Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Daschle Ankled
Farewell, o great American. More from Nick Gillespie below.
By the way, since when did Cabinet appointments go the way of baseball arbitration cases, in which every attempt is made to avoid contentious hearings altogether? All these pre-confirmation resignations are robbing us of crucial public drama....
UPDATE 1: And good-bye to non-household-employment-tax-paying Nancy Killefer as well.
UPDATE 2: CNN's Kyra Phillips just asked her political analyst the following question (this is paraphrased): "Is this just another example of the culture of Wall Street greed and secrecy being exposed, or is Barack Obama ushering in a brand new era of politics?" Gotta be one of the two!
joe|2.3.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Apparently, the American people didn't reach a comfort zone with those glasses.
|2.3.09 @ 1:14PM|#
Did he back out on his own, or did Barack tell him to back out? Will he still have to pay his back taxes? If Barack made him back out, what's up with Geitner? I don't know why anyone would begrudge the President from pulling a nominee on his own. I would think quite highly of him for it, if that were the case.
|2.3.09 @ 1:17PM|#
Shorter Daschle: Are you saying that my annual take-home pay will be roughly what I owed in back taxes on my car and driver?
|2.3.09 @ 1:20PM|#
While this is a better outcome that I was expecting, it's still an outrage that Daschle will surely avoid prosecution for failing to pay a six figure amount of taxes (and I don't believe for a second that he would have EVER paid those taxes had a Cabinet position not been offered to him). Anyone else who did this and wasn't politically connected would undoubtedly suffer severer consequences than not getting a Cabinet post.
|2.3.09 @ 1:20PM|#
I'm sure he was asked to withdraw. Could have been pressure from other senators as well.
|2.3.09 @ 1:21PM|#
Some more thorough vetting might be in order. Better to learn
that now than later, I guess.
Or is what the Democrats mean by "tax the rich" is "tax the rich
that actually pay their taxes?"
Other Matt|2.3.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Finally, some "Change we need!" Now if they'd just follow through on destroying his life like they would for a common guy facing a $2K issue with the IRS.
Naga Sadow|2.3.09 @ 1:24PM|#
joe,
You never mention Gillespie's jacket yet you home in on Daschle's
glasses. Suspicious.
Reinmoose|2.3.09 @ 1:25PM|#
How little you understand "the Rich," Pro L.
You're only Rich if you make more than I do. That standard is used
by a lot of people. Fortunately we all agree.
Abdul|2.3.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Tulpa,
People who voluntarily remedy their tax cheats/evasions before
getting caught (as Daschle allegedly did) typically don't face
criminal penalties. The IRS usually prefers getting paid over
criminal prosecution.
A buddy of mine was a tax protester who never paid taxes. After
working outside the country for a few years, he was afraid his tax
protesting would create visa problems, so he got a tax lawyer who
advised him to pay up for the period covered by the statute of
limitations. My buddy paid, the IRS said thanks, and he's free and
clear.
|2.3.09 @ 1:34PM|#
You never mention Gillespie's jacket yet you home in on
Daschle's glasses. Suspicious.
joe is in the pocket of Big Desperate Yuppie Affectation. He's
never said a word about cowboy boots or tandem bicycles either.
Nigel Watt|2.3.09 @ 1:37PM|#
Bureaucrats are better than you, which is why they don't have to pay their taxes.
|2.3.09 @ 1:45PM|#
You never mention Gillespie's jacket yet you home in on
Daschle's glasses. Suspicious.
joe's an eyes guy, not a shoulders guy. NTTAWWT.
Egosumabbas|2.3.09 @ 1:46PM|#
@Reinmoose
Obviously we need a new government department that will establish a
new Federal Wealthiness Line to go along with the Federal Poverty
Line. Anybody above that line pays 100% income tax. Power to the
people!
|2.3.09 @ 1:51PM|#
I'm thinking that Obama's transition auditors need to be
seconded to the IRS, stat. Those guys are good, no?
L'Affaire Daschle does point up another gaping loophole in
the Parsin' President's "no lobbyists" diktat. Daschle was never a
registered lobbyist, but he was paid vast sums of money by people
to do exactly what a lobbyist does, as was his wife (who I believe
was a registered lobbyist). Daschle and his ilk are free and clear
under the diktat. Is that Change You Can Believe In?
joe|2.3.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Have YOU ever seen someone wearing red eyeglasses start up a
juke box by hitting it?
Have you? Huh? Have you?
I rest my case.
kilroy|2.3.09 @ 1:59PM|#
I wonder how much a thorough audit of all DC politicians would knock off the deficit? I find that idea 'stimulating'.
|2.3.09 @ 2:05PM|#
I don't think any of Bush's Secys of H&HS ever tortured anyone either. Unless you consider having to listen to Tommy Thompson to be torture.
nicole|2.3.09 @ 2:18PM|#
How on earth can this be about Wall Street greed and secrecy? Daschle used to be a senator, and now wants a cabinet post. Oh goddamnit.
|2.3.09 @ 2:22PM|#
Maybe they need to send an alphabet-soup of government agencies
- represented by about twenty goons in body-armor and armed with
M4's - over to Tom's house in South Dakota to sniff around, seize
everything, shoot his dogs, that kind of thing. Its what would
happen to me in the same situation tax-wise.
I think Daschle pulled out because he's got a thin-skin, and his
buddies at the NY Times taking shots at him was probably too much.
