Tax troubles were all the rage for certain folks recently. ABC News screamed in a headline about one fellow that was, “America’s Overnight Sensation… Owes $1,200 in Taxes.” Huffintgon Post was all up in arms over the same story. The San Francisco Chronicle was tsking the fellow for being “concerned about increased taxes – but hasn’t paid his own income taxes.” The Chicago Tribune chided this figure for being “delinquent on his taxes.” It was a crime, they all said. An outrage. This is not to even mention the unhinged, screaming mimis of the left blogosphere that dug in like pitbulls to excoriate this notorious tax cheat.

So, who are they talking about? Who had these people out for blood? Is it Tim Geithner, Obama’s tax cheating chief of the Treasury? Maybe the hubby of Hilda Solis, Obama’s choice for Sec. of Labor? Perhaps it’s Tom Daschle, Obama’s unfortunate choice for the HHS? Maybe it was Nancy Killefer, Obama’s pick for the post of chief White House performance officer who just bowed out over troublesome tax issues? Was it any of these tax cheats?

Just who was the guy that the news and left bloggers were so incensed over?

It was Joe the Plumber.

The press and the lefties were out for Joe’s blood over his purported criminal tax troubles not long ago. As Michelle Malkin reported last October, less than four short months ago:

Then, suddenly, the journalists who wouldn’t lift a finger to investigate Barack Obama’s longtime relationships with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright sprang into action rifling through citizen Joe Wurzelbacher’s tax records. Politico.com reported breathlessly: “Samuel J. Wurzelbacher has a lien placed against him to the tune of $1,182.92. The lien is dated from January of ‘07.” Press outlets probed his divorce records. The local plumbers’ union, which has endorsed Obama, claimed he didn’t do their required apprenticeship work and didn’t have a license to work outside his local township.

Let’s get one thing clear, here. Samuel J. Wurzelbacher was NOT running for any office. He was just a citizen trying to ask a presidential candidate a simple question.

And now we have that very candidate, now the elected president, fielding a score of tax cheating candidates of his own for important offices in our government.

And this is on top of Obama’s own murky tax troubles that the press was not so interested in discussing during the campaign.

Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.

But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?

2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”

2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking).

2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”

These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.

The Illinois Governmental Ethics Act (apparently last changed in 1995) provides:

(5 ILCS 420/2-110)

Sec. 2-110. Honoraria.

(a) No member of the General Assembly shall accept any honorarium.

b) As used in this Section:

“Honorarium” means a payment of money to a member of the General Assembly for an appearance or speech . . . .

It is interesting to see how differently tax troubles are treated when it is Democrats acting the scofflaw as opposed to Republicans, eh?