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

TPM Sarah Palin Earmarks video

For your viewing pleasure:



Yup, she hates earmarks alright;-)!

The great crew at TPM has now dug even deeper uncovering just what it was that the State of Alaska and it's reform-minded governor were asking for. The link to TPMMuckraker is here. The link to the State of Alaska's requests is here.

Apparently, it includes $3.2 million for seal genetics research among a slew of other things. I pick this out because TPM Muckraker contrasts this with John McCain:

"We're not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana," McCain said earlier this year, referring to a request from Montana for federal money to study the endangered grizzly bear. "I don't know if it was a paternity issue or criminal, but it was a waste of money."

It's amazing. You really have to wonder if Bill Clinton would have gotten away scot free with the "I did not inhale." line if Karl Rove had been his advisor. Hell, he might never have gotten impeached!

Lie. Lie. Lie. Repeat. Lie. Lie. Lie. Repeat.

Have at it! Truth! Truth! Truth! Repeat!

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Ads Including Olympic Ad Buy

The first ad is the "Hands" that is airing during the Olympics:



Nice. Refreshing. Positive. Makes me actually not hate this election. Amazing.

And now, to paraphrase (or more precisely, to quote) John Cleese, for something completely different:



Now here is something that I actually disagree with the Barack Obama on. Vehemently. Of course, it is only airing in Nevada. If you asked the average non-Nevadan what his position on Yucca Mountain is, you would probably get a shrug.

I can only assume we are to leave the waste in the rapidly filling containment pools that they are currently in indefinitely? Perhaps we shall wait until a foolproof way to launch the waste into space toward the sun in a space vehicle that cannot possibly fail during launch and spread radioactive waste across the Atlantic Ocean and beyond before we deal with the problem. Indeed he has NO long term plan. From a letter to the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

I want every Nevadan to know that I have always