Solis' Husband Has Tax Problem

The latest Cabinet nominee to encounter difficulty is Hilda Solis, President Obama's choice to head the Department of Labor. A scheduled hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has been postponed in light of news that Solis' husband had $6,400 in tax liens against his business for many years, liens he paid only yesterday.

Robert Gibbs reacted to the news appropriately:

"She's not a partner in that business," Gibbs said. "We're not going to penalize her for her husband's business mistakes."

The larger question is why the issue, which Gibbs said was uncovered during the vetting process, wasn't disclosed earlier. The tax liens shouldn't mar Solis' candidacy, but an earlier disclosure of their existence would have smoothed her confirmation. The Senate committee apparently didn't learn about the problem until today. [more ...]

Before her husband's tax problems surfaced, Republican members of the committee were concerned about Solis' "role on the board of the pro-labor organization American Rights at Work." A Labor Secretary who sat on the board of a pro-labor organization? Shocking!

American Rights at Work has lobbied for legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize, but Solis (who was not paid for her board membership or duties as treasurer) did not act as a lobbyist or directly supervise lobbyists. She did co-sponsor the legislation that American Rights at Work supports, a fact that troubles Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce. They would apparently prefer to see a Labor Secretary who is hostile to unions.

This latest distraction notwithstanding, there's no reason to delay Solis' confirmation. Her commitment to labor isn't a disqualification from acting as Labor Secretary, and her husband's neglect of his tax obligations is her husband's problem, not hers.

< Justice Ginsburg Has Cancer Surgery | Investing in Justice >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What Garbage (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    The double standard is outrageous. F'ing BushCo people were corporate shills supposedly working to protect americans. And wtf does her husband have to do with any of this?

    Shall we look at the family trees of all the GOP senators and House members?

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:31:32 PM EST
    it would have been nice if the GOP cared about this tuff the time it really was an obvious conflict of interest- when Elaine Chao- whose husband is a sitting Senator, was confirmed at Labor.

    what (none / 0) (#12)
    by bocajeff on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    what does that have to do with her husband's tax situation.

    Personally, I don't have problaem with her being Secretary because of this. I just hate all the BS that goes with it.

    If you're going to run a "different" Washington, then do it. If you imply that others are dirty you better be very clean.

    She failed to disclose to Congress regarding her Board membership and then said it was an oversight.

    Also, stop with the excuse that the other side does it too. Either it's wrong or right.


    Which one didn't pay taxes? (none / 0) (#71)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:08:19 PM EST
    Chao or Mitch McConnell?  I missed that one!  When did that come out?  

    double standard? (none / 0) (#6)
    by bocajeff on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:23:50 PM EST
    You're not comparing the same things: These are people who have failed to pay their taxes even after  being notified that they still owed taxes (hence, the lien). They don't seem to be playing by the same rules they wish for the others.

    And, while I may or not agree with someone being a political shill for a corporation, I don't believe their isn't a law regarding political beliefs. Yet.


    Who forgot to pay here? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:26:12 PM EST
    Sure wasn't the person up for the job.

    I guess you could say she was "palling around with tax dodgers"...


    Yes (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    Double standard. What does Solis husband have to do with her fitness for the job? Nothing.

    yeah, (none / 0) (#10)
    by bocajeff on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:31:03 PM EST
    you're probably right. I'm sure an intelligent, engaged woman would have no idea of what's going on with her husband's business. I'm sure he kept it a secret from her and has a different view of citizen obligations...

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:44:49 PM EST
    If my husband owned a business that owed $6400 in taxes, and I didn't work there, I seriously doubt I would know.  In fact, I'm 99% sure I wouldn't know, especially if I'm not particularly worried about money.  It's not like it was their personal taxes....

    Ok (none / 0) (#18)
    by bocajeff on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:50:47 PM EST
    But if you were asked to complete a form for Congress and you asked your husband questions regarding his business (his business was disclosed as an asset for both of them even though it's in his name) would he disclose everything? Would you do some due diligence. You have to know that someone will find anything on you.

