U. S. Politics II

[Annelise]

On the one to vote against Clinton for SoS:

[quote]Vitter's statement on his Clinton confirmation "NO" vote:

“Senator Clinton is certainly a smart, capable colleague, and I take no pleasure in voting against her confirmation. But I must do so for one compelling reason.

“I believe President Clinton’s business and foundation dealings are a multi-million dollar minefield of conflicts of interest. And this could produce explosions at any minute, particularly concerning the Middle East where we least need them. The MOU between the Clinton Foundation and the Obama transition doesn’t solve those fundamental conflict problems,” said Vitter.[/quote]

I laughed my butt off watching the Daily Show cover it, last night. Showing Kerry drone on and on, then flipping to Clinton's expression. :rofl: I tell you what, I know that look has been on my face in similar situations.

Anyhow, anyone agree with Vitter? I can't say I entirely disagree, but I also don't fear this as a matter of corruption, of Hillary being potentially swayed/bought. Just of scandal, which has been known to touch the Clinton's in the past. I agree that potential scandal is not enough to keep from confirming her as SoS, though.

*********************

I see the R's got Hutchison to stay on in the Senate for at least another year, rather than risk a special election and Texans sigh in relief. If Franken is, in fact, seated, I can just imagine the intensity of campaigning Texas would see, as Dems try to hit 60.

**********************

NYT summary of Obama's stimulus plan:

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/15/washington/AP-Obama-Stimulus-Glance.html?_r=2"]http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/15...lance.html?_r=2[/url]

I'm not sure where Congressional support for this stands, other than catching headlines that he's got various fights on his hands.

***********************

McCain to ally with "that One"? Rick Santorum says yes.

[quote]I believe Obama has an ace in the hole among Senate Republicans. This unlikely ace can deliver not only the GOP moderates needed to break a filibuster, but also the stamp of bipartisanship: the 2008 GOP standard bearer, John McCain.

McCain was once the mainstream media darling, back when he joined Democrats on a host of issues. He prized his maverick moniker and used it to propel himself onto the national scene in the 2000 Republican presidential primary. Early in the Bush years, he shored up his status as the media's favorite Republican by opposing Bush on taxes and the environment.

But this love fest came to a halt when McCain became the front-runner for the GOP nomination. First he began to sound more like a conservative by altering his stands on immigration, the environment and taxes. Then he named Sarah Palin his running mate. It was too much for a media that had fallen head over heels for Obama. The media had a new darling.

In McCain's mind, however, losing the presidency will not be the final chapter of his life story. He knows the path to "Big Media" redemption. Working with the man who vanquished him in November will show them all the real McCain again.

Remember, it was this onetime prisoner of war who led the charge to open diplomatic relations with Vietnam. If that past is prologue, and McCain's legislative record is any guide, he will not just join with Obama but lead the charge in Congress on global warming, immigration "reform," the closing of Guantanamo, federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research, and importation of prescription drugs.

But McCain won't stop there in his effort to rehabilitate himself in the media's - or maybe his own - eyes. He will forge common ground on a long list of initiatives that go far beyond where he has gone before, including the stimulus package.

Alas, the two White House rivals now stand positioned to help secure each other's place in history.[/quote]

[WarGalley]

[quote name='Annelise' post='1650095' date='Jan 15 2009, 11.45']I laughed my butt off watching the Daily Show cover it, last night. Showing Kerry drone on and on, then flipping to Clinton's expression. :rofl: I tell you what, I know that look has been on my face in similar situations.[/quote]

:lol: I thought that was hilarious. Kerry, good lord man, vote yes and move on. All the praising seemed like such a formality and a waste of time to me. I would have fell asleep if I was Hillary too.

[quote name='Annelise' post='1650095' date='Jan 15 2009, 11.45']Anyhow, anyone agree with Vitter? I can't say I entirely disagree, but I also don't fear this as a matter of corruption, of Hillary being potentially swayed/bought. Just of scandal, which has been known to touch the Clinton's in the past. I agree that potential scandal is not enough to keep from confirming her as SoS, though.[/quote]

I'm not really bothered by it. I imagine there are worse conflicts of interest in Congress than this one. As a political move, I'm pretty surprised he voted against her but I'm not very familiar with Vitter.

[Annelise]

Glen Greenwald discusses this by the Washington Post's David Ignatius:

[quote]To underscore the message, Obama indicated that he would oppose retrospective investigations of wrongdoing by the CIA and other agencies, arguing: "When it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed [to] looking at what we got wrong in the past." This is the kind of realism that will disappoint liberal score-settlers, but it makes clear that Obama has a grim appreciation of the dangers America still faces from al-Qaeda and its allies.[/quote]

Greenwald's reaction here: [url="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/15/ignatius/"]http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/15/ignatius/[/url]

A few bits:

[quote]So when these media and political elites are defending Bush officials, mitigating their crimes, and arguing that they shouldn't be held accountable, they're actually defending themselves. Just as Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller can't possibly demand investigations for crimes in which they were complicit, media stars can't possibly condemn acts which they supported or, at the very best, towards which they turned a blissfully blind eye. They can't indict Bush officials for what they did because to do so would be to indict themselves. Bush officials need to be exonerated, or at least have their crimes forgotten (look to the future and ignore the past, they all chime in unison), so that their own involvement in it will also be cleansed and then forgotten.

