vessel can call on Puerto Rico. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in a 2011 report that two-thirds of the ships serving Puerto Rico were foreign ships. 55 different foreign carriers provided imported cargo to Puerto Rico in a single month, as cited as an example by GAO.

Foreign shipping companies compete directly with the American shipping companies in an intensely competitive transportation market.

Claim: A Jones Act waiver would add efficiency to the delivery of essential cargoes to impacted communities.

Because of infrastructure challenges, a Jones Act waiver could hinder, not help, relief efforts. A Jones Act waiver could overwhelm the system, creating unnecessary backlogs and causing confusion on the distribution of critical supplies throughout the island.

Already, there are logistical bottlenecks for Jones Act cargoes as a result of the inability to distribute goods within Puerto Rico due to road blockages, communications disruptions, and concerns about equipment shortages, including trucks, chassis, and containers.

“The men and women of the American maritime industry stand committed to the communities in Puerto Rico impacted by Hurricane Maria, where many of our own employees and their families reside and are working around the clock to respond to the communities in need,” Thomas A. Allegretti, chairman of the American Maritime Partnership, said in a statement.

“A steady stream of additional supplies keeps arriving in Puerto Rico on American vessels and on international ships from around the world. The problem now is distributing supplies from Puerto Rico’s ports inland by surface transportation,” he said.

The hurricane season could provide some momentum for Congress to consider repealing the law, said Coleman, the SMU law professor.

The law itself could pose political problems for President Donald Trump, however, Coleman said.

“There are tensions between ‘America First’ and the goal of economic growth and energy dominance,” Coleman said. “It’s a protectionist law that protects certain groups, but it harms the productivity of other groups.”

The Trump administration backtracked from a regulatory expansion of the Jones Act proposed by its predecessor. Two days before leaving office, the Obama administration sought to administratively expand the reach of the law under Customs and Border Protection. On May 10, under the Trump administration, the CPB withdrew the proposed regulatory change.

Northeastern states are more likely to get oil from foreign sources, rather than from domestic sources, because of the law, Coleman contends in his white paper.

Unfortunately, because of the Jones Act, it costs three times as much to ship oil from Texas to refineries on the U.S. East Coast as it costs to ship oil [from] Canada.

There are simply not enough Jones Act compliant ships to carry Texas oil to the U.S. East Coast, so it must be shipped [from] abroad. Similarly, northeastern U.S. refineries pay more than three times as much to ship oil from Texas, rather than from West Africa or Saudi Arabia.

As a result, the northeastern U.S. is more likely to rely on foreign sources of crude oil, while, with the ban on U.S. oil exports now ended, U.S. oil is shipped longer distances abroad, leaving American consumers behind.

A compelling “America First” argument is that repeal of the Jones Act would allow freer trade within the borders of the United States, said Furth of The Heritage Foundation.

“It’s also in line with ‘drain the swamp’ because this is a lobbyists’ law,” Furth said. “The lawyered-up, lobbied-up industries are aware their profits depending heavily on this law.” (For more from the author of “The Obscure Law Affecting Puerto Rico’s Ability to Recover After Hurricane Maria” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obamacare Repeal Isn’t Dead, House Conservatives Insist

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite “fake news” claims that Republicans’ chance to repeal and replace Obamacare ends Saturday, that isn’t necessarily true, a conservative House member said Tuesday.

“Go back and look at the name of the Obamacare reconciliation vehicle in 2010,” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., told reporters during lawmakers’ monthly Conversations With Conservatives event on Capitol Hill, referring to how Democrats pushed through the health care law without a single Republican vote.

Democrats combined education and health care, and “they did student loan reform, they used some of the savings on the Obamacare tweaking that they did,” Massie said.

“So you can absolutely do two things at once. It’s not dead on September 30th,” he said of dismantling Obamacare.

On Saturday, however, time runs out for Senate Republicans to use their current filibuster-blocking budgetary device to pass a bill to replace Obamacare with 50 votes.