    Well (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    technically, it could have been their personal taxes,if it was set up as a sole proprietorship and not incorporated.

    And I guess there are people out there who owe Joe the Plumber an apology for all the grief he got in the media for his one unpaid lien, as opposed to Solis' husband's 17.....


    lol (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:38:23 PM EST
    Guess double standards are so endemic in your view that you fail to get it.

    Which BushCo cabinet or SC or anyone had their spouses tax lien or records scrutinized? None.

    The fact that Solis is a woman,and brown, oh yeah and that she is a D makes her husbands tax records pertinent to how she will perform in her cabinet post.


    You forgot pro-labor... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:44:24 PM EST
    ...that's what really gets the GOP's goat.  If it wasn't this, they would have kept digging until they found something else.

    We can't have a pro-labor person running the Dept. of Labor!


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:54:29 PM EST
    Who was the BushCo sec of Labor?  Mitch McConnell's wife?

    Her solution for helping sick workers?

    to complicate the process sick nuclear facility employees get treatment by. The plans were to draw things out long enough that the workers simply died first, and it was all to be done in the name of being a good "fiscal conservative."

    HeckovaJob... Ciao Chao, and good riddance


    no one said that (none / 0) (#17)
    by bocajeff on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:48:30 PM EST
    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#26)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    Senate Republicans were "burying her in paperwork." Their real gripe appears to be her support for the Employee Free Choice Act; the New York Times called the delay in her confirmation "a way for Republican senators to score tough-guy points with business constituents who are driven to distraction by the thought of unions."

    RedState: [I]f we are lucky we may just see the appointment of this hardcore union shill go down in flames.



    Can't we have both? (none / 0) (#61)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    A pro labor Secretary who pays taxes with a husband who does too?  Is that really too much to expect?  

    Are You Against Solis? (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 10:14:22 PM EST
    She seems great to me.

    Republicans hate her.. that's (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 10:15:24 PM EST
    good enough for me!

    To Hate Her? (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 10:16:12 PM EST
    Don't be dense (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 10:17:28 PM EST
    just for once, ok?

    Do You Hate Her? (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 10:23:30 PM EST
    Solis that is.

    I know (none / 0) (#91)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:24:27 AM EST
    they already made a concession by allowing a pro-constituion president and a pro-civil rights attorney general.

    Prove your (none / 0) (#37)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:09:12 PM EST
    statement.  Prove the evil republicans spouses tax lien or records scrutinized.  Link please.

    Right (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:18:14 PM EST
    All been scrutinized and nothing has raised a red flag. Must be that the GOP is the party of integrity and upholds rule of law as a matter of fact.

    Wanna do the math. Guess those Dem vetters missed a bunch of stuff.


    Ok, they didn't miss anything, (none / 0) (#60)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 08:43:00 PM EST
    They just don't care about who pays taxes and who doesn't.  

    the treasurer role.. (none / 0) (#21)
    by jedimom on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    its not like her husband is a plumber with a ta lien, I mean come on!


    I have an issue with the role as Treasurer of the American Worker Group while not reporting that aspect to Congress as required for two years

    that is an issue when EFCA is the main thing being passed this year or next....


    That's not a double standard at all (none / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 04:47:55 PM EST
    A double standard would be different acceptable criteria for one candidate versus another.  If a male candidate got a pass when his wife had tax problems but she doesn't get pass when her husband has tax problems, that would be a double standard.

    What this is is bogus.  If she's not a partner in the business it sounds bogus to me.


    What Is It You Do NOt Understand (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 04:51:36 PM EST
    About a double standard. None of the BushCo people had to meet this standard.

    And I would also wager that none of the male appointees had their spouses tax returns vetted, although given the double standard of the GOP I would not be surprised.


    As I said below (none / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    You just can't compare the two administrations.  Much as I would like to, you just can't.  Because EVERYTHING is a "double standard".  That's been our world for 20 years, and calling it that now is just a distraction and practically meaningless.

