New Address

This blog can now be found at The Wandering Donkey: http://www.thewanderingdonkey.com

Thanks,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Palin Tax Returns Returned

Well, Sarah Palin released her tax returns on Friday afternoon. As someone who has largely done their own taxes for his own lifetime, I can still hardly sit in judgement on hers. Therefore let's turn to the experts!

As a preface to other things in this post I submit an excerpt of what Roger Olsen, Governor Sarah Palin's tax attorney, included their release of her records:

Unless employees have reason to know that the W-2 is incorrect, the IRS expects employees to rely on the employer's W-2 as prepared & filed with the IRS, as Governor Palin did.  The income tax aspects of fringe benefits are complex and highly technical, and not subject to second-guessing by laymen. The State of Alaska is confident that its position is correct.  Its employees were entitled to rely on that determination, So was Governor Palin.

Finally, under State law, the spouse of the Governor (or other family members on occasion) is entitled to payment of travel costs by the state when conducting official State business. I find no reason or rule of law that would lead me to a different conclusion as to his receipt of such State payments. Such payments for family members traveling on state business would not properly be included as taxable income on Governor Palin's federal tax returns.

Sounds a little defensive? No? Let's see what Paul Caron says, shall we?

Both conclusions seem problematic. If an employer mistakenly fails to include an item of income from an employee's W-2, does that really relieve en employee of her obligation to report the income on her tax return? How does Mr. Olsen's conclusion regarding the reimbursement for expenses of the Governor's spouse and children square with § 274(m)(3)? Undoubtedly the most amazing (brazen?) aspect of Mr. Olsen's opinion letter is that he cites absolutely no law in the four pages to support his conclusions -- no code or regulation sections, cases, or rulings.

Another discrepancy is the $196,531.50 income as Governor reported on her financial disclosure form (with the notation "[a]s reported to filer by State of Alaska"), compared to the $107,987 wages, tips, other compensation and $122,401.43 Medicare wages and tips reported by the state of Alaska on the W-2 attached to her tax return.

Now, I am no expert here. I freely admit that. I will tell you this, however, I insist on no wishy-washy BS when it comes to filing my tax return. That is whether I prepare, a "tax preparer" does it, or I hire a CPA. All of which have happened in my life. I want no controversy with the IRS!

Our "Maverick^TM " Governor Sarah Palin, however, is willing to challenge the "man." I personally find the discrepancy between the returns and the campaign filings particularly disturbing. It's almost as if she is saying "Well...the State originally said X amount was taxable, but, since I am the Governor, I got them to say it was really only Y."

As anyone who has ever dealt with the IRS knows, no private employer, and that includes states, gets to determine, in and of itself, what is federally taxable income, except the IRS itself. They get really, really, really, really annoyed when you try to mess with them. Especially when you are just citing your own beliefs and no enforcible laws, codes or rulings to back up your belief.

Minimum expectation? Governor Palin, win or lose, can look forward to a thorough review of her returns for the last god knows how many years. The IRS has to investigate it now. It is in the public domain and it looks at least a little iffy. They don't get to take a pass now. They have to be impartial.

Now, this sort of gets me to my next point. Why were only two years released? Where is the rest?

Most of the time, you get people releasing an amount equivalent to what could be audited by the IRS. Roughly seven years worth of returns. There is no rule on this or nearly any disclosure by candidates running for public office.

The concern here is we don't have a clean, no problems, return from either of the last two years, necessarily. That makes it all the more necessary to scrutinize the previous years to see if there is a pattern. But, they are not there, like they are for every other candidate.

That, in and of itself, will invite additional questions.

Do these people think at all before they act? It makes me proud of the Carter, Mondale and Dukakis campaigns!;-)

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Sphere: Related Content

Let me see....

There is some buzz over the fact that Sarah Palin seems to have extensively used notes during last night's debate. Think Progress has a good post and video compliation:



Andrew Sullivan wonders if the candidates were allowed to bring in scripts?

I expect to see more on this. Wouldn't this normally be pounced upon? Can you imagine John Edwards or Joe Leiberman or Jack Kemp having a "script" at the lectern with them? Would would the media do with that? I know we're kinda offering a little bit of a mulligan here but c'mon!

I be less annoyed if she had actually answered more of Gwen Ifill's questions. But as I said last night, Joe Biden was debating a stump speech and that point is truer than ever.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Sphere: Related Content

Uh oh.

This can't be good (for certain Republicans with national office aspirations). The judge in Alaska just told the five Republicans trying to stop the "Troopergate" probe to piss off (AP):

Judge Peter Michalski on Thursday threw out the lawsuit filed by five Republican state legislators who claimed the investigation had been manipulated by Palin enemies who wanted to produce a damaging report just weeks before Election Day. Their attorney, Kevin Clarkson, said the legislative body that ordered the investigation had exceeded its authority.