[...]

In a typically superb essay -- entitled "Flushing the Cheney Administration Down the Memory Hole" -- Billmon compares the process currently underway to how adept the Soviets were at simply erasing embarrassing and unpleasant episodes from their history:[/quote]

What do you guys think? Would you be in favor of prosecutions or no? Is Obama disappointing here, or do you think he's being appropriately practical? Not stirring the pot in the name of getting things done?

[Narishma Reborn]

I think he's being disappointing and yet appropriately practical at the same time. I am disappointed that those responsible for authorizing torture and possibly other crimes will likely escape their deserved justice, but I admire Obama for choosing to prioritize other matters. He certainly could go after those people, and spend his (first?) four years fighting battle after battle that is rooted in the past, and expending valuable political capital that could be put to much better use improving our current state. I don't see why disappointing and practical cannot both be applied here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hey Democrats and Republicans are defending him but I'm still troubled by the Treasury nominee forgetting to pay his taxes for two years. Good lord he'll be in charge of the IRS.

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011403682.html?hpid=topnews"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews[/url]

[quote]Geithner is under scrutiny for a variety of errors on his tax returns, including using his child's time at overnight camps to calculate deductions for dependent-care, taking deductions for ineligible donations to charity and failing to pay an early-withdrawal penalty from a retirement plan. According to a Senate investigation, he also employed a housekeeper, a legal U.S. resident, whose work papers expired three months before she left his employ.

But those matters have drawn little attention from lawmakers, who have focused on Geithner's failure to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes while he was working at the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2004. After being audited by the IRS audit in 2006, Geithner repaid nearly $17,000 in back taxes and interest for 2003 and 2004. But he did not correct his returns for 2001 and 2002 until Obama summoned him to serve at the Treasury, when he voluntarily paid nearly $26,000 in back taxes and interest.

"He only fixed it after discovering he was going to be the nominee, so the timing is troubling," said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), adding that Geithner called him late Tuesday after the gaffes were revealed and was "very contrite."[/quote]

[AndyP]

[url="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rangel-to-reintroduce-military-draft-measure-2009-01-14.html"]The Hill[/url]

[quote]Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) likely will introduce his controversial legislation to reinstate the draft again this year, but he will wait until after the economic stimulus package is passed.

Asked if he plans to introduce the legislation again in 2009, Rangel last week said, “Probably … yes. I don’t want to do anything this early to distract from the issue of the economic stimulus.”[/quote]

Why would it be a distraction from the economic stimulus, it's a jobs bill. ;) You don't even have to try to get the job, it gets you. :smoking:

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1650296' date='Jan 15 2009, 14.57']Good lord he'll be in charge of the IRS.[/quote]

Be a little more specific, Scot. What, specifically, is the danger posed by Geithner being put in charge of the IRS?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Harry,

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1650334' date='Jan 15 2009, 15.21']Be a little more specific, Scot. What, specifically, is the danger posed by Geithner being put in charge of the IRS?[/quote]

It speaks to his competence or alternately a willingness to game the system. The person who's in charge of the IRS should know when they are being paid the net or gross income and whether they need to be reporting income to the IRS quarterly. As I said, it bothers me.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1650347' date='Jan 15 2009, 15.30']It speaks to his competence or alternately a willingness to game the system. The person who's in charge of the IRS should know when they are being paid the net or gross income and whether they need to be reporting income to the IRS quarterly. As I said, it bothers me.[/quote]

Geithner's not going to be writing tax regulations himself, though. No Treasury Secretary would. Regulatory decisions are done by career public servants, I'm pretty sure, and I bet that absent extraordinary circumstances Geithner wouldn't even look over them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Harry,

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1650448' date='Jan 15 2009, 16.37']Geithner's not going to be writing tax regulations himself, though. No Treasury Secretary would. Regulatory decisions are done by career public servants, I'm pretty sure, and I bet that absent extraordinary circumstances Geithner wouldn't even look over them.[/quote]

You don't think it's a problem to have a treasury secretary who can't figure out how to pay his taxes properly or who is willing to play fast and loose with his taxes?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1650477' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.05']You don't think it's a problem to have a treasury secretary who can't figure out how to pay his taxes properly or who is willing to play fast and loose with his taxes?[/quote]

I think it's a problem. I just don't think it's a big problem, partially because I don't think he was playing fast and loose with his taxes.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1650477' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.05']Harry,

You don't think it's a problem to have a treasury secretary who can't figure out how to pay his taxes properly or who is willing to play fast and loose with his taxes?[/quote]
Less of a problem than an attorney general who thinks he's the President's personal fixer, or having the head of the Justice Department's voting rights division making "[url="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/tanner_sends_letter_to_berry_apologizing_for_racist_email.php"]black and bitter like coffee[/url]" jokes about the black woman who was chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights.