He may also have some hooker-bills that could show up on a audit
a'la Spitzer maybe? That would be perfect. Then he could claim at
least that he was fucking an evil health-care lobbyist over because
that's what his day-time job wife is.
libertarian democrat|2.3.09 @ 2:22PM|#
Considering how horrible his views were, I really hope we are going to get a better pick.
|2.3.09 @ 2:26PM|#
Having cheated on his my taxes, that was the only thing I
liked about the guy!
FTFY, Ken.
|2.3.09 @ 2:29PM|#
Daschle withdraws as nominee for HHS secretary
Am I mature enough to avoid gloating?
J sub D | January 31, 2009, 3:43pm | #
As another weekend passes without a weekend political thread, I am once again forced to go off topic on a post. Because politics doesn't stop while Reason writers enjoy the Super Bowl weekend.
An administration official said Mr. Daschle's failure to pay the taxes was "a stupid mistake." But, the official said, Mr. Daschle should not be penalized because he had discovered the tax liability himself, paid up and brought it to the committee's attention.
The committee report said, "Senator Daschle filed the amended returns voluntarily after Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate the senator to be the secretary of health and human services." [italics added by a cynic]
Change we can believe in!
joe | January 31, 2009, 4:05pm | #
J sub D,
Wait...wait...wait...nope.
Still don't give a shit about people screwing up their taxes, then making back payments.
Sorry. Maybe the next one...but probably not.
I guess not.
Hey, at least Obama wasn't supporting him 1,000%.
|2.3.09 @ 2:34PM|#
"Still don't give a shit about people screwing up their taxes,
then making back payments."
As someone who's been audited, I won't either when the President of
the United States comes to bat for me EVEN WHEN I'VE CHEATED the
government out of $130,000 dollars from income I was paid to
literally influence and provide access to said government.
What a racket.
|2.3.09 @ 2:37PM|#
With all these Obama nominees having tax problems, perhaps this
would be an opportune time to push for drastic tax reform? I don't
suppose I'm the only one who remembers the promises of a tax return
that would fit on a postcard?
Yeah, I know - wishful thinking...
Ska|2.3.09 @ 2:42PM|#
What happens when said postcard looks like this -
Income from wages XXXXXXX
Income from business XXXXXXX
Total XXXXXXX
Multiply by 40% X .40
Tax Due XXXXXXX
That will still suck, won't it?
|2.3.09 @ 2:45PM|#
I love how McCain (who I note I don't care for and didn't vote
for) was criticized for not vetting Palin well enough, and here we
have Richardson, Geitner, Killefer, and Daschle all having issues
with their nominations.
I thought BO was going to CHANGE Washington. I thought he was going
to have Ethic's reform!
This is all so fun to sit back and watch...pure entertainment, pure
bs.
|2.3.09 @ 2:50PM|#
here we have Richardson, Geitner, Killefer, and Daschle all
having issues with their nominations.
Is it too early to call this a clown show?
Taktix®|2.3.09 @ 2:51PM|#
I'm still trying to figure out how Obama is keeping his nose
clean through all this?
I could see the Blagoevich thing being completely seperate from the
Obama adminstration, and taken individually, the Richardson,
Geitner and Daschle things aren't really a big deal.
But add three bad appointments and a heaping pile of Blago on top,
and Obama should be in trouble.
But he's not, this shit is just rolling right off him. I don't get
it. If this were any GOP guy, they'd be (rightfully) getting
impeached by now...
Taktix®|2.3.09 @ 2:54PM|#
That will still suck, won't it?
Not really. Right now people are gtting violated by many small
sticks, which only hurt a little when inserted into the anus
individually.
If we were to get fucked by a thick wooden broomstick like a
strait-up 40%...
|2.3.09 @ 2:56PM|#
But he's not, this shit is just rolling right off him. I
don't get it. If this were any GOP guy, they'd be (rightfully)
getting impeached by now...
Not necessarily. Ronald Reagan comes immediately to mind.
Teflon has no party affiliation.
Neu Mejican|2.3.09 @ 3:14PM|#
Obama isn't hurt by this because he is holding his nominees to
the "appearance of corruption" standard, and they are dropping out
rather than taint his cabinet. To the average man on the street
what will matter is not who DIDN'T get the job, but who does get
the job. If THOSE guys end up with problems, then we can start
talking about Obama's corruption teflon, imo.
JsubD,
Reagan was one slick mofo for sure. And the shit he weathered was
much more "abuse of power" colored iirc.
Taktix®|2.3.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Teflon has no party affiliation.
My apologies, as I didn't not intend to be partisian.
All I am really trying to say is...
WHY THE FUCK IS HE GETTING AWAY WITH THIS SHIT?
How is it that, in a time of severe economic trouble, a
newly-elected President is not taking heat for appointing 3-4
people that have committed severe financial misdeeds?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...
|2.3.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Obama could have every member of the last administration
crucified along the Mall, without a trial, and no one would
criticize him. It's not just Obamania; it's also this whole
honeymoon bullshit that the media likes to give new presidents. I'd
pillory them from the first time they opened their mouths on the
campaign trail. I don't get this soft touch crap.
And people laugh at my obsession over the Censor.
MAX HATS|2.3.09 @ 3:29PM|#
But he's not, this shit is just rolling right off him. I don't get it. If this were any GOP guy, they'd be (rightfully) getting impeached by now...
I don't even know where to start. I'm just going to throw things
out there
1) No republican president has been impeached in the last
century
2) All republican presidents since Eisenhower have done far, far
worse.
