Liberals or Conservatives

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Mark Bowden’s Guests of the Ayatollah is also very good. It's not as depressing.

Killing Pablo is also good.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Ansley

Killing Pablo is also good.

Thank you. I'll give it a try.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Well, I guess I'm easily amused, too!

TexTushHog, let me see if I've got this straight. Tax evasion should earn you a prison sentence -- unless, of course, you're a liberal Democrat, in which case a reprimand is the appropriate measure?

Amazing!

Congressional discipline is an entirely separate process from criminal or civil penalties for tax fraud or for underpayment of taxes. The U.S. Attorney is free to indict Rep. Rangel for tax fraud if he thinks he has a case. I rather doubt he does as he has to prove intent (as opposed to negligence or gross negligence) beyond a reasonable doubt.

You've got an 80 some-odd year old guy who has a full time job that takes probably 100 hours a week who probably hasn't written a check or looked at a bank statement in 30 years. My strong guess is that it was an oversight, not an intentional omission from his tax return. He should pay, and probably has paid, a substantial penalty, the back taxes, plus interest.

But if there is evidence that his under reporting is intentional, he should be prosecuted and should to to jail. And the fact that any type of disciplinary action has been taken by Congress would have no bearing on any subsequent prosecution.

But by analogy, I look to my own income. I have no personal knowledge whether my accountants property report all my income other than they tell me that they do. I have a law firm, probably a dozen or more royalty interests, eight to ten investment accounts, and a number of private equity deals. I spend about two hours every year going over my various returns and having them explained to me and asking questions, etc. But they are so technical, I have no way of knowing if every penny is accounted for. I don't know how to calculate a depletion allowance, etc. In fact, we occasionally find we miss a 1099, a W-2G or something and when it's called to our attention, we file an amended return. But there is never an intent to deceive. I spend over $10k a year in accounting fees (plus the salary of an in-house CPA) trying to make sure that everything is done by the book. I wouldn't be surprised if Rep. Rangel is very much in the same boat.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

I think Genghis Khan is a free handle here. Bring 'em around!!!

I know you are jesting, but I am always amazed that people so readily assume that a brutish or repressive regime is always politically conservative. Your jest wouldn’t work without that underlying premise. I guess it’s one of Hitler’s lesser known legacies—IDK. Then again, perhaps it is because movie directors and producers (and we all know they aren’t liberal or left-leaning) frequently perpetuate this myth. For instance, I recently watched the movie Pirate Radio and found the same distortion.

In the movie, the pirate DJs’ nemesis was one Alistair Dormandy, Keneth Branagh’s character, who was portrayed as an uptight, Puritanical Tory—a real conservative curmudgeon. The historical reality is quite different. It was Postmaster General Benn, Anthony Neil "Tony" Wedgwood Benn, who successfully fought to shut down the pirate radio stations because his ilk believed modern (1960s) Rock and Roll was corrupting the morals of Great Britain’s youth (IMDB). But Benn is neither a Tory nor a conservative. He "is a British Labour Party politician, and during the Labour Party's time in opposition during the 1980s, he was seen as the party's prominent figure on the Left. The term ‘Bennite’ (a term never actually used by Benn himself) has come to be used in Britain for someone of a more radical, left-wing position” (Wiki).

So I am not surprised to see an inference, such as this, suggesting that Genghis Khan was a conservative and, by extension, implying that all conservatives are brutish. But are these assumptions valid?

Websters defines a conservative as “a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.,” and it defines what it means to be conservative:

con·serv·a·tive /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/
–adjective

1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

By this definition, Genghis Khan and his heirs (Kublai Khan was his grandson) were not conservative. They broke with normal tribal traditions and went on to establish the world’s largest land empire ever known using innovative military formations and tactics. They were also religiously tolerant, and allowed each to worship in his own way whether a Christian, a Muslim or an Animist. They created the original "Pony Express" and kept the Silk Road open and safe for merchants to transport goods. The road also served as a conduit for open cultural exchange: math, science, medicine, horticulture, printing, etc. The khans were open to change and innovation, and readily employed any and all new technology that would aid them in building and maintaining their new empire. They relied heavily on Chinese military technology and medical knowledge. Hence Genghis and his grandson appear to favor or advocate progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.” That sounds rather like Webster’s definition for a progressive.

