Cascajun

The New York Times reports on Representative Charles Rangel’s expanding tax problems:

Representative Charles B. Rangel’s legal team is reviewing his tax records to determine whether the congressman received a homestead exemption on a house he owned in Washington while living in several rent-stabilized apartments in New York City.

[…]

Rent laws in New York City and the state require that tenants occupying rent-stabilized apartments use those units as their primary residences. At the same time, the District of Columbia’s Office of Tax and Revenue extends the homestead tax deduction only to properties that are primary residences.

[…]

Mr. Rangel, a 19-term congressman, has been under scrutiny since July, when The New York Times reported that a developer had allowed him to lease rent-stabilized apartments, including one that he used as a fund-raising office, in violation of state regulations.

He has since drawn criticism on other issues: his use of Congressional stationery to seek donations for a City University of New York school of public service that will bear his name; his failure to report on federal or state tax returns that he earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988; and his failure to report that he had paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage extended to him to buy the villa.

This is really incredible; Rangel is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes the nation’s tax laws and is one of the most powerful panels in Congress. I suppose he believes he is above those laws, as Rangel claims he has “done nothing morally wrong.”

If the Democrats were sincerely interested in bringing change to Washington, they would demand Rangel’s resignation.

UPDATE: More from the New York Times, “The Congressman, the Donor and the Tax Break.”

Congressional records and interviews show that Mr. Rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited an oil-drilling company last year, while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the project, the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.

The company, Nabors Industries, was one of four corporations based in the United States that were widely criticized in 2002 and 2003 for opening offices in the Caribbean to reduce their federal tax payments. Mr. Rangel was among dozens of representatives from both parties who bitterly opposed those offshore moves and, in 2004, pushed unsuccessfully for legislation to make the companies pay more tax.

But in 2007, when the United States Senate tried to crack down on the companies, Mr. Rangel, who had recently been sworn in as House Ways and Means chairman, fought to protect them.

The Wall Street Journal reports: Intelligence Policy to Stay Largely Intact. “President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party.”

Wikipedia defines conscription as “a general term for involuntary labor demanded by an established authority.”

This is from President-elect Barack Obama’s official transition web site (This is a link to the original, cached version. See the update comment thread, below.):

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

This sounds like conscription to me. I understand this is a well meaning plan, but as the saying goes: “The road to hell path to destruction is paved with good intentions.”

Update: The America Serves web site has been updated since my post and no longer uses the word require. It also includes details about refundable tax credits. As it reads now, Obama’s America Serves project is a substantially different proposition than outlined previously. I’ve updated my link above to hit the cached version. I’m not sure how long that will work.

As I noted in the comments, I think it’s fine for local school districts to include public service in their curriculum. I don’t believe the federal government should mandate it, especially for college. I’m all for public service, as long as it’s voluntary. I have volunteered (i.e. served) in the military and with various civic organizations. The experience was great and I encourage everyone to volunteer.

Election Day is finally here. Go cast your ballot, if you haven’t already. Then take some advice from Glen Reynolds, “Whoever wins, chill a bit.”

From the Washington Post:

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations, Contributions Reviewed After Deposits

Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

Roger Simon explores the incongruent reality of Barack Obama.

The inescapable conclusion is that Barack Obama is a highly deceptive, often dishonest individual. Again, many would say this is standard operating procedure for politicians in our culture (and most others too). But Obama presents himself as something different, a new kind of post-modern politician above the conventional dirty dealings of backroom politics.

Like Roger, the crux of my problem with Obama is not his left wing past, but that he tries to hide it. It’s the dishonesty that is troubling. The willful, even enthusiastic, participation of the MSM in promoting the lies and deception disturbs me.

The MSM keep referring to William Ayers as a 1960’s radical, as if his politics have moderated. Here’s some fairly recent video of Ayers being interviewed by Luis Bonilla-Molina, President of the Centro Internacional Miranda, where he shares his views on the role he believes critical education can serve in the promotion of Bolivarian Revolution.

[Three minutes and fifty-eight seconds into the interview.]

Ayers: One way of looking at is the Weather Underground was a great teaching moment; and to the extend that we didn’t fully realize what we attempted we were bad teachers.

It is obvious Ayers, the Chicago education reformer, has radical views about the role of education in politics, and vice versa. I don’t know exactly when this video was filmed, but I’m pretty certain it was after the years Obama and Ayers worked together at the Annenberg Challenge.

As Stanley Kurtz points out, “Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it.”

I’ve called or written to my Congressman, Rick Larsen, four times regarding the bailout legislation that has been proposed over the last two weeks. I received an email response from his office today, which I’ve posted below. You can find my reply immediately below Congressman Larsen’s message.

Dear Mr. Arabie:

Today I made the difficult decision to vote for the financial rescue package. I would like to take this opportunity to explain my decision to you.

Over the past five days, I have heard from many of you concerned with the financial rescue package. I have read the messages you left with my staff. I have talked with constituents visiting my DC office. I have read your emails. I have spoken with local banks and small business owners, students, and families.

Many of you have said you were worried about the huge cost of this bill. Others thought we should not act to help the Wall Street investment firms whose irresponsible choices led us to this terrible situation. Some of you were concerned that this bill helped Wall Street but did nothing to help families struggling with foreclosure and the economic downturn.