But Michalski agreed with defense attorney Peter Maassen, who argued that the Legislature has broad authority to investigate the governor. The mere appearance of impropriety does not mean any individual's right to fairness was violated, Michalski wrote in his decision.

"It is legitimately within the scope of the legislature's investigatory power to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the termination (of) a public officer the legislature had previously confirmed," the judge wrote.

As you can see on the right, Governor Sarah Palin is considering alternate strategies for solving this problem.

It in the meantime, Steve Branchflower, the investigator that the Alaska State Legislature hired to investigate this, is expected to turn in his report next week on October 10.

Just curious, will we ever have a slow news week again? Ever?

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Sphere: Related Content

He'll know how to win a war.

Governor Sarah Palin, from the New York Times transcript:

I think tomorrow morning, the pundits are going to start do the who said what at what time and we'll have proof of some of this, but, again, John McCain who knows how to win a war. Who's been there and he's faced challenges and he knows what evil is and knows what it takes to overcome the challenges here with our military.

He knows to learn from the mistakes and blunders we have seen in the war in Iraq, especially. He will know how to implement the strategies, working with our commanders and listening to what they have to say, taking the politics out of these war issues. He'll know how to win a war.

I bring this up for a simple, politically incorrect, reason. If you watch the video, and see the context, it is clear that Sarah Palin is inferring that John McCain knows how to win from experience. Unfortunately, his military experience came at a time that did not demonstrate any great military success for this country.

Now, this is no fault of his, or any other person who served with him at that time (at least at his level). But where the hell does "he knows how to win" come from?

His grandfather and father? Certainly they both were exemplary in their service to their country and helped us win the most important war this country has ever been in. But does that really qualify John McCain as someone who "knows how to win" this war?

His service in the Senate during the Gulf War possibly? By that logic Joe Biden knows how to win just as well!

I refuse to accept the idea that John McCain knows how to win this war because he served in Vietnam. Why the hell didn't the country elect John Kerry four years ago if that is the case?

Vietnam taught us how to lose a war, not win it. It taught us to be wary of what we are getting involved in and why. It is the reason a very sizeable chunk of Americans opposed going into Iraq in the first place. It did not teach anybody how to win a war though.

If that is why he "knows how to win" this war then you just opened up a can of worms, lady. Because a lot of us would like to know why it is that John McCain didn't take the same lesson a lot of the rest of us did away from Vietnam. Caution in committing our young men and women to battle. Prudence in deciding whether put their lives in jeopardy. Heck, how about a plan for removing them from harm's way if the proverbial cow pattie's hit the fan, or even if they don't. We still have images of our exit from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon embedded in our memory. There was a flawed/non-existent exit strategy there too.

John McCain does not seem to have learned any of these lessons from his service in Vietnam. When combined with the fact that we did not win Vietnam either, it makes one wonder exactly where in Senator John S. McCain III's past this overwhelming experience to become Commander in Chief actually occurs?

I had a great deal of respect for John McCain before this campaign. I still respect his service to his country. I respect that he suffered, greatly, and still does, for his country and countrymen and women. I am sorry though. As worthy of respect as his service and suffering are, neither are necessarily a qualification to be President of the United States of America. Sorry John, I'm not buying anymore. That may not be politically correct but it makes it no less true.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Sphere: Related Content

"Shout Out" to North Carolina

I hadn't had this thought myself until I read it over at The Arena. James Pinkerton says:

Palin is no Dan Quayle. But Biden may have won North Carolina for his ticket with that generous comment about Jesse Helms.

Here is the quote he was referring to (transcript via NYT):

I have been able to work across the aisle on some of the most controversial issues and change my party's mind, as well as Republicans', because I learned a lesson from Mike Mansfield.

Mike Mansfield, a former leader of the Senate, said to me one day -- he -- I made a criticism of Jesse Helms. He said, "What would you do if I told you Jesse Helms and Dot Helms had adopted a child who had braces and was in real need?" I said, "I'd feel like a jerk."

He said, "Joe, understand one thing. Everyone's sent here for a reason, because there's something in them that their folks like. Don't question their motive."

It probably hadn't occurred to me because it still hasn't sunk in that we have a legitimate shot at North Carolina this year. Still I hadn't heard anyone else mention this. Very insightful.

Was it intentional or just a bonus that Biden did that?

C'mon! We're talking David Axelrod! Of course it was intentional! Or, at least, he'll definitely say it was!

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Sphere: Related Content

There you go again...

First impression I have of the Senator Joseph Biden vs. Governor Sarah Palin debate is that Joe Biden debated a stump speech. A very folksy stump speech.

He did, I think, debate it well. Did he win?

Well, I don't think he lost. Nor do I think Gov. Palin lost either.

Her ability to completely ignore the questions posed was spectacular. Apparently she thinks she has no "achilles heel."

I think that, long term, she did lose. She made gaffes. Not too many obvious ones but a couple.

• The commander in Afghanistan is McKiernan not McClellan (that was the Civil War or War of Northern Aggression guy, depending on where you're from.)