3) Especially the last one
4) Who didn't get impeached
5) Bill did, tho
6) For a lying in court about a blowjob
7) But George W hasn't despite openly breaking all kinds of
laws.
8) Ditto Reagan
9) What law has Obama broken exactly
10) You're fucking high
MAX HATS|2.3.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Teflon has no party affiliation.
My apologies, as I didn't not intend to be partisian.
All I am really trying to say is...
WHY THE FUCK IS HE GETTING AWAY WITH THIS SHIT?
How is it that, in a time of severe economic trouble, a newly-elected President is not taking heat for appointing 3-4 people that have committed severe financial misdeeds?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...
He didn't appoint them, he attempted to. Only 1 was actually
appointed. I'm not happy at Obama for defending Daschle and
accepting Geitner, but the fact is you are making things up. I get
it, you don't like Obama. I get it, you are eagerly waiting for a
scandal to jump on. What I don't get: why you are holding Obama
accountable not for his decisions but apparently for his lack of
psychic abilities to know of the tax history of everyone he thinks
would be good for a job. Yes, his vetting missed the mark. No, that
is not a scandal.
joe|2.3.09 @ 3:35PM|#
11) You're fucking high.
Ronald Reagan had a half dozen cabinet secretaries indicted while
they were in office. Impeachment? Yeah, right.
Somehow, though, firing nominees when information about paying
taxes too late comes to light is something that would normally
wreck a presidency?
The "Democrats get all the breaks" people are like the JFK
conspiracy people; it's never a question of whether information
proves their beloved theory, but how.
Get off the cross, whiners.
joe|2.3.09 @ 3:37PM|#
I get it, you are eagerly waiting for a scandal to jump
on.
I'm just glad Tom Daschle didn't give any press conferences in
front of federal-style Greek columns.
This is the most horrible scandal since to hit Obama since the
governor of Illinois was caught clearing him of any wrongdoing on
audio tape.
|2.3.09 @ 3:37PM|#
Oh, please. Democratic presidents have sucked ass, too. The
amnesia some people have about Clinton alone is incredible. Bush
was worse in a lot of ways, but a lot of that was due to the crisis
du jure--9/11. Fortunately, Obama can abuse power with his
crisis--the economy. Maybe he'll be lucky enough to get a foreign
policy situation, too, so he can expand power even more.
Trusting any of these jokers blindly is silly. I don't necessarily
condemn Obama for these poor appointments, but it is telling that
so many have problems. Ten years ago, these problems might not have
come to light so quickly, which is one good thing about today
versus yesterday.
MAX HATS|2.3.09 @ 3:38PM|#
I knew before even coming here that there would be a posting
about how Daschle is not getting the job, and that it
would be full of people somehow holding up him not getting the
job as an example of ethical lapse.
I did not, however, expect it to be this ridiculous.
JP|2.3.09 @ 3:40PM|#
the crisis du jure
Pro L -- I'm shocked, shocked that you would make such a blunder,
Sir.
joe|2.3.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Oh, please. Democratic presidents have sucked ass,
too.
Are you on the wrong thread? What, exactly, is that supposed to be
in response to?
Ten years ago, these problems might not have come to light so
quickly Uh, right. There was no press or political fallout
during Bill Clinton's term. Uh, what?
MAX HATS|2.3.09 @ 3:43PM|#
I don't necessarily condemn Obama for these poor appointments, but it is telling that so many have problems.
It tells me that Obama's vetting process isn't very good. I'm still
waiting for some explanation how that is outrageous or sickening or
whatever.
Or in the case of Taktix, how that is worthy of impeachment.
joe|2.3.09 @ 3:44PM|#
Is it too early to call this a clown show?
No, Obama's appointments are definitely showing signs of clown
show.
This is penny-ante shit, but it's the kind of penny ante shit that
super-geniuses like, oh, Wolf Blitzer and Candy Crowley can
understand and explain. Failing to suss out three such tax lapses
is very out-of-character for this administration. They've generally
done a very good job avoiding clown car stuff like this.
|2.3.09 @ 3:45PM|#
Oh, Christ, and I did it twice. It's a professional
failing--scrambling du jour and de jure.
joe,
Um, MAX HATS? Are you on the same planet?
sage|2.3.09 @ 3:46PM|#
Is it too early to call this a clown show?
No, but we could call it a clown
car:
joe | January 22, 2009, 2:25pm | #
Clinton's administration was a fucking clown car for the first 2-3
years. Doot doot doodle loodle doot doot doot doot.
Obahm Emmanuel ain't gonna have no clown car.
Syd|2.3.09 @ 3:48PM|#
That sum included $298 in unpaid taxes, $48.69 in interest
and $600 in penalties. The lien was filed March 7, 2005, but
Killefer didn't get the lien extinguished for almost five months,
not until July 29.
Now wait just a second. Daschle deserves to be skewered, not so
much for the driver thing, but for not paying taxes on consulting
fees. The first could almost be defended as general stupidity, but
he knew darned well he had to report the second.
But now people are being pushed out for $300 in back taxes that
they paid off more than three years ago? Isn't that a just a bit
absurd?
|2.3.09 @ 3:49PM|#
As for the issue at hand, my concern is that not paying attention to the potentially scandalous failings of your appointees may be an indication of a lack of concern about non-public ethical lapses. I emphasize "may", because it's too early to tell. But this is getting a little ridiculous, and has two answers: lack of competence in vetting (and that's not even remotely trivial when government is run by appointees) or lack of concern about ethical issues.
|2.3.09 @ 3:52PM|#
Failing to suss out three such tax lapses is very
out-of-character for this administration.