    On the other hand, if you won your wager THEN you could start calling double standard and I'd be right there with you.  

    I think this is bogus in it's own right.  


    Heard Anything About (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:14:18 PM EST
    Any wives of the male cabinet picks?

    Biden, Geithner, Gates, Holder, Salazar, Vilsak, Gregg, Donovan,  LaHood, Chu, Duncan, Shinseki, Orszag, Kirk, Emanuel


    Thought so.

    And the fact that the GOP has a different standard for Dems and vice veras is not true, makes it a fact that Solis is being treated with a double standard, even if it is business as usual.


    She had NO clue (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 08:40:23 PM EST
    that her husband had these liens against his business?  

    PUHLEEZE.  That just doesn't pass the smell test.  When my best friend's husband didn't pay the taxes on his business the IRS put liens against everything they owned, including their house.  The wife sure as heck knew that there were tax problems.

    What the heck is wrong with Obama's vetting process?  

    OR is the vetting process fine, and Obama and his team think all these tax problems are ok?  Only the little people need to worry about these tax issues?  

    It has to be on or the other.  

    Sorry, but I am pissed.  While I was never a huge Obama supporter, I did vote for him, and I expected so much more.   These tax problems are getting OLD.  My party is getting hammered and I don't like it one bit.  So much for the most ethical administration ever.  Heh.  It's becoming a joke, and I am NOT amused.  


    On The Other Hand (none / 0) (#89)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    I recently found out that there was a federal tax lien on my building which had been placed ten years ago when I had a tax problem in my business and had cleared it up back then.

    But the lien--which I was never informed of, by the way--had never been discharged or removed.

    Since I have not been seeking a mortgage or selling the building in the meantime, I never knew about the lien until I happened to check my credit scores one day.

    I know others who have been compliant after a tax issue comes up who have had similar experiences. I don't think this is either rare or necessarily fishy.


    Nah. No way. (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:44:22 PM EST
    While my opinion is that the tax issue would not make her unable to fulfill the requirements of the post, there is no way the husband, at the very least, didn't know there were, what 13? or something tax liens against his business.

    I own a biz in LA, there is no way a biz owner "overlooks" all those envelopes that come in the mail with the City of Los Angeles seal on them.

    Just seeing that seal on an envelope makes your butt pucker just like it does when you get something in the mail that has the IRS logo on it...


    I KNOW It Happens (none / 0) (#94)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    Because it happened to me.

    I resolved my tax issues long before the lien was even placed on my property and I received NO notice. There's no way I would have ignored any notice of a lien filed on a non existent tax debt.

    According to my accountant, this is common.

    Not that liens are placed where there was never a problem, but that they are often placed even after the problem has been resolved--i.e. taxes paid or successfully challenged.


    No way Solis' husband was unaware of his 15.
    Records at the Los Angeles County recorder's office showed there were 15 outstanding state and county tax liens against Sayyad and his business, totaling $7,630.57, not including interest.

    Two other liens worth $981 were released in 1999 after he repaid the taxes owed, records show.

    A tax lien is a legal claim filed by the government to collect unpaid taxes or fees.

    Eleven of the outstanding liens sought to recover delinquent county taxes on unsecured property, which includes business equipment other than real estate. Those totaled $5,589.74, not including interest.

    Yakimowich confirmed that Sayyad paid the liens Wednesday, but he would not say how much the congresswoman's husband paid.

    It is not clear, however, whether Sayyad settled the four other outstanding liens for county health fees, which Yakimowich said are collected by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and state sales tax.

    Records show Sayyad had two liens, from 1994 and 1996, for $1,255 in unpaid state sales taxes.

    The remaining two, from 1994 and 1995, are for $786 in unpaid county health and safety fees.

    Nah, he knew.