The GOP has only 52 seats in the 100-seat upper chamber, and Massie’s fellow Kentucky Republican, Sen. Rand Paul, is one of four GOP votes against the latest version of the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill. The others are Susan Collins of Maine, Ted Cruz of Texas, and John McCain of Arizona.

The co-sponsors, Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, conceded Tuesday that their effort is done for now.

“We haven’t given up on changing the American health care system. We are not going to be able to do that this week,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters Tuesday. “But it still lies ahead of us, and we haven’t given up on that.”

Massie also questioned the structure thus far of House and Senate Republicans’ unsuccessful bills to repeal and replace Obamacare, and how they seemed to cater to congressional Democrats, none of whom appears willing to vote for repeal.

“Why is it that every GOP repeal and replace bill includes a trillion-dollar federal health care program?” Massie said. “Who are we negotiating with if [Democrats] are not going to vote for it?”

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., told reporters that repeal and replace legislation isn’t “totally dead.” He said he hopes to have the opportunity to vote to repeal Obamacare in the near future.

“I would really love the chance at least once in my lifetime to repeal it,” Biggs said.

Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., showed support for the Graham-Cassidy bill during the event, despite saying the legislation has flaws.

“There’s no piece of legislation that’s ever going to be perfect,” Harris said. “But if this [is] the only piece of legislation we could get, it does accomplish the defederalization of the Affordable Care Act.”

Harris said his reasons for supporting the bill include its plan to take money that would have been sent directly to Medicaid and give it to states in the form of block grants for health care. He said he liked the bill’s reversal of “the increase in Medicaid, which is an out-of-control spending plan.” (For more from the author of “Obamacare Repeal Isn’t Dead, House Conservatives Insist” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Parents of Benghazi Victims: Hillary Should Stand Trial

/0 Comments/in , /by

The parents of two of the victims of the Benghazi terror attack – which was carried out by Muslim terrorists but blamed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on an obscure YouTube video – have filed a brief in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals arguing that Clinton should stand trial for lying about the deaths.

WND reported that the case brought by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch on behalf of Patricia Smith and Charles Woods accused Clinton of lying about the attack and then defaming the families of the victims by suggesting they were lying.

The case charging Clinton with “defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress” was dismissed at the lower courts, which ruled Clinton was acting within the scope of her employment, secretary of state, at the time.

That, the opinion found, included her use of a private, unauthorized and unsecured email system through which information was sent that “directly led to the deaths of appellants’ sons.”

Clinton earlier narrowly escaped a default judgment that was entered in a case in the lower court over her liability for the deaths of Americans in Benghazi when an Obama-appointed judge adopted claims that she wasn’t properly served. (Read more from “Parents of Benghazi Victims: Hillary Should Stand Trial” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Tax Plan Doubles Standard Deduction

/0 Comments/in , /by

The long-awaited Republican tax-overhaul proposal would double the standard deduction for joint filers to $24,000, establish three tax brackets of 12 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent to replace the current seven rates, and set the corporate tax rate at 20 percent.

Many details remain unclear, including the income levels for each tax bracket, but according to details released early Wednesday, the corporate tax rate will be lowered to just below the 22.5 percent average of the industrialized world to continue President Trump’s campaign to bring jobs back from overseas and “make American great again.”

The president has said the plan will be the largest tax cut in American history.

A framework released by members of Congress cites the four requirements the president laid out: “First, make the tax code simple, fair and easy to understand. Second, give American workers a pay raise by allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks. Third, make America the jobs magnet of the world by leveling the playing field for American businesses and workers. Finally, bring back trillions of dollars that are currently kept offshore to reinvest in the American economy.”

The plans come from the White House, the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Committee on Finance. (Read more from “Trump Tax Plan Doubles Standard Deduction” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Personhood’ Demanded for Famous River

/0 Comments/in , /by

A coalition of environmental groups including the Deep Green Resistance and the Southwest Coalition and several individuals have sued the state of Colorado to have “personhood” granted to the Colorado River.