Given how short this administration has been around, and the number
of such lapses that have occurred, its tempting to say that this is
very much in-character.
joe|2.3.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Pro Lib,
I'm on the same planet as MAX HATS - the one where he didn't write
anything about Democrats not having scandals.
sage,
Was there a reason you decided to repeat a point I just made?
Syd,
Yes, it's absurd. On its own, her little lien issue wouldn't have
made any difference. It's only because of the Geitner and Daschle
stories that anyone cares.
Given how short this administration has been around, and the
number of such lapses that have occurred, its tempting to say that
this is very much in-character. That's funny, because you
spent two solid months before the administration writing (now
hilarious) "Hope and Change!" comments about the administration.
Now, suddenly, nothing before Inauguration Day is indicative of the
administration's character at all.
RC Dean? Flip-flopping to score a partisan cheap shot? Say it ain't
so!
|2.3.09 @ 4:07PM|#
The Clinton machine is notorious for fucking up the vetting process. It comes from arrogance and the beliefe that the press will never make much of a fuss over it. Once again they have it right.
joe|2.3.09 @ 4:09PM|#
I love this theory: I saw stories about Obama's nominees' tax
problems all over the press, so this shows that the press won't
cover problems with Obama's nominees.
Makes about as much sense as anything else we've heard from
Republicans in the past year.
Russ 2000|2.3.09 @ 4:10PM|#
Have YOU ever seen someone wearing red eyeglasses start up a
juke box by hitting it?
Have you? Huh? Have you?
Wasn't there an episode of Happy Days where Fonzie had to get
glasses?
|2.3.09 @ 4:16PM|#
All republican presidents since Eisenhower have done far, far worse.
I didn't say anything about him saying that Democrats don't have
scandals; I just said that viewing one party as being particularly
odious in the presidency is a hoot. They both have horrific track
records.
|2.3.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Joe, apparently you haven't heard the montage of the talking heads calling these "honest mistakes". These guys are tax cheats through and through, but have you heard Wolf Blitzer ever say that?
Ska|2.3.09 @ 4:21PM|#
Yeah, I would say the payroll tax thing is nothing compared to
Daschle. Killefer had been paying payroll taxes on her household
emplyee, then stopped filing/paying. Seems kind of stupid, and over
nominal dollar figures. Tied on to the other two, and Rangel, and
perhaps another dem tax scandal (don't remember, could be very
wrong), it just smells sea kitten-y.
Daschle is just tax evasion. Not reporting income? It is the number
one cause of the tax gap, and the number one thing the IRS looks
out for. Oh, so that's what those 1099s are for.....
MAX HATS|2.3.09 @ 4:22PM|#
I didn't say anything about him saying that Democrats don't have scandals; I just said that viewing one party as being particularly odious in the presidency is a hoot. They both have horrific track records.
I was responding specifically to the accusation that "any
republican president" would be impeached for what Obama is I guess
doing. Which is vetting poorly. Or something.
The quote I was replying to (and quoted) in full:
But he's not, this shit is just rolling right off him. I don't get it. If this were any GOP guy, they'd be (rightfully) getting impeached by now...
joe|2.3.09 @ 4:22PM|#
These guys are tax cheats through and through
Like you know that.
I defy you to articulate a single established fact that
demonstrates a willful intent to evade taxes.
Tick tock.
MAX HATS|2.3.09 @ 4:25PM|#
For the record:
-yes, democrats have scandals
-yes, Daschle is a sleazebag
-yes, so is Geitner
-yes, I am not happy with Obama appointing one of the above and
defending the other
But that's not where this discussion is right now. This discussion
is on how SCANDALOUS and OMG and ANY REPUBLICAN WOULD BE IMPEACHED
and bla bla bullshit. And it's laughable.
For the record, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how
people evading their taxes before Obama appointed them is Obama's
fault.
|2.3.09 @ 4:27PM|#
Joe, if I earned eighty grand consulting, I would certainly report it. Daschel is supposed to be so smart, but he doesn't even realize earned income is taxable? And Gietner was told he needed to file by the World Bank. Defending these guys might be your most audacious bit of partisanship yet.
|2.3.09 @ 4:27PM|#
I'd like to know how these particular non-payment of tax issues would be addressed with, say, doctors located in Iowa. I imagine the IRS would fine them heavily and audit the hell out of them. Probably no jail time, though.
Paul|2.3.09 @ 4:27PM|#
I defy you to articulate a single established fact that
demonstrates a willful intent to evade taxes.
No more or less than... oh, Joe the Plummer was 'evading' taxes
because he had a
$1,200 dollar lien.
joe|2.3.09 @ 4:29PM|#
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how people
evading their taxes before Obama appointed them is Obama's
fault.
I wouldn't hold your breath.
They're still in the "throw everything against the wall and see
what sticks" phase, and the idea that this reflects badly on
Obama's ethics is as full of fail as the effort to link Obama to
Blago's scandals.
I expect by tomorrow they won't even be trying, and the talking
points will have settled down to his vetting operation not doing a
good job. "How can we know he won't appoint a terrorist to an
important position?"
ed|2.3.09 @ 4:31PM|#
I'm still trying to figure out how Obama is keeping his nose
clean
By not saying anything substantial? He's sticking with what
works.