    Excuse me, but if my husband's actions (none / 0) (#83)
    by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:37:33 AM EST
    in business resulted in having a lien put on our house for 16 years, I would've been pis..d and would have made sure he paid up especially when it was only $900. Paying your taxes the day before her confirmation stinks to high heavens!

    Heh... (none / 0) (#82)
    by weltec2 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:16:50 AM EST
    Some like Barbara Bush being very concerned with family trees and genetic selection as it happens.

    Taxes, schmaxes... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:27:03 PM EST

    Hey, it's all good. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:39:16 PM EST
    As long as they say the right things (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:23:44 PM EST
    and lie to us in the way that we like... we'll ignore just about anything.

    Didn't McCain have liens on one of his 8 homes? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by magster on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:53:29 PM EST
    I don't recall Republicans having problems with that.

    IOKIYAR (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 04:07:51 PM EST
    No Lien, But back taxes owes for four years. If I owed that money to NYS for two years I would have a lien on my property.
    It's the La Jolla property where the McCains are having trouble. As Newsweek reported last month, the McCains didn't pay their tax bill on the property for four years - even with the ridiculously low perks under California's Proposition 13. Only after a reporter brought it to their attention did they quietly pay the bill - but the treasurer in San Diego still says they have underpaid the county $1,742.



    Who pays the bills? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:58:33 PM EST
    I worked for a very wealthy business owner not long ago. He signed the checks, but left the details to the accountants.  I sincerely doubt that Cindy and John McCain personally handle their own bills. Same with many of these appointees.

    Nope. (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:58:20 PM EST
    Sorry... (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:59:47 PM EST
    Nope. No McCain tax liens that I could find. Joemolk the Plumber had one, iirc.

    Oops, I retract. (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 04:11:34 PM EST
    As squeaky points out, La Jolla.

    Some good Dems that I know (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 04:01:24 PM EST
    were up in arms about the SOS's husband's "business dealings." While I think Ms. Solis' husband's taxes are a pathetic excuse to hold up the nomination, it is difficult for my good Dem friends now to claim that Ms. Solis' husband's affairs are not worthy of scrutiny. In the SOS appointment, people said the spouse's affairs are fair game, and taxes have become a big issue thanks to the tax problems of three other recent appointees.

    Are the SOS and SOL situations distinguishable? Yes, but the media won't distinguish them and the GOP is going to use whatever they can to damage the administration, fairly or unfairly. This was served up on a platter for the GOP to gnaw on, and some Dems were among the waiters.

    Hilarious (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:22:42 PM EST
    The best 'reasoning' from these comments is that the Republicans are bad and friendly with business.

    All the rest of the country is seeing is a long (and apparently growing) list of Democrats that haven't paid their taxes... but are in favor of raising everyone else's taxes.

    Keep trying to blame it on someone else... let's see how that works out.  Why don't they just pay their damn taxes like the rest of us.

    Making excuses for our own party, just because they are party of our own party is exactly what people hated about the Republicans.  It is amazing how soon we've forgotten that...

    Oh well, I am sure it is Bush's fault.

    What excuses? (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:42:28 PM EST
    I am completely in favor of barring Solis' husband from a Cabinet post.  

    Barring Solis, on the other hand, based merely on the fact that her husband once had an unpaid tax lien on his business, would be kinda nuts.


    lol (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:44:10 PM EST
    to the point.

    It's not Solis (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:15:31 PM EST
    That I have a problem with.  She seems like she would be good at Labor.  I don't think anyone would have a problem with her husband's taxes if we didn't hear this every day now, a problem with taxes with an Obama appointee.  

    If Solis had been nominated prior to the problems with Richardson, Daschle, Geithner, and Kellifer, this would never have been noticed.  But now it seems like a steady drum beat of people in the Obama administration who have tax issues.  It's just not a good thing for the new administration.  Many Americans are not happy that they have to pay their taxes but so many of Obama's people don't.  They view it as different rules for the rich politicians.  It's hurting Obama's credibility and it's not so good for our party either.


