Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

Hey, where did YOU learn how to spell?

 

You know, this wasn't his mistake. It was his accountant's mistake, and I'm not about to fault the man for deferring to a professional who auspiciously knows more about the tax code than he does. Hell, he wasn't even deferring to his accountant. He was flat-out paying his accountant to do his tax return for him. Auditing, preparing, and filing tax returns is not in the job description of the head of the treasury department, and tax collection is only one tiny facet of the job, so I really don't see why this is such a big deal to some people.

 

Not much argument there, Drew. That's more or less what I've stated. But as an accountant, I'll tell you that we aren't infallible ( *gasp!* ). While a typical taxpayer can legitimately use "accountant error" as an excuse, someone who is expected to head up the Treasury Board (and therefore the IRS) needs to be held to a higher standard. Basically, he should know the rules.

 

I think that's an absolutely fair criticism, Splunge. I don't consider it dispositive for the position, but you're right, this was an amateurish mistake on his part. However, I find that the fact that when he was made aware of the error by the IRS he immediately paid the balance with interest (and made no attempt to cover up for the oversight) more than enough reason to forgive him for it grudge-free. The IRS certainly did, and they aren't exactly known for their sympathy to tax evaders.

 

That's where I'm a bit confused. It seems that he's known about it for awhile, but only 'fessed up because of his upcoming appointment. From the NY Times article I linked to:

Of course, this doesn't preclude the possibility that he didn't think he did anything wrong, and was fighting the IRS's position.

Basically, I'm not sure how forthcoming he really was about all this.

 

Actually drew it was his fault because as several articles have stated :

So he can't blame an accountant for failing to tell him to pay the taxes in 2001 & 2002 as he choose to do his returns himself in those years.

Again he is acting just like every weasel politician when he gets caught doing something wrong "oh it wasn't my fault, so&so told me something different".

Also what about Obama's rhetoric(or as we like to call it "crap") on the campaign trail against the "revolving door" of lobbyists working for the government.

Hmmm, William Corr, who obama has indicated he wants to be deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services was a federal lobbyist with Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

William Lynn, an undersecretary of defense in President Bill Clinton's second term, is nominated to be Defense Secretary Robert Gates' deputy. When he left office he went to work for Raytheon, as a vice president and lobbyist for one of the country's biggest defense contractors.
Now back in office he will be involved in the process of budgeting and acquisitions, in addition to running the day-to-day operations of the Defense Department.
Hmmm, lets see, owns a bunch of Raytheon stock & in charge of helping to assign new contracts. Little conflict of interest there.
So he went from polotician to lobbyist back to politician.
Yep thats some change there obama

See hillary didn't need to get elected as almost all of obamas picks have been former clinton officials. Yep thats a lot of change. . . . . backwards.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/01/chart-michelle-obamas-salary.html

[edit]
Cool, i must thank all of the thin-skinned liberals among the mods & admins for mo IotW award. Just helps prove my case.

[ Apparently the wisdom of not publicly commenting on moderator impartiality or not publicly commenting on a plaque that was well earned is rather lost on you. How about having a look at the FAQ? ] - Beren

 

I just realized I got negative rep from martaug for this.

Apparently, I'm doing something right.

 

Off in another direction ...

I find it interesting that, during these hard financial times, we are having the most expensive inauguration ever -- four times more expensive than any before. This doesn't give me much confidence in the whole "change" platform and wanting to use the government to help people in need.

 

martaug brought up that in an earlier post, but I forgot to respond to it.

I have to say I find that rather odd as well. I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that he's using a lot of the funds he raised for his campaign, so it's not like it's all taxpayer money, but still...

 

I have to agree with you two. I think it's overly extravegant. I'm not really sure what they're thinking on this one, to be honest.

EDIT - now having done a little research myself, it seems to make a little more sense.

Emphasis mine. Makes a lot more sense now, I think. That liberal media strikes again.

 

It pleases me to see that people are becoming more concerned about other people in need. Just a few short years ago the country was "right of center" and hardly anyone gave a flip about people in need, or how wasteful the GWB government was in spending taxpayer money. Hardly anyone gave a crap about the billions that were going to Blackwater, (nothing more than hired thugs), Hallliburton, (Dick Cheney's old company), and other contractors in Iraq, who were in the business of bleeding the American taxpayer dry. And while the Republicans bragged about how they were building schools, hospitals and new roads for Iraqis, these same institutions for Americans were crumbling around them.