I have heard your concerns and have worked to address them.

Our nation faces an economic crisis that has the potential to impact every family in the country. The Bush Administration responded to the crisis by requesting a $700 billion blank check with no oversight, no protections for taxpayers, no returns on taxpayer investment, and no help for homeowners.

Congress said no way, no how, no blank check. Instead, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to make improvements to the Administration’s plan. We included the oversight, accountability and stake in our investment that American taxpayers need and deserve.

That is why I voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (HR 3997). Although I voted in favor of the bill, it failed by a vote of 228-205. This improved financial rescue package would have cut the $700 billion payment in half and conditioned any future payments on Congressional review. It would have banned golden parachutes and exorbitant bonuses for Wall Street executives who participate. It would have provided help for families who have been hit hard by the foreclosure crisis. It would have ensured that taxpayers get a fair return on our investment, benefit from any future profit, and it would have provided strong oversight and prohibited any conflicts of interest.

The economic rescue package I voted for today is not about helping banks or Wall Street. It is about protecting all of us — American families in Washington State and across the country who need our economy to recover and grow.

Due to the credit crunch we already face, banks in Washington State and around the country have already tightened lending, and families and business are finding it more difficult to get the loans they need in their everyday lives. If you own a small business and need a loan, are planning to buy a home, or if your son or daughter wants to go to college, you could pay the price.

Without an emergency intervention, Americans who play by the rules, Americans who pay their bills on time every month, and Americans with good credit will suffer due to Wall Street’s mistakes and the Bush administration’s refusal to provide the appropriate regulation our economy needs.

Under the financial rescue package, the federal government would buy bad debt from troubled banks to unclog our financial system, allowing banks to once again provide the capital our economy needs to recover and grow.

In the coming days, it is critical that Members of Congress come to an agreement and pass a financial rescue package as soon as possible. Our economy depends on it.

In the coming weeks, Congress must also act to deliver the appropriate regulation and oversight our economy needs for the long-term - regulation and oversight the Bush administration has failed to provide.

Sincerely,

Rick Larsen
United States Representative
Washington State, 2nd District

My response follows:

Dear Congressman Larsen,

I appreciate your response outlining your reasons for supporting the Bailout bill. While I understand some action is necessary, I firmly believe this plan would have done more harm than good. At the very least, it sends the message that poor management and decision making don’t have dire consequences and lays the burden for such behavior on the backs of the taxpayers - which coincidentally is ONLY ~60% of those who file income tax returns.

Furthermore, I’m a bit dismayed by your attempt to lay the blame for this credit crisis entirely on Wall Street and the Bush administration. I’m not going to defend Bush or his economic policies, though I will point out two facts that must have escaped your consideration.

1. This crisis was brought about largely by the subprime lending fiasco of recent years, which was fueled by the Community Reinvestment Act and mismanagement at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - both government sponsored enterprises (GSE). These are not “Wall Street” firms.
2. Congressional hearings were held in 2004 & 2005 regarding this mismanagement and, at that time, Republicans were calling for more oversight and regulation of these two entities. The Democrats in Congress, however, prevented such reform.

Personally, I believe there is plenty of blame to go around - Wall Street greed, crony capitalism, and both parties have created this mess. Furthermore, I believe the American electorate should own up to most of it for putting partisans like you in office. I, for one, will not fall for your blame game politics. I would desperately like to see changes in Washington, but it is obvious to me you won’t be part of it.

Regards,

Randy Arabie
Independent Voter

CSPAN footage of congressional oversight hearings held in 2004 and 2005. The regulators were predicting the mortgage industry meltdown and DEMOCRATS blocked the REPUBLICAN efforts to enact regulations to prevent it.

George Friedman, Chief Intelligence Officer at Stratfor, is preparing a four-part report on the United States Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy. That debate is scheduled for Friday, 26 September 2008. The first installment frames the questions that the next president will face and is linked below. I’ll update this post daily with links to the other three installments as they are made available.

Part 1 - The New President and the Global Landscape - September 23
This introductory piece frames the questions that the next president will face. Regardless of a given candidate’s policy preferences, there are logistical and geographical constraints that shape US and foreign options. The purpose of this analysis is to describe the geopolitical landscape for the next administration. The analysis concludes with a list of questions for the debate that define the parameters facing both candidates.

Part 2 - Obama’s Foreign Policy Stance - September 24
Senator Obama has issued position papers and made statements about his intended foreign policy. Like all Presidents, he would also be getting input from a variety of others, principally from his own party. This second analysis analyzes the foreign policy position of Sen. Obama and the Democratic Party.

Part 3 - McCain’s Foreign Policy Stance - September 25
Senator McCain has issued position papers and made statements about his intended foreign policy. Like all Presidents, he would also be getting input from a variety of others, principally from his own party. This second analysis analyzes the foreign policy position of Sen. McCain and the Republican Party.

Part 4 - George Friedman on the Presidential Debate - September 29
The final installment in this series will be produced after the debate. This is NOT an effort to call a “winner” or “loser.” That’s for pundits, not an intelligence service. This will be an analysis of the candidates’ statements and positions.