The suit may be empty but it isn't self-destructive.
joe|2.3.09 @ 4:34PM|#
James Ard,
I didn't think so.
For the record, the question you were asked was I defy you to
articulate a single established fact that demonstrates a willful
intent to evade taxes.
Daschel is supposed to be so smart, but he doesn't even realize
earned income is taxable? Nope, FAIL.
And Gietner was told he needed to file by the World
Bank....and told he wasn't by his accountant, and
TurboTax.
Defending these guys might be your most audacious bit of
partisanship yet.
Cute. So now blaming them for screwing up their taxes, but not
taking exactly the line of criticism you've decided is most
damaging politically, is "defending them." I'm defending the truth,
thanks. I'm not surprised you didn't recognize that.
Paul, quit bitching about Joe the Plummer. What the hell does that
have to do with anything? Oh, right, I forgot: hard question =
"Hey, look over there!"
joe|2.3.09 @ 4:37PM|#
I'm still trying to figure out how Obama is keeping his nose
clean
Uhhhhhhhh....by firing them?
joe|2.3.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Hey, Paul:
Seen anyone complaining that any of these nominees' public tax
records were reported on?
Me neither.
Paul|2.3.09 @ 4:39PM|#
Paul, quit bitching about Joe the Plummer. What the hell
does that have to do with anything? Oh, right, I forgot: hard
question = "Hey, look over there!"
Wow, joe, you're really agitated. I'm not "bitching" about
Joe the Plummer. I don't know much about Joe the Plummer, actually.
Except that I remember some people got mad that he was evading
taxes. I just find this thread so full of irony, it's like shooting
fish in a barrel.
Take this: They're still in the "throw everything against the
wall and see what sticks" phase,
I laugheed out loud when I read this. Do a google search on that in
conjunction with Bush-- you'll get quite a few hits. Welcome to
politics, joe. Stabilize the trembling in your lower lip, it's not
becoming.
Try to get your blood pressure down, or in a minute, you might
start denying Obama's done things he hasn't been accused of.
|2.3.09 @ 4:40PM|#
Of course, what everyone should be getting out of this is the screaming need for tax reform. If there was any integrity in Washington, that would be coming out of the new guys' mouths about now. But there isn't any.
sage|2.3.09 @ 4:41PM|#
Joe the Plumber is not royalty. Therefore he cannot choose whether to pay taxes or not.
|2.3.09 @ 4:48PM|#
Pro, what reform other than the fair tax will eliminate the need to report income, or pay FICA?
joe|2.3.09 @ 4:48PM|#
I'm not "bitching" about Joe the Plummer
Yeah, it's more like a combination of "whining" and
"hand-waving."
Except that I remember some people got mad that he was evading
taxes. Wow, was he forced to withdraw from a political post?
What's that?
I just find this thread so full of irony, it's like shooting
fish in a barrel. And why is that? Has anyone defended these
nominees' failure to pay taxes, or said it was wrong for them to
face consequences? Please, explain this irony you find so
amusing.
I'm glad you "laugheed" at what I wrote, but you seem to be
projecting wished-for emotions on me in much the same way you kept
insisting that I was panicked about Sarah Palin. You seem to want
very much for me to be upset about...something. Why is that?
joe|2.3.09 @ 4:50PM|#
The ignorance of the basic facts of these cases is either
amazing, or predictable, depending on how you look at it.
Look at this: Joe the Plumber is not royalty. Therefore he
cannot choose whether to pay taxes or not. Every one of these
people 1) paid their taxes, and 2)took a hit for screwing up in the
national media.
|2.3.09 @ 4:55PM|#
Flat tax or fair tax, just get rid of the--and I use this term
as it was meant to be used--draconian system we have in place
today. Russian serfs were taxed at a lower rate than we are today,
for God's sake (Alert! Hyperbolic, unverified statement!).
I do tend to prefer a tax on consumption, provided that the income
tax goes away completely. Of course, the government can find
creative ways to abuse any system, but I think we'd be better off
with something more rational. Withholding is an abomination, as is
FICA.
|2.3.09 @ 4:55PM|#
"The "Democrats get all the breaks" people are like the JFK
conspiracy people; it's never a question of whether information
proves their beloved theory, but how.
Get off the cross, whiners."
Obama "mounted" the cross to bring "change we can believe in" to
Washington. He's made much of that ideal, and how he would
implement it.
If that's the case, then he has set his own standard that he has so
far failed to match in his ostensible choice of associates.
I find it funny that the most competent people in his employ seem
to be the ones who work on the election/political side of things.
On the actual running-the-government side of things, not so much
competence so far. I mean, a Treasury Secretary who can't file his
taxes right? And then having everyone be cool with that? That's no
kind of change - for the better anyways - that I've seen.
Paul O'Neil was the last competent Treasury Secretary we had I
think. And I also find it somewhat of a recommendation for him that
he was neither from Wall Street, and he was run out of town when he
didn't play ball with the Prez.
|2.3.09 @ 4:58PM|#
Joe, if Obama fired Daschel, why won't he admit it? Axlerod insists it was Daschel's decision. But I believe you, Obama fired him and is lying about it. Now that's some change we can believe in.
|2.3.09 @ 5:00PM|#
Pro, the flat tax is a non-starter. Asking the poor to pay more while letting the rich pay less will never fly considering the numbers of poor and rich voters.
dhex|2.3.09 @ 5:02PM|#
"Of course, what everyone should be getting out of this is the
screaming need for tax reform."
oh ho ho ho.
to live in such a world.