It seems that there is a sudden and dramatic shift to the left, with a new-found concern about how government conducts its business, and how it responds to those in need. While many gave GWB a blank check and a free pass to do whatever he wanted, it appears that President Barack Obama will be held to the highest standard, a real presidential standard. And I believe it's good that there is all this new concern for things that matter - like people in need - issues that the left have been fighting for during the long dark of the last 8 years. It's refreshing to see the change in some people.

 

I'm not sure how to take that comment....

I didn't think I changed.

 

I agree. I was really concerned that the media and the left was going to give Obama a free pass during his Presidency. While it may be a little late, I am very pleased to see the media waking up and starting to let the people know about such things. It was just four years ago that the newspapers were full of articles of how much body armor could be purchased for what was being spent on the inauguration. Now flash forward to 2009 and it was stunning as to the silence. It is only within the past few days that a few tiny voices of reason are starting to be heard. Time will tell.

 

As an accountant, you may find the following comparison offensive, and if you do, I apologize. Plenty of Auto-Industry CEO's don't know the first thing about changing a flat, their fluids, or their oil. This doesn't disqualify them from being CEO, because none of those things are in the job description. I see the situation with heading the treasury department in essentially the same way. Sure, he's not an expert on tax law, but he doesn't need to be. He isn't heading the IRS directly, after all. The IRS merely reports to him. The man heading the IRS would be Douglas H Shulman, and not even Shulman, as commissioner of the IRS, needs to be an expert on tax code. These guys are administrators. The real experts are at lower pay-grades, and they don't lose their jobs every 4-8 years.

 

As an accountant I do not find that offensive. It is a shame more people don't think the same way. If they did Michael D. Brown may still be employed

 

I was speaking generally. As someone who voted for change, I believe these things do matter. I'm sure that even some who voted for Mac, (just more of the same we've had for 8 years) are beginning to see that change is desperately needed in our government and the way in which it conducts its business. The bar needs to be taken off the floor and brought back to the level that will demand more competent government.

Something like 70 percent of Americans believe that Obama will bring that change. He certainly did not get that kind of vote during the election, so it may point to the idea that the need for change has been growing, even among those who did not vote for Obama. I think it is important that we go back to holding our presidents to the highest standards, and I believe that Obama would agree with that notion.

I also believe that the same standard should be held for Congress as well. And, IMO, both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should be replaced with better leadership so that more can be done in Congress during the next 6 months, which I believe will be critical for an ecomomic recovery. I believe that thus far both have been lackluster in their performance in this regard.

 

You are simply reflecting the hype and spin of the democratic party. McCain was not Bush -- "more of the same" is entirely inaccurate. "McCain = Bush" was a brilliant strategy for the democrats but was a lie. Either candidate would have been a welcome change over Bush (for all but the most extreme of either side).

The cabinet choices of Obama reveal less "change" than promised. I am optimistic, but not to the point of believing Obama will fix everything in his tenure (I don't think he'll be able to fix anything during his first term -- he's in damage control mode for now).

 

No offense taken Drew. And while I don't disagree with what you are saying in general, there are certain things I would expect Geithner to know. Not every single word of the Tax Code, but at least he should be able to read a form he gets from IMF and know that he has taxes to pay.

 

We will just have to disagree over that issue, since I believe that the Republican Party has learned little during the last cycle. Mac is a loyal party member, and he would have only continued most of what his party expected. This can also be seen with Obama and his choices on the Democratic side as well. You point out that he is already moving into the center of his party politics with his choices. No doubt, that he is moving for party unity and we might see some of a "Clinton II."

I think Mac is a very different man from GWB: He would have ended torture and he would have shown more integrity and respected the Rule of Law than Bush did. Mac is an honorable man. But, nevertheless, domestically he would have been captured by Republican ideology.

Obama will bring significant change from how things are NOW. No doubt, some of that "change" will be back to the past with some Clintonian politics - his choices prove that we are headed back to the past, while we are moving ahead into the future. But with Obama we will hear more about "what works" and less about party "philosophy." That's a great thing, especially at a time like this.

 

So lets see according to DR, security is going to cost $120 Million.
Hmmm, 8,000 police officers(2,000 of whom would be on duty anyway) for 4 days = 6,000 Addtl officers at 12hrs/day = 288,000 man-hours
5,000 national guard troops(we will figure all are going to work all 4 days) = 5,000 men @ 12/day = 240,000 man hours

So thats a total of 528,000 extra manhours. Even calculating that many hours at $30/hr(which the NG & most of the cops DON'T make = $15,840,000(we will say ~$16 mil.)
So DR lets assume 2 times that figure in equipment & transport cost(another ~$32 mil)
So our total is roughly $48mil, where did the other $52 million go?