Now, were they brutes? Western historians have certainly painted Genghis Khan that way. Yet Eastern historians say the same things about Alexander the Great, who is considered a hero in the West. Western chroniclers, beginning with Marco Polo, have been kinder to the Great Kublai.

“Were they brutes?” is a straw man argument anyway. Being brutish does not make one a conservative. Especially if you consider that perhaps Genghis Khan, et al, would be in more proper company alongside Robespierre, Lenin and Stalin: some of history’s more “enlightened” liberal thinkers and activists.

The philosopher Eric Voegelin once observed: “One can easily imagine how indignant a humanistic liberal will be when he is told that his particular type of immanentism is one step on the road to Marxism” or when he is told that “totalitarianism, defined as the existential rule of Gnostic activists [those activist who seek to overcome the order of existence, which they see as false and alienating, and draw god-like power into themselves], is the end form of progressive civilization.”

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I wouldn't be surprised if Rep. Rangel is very much in the same boat.

I would.

The underreportings may not sound like much to those of us in the "Diamonds and Tuxedos" section, but by all accounts Rangel is a man of very modest means, to say the least. His disclosures indicate very little net worth.

Does anyone seriously believe claims that Rangel and his enablers didn't notice something fishy about the numbers reported in his filings? They strain credulity well beyond the breaking point. Someone who isn't wealthy and earns a congressman's modest salary could hardly have just "forgotten" about all that extra money.

Didn't former Ways and Means Chairman Rostenkowski go to prison for some stuff that pales in comparison to Rangel's transgressions?

I guess it all depends on whether an ambitious federal prosecutor decides one day that he wants to nail a scalp to the wall.

[Chevalier]

TTH,

I don't think your analogy of a missing 1099 or a technical error is a good fit.

First, because this was an error continuing over a significant period of time. Did he not ask, for any of those years, why the property was not shown on his return?

Second, because it was a complete omission. It would be closer to you (or your assistants) never giving your tax return preparer the information about an entire one of the 8 - 10 investment accounts. Or if you owned a rental property and never told the return preparer about it. So it's not the same as a missing line item on, say, Schedule D. It's the omission of the entire first page of Schedule E. It's one thing for you to forget to tell your return preparer about having sold 100 shares of Microsoft; it's another to forget to tell him, ever, of the existence of a rental property. Even someone who never deals with his bank statements or checkbook doesn't remember that he has a rental property located in a foreign country. (The omission of foreign income is a particular red flag.) And if he doesn't keep up with all his finances, he should have made sure that whoever did sat down with the tax return preparer. The return preparer evidently didn't even know about it because once he did, he would have asked each year. Sort of like if you had been reporting 6 royalty interests and one year you only gave the return preparer the forms for 5 of them.

Third, because as chair of the major tax-writing committee in the House, he is expected to know more about taxes than you do. And, in my opinion, set a standard for appropriate care; if you're telling the American people that they're expected to prepare their returns accurately, so should you. Senior IRS appointees have their last several tax returns thoroughly audited by the Service as part of the confirmation process. They know those returns have to be clean if they expect to serve in that capacity. I think we should expect no less from Rangel, and Baucus and Grassleyfor that matter. Forgot that sale of 100 shares of Microsoft one year? OK. Forgot to EVER report your rental property? Then why are you setting the rules for the rest of the country?

There may not have been intent, I assume there wasn't, but it seems more than a run-of-the-mill error. What might have been an honest error by a minimum-wage worker who didn't graduate from high school would be gross negligence by you or me, and even more so by Rangel. It's much more serious, in my opinion, than your analogy suggests.