Yes, what the abortion industry in America refuses to grant to unborn children, a lawsuit now is seeking for a river, its tributaries, and more.

“Our system of law has failed to stop the degradation of the natural environment, and consequently, has failed to protect the natural and human communities which depend on it for their survival and livelihood,” the complaint filed this week in U.S. District Court in Colorado states.

“Environmental law has failed to protect the natural environment because it accepts the status of nature and ecosystems as property, while merely regulating the rate at which the natural environment is exploited. Its failure can be seen from the worsening of climate change, the continued pollution of ground and surfacewater (sic), and the decline of every major ecosystem on the continent.”

It explained, “The Colorado River is one such ecosystem. Climate change is worsening Colorado River droughts, many of its tributaries have receded, and the river has been prevented from making its way to the sea. The Colorado River’s continuing existence, let alone its ability to continue to provide sustenance for both human and natural communities, is now at issue. (Read more from “‘Personhood’ Demanded for Famous River” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Illegal Aliens Cost U.S. Over $100 Billion Annually

/0 Comments/in , /by

A new report indicates that illegal immigration is costing American taxpayers roughly $135 billion annually, the highest number ever recorded.

“The Fiscal Burden Of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers,” published by the Federation For American Immigration Reform, found that illegal immigrants cost state and local governments more than $88 billion, with illegals costing the federal government over $45 billion annually.

FAIR’s analysis, which was provided in advance to the Washington Examiner, found that claims suggesting illegal immigrants pay significant amounts of money in taxes back to federal, state and local governments isn’t entirely accurate.

The report said illegal immigrants only pay $19 billion total in taxes, leaving the additional $116 billion to be picked up by the American taxpayer. This mean the U.S. only recovers roughly 14 percent of the total amount spent each year on illegal immigrants.

“Clearly, the cost of doing nothing to stop illegal immigration is far too high,” said FAIR Executive Director Dan Stein. “President Trump has laid out a comprehensive strategy to regain control of illegal immigration and bring down these costs.”

Stein said that in order to curb the historic rise in illegal immigrants coming to the U.S., more aggressive measures have to be put in place.

“Building the wall, enhancing interior enforcement and mandating national E-Verify will go a long way in bringing these ridiculously high costs under control,” Stein said.

At the federal level, illegal immigration costs $17.14 billion a year in medical costs alone, with $13.15 billion being spent on law enforcement and $8 billion going toward general government services.

At the state and local level, illegal immigration costs roughly $44.4 billion in education costs, with general services available to the public costing $18.5 billion, and $12.1 billion spent on medical services.

The cost for an individual illegal child soars even higher after factoring in welfare, health care, and school lunches.

California spends roughly $23 billion a year overall on illegal immigrants, which is the highest among all states. Texas spends almost $11 billion and New York spends $7.4 billion.

“If the same jobs held by illegal aliens were filled by legal workers, at the prevailing market wage, it may safely be presumed that federal, state and local governments would receive higher tax payments,” FAIR said.

FAIR estimates that there are roughly 12.5 million illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. (For more from the author of “Illegal Aliens Cost US Over $100 Billion Annually” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ben Carson’s Perspective on NFL Anthem Controversy Is What We ALL Need to Read

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and former presidential candidate Ben Carson’s Sunday Facebook post addressing the raging controversy surrounding NFL players kneeling during the national anthem lit up social media.

In a speech Friday during a rally in Alabama, President Donald Trump drew fresh attention to the controversy by deriding NFL players who he said disrespect the American flag by kneeling during the national anthem.

“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say ‘Get that son of a b—- off the field right now. Out. He’s fired! He’s fired’” Trump said.

Following Trump’s remarks, teams, players and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell responded with statements defending players’ right to kneel.

Goodell contended that Trump’s comments were “divisive” and demonstrated an “unfortunate lack of respect” for the NFL and its players.