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:02PM|#
Joe, if Obama fired Daschel, why won't he admit
it?
Because it goes down easier to phrase it as "encouraged him to
resign," with the press, public, and people in Washington.
But I believe you, Obama fired him and is lying about it.
Yeah, how horrible, he's being diplomatic.
Now that's some change we can believe in. What an idiotic
thing to write. HA, OBAMIACS, YOUR GUY WAS POLITE! WHAT A BUNCH OF
SUCKERS!
Throw. Wall. Slide.
Pathetic.
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:04PM|#
The fact that people are being let go for even the appearance of
impropriety is pretty welcome chance from the past eight years from
where I'm sitting.
But, hey, Obama's being diplomatic about it, so that
proves...um...something that's really bad for Democrats!
James Ard, your comments are the political equivalent of a starving
man eating grass.
|2.3.09 @ 5:05PM|#
Being nice my ass. Why not just admit that considering the circumstances you are withdrawing the nomination. It would even make Obama look like a leader, for a change.
|2.3.09 @ 5:06PM|#
I defy you to articulate a single established fact that
demonstrates a willful intent to evade taxes.
Human nature? Shit, if I wasn't so afraid of the IRS I'd do it
too.
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:08PM|#
Why not just admit that considering the circumstances you
are withdrawing the nomination.
Indeed, why not have him lashed?
Your flop sweat is showing. You're seriously reduced to arguing
that it says something bad about Obama that he wasn't mean enough
when he fired someone?
But remember, this isn't a desperate reach to find something to
blame Obama for.
|2.3.09 @ 5:11PM|#
How about any evidence, any, that Obama encouraged him to resign. He may have, but there's absolutely no media that is reporting that.
sage|2.3.09 @ 5:16PM|#
The ignorance of the basic facts of these cases is either
amazing, or predictable, depending on how you look at it.
Look at this: Every one of these people 1) paid their taxes,
and 2)took a hit for screwing up in the national media.
Daschle paid up (six figures) after he was caught, and (2) Took the
hit after he was nominated to higher royalty and was under a
slightly larger microscope.
ed|2.3.09 @ 5:16PM|#
Uhhhhhhhh....by firing them?
Don't you have to be hired before you can be fired? Three of them
(at least; it's hard to keep up) have withdrawn before they could
be fired. Not a very impressive record for the Change Agent.
|2.3.09 @ 5:17PM|#
Episiarch,
Your fear. My fear. Note that these people apparently have no fear
of the IRS.
James Ard,
Well, they could exempt people below a certain income. Though, of
course, that opens the door to other exemptions.
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:18PM|#
How about any evidence, any, that Obama encouraged him to
resign.
How about the fact the former Senate Majority Leader, who has been
a professional politician his entire adult life, is no longer
seeking an appointment to the cabinet?
Maybe he suddenly realized he wanted to be a day trader.
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:18PM|#
sage,
Did you intend to disagree with what I wrote?
Because you totally didn't.
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:20PM|#
Don't you have to be hired before you can be fired?
They were nominated (hired) and now their nominations have been
withdrawn.
Mission Accomplished.
Other Matt|2.3.09 @ 5:20PM|#
How about any evidence, any, that Obama encouraged him to
resign. He may have, but there's absolutely no media that is
reporting that.
You're expecting the media to report that Obama actually did
something?
Change! Hope! Yes we can!
There, you feel better now, right?
|2.3.09 @ 5:21PM|#
Hell, Obama's just hitting the percentages with the class of people he has to draw from for nominees. That a certain percentage of them turn out to be elitist twats that managed to work around the margins of the system and get away with it until they actually get caught, should be expected. Laws are for the little people, doncha know?
sage|2.3.09 @ 5:23PM|#
Did you intend to disagree with what I wrote?
Because you totally didn't.
I didn't. Just as I'm sure you didn't intend to commit the Fallacy
of Omitted Evidence. I was just helping you.
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:23PM|#
You're expecting the media to report that Obama actually did
something?
Actually, OtherMatt, I'm expecting the people mouthing off about
someone deliberately committing a felony to be able to present some
evidence to support their claim.
OK, I lied...I'm not actually expecting that. I'm just drawing
attention to the fact that they can't.
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:25PM|#
sage,
Since even YOU are, apparently, aware of the evidence in question -
the fact that Daschle had to pay up, and had his nomination
derailed - it hardly counts as omitted evidence.
|2.3.09 @ 5:26PM|#
I said:
Given how short this administration has been around, and the
number of such lapses that have occurred, its tempting to say that
this is very much in-character.
joe's response:
That's funny, because you spent two solid months before the
administration writing (now hilarious) "Hope and Change!" comments
about the administration. Now, suddenly, nothing before
Inauguration Day is indicative of the administration's character at
all.
RC Dean? Flip-flopping to score a partisan cheap shot? Say it
ain't so!
Ah, joe, with the obtuseness.
The Hope and Change cracks are still in order; Obama still hasn't
done much to actually change much of anything that we do. I'm
busting balls now because he and/or his sycophants are trying to
pass off press releases (often gussied up as Executive Orders) as
Real Change.
Now, that Real Change may actually occur, but it hasn't yet. No
flip flop, buddy. Before the inauguration, I was mocking our
Parsin' President's retreat from his high-flown, if often carefully
hedged, rhetoric. Now, I'm mocking our Parsin' President's
carefully hedged press releases/Executive Orders.