For that matter, I think the 4 rent-controlled apartments is more than small potatoes. He, or his staff, almost had to know that he was getting lower rental rates than he was entitled. It indicates, to me, an attitude of entitlement and exemption from the rules applicable to the "little people" common to a lot of politicians the longer they serve.

I think the under-reporting of income and the rent-controlled apartments, along with a variety of other issues, explain the panel's 9-1 vote. His actions, and an inference of entitlement/arrogance, bring disrepute on Congress. An extravagant lifestyle is one thing; casually breaking the rules we're all expexted to follow is another. It's the whole pattern, plus the length of time it went on, that suggests he forgot that he's a public servant.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Chevalier

Third, because as chair of the major tax-writing committee in the House, he is expected to know more about taxes than you do. And, in my opinion, set a standard for appropriate care; if you're telling the American people that they're expected to prepare their returns accurately, so should you. Senior IRS appointees have their last several tax returns thoroughly audited by the Service as part of the confirmation process. They know those returns have to be clean if they expect to serve in that capacity. I think we should expect no less from Rangel, and Baucus and Grassleyfor that matter. Forgot that sale of 100 shares of Microsoft one year? OK. Forgot to EVER report your rental property? Then why are you setting the rules for the rest of the country?

.

That is the point...he isn't you or me (or even TTH)

@TTH - Blaming staffers isn't acceptable. You own your returns regardless of who is doing the work.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I know you are jesting,

Congrats! Yes, of course, I was jesting. I was making a reference the common jest of referring to one who is quite conservative as being,

"...just to the right of Gengis Khan."

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

but I am always amazed that people so readily assume that a brutish or repressive regime is always politically conservative.

I wasn't rendering an opinion on the accuracy of the jest. I'm always amazed that people so readily assume facts not in evidence...

I was merely using it in response to RK's post to point out that everybody is to the left/right of somebody...even ole' RK! It ain't a spectrum, it's a circle....that's all I was saying.

Unfortunately, the increase in the polarization of political discourse is turning the circle into a "circle jerk." As I've said to some of the more conservative crowd here on a regular basis, the fact that I am more liberal than them doesn't necessarily make me "liberal" as many are more liberal than I - especially when "liberal" is slung around as a epithet...as so frequently happens here. But, I digress...

I am aware that GK was, for his time, rather progressive in many ways as well as being a barbarian in many others. I've taken a history class or two & read a couple of books. But, thanks for filling in the particulars.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your jest wouldn’t work without that underlying premise. I guess it’s one of Hitler’s lesser known legacies—IDK.

Apparently, it didn't work with it, either. I'll try to do better next time.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Chevalier

...It indicates, to me, an attitude of entitlement and exemption from the rules applicable to the "little people" common to a lot of politicians the longer they serve...

"We don't pay taxes. Only the 'little people' pay taxes."

--Leona Helmsley

Maybe Rangel, once he ascended to the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, suddenly decided that he should not remain among the ranks of the "little people."

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

I'll try to do better next time.

IBH, you've got to give our left leaning cyber-friends here a bit of a break. They were jes fun'n me.

For the life of me, I don't know how I got this right wing label. I think I'm quite moderate.

Now Peej, OTOH...?

[Chevalier]

I hadn't read the details in awhile, so went back over them again this morning. The unreported income amounts, as I expected, are relatively modest - probably less than $10,000 per year. Rangel also owned another rental unit, in New York, for which he did report income on his tax returns, although either omitting or understating the income on his annual financial disclosure forms. The rental unit in D.R., at the Punta Cana Yacht Club, was purchased in part with a mortgage, for which the seller eventually forgave at least some of the interest due. (He didn't report that forgiveness of debt on financial disclosure statements; not sure about tax returns.) Rangel reported:

• Ownership of the villa on financial disclosure forms for 1998 - 2008
• Rental income from the villa on financial disclosure forms only for 2001 - 2005 (incorrect amounts, though) and 2008
• Rental income from the villa on his tax returns only for 2007 and 2008

The Standards Committee apparently called his office about the omissions of rental income in the financial disclosure forms,j and Rangel wrote a letter back to them in 2001. That indicates it had been brought to his attention, and should have been passed along to his tax return preparer. He didn't file amended tax returns for 2004 through 2007, though, until September 2008 or later. By which time the statute of limitations for several of the years had closed and her permanently escaped taxes.