But Carson added another perspective in his Facebook post on Sunday, lamenting that NFL Sundays used to “represent a time of fun, games and unity” that has now been compromised by protests during the national anthem.

“Here we are at another NFL Sunday,” Carson wrote. “That used to represent a time of fun, games and unity. I hope we can return to that situation soon.”

Carson noted that one of the reasons he believes the national anthem is played prior to sports contests is to “remind us that even though we’re rooting for different sports teams, we are united as a country.”

“That is a wonderful message that we should not allow to be distorted by anyone,” Carson wrote.

Carson said everyone has the right to express themselves, but argued that there is a proper “time and place for everything.”

“Last week I saw a story about pre-adolescent players being drawn into the ‘take a knee’ protests,” Carson wrote. “Does anyone honestly believe that encouraging even our youth to believe they are victims of our society will actually help us come together?”

Carson said he believes that many athletes “actually think they are making things better” by protesting.

“We would encourage them and all Americans to utilize their influence to truly draw people together and not be manipulated into doing the opposite under the guise of unity,” he added.

Carson’s post has gone viral, receiving more than 126,000 likes, nearly 49,000 shares and over 7,000 comments since Sunday morning.

Many commenters expressed their agreement with Carson’s sentiments.

“Ben you are a voice of reason in unreasonable times. Don’t know how we got to this place, I am truly ashamed,” one user wrote.

“Well said Dr. Carson. If only people would listen to common sense like yours this country could become great again. It is truly sad to see young children drawn into this foolishness,” another said.

Some said the anthem protests have caused them to stop following the NFL.

One commenter wrote, “Boycotting means not watching, not attending, not buying merchandise and sticking to our guns. I believe if enough people do this and they will see it in their pocketbooks! They’ll get the picture, but we can’t cave!”

“We use to love football Sunday but it has become a ‘political football’ and when enough people quit watching and these ridiculous salaries disappear, it will be a rude awakening to what most people deal with everyday,” another added. (For more from the author of “Ben Carson’s Perspective on NFL Anthem Controversy Goes Viral” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Controversy Follows on Her Heels as Melania Takes to the Garden

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The sirens of the fashion police were blaring Friday after Melania Trump ventured forth into the White House garden.

“Melania Trump has made another public appearance in a pricey outfit,” wrote Kate Taylor on Business Insider, contrasting Melania Trump’s outfit, which included a plaid shirt that looked ordinary but had started life with a $1,380 price tag, with the gardening fashions of Michelle Obama.

“Obama used the garden as a place to showcase her down-to-earth fashion,” Taylor wrote, noting that Obama was praised for wearing J. Crew sweaters to show her common touch.

Some commenters didn’t even care about the facts as they attacked Melania Trump.

As multiple pictures showed, she wore sneakers.

Independent Journal Review decided the fuss belonged on the compost heap and looked into a true comparison of first lady outfits. He noted that Obama wore Jimmy Choo boots that retail for $1,150, while Melania Trump wore $50 Converse sneakers.

“So depending on how you look at it, Michelle Obama is the really out-of-touch first lady gardening. Her shoes were potentially $1,100 more expensive then Melania’s,” he wrote.

You can catch Obama’s pricey boots here, just after the 4:10 mark:

He then suggested that trying to diminish the first lady by attacking her clothes was a waste of time.

“Perhaps the lesson we should all learn here is that a first lady is a human being with a lot of pressure on her and we should stop trying to attack them based on their fashion choices,” he wrote, adding, “All first ladies wear expensive things, idiots.”

During her time in the garden with members of a local Boys & Girls Club to harvest a variety of vegetables, Melania Trump stressed the need for healthy eating.

“I’m a big believer in healthy eating because it reflects on your mind and your body, and I encourage you to continue to eat a lot of vegetables and fruits so you grow up healthy and take care of yourself. It’s very important,” said the former model. (For more from the author of “Controversy Follows on Her Heels as Melania Takes to the Garden” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.