With a side dish of mocking his nominations of self-regarding
narcissitic hacks as "Hope and Change. The fact that, after a
campaign ripping on McCain for not vetting his VP, his nominations
of his cabinet officials appear to have been vetted by those chimps
on the Monster.com ad only adds to the fun.
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:26PM|#
joe: Can you back up that claim?
Everyone else: Um....CHANGE! DEMOCRATS!
Yeah, about what I expected.
|2.3.09 @ 5:29PM|#
I must say that nothing strikes me as particularly change-a-rific so far. More of a yawn, more of the same feeling to me, though I'm hoping we'll see less torture.
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:32PM|#
RC Dean: Obama still hasn't done much to actually change
much of anything that we do.
No, of course not. Guantanamo was scheduled to close. Those
detainee kangaroo courts were going to be suspended and a real
system put in their place. George Bush ordered an end to
extraordinary rendition years ago. The CIA has always had to follow
the Army Field Manual. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had been ordered
to produce a plan for withdrawal from Iraq over a 16 months period
back in 2004. Huhwhat?
Do you realize that you have now been reduced to arguing that the
President issuing orders that change existing policy within the
executive branch doesn't change policy within the executive branch?
That ordering the military to change their mission has nothing to
do with changing their mission?
|2.3.09 @ 5:33PM|#
though I'm hoping we'll see less torture
There are new episodes of 24 now, so...too bad for you.
Bauer tortures...because he has to!
|2.3.09 @ 5:35PM|#
I just want to know how Obama defines torture. Waterboarding,
yea or nay? The rack, yea or nay? The comfy chair, yea or
nay?
Upon this definition will be built the real policies of the U.S. on
enhanced interrogation techniques.
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:36PM|#
I must say that nothing strikes me as particularly
change-a-rific so far.
Thought experiment: Barack Obama has been President for the past
eight years. George Bush was sworn in two weeks ago.
In his first two weeks, George Bush orders the opening of a lawless
prison camp at Gitmo, rescinds an order for the military to
withdraw from Iraq in 16 months, authorizes the military and CIA to
use interrogation techniques that violate the Army Field Manual,
authorizes the CIA to render detainees regardless of the strictures
of torture law or treaties, and shuts down a study of how to
legally try prisoners suspected of involvement with al Qaeda so
they can be tried in kangaroo courts instead.
Does Pro Libertate, or anyone else, write comments about how George
Bush hasn't changed anything?
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:37PM|#
I just want to know how Obama defines torture.
Waterboarding, yea or nay?
Obama, like Holder, gave a one-word answer when asked "Is
waterboarding torture?"
That word was "Yes."
|2.3.09 @ 5:45PM|#
joe,
Honestly, hasn't the last eight years made you skeptical at all? He
hasn't done the things you're crediting him with. There
are some real big decisions that have to be made behind these
pronouncements--where will, in fact, the Guantanamo detainees be
shipped? What is allowable interrogation (i.e, what isn't torture
(which, by the way, has to be legally defined, not addressed in a
speech))? Etc.
Oh, and what is and isn't a lobbyist? How important are ethical
issues? On the tax embarrassment, why doesn't Obama bring in
someone without these issues? Does he not care? Is the pool he's
limiting himself to inherently corrupt? If so, why not look
elsewhere?
I'm a skeptic because these guys have consistently earned my
skepticism. He's shown few signs of doing anything much different.
I expect him to ditch some of Bush's worse excesses, but is he
going to do it by playing hide the salami or by real change? And
what about the excesses that will be uniquely his?
joe|2.3.09 @ 5:59PM|#
He hasn't done the things you're crediting him
with.
He has done every single one of the things I credited him
with.
He ordered Gitmo closed. He actually did this.
He ordered the Joint Chiefs to leave Iraq. He actually did
this.
He ordered the CIA to follow the AFM. He actually did this.
He ordered an end to extraordinary renditions.
He moved to end ongoing kangaroo courts, and ordered his
administration to produce something better.
These are all real actions he has taken. I want to see him keep
going, too. I agree that follow-through is important, and there are
more actions to be taken, but to pretend that these are all
meaningless...well, you certainly wouldn't be saying that their
opposite actions are meaningless.
What is allowable interrogation (i.e, what isn't torture
(which, by the way, has to be legally defined, not addressed in a
speech))? Torture is already well-defined in our laws. However
much Bush administration officials tried to play dumb, the law is
quite clear. People have been prosecuted under American law for
torture for doing waterboarding; there is no call to give in to the
self-serving arguments of the torturers, and treat this as a great
mystery.
On the lobbying thing, that's a fair beef. I won't dispute with you
on that. I still say Obama is vastly superior to Bush on this - Ann
Venneman? Seriously, Ann Venneman? - but he has not lived up to his
promises in this area.
I'm a skeptic because these guys have consistently earned my
skepticism. You aren't being a skeptic, you're being a denier.
To look at what Obama has done to date on torture, and detention,
and Iraq, and rendition and declare it to be nothing is not the
pursuit of truth in a questioning manner, it's a denial of reality.
You certainly wouldn't declare the opposite actions to be nothing,
would you?
joe|2.3.09 @ 6:07PM|#
Am I saying, "It's ok, all of these problems have been solved,
we can just trust Obama from here on out?" No, I'm not, and I've
never said that.
I'm acknowledging what we know has happened, that's all.