You know, people who work for the guy you voted into office.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Harry,

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1650480' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.07']I think it's a problem. I just don't think it's a big problem, partially because I don't think he was playing fast and loose with his taxes.[/quote]

From the WaPo article I quoted above:

[quote]But those matters have drawn little attention from lawmakers, who have focused on Geithner's failure to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes while he was working at the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2004. After being audited by the IRS audit in 2006, Geithner repaid nearly $17,000 in back taxes and interest for 2003 and 2004. But he did not correct his returns for 2001 and 2002 until Obama summoned him to serve at the Treasury, when he voluntarily paid nearly $26,000 in back taxes and interest.[/quote]

He was working for the IMF for 4 years and didn't know they weren't deducting his SS and Medicare taxes from his pay? That he needed to report to the IRS quarterly because they weren't doing automatic payroll deductions? Is he really that absient minded?

DG,

Yup. How does any of that relate to this nomination?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1650490' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.11']He was working for the IMF for 4 years and didn't know they weren't deducting his SS and Medicare taxes from his pay? That he needed to report to the IRS quarterly because they weren't doing automatic payroll deductions? Is he really that absient minded?[/quote]

Sure, why not? You fail to quote the part of the article that points out that Geithner was hardly alone in making this mistake, and that in fact many of his colleagues are similarly absent-minded. In fact, even the IRS seems to consider this a minor infraction, which is presumably why they allowed for an amnesty period.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1650490' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.11']DG,

Yup. How does any of that relate to this nomination?[/quote]
I'm just hoping my chosen candidate gets half as much latitude for fuckuppery as Bush got.

And I always am entertained by your selective outrage.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Harry,

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1650513' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.23']Sure, why not? You fail to quote the part of the article that points out that Geithner was hardly alone in making this mistake, and that in fact many of his colleagues are similarly absent-minded.[/quote]

Paint me skeptical. I have a hard time seeing someone who works for the IMF and is nominated to be U.S. Treasury Secretary as absent minded for 4 years about whether they are paying the SS and Medicare taxes and whether they are having their income taxes deducted from their pay. A few months I could see but we are talking about 4 years.

DG,

Not outraged. Bothered. That's different. Particularly when we're talking about the guy who's supposed to be the chief adminstrator of the U.S. tax system who forgets to pay taxes for 4 years.

[AndyP]

Ser Scott Harry

Unless something more comes to light this is a none issue.

DG
I assume that since your first instinct is to attack someone else, that you lack the intellectual capacity to defend your man, good one. You do realize that attacking former office holders B C D and soon to be former office holders E F and G is not a logical or rational defense of nominee A, or are you just throwing up flack aren't you?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1650519' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.30']Paint me skeptical. I have a hard time seeing someone who works for the IMF and is nominated to be U.S. Treasury Secretary as absent minded for 4 years about whether they are paying the SS and Medicare taxes and whether they are having their income taxes deducted from their pay. A few months I could see but we are talking about 4 years.[/quote]

So what's your argument? That nearly half of the American employees at the IMF conspired to cheat on their SS and Medicare taxes until caught by the IRS?

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='AndyP' post='1650520' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.30']DG
I assume that since your first instinct is to attack someone else, that you lack the intellectual capacity to defend your man, good one. You do realize that attacking former office holders B C D and soon to be former office holders E F and G is not a logical or rational defense of nominee A, or are you just throwing up flack aren't you?[/quote]
I don't see much to worry about with Geithner. Believe what you like about my intellectual capacity, but if Scot can work himself into these mini fits about Mickey Mouse shit from Obama appointees then I'm going to keep reminding him about what kind of a disaster he voted for.

[AndyP]

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1650524' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.34']I don't see much to worry about with Geithner. Believe what you like about my intellectual capacity, but if Scot can work himself into these mini fits about Mickey Mouse shit from Obama appointees then I'm going to keep reminding him about what kind of a disaster he voted for.[/quote]

To what point, so people can have more bad feelings about each other, this issue is a piffle. If your going to dredge up Bush is a jackass every time someone on team Obama gets criticized then we will never move forward. Your no different than Dirjj bringing up Clinton every time someone took a swing at Bush. That wasn't a valid defense then, nor is this now. Like I said unless something more comes up (like evidence showing intent of evade paying taxes) this isn't an issue. If people are going to have a knock down drag out fight over something at least do it for something important. Frankly DG, your smart enough.