    To Many Words (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:18:07 PM EST
    Are you toasting the comment? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:59:04 AM EST
    or, did you mean to type "[Too] Many Words"?

    Too Many Words (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    Not worth reading puffery.

    Well (none / 0) (#76)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:43:11 PM EST
    I guess someone whose husband has tax problems from 16 years ago is close enough to being "people in the Obama administration who have tax issues" to concern you, but personally I can see the distinction.

    lol (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:28:21 PM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#46)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:39:32 PM EST
    Just because the GOP acts badly, does mean that we Democrats act any better.

    Or are we really happy with the argument based on "look at how bad the Republicans are" as the basis for ignoring how crappy we are too.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:43:36 PM EST
    Don't see your point. The Dems are not the party of corruption, and no one is saying that anyone should get a pass.

    Considering that we do not get to scrutinize the tax returns of all the GOP congress critters and compare them to the Dem congresscritters I do not think you have a point.

    Daschle is not the standard as far as I can tell.


    I'll tell ya, these past few weeks are (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by tigercourse on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:49:21 PM EST
    turning into a right fluster cluck.

    I hate to say it, but (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 06:12:22 PM EST
    " ready on day one."



    Not ready with a stimulus plan (none / 0) (#54)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 06:42:03 PM EST
    .. I think the cabinet selection is not going so badly, actually. He has some good, high profile picks.

    Agreed, the bit that's going bad ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:10:22 AM EST
    ... is that Republicans fight tooth and nail.  Who could have predicted it?

    When you know that the opposition (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 06:46:10 PM EST
    already has serious objections to your nominee, it seems to me that even if it isn't entirely fair to vet both the nominee and her spouse, it only makes sense to plumb the depths of the nominee's history to identify every possible problem that could derail the nomination, and make whatever efforts are necessary to address them as early as possible.

    Tax liens are a matter of public record, so I am hard-pressed to understand how it went unnoticed or undiscovered for so long; between Geithner, Daschle, Killefer and now Solis, I have to wonder where the follow-through was on those vetting questionnaires.

    Forget about what Bush's nominees were or were not allowed to get away with; it's completely irrelevant.

    What's relevant is instituting a process for vetting the nominees that proves Obama's intention to change the culture, or the tone, or whatever the relevant "change" is.  Imagine what it would have said about that commitment if Obama had, first of all, not been so eager to announce the nominations without in-depth vetting, and second of all, been so thorough in that process that he could have avoided the embarrassment of what has happened over the last couple of weeks.  Isn't that how you prove your commitment to the highest ethical standards and changing the way business is done in Washington?

    I guess all we can do is imagine, though, since Obama's vetting process - except for the one Hillary Clinton endured - seems to be paying little more than lip service to standards that were supposed to be of paramount importance to Obama.

    Obama must not have realized that where Democrats believe in that whole he's-the-president-and-we-must-defer-to-his-choices thing, Republicans just don't, and like nothing more than making a stink and stirring things up to make whichever Democrat is in charge look just as craven and corrupt as they are.

    Last paragraph alone deserves a 10 (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:01:19 AM EST
    It doesn't appear, though, that (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:00:52 AM EST
    anyone filled out the Obama questionnaire prior to being announced as his first choice.

    Plain and simple (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:06:02 PM EST
    it's only taken democrats 2weeks to make the american people forget about all the good feelings and momentum they had after the swearing in of Obama.

    Tax gate and stimulus has dragged down the party.

    Maybe they'll push through the dog that is the stimulus but all these political (and totally avoidable) slipups have made people wonder if the change they voted for was just a pipe dream.

    It's easy to oppose.  But much harder to govern.

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:31:33 PM EST
    One wonders if impeachment can be far behind.  It's possibly the most disastrous administration of all time.

    Hahahaha, (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:21:01 PM EST
    Change is apparently harder than Obama thought.  

    Who knew?  Other than everyone?  