And what's happened already is pretty damn important, and it bodes
well.
|2.3.09 @ 6:14PM|#
I'm not saying that the orders so far are meaningless--they
aren't--but they aren't fulfilled until certain actions are taken.
Gitmo is a case in point. Closing the base (for detention, anyway)
doesn't solve the problem. And it's not even closed. It's just
prospectively closed a year from now.
I sincerely hope that Obama does clear the field of the
unprecedented excesses practiced by his predecessor. I'm opposed to
torture. I'm opposed to most of the post-9/11 legislation. I'm
opposed to the circumvention of FISC. Even to the extent that Bush
moved away from some of those practices, I want them to be clearly
repudiated--in word and in deed--by this administration. If Obama
does all that, great, but there's a long way from orders to actual
actions.
I have a feeling he'll do some of this but not all of it. I also
have a feeling that his own variety of excesses will be pretty
upsetting on their own merits. The problem today is that we've
allowed the presidency to far exceed its bounds. I don't even mean
that strictly from an original Constitutional point of view,
either. I think it's outside the bounds of any rational expansive
view of our system of government, as well. In large part, of
course, that's happened because of how incredibly bad Congress has
become. In any event, that much unchecked authority is dangerous,
no matter who has it. We're just one terrorist attack away from
another swipe at our civil liberties, and, frankly, I don't see
Obama protecting my rights much more than Bush did.
|2.3.09 @ 6:25PM|#
Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes for money he
earned while working for the International Monetary Fund from 2001
to 2003, the transition official said. In 2006, the IRS notified
him that he owed $14,847 in self-employment taxes and $2,383 in
penalties from 2003 and 2004.
Transition officials discovered last fall that Geithner also had
not paid the taxes in 2001 or 2002. He paid $25,970 in taxes and
interest for those years several days before Obama announced his
nomination, the transition official said.
from:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090113/D95MGFTO1.html
Tax cheat. The man got caught by the IRS for two years of
non-payment, but did not offer to pay for the other two years when
he knows he filed the same way (Am I required to prove that, or can
we assume he isn't mentally challenged?). Maybe he forgot that he
filed the same way each year?
There is a big difference between cheating on your taxes and being
late. Unconnected people go to jail for cheating on their taxes,
while the tardy pay penalties. The important part is admitting to
the IRS you owe them money. So far Obama has attempted to install 3
tax cheats. These are not late payers. These are liars - people who
sign their names to documents containing false information.
I owe taxes from last year. Gonna pay them any day now...
|2.3.09 @ 6:26PM|#
ObamaGirl,
It turns out that the Obama administration's fall happens in 2010,
when an Obama sex tape makes the rounds on Youtube. His partner is,
of course, Pamela Anderson.
cunnivore|2.3.09 @ 6:28PM|#
I defy you to articulate a single established fact that
demonstrates a willful intent to evade taxes.
That's a higher standard of proof than the IRS needs to throw you
in prison. You earned the income, you didn't report it, and
ignorance of the law is no excuse. Neither is forgetfulness. No
proof of willfulness required.
So, no, I'm not a mind reader, and I can't prove Daschle willfully
evaded taxes. But I find it implausible in the extreme that Daschle
first forgot to report the income, and forgot not to claim those
bogus deductions, and just happened to discover these problems a
few days before his confirmation hearing. If you think those back
taxes would have been paid had a Cabinet post not been on the line
I've got a bridge in the Cayman Islands to sell you.
cunnivore|2.3.09 @ 6:32PM|#
ProL2076,
We can only hope it's with 1995 Pamela Anderson rather than 2010
Pamela Anderson. Otherwise, it'll be dangerously close to
A-Rod/Madonna sex tape scandal territory.
|2.3.09 @ 6:39PM|#
Gibbs said the choice to step aside was Daschle's alone and
that he "did not get a signal" from the White House to do so.
Daschle and Obama spoke Tuesday, and the president was surprised at
the news, said White House senior adviser David Axelrod.
According to the David Axelrod rule, Barack asked Daschle to step
down.
I was just reading an APnews story. The following paragraph is
great:
Questions about Daschle's failure to fully pay his taxes from
2005 through 2007 had been increasing since they came to light last
Friday. Daschle overlooked taxes on income for consulting work and
personal use of a car and driver, and also deducted more in
charitable contributions than he should have. To resolve it, he
paid $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest last
month.
I guess joe is right. This is a straight news story and it plainly says that Daschle
"forgot".
A peel to authority|2.3.09 @ 7:02PM|#
EXPERTS say Obama administration most ethical in
history
The experts have spoken you deniers.
MJ|2.3.09 @ 10:28PM|#
"I defy you to articulate a single established fact that
demonstrates a willful intent to evade taxes."
What the established facts show is either a willful intent to evade
taxes or a demonstration that tax code is so convoluted that even
those who are in the best position to understand it can go horrbly
wrong. Considering that the subject of tax evasion is something
that usually gets a Democrat's panties twisted in a bunch, the rush
to excuse Obama's tax cheatin' nominees' questionable choices as no
big deal is hiliarious.
Does the Democrat's hypocrisy truly have no limits?
|2.4.09 @ 3:17PM|#
the typical Joe-type guy says that the tax code improvements are a side issue we need to worry about the important stuff like gay marriage and womens rights. It also doesn't matter if ex-NSA guys like Russel Tice come out saying the governmenr eavesdropps and records data on EVERY DOMESTIC electronic communication...all completely illegal. If Obama doesn't do/say anything about it is just because he was worrying about bigger things.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245