Obama transition team pay-for-play scandal of the week. Un fucking real.

Adolfo Carrion, named as Obama's "urban czar", took thousands of dollars in donations from developers as Bronx borough president just before and after the developers scored big with approved projects:

quote:

The man who is President Obama’s newly minted urban czar pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers’ money, a Daily News probe found. Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion often received contributions just before or after he sponsored money for projects or approved important zoning changes, records show. Most donations were organized and well-timed. In one case, a developer became a Carrion fund-raiser two months before the borough president signed off on his project, raising more than $6,000 in campaign cash. In another, eight Boricua College officials came up with $8,000 on the same day for Carrion three weeks before the school filed plans to build a new tower. Carrion ultimately approved the project and sponsored millions in taxpayer funds for it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...ns_rained_.html

"Some will say that this is just a coincidence. If so, then Carrion has to be one of the luckiest fellows in New York. The Daily News details a few of the highlights in Carrion’s ledger and in Bronx development over the last few years:

-Jonathan Coren started fundraising for Carrion three weeks before getting permission to build 166 units of affordable housing. Cohen had never raised funds for any politician before then, but managed to raise over $2500 for Carrion before getting the project. He raised over $3000 in a few weeks afterwards.
-Boricua Village first hit the books in March 2006. Three weeks later, its backers raised $8750 for Carrion — all on the same day, from eight separate donors. Over the next year, Carrion would get almost $70,000 from Boricua College and Atlantic Development sources, and it paid off as Carrion approved the project.
-BTM Development Partners needed a critical zoning change for a project that elicited a large number of complaints about potential traffic and other problems in the community. Its executives began writing $1000 checks to Carrion. Three months later, they announced plans for hotel-retail complex, and four months after that, Carrion and the Bronx approved the zoning changes necessary.

After Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton, one might think that the Obama vetting team would have learned something. Apparently not, although in this case, they may not have to worry much. An “urban czar” doesn’t require Senate confirmation, which would have derailed Richardson and should have derailed Hillary.

Even apart from this, though, why does Obama need an “urban czar” at all? Wouldn’t any of the tasks assigned to Carrion normally fall under the aegis of Housing and Urban Development? Shaun Donovan must wonder why he’s attending Cabinet meetings. Does a Secretary outrank a Czar? If so, why have the czar at all?

One thing is certain. Obama ran on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Who knew he meant that he would increase the power of cronyism, payoffs, and patronage?"

* - We did. We warned people constantly about Chicago Machine politics. Too bad people didn’t listen.

-Ed Morrissey

Ed Morrisey should just cave and sign up a TA account. Would you like to start a pissing match about this week's Republican corrupt officials that nobody deems newsworthy?

Sen. Sununu:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...n_board_o_1.php

Gov. Jindal:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...alse.php?ref=m3

Rep. Sessions:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme..._didnt_know.php

Sen. Hatch:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...l-transparency/

Sen. Gregg:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...ct_in_which.php

Naw, I wouldn't do that to you. It would get pretty annoying for you to have to argue with a blog, now wouldn't it?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Ed Morrisey should just cave and sign up a TA account. Would you like to start a pissing match about this week's Republican corrupt officials that nobody deems newsworthy?

Who gives a flying fuck who commented on it? Stop trying to distract from the fact that yet another of what was supposed to be the "most amazing cabinet ever" and part of a "new kind of politics" is continually being exposed as nothing but corrupt, cheating low lifes.

I don't give a shit if Arianna Huffington herself reported it (which she never would)... the fact of the matter is that another one of Obama's appointees has been exposed, thus reflecting poorly on your savior.

It would be funny if it weren't so damned sad. At least this is a "small" amount by comparison. However, Obama said he was going to be the standard bearer so it's all fair game, IMO.

quote:

Obama trade nominee fixes errors in tax returns Mon Mar 2, 2009 4:22pm EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's nominee to be U.S. trade representative, former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, has filed amended tax returns after a review found he failed to pay taxes on $37,750 in speaking fees he donated to his college alma mater, a Senate panel said on Monday. "Staff estimates the total tax adjustment on Mayor Kirk's amended returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007 will be approximately $9,975," the Senate Finance Committee said. Kirk also amended his tax returns to reduce the amount of business expense he claimed for Dallas Mavericks basketball tickets in 2005 through 2007, the panel said. He is the fifth of Obama's nominees to run into trouble over back taxes. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis faced questions over her husband's unpaid business taxes. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed by the Senate after paying $34,000 in late self-employment taxes. Tom Daschle, Obama's first choice to be health secretary, withdrew from consideration after paying $140,000 in back taxes and penalties, and Nancy Killefer, Obama's choice to oversee budget and spending reform, also withdrew over tax issues.

http://www.reuters.com/article/poli...E52162920090302

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Who gives a flying fuck who commented on it? Stop trying to distract from the fact that yet another of what was supposed to be the "most amazing cabinet ever" and part of a "new kind of politics" is continually being exposed as nothing but corrupt, cheating low lifes. I don't give a shit if Arianna Huffington herself reported it (which she never would)... the fact of the matter is that another one of Obama's appointees has been exposed, thus reflecting poorly on your savior.