    Your last sentence reads like (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:36:08 PM EST
    an epitaph for Newt Gingrich and his crazy cohorts.

    *yawn* (none / 0) (#63)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:17:41 PM EST
    The change offered has been delivered (none / 0) (#79)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:08:12 AM EST
    No more Bush administration and a major change in priorities.  That's been done.  Worried about the next SCOTUS appointment?  Not so much.

    The change some people voted for, however, was a pipe dream.  For example, "We're going to change the culture of Washington!" and "We're going to put an end to the old politics!" = "We're going to change human nature!"  No, you're not.  


    Lindorff has a great article about what you just (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:43:17 AM EST


    February 5, 2009

    Obama's Betrayal
    Small Change

    Just two weeks after his historic inauguration ceremony, Obama's presidency is lurching towards failure, and not because three of his administration picks have been found to be tax cheats, but because nearly all of his administration picks are corporate whores and shills.

    The problem with the new Obama administration is that it is turning out to be not about change at all, as he claimed during the campaign, but rather about more of the same--and these are not times that call for more of the same. Nor is more of the same the reason Obama won the election.

    The economic team President Obama has put in place is composed of the same Wall Street hacks and conservative economic theologians who helped produce the current crisis, many of them as part of the Clinton administration, and some, like Timothy Geithner, actually as appointees of the thoroughly discredited Bush administration.

    Obama's military team is essentially composed of holdovers from the Bush administration, starting at the top with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and retreads from the Clinton administration.


    One can puzzle over why a Democratic president would so quickly abandon his base, when Republicans, in contrast, have always strived so mightily to cater to theirs. My guess is that people like Obama cling to the long-discredited theory that the way to win elections is to appeal to some mythical "middle-of-the-road" electorate, and that thusly, he and his advisers, their eyes already on the 2012 election, are trying to position him as the candidate of the center.


    The "Kumbaya" and "This Land is Our Land" singing is over, and unless Obama starts singing a different tune soon, he will spend the next four years presiding over a shattered economy and a nation mired in a distant, pointless and unwinnable war.


    sorry boys and girls, (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:38:49 AM EST
    but if your going to be stupid enough to run for office, on the mantra of "change", then you get stuck with all the problems that entails.

    obama was dumb enough to do this, i'm sure at the behest of his campaign people. given the sleazoid nature of the bush administration, it no doubt seemed like a slam dunk at the time.

    the one candidate not stupid enough, or dishonest enough to do it, hillary clinton, was flayed by the press, the blogs, and the obama campaign, for her "dishonesty".

    now that clinton's position has (not surprisingly) proved to be the correct one, we're stuck. pres. obama, and his supporters, are just going to have to suck it up, and do what they said they were going to.

    or, in the alternative, admit it was all BS, just for the purpose of fooling the rubes and getting elected.

    interesting that "evil" sen. clinton, so far, is one of the few of pres. obama's cabinet nominees with a squeaky clean background, for both her and former pres. clinton, in spite of all the noise made by the republicans.

    go figure.

    Democratic Super Bug? (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by wickedlittledoll on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 08:00:16 PM EST
    Uh-oh. Has yet another Dem been infected with the virulent tax-evasion bug plaguing Obama's nominees?


    Tax Evasion? (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 08:09:01 PM EST
    Had not heard that any dem nominee had tax evasion issues.

    That's because ... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:14:33 AM EST
    ... no Dem nominee has had tax evasion issues.

    In fact, none of them have been accused of any crimes at all so far.  

    wickedlittledoll needs to get its facts straight ...  


    This could be (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 02:51:09 PM EST
    as Killefer's situation, only a problem because of Geithner and Daschle.  While I think it's unusual and maybe a little suspicious to go 16 years and not realize you have a tax lien against you (as her husband did in the case of one of these liens), he did pay the liens yesterday.

    Yeh, was Geithner worth it (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 02:55:56 PM EST
    was my reaction on the previous thread.  His sail through the Senate is going to cost the Obama administration a lot of other appointments.  And I'm not persuaded by all the spin that Geithner was absolutely the best, even the only, one for his spot.  