• She challenged Biden on his quote of McKiernan when he is right and she is wrong.


• She undid what Obama voted for in the 2005 Energy Bill? Really? Specifics please.

There are plenty more and I'm sure I'll post about some of them in the next few days.

One more deserves special attention though. And may get her in some really hot water.

That is the assertion that the expansion of power that Vice President Dark Lord Dick Cheney has asserted is not only valid but should be expanded. All one can say about that is WOW. I would think that Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt both said "NOOOOO!" in the back room when she uttered that. That was a really scary answer.

Sen. Kit Bond was quick to dismiss the idea as ridiculous after the debate. But I think the damage was done.

Ultimately, this debate shored up the base for Governor Sarah Palin and made her seem less of a total disaster to the center. I don't think she convinced many moderates who are on the fence though. If anyone did that it was Joe Biden.

She does win in that she avoided what even many conservatives thought might happen. She didn't melt down. It wasn't a disaster. That, in it's own way, is a win.

This probably won't move anything either way. That is probably a net plus for both campaigns.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Sphere: Related Content

Sarah and the old senator

Via Ben Smith:

"Oh no, it's nothing negative at all. He's got a lot of experience and just stating the fact there, that we've been hearing his speeches for all these years. So he's got a tremendous amount of experience and, you know, I'm the new energy, the new face, the new ideas and he's got the experience based on many many years in the Senate and voters are gonna have a choice there of what it is that they want in these next four years."

Now, I'd be happy to go off on this latest Sarah Palin gaffe but somebody else already did a great job that I don't think I can surpass - John Aravosis at AmericaBlog:

So Palin is now saying that she wasn't trying to say "don't vote for the old guy." Instead, she was trying to say "vote for the new guy, not the guy with the old face who's been in the Senate a really long time."

You can't write this stuff folks. Every network and Hollywood studio in the world would toss this script in the garbage. Unbelievable.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Sphere: Related Content

Pelosi not to blame; Should McCain supend? Sadly and seriously.

The work of fiction that Nancy Pelosi is to blame for yesterday's bailout vote is fading. On Nightline last night, Roy Blunt (R-MO) stepped back (via Political Punch):

Blunt was reluctant to attribute the loss of 12 Republican votes entirely to Pelosi's speech, but did say her speech was not helpful. "We clearly had some Members that were there but were precariously there and one or two of them may have been affected by the Speaker's speech," Blunt said. "In the weekend of negotiating this, the spirit in the room was very good, but the press conferences the Speaker and a few Democrats had outside the room were invariably partisan. None of that helped."

Blunt said that Republican leaders "had twelve people beyond, that we thought we had going into the float that we didn't have for various reasons and I haven't had time to go back and ask them all why it was that they didn't do what we thought they were gonna do ... That one speech was not helpful but I think you don't want to give too much blame to that speech."

I listened to Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) this morning on WCPN's The Sound of Ideas say that anyone who's vote was changed by Nancy Pelosi's speech isn't seriously considering the situation and should find a new line of work. One of the few times I have actually found some respect for him.

Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) said "not a single vote" was changed by Pelosi's speech on MSNBC this morning with Joe Scarborogh (via TPM):



I told you yesterday, John Boehner is the one with egg on his face. He's the one who rallied behind the bill and then couldn't deliver the votes. Him...and OH YEAH! John McCain. Watch the spectacular tap dancing of Douglas Holtz-Eakin did on MSNBC yesterday:



Just as an aside, isn't it nice that at least most of the major networks, except for They Who Must Not Be Named, are no longer taking anything a McCain campaign spokesperson says at face value? It really is starting to restore my faith in journalism.

Even the McCain campaign has now stopped trying to pin this on Obama and the democrats directly. They have chosen a different tack. Blaming the Democrats and Barack Obama for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and this entire situation in their latest commercial:



According to Greg Sargent at TPM ElectionCentral, they released this ad just moments after John McCain said this in Iowa:

"I am disappointed at the lack of resolve and bipartisan good will among members of both parties to fix this problem," McCain said today in Des Moines, Iowa. "Bipartisanship is a tough thing; never more so when you're trying to take necessary but publicly unpopular action. But inaction is not an option."

"I call on everyone in Washington to come together in a bipartisan way to address this crisis," McCain later said.

Sadly, we have another month plus of this to go folks. I almost worry that if McCain just continues to be stupid people might start to like him for being a stubborn stupid. I hope that that is a ridiculous worry.

Finally, in what is admittedly a long post, even for me, the "good" people at FOX News (Oops! I named them!) fell over themselves trying to goad John McCain into fake suspending his campaign again:



As you can see, he will consider it.

The circus known as McCain-Palin 2008 must obviously go on.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Sphere: Related Content

Yeah, I trust you....

I'd love to know how effective this Wachovia add this morning on WSJ.com is?

I know it takes time to actually pull ads, but sheesh.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Sphere: Related Content