I care when 75% of your posts are copy pasta jobs from Ed Morrisey... if I wanted to debate a blog, I'd post in the comments of said blog, not sit here on an internet forum and debate Ed Morrisey by proxy.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I care when 75% of your posts are copy pasta jobs from Ed Morrisey... if I wanted to debate a blog, I'd post in the comments of said blog, not sit here on an internet forum and debate Ed Morrisey by proxy.

Attack the individual, not the content. Classic move by you. You still haven't rebutted the shamefulness of another cabinet appointment by Obama, because A) you can't, and B) it pains you to believe that the Obama administration isn't the perfection you thought it was.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Attack the individual, not the content. Classic move by you. You still haven't rebutted the shamefulness of another cabinet appointment by Obama, because A) you can't, and B) it pains you to believe that the Obama administration isn't the perfection you thought it was.

I've already addressed my thought on back taxes the first four times you've brought it up - it's impossible to be as squeaky clean as you expect everyone to be. I'm frankly just realistic about this - I posted a quote earlier from a former appointee stating that you basically have to start preparing from the age of eight for an appointed position in order to make sure you've never made an error that can be construed as your fault. It's kind of absurd really - the guy owes 9,000 bucks, which he owes due to a donation, and you're ready to say he's not fit to do his job? As long as he pays what's due immediately after the oversight is brought to his attention, I have no problem here.

This is exactly why I said I don't really care much that there are Republicans guilty of the same thing.

Non-issue, in my opinion.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I've already addressed my thought on back taxes the first four times you've brought it up - it's impossible to be as squeaky clean as you expect everyone to be. I'm frankly just realistic about this - I posted a quote earlier from a former appointee stating that you basically have to start preparing from the age of eight for an appointed position in order to make sure you've never made an error that can be construed as your fault. It's kind of absurd really - the guy owes 9,000 bucks, which he owes due to a donation, and you're ready to say he's not fit to do his job? As long as he pays what's due immediately after the oversight is brought to his attention, I have no problem here. This is exactly why I said I don't really care much that there are Republicans guilty of the same thing. Non-issue, in my opinion.

In the grand scheme of things, the IRS probably doesn't even care about 9,000 in back taxes. In normal cases (i know these aren't the facts in this case), that could be an overstatement of expenses by as little as 25K. Not much for a business owner. Someone could easily exceed that by miscalculating depreciation on a capital asset.

Let's be realistic. If taxes were so easy to do individuals wouldn't pay accountants (and tax prep services) to fill out the forms, and companies wouldn't spend millions of dollars a year on compliance costs and tax advice.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Let's be realistic. If taxes were so easy to do individuals wouldn't pay accountants (and tax prep services) to fill out the forms, and companies wouldn't spend millions of dollars a year on compliance costs and tax advice.

Enter the Fair Tax.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Enter the Fair Tax.

people who advocate the fair tax don't understand the cases in which the most complex rules arise. Partnership taxation is far more complicated than individual taxation, and more complicated than most issues facing corporations. Nevertheless, the fair tax wouldn't affect partnership taxation (to the best of my knowledge) because the main purposes of partnership taxation is to determine the income of each parter so that partner will be taxed on his share of the partnership income, and to prevent abuses of the system. The rules relating to partnerships are not meant to tax partnerships.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 people who advocate the fair tax don't understand the cases in which the most complex rules arise. Partnership taxation is far more complicated than individual taxation, and more complicated than most issues facing corporations. Nevertheless, the fair tax wouldn't affect partnership taxation (to the best of my knowledge) because the main purposes of partnership taxation is to determine the income of each parter so that partner will be taxed on his share of the partnership income, and to prevent abuses of the system. The rules relating to partnerships are not meant to tax partnerships.

I was responding more to your comment about individuals. Corporations still have to have CPAs and yearly audits, so hopefully their tax preparation is a bit more robust (though fraud and errors are clearly still made). However, Fair Tax would definitely make things simpler and less error prone at the individual level. And I have to admit that I'm a big fan of the extra revenues it would bring in by enabling the collection of taxes from tourists from abroad among other things.