    Plus, he started this onslaught of major embarrassment for the administration that was going to be so ethical and do the best vetting evuh.  Looks like all that vetting was focused on only one nominee.


    All that vetting (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Fabian on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:39:00 PM EST
    and she turned out clean.

    I'm not surprised.  Living under investigations and media/public scrutiny probably teaches you how to hire the proper professionals to keep your affairs in order.  I doubt the Clintons leave anything to chance.


    Maybe some good can come... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 02:58:39 PM EST
    out of "tax dodge-gate"...a simplified tax code.  Obviously it is way too complicated...I know the tax accountants like it that way, but you shouldn't need a tax accountant to figure how much your vig is.

    Get on it Obama...before your whole cabinet is exposed and ousted.

    Like it...I wouldn't say that. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by coast on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    I would much rather be help negotiate a loan for a client or helping him to improve his cash flow than spen my time preparing what is essentially a compliance form.  I would very much like to see it simplified.  Its near impossible to do any substantive planning for clients because no one know where the tax code is going.  Rates are going to be raised...oh well the economy is bad so we'll hold off...there isn't an estate tax in 2010...we'll there might be....if your a first time home buyer you get a $7k credit but you have to pay it back...oh wait no you don't...oh wait we might make it $15K....trust me simple would be very welcomed.

    Good to know.... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:21:11 AM EST
    I guess just the IRS likes it this way.

    Trivia! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:11:30 PM EST

    I Remember Well How Gerry Ferraro Got Slammed (none / 0) (#29)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 04:15:14 PM EST
    with the evidence of her husband's tax issues (and her own finances).

    No doubt it was handled stupidly but it also infuriated me watching something like that take a potentially great VP down.

    Maybe that bad taste in my mouth is why tax issues really don't upset me the way, perhaps, they should.

    Yea but (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    the republicans hinted that there were "mafia" connections.  And since her last name ended in a vowel, the spin was there for the media.

    Is that anything like how she was (none / 0) (#43)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:27:15 PM EST
    slammed for saying that Obama wouldn't be in a position to become President if he weren't black?

    Taxes don't upset you?  5% of the people in this country pay 60% of this nations taxes (2006 data from the IRS), and some of those people are cheating on their taxes... and none of that bothers you?  Then what does?  How about the 11 trillion dollar debt?


    Umm (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CST on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 06:13:35 PM EST
    You are missing the point here.

    The point is Ferraro and Solis PAID THEIR TAXES - their husbands didn't.

    Why is that so hard to understand...

    It bothers me that their husbands didn't pay, but neither one of them was up for any post...


    What Bothers Me (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:58:10 AM EST
    is when talented women are pilloried for the apparent sins or crimes of their husbands.

    And I referred to Ferraro because that was the first time it happened that I was infuriated. Not, unfortunately, the last.

    In her case, it wasn't only her husband who was in the muck over tax/finance issues but Ferraro herself. And you know what? I STILL believe she would have made a sensational VP--certainly better than the Bush pere we ended up with.

    So yes, in that context these tax issues which ALWAYS end up resolved when someone is up for a high profile position, are not that big on my list of things to lose sleep over.


    I say depends... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:24:08 AM EST
    if they're dodging taxes due to moral objections to the war on drugs or the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd nominate them for the medal of freedom.

    $6,400? (none / 0) (#32)
    by lambert on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 04:51:08 PM EST
    I think the Village is running up the score.

    liens and tax debt? (none / 0) (#42)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:27:08 PM EST
    who doesn't have it?

    if it's small, what difference does it make?

    bob Riley, governor of Alabama, didn't file fir 5 years... so what's the deal? IOKIYAR?

    Right, same old, same old, (none / 0) (#74)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:18:44 PM EST
    Politics.  Nothing changing here, nothing new to see in Washington, so move along folks, just keep moving.