(There were also a lot of other items that he reported properly, it appears, on his tax returns but omitted from the financial disclosure statements. The summary sounds as though he or his staff were extremely sloppy in preparing the latter.)

I might feel differently if he were my client and an ordinary citizen, but trying to look at it objectively, that's well below the standard I would expect from a member of Congress, let alone chair of Ways and Means.

---------------

With respect to the rent-stabilization apartments, on the application for at least one of the four units he indicated that his son would occupy the apartment, which never happened. That was the unit used for his campaign committee and PAC, without a written sublease. It appears that rent-stabilized apartments only qualify for that lower rent if used as a primary residence. (And I believe there was also a limitation as to how many units one person could lease at the rent-stabilized rates.) Apparently the management company did not permit the use of any other rent-stabilized apartments in the complex, above the first floor, for solely non-residential purposes for anyone other than Rangel. The management company or owner took legal actions against many tenants based on primary residency, including those who improperly sublet their apartments -- but not against Rangel. In fact, he was included on the management company's "special handling list" where he was identified as a Member of Congress. Rangel's office and staff received complaints from tents regarding legal actions brought against them because of primary residency, and worked with the management company to resolve those constituent issues. This, to me, indicates that they knew of the requirements and should have been aware Rangel himself was in violation.

I have some sympathy to an argument that the staff knew but Rangel didn't, but not a lot. The boss sets the moral tone of the organization; if it wasn't clear to all of his staff that he demanded compliance with the law and avoidance of an appearance of impropriety, that may be partly on them but it's also partly on him.

Rangel and his staff also met at least once with the management company regarding proposed construction projects and other developments. There may not have been anything improper about that, but it doesn't look good.

-------------------

Probably nothing that rises to the level of throwing him in prison. But also a certain lackadaisacal attitude toward his obligations and responsibilities, in my opinion. A serious embarassment to the House.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Rangel fucked up. But here's an interesting chart that pretty well sets out why reprimand is a more appropriate penalty than censure.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44328831/1...gel-NO-Censure

You can quit at #1. If the Administration wasn't in the tank, he would be prosecuted and convicted of tax fraud. Or at least you and I would if we had done what he did.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Charles, I assume you realize that everyone knows that.

It's just amusing to see the manifest hypocrisy of someone on the far left who seems to be arguing that a prominent tax-evader should only be subject to "reprimand", not "censure" (let alone the "prison term" urged for others) -- as long as he agrees with him politically!

Does anyone seriously believe he would support such leniency if the offender were a Republican?

Thats because taxes are for little people.

[Laurentius]

So ... what I wanna know is if you can tell the difference between a conservative and a liberal provider just by her business practices?

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

If the Administration wasn't in the tank, he would be prosecuted and convicted of tax fraud. Or at least you and I would if we had done what he did.

Actually, we wouldn't. You'd be surprised what taxpayers can routinely do without the IRS and DOJ pursuing criminal charges. Even using very abusive tax shelters or bizarre/frivolous arguments that courts always rejects normally lead only to assessments of tax plus significant penalties, but not even a thought of criminal prosecution.

Rangel left things off his return. Very sloppy. But even if he did so intentionally, and they could prove that, so that he would fit within the literal terms of the statute, they wouldn't prosecute. Whether it was Rangel or you or I. Criminal prosecutions are usually limited to extreme cases, more like Wesley Snipes than Rangel.

Of course, while they wouldn't prosecute you or I, they also wouldn't elect one of us to Congress and appoint us as chair of the Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel won't be charged criminally, and he won't be expelled, and his constituents will continue to reelect him as long as he continues to run. It's really just a question of whether he is scolded in writing (reprimand) or has to stand there before the House and be scolded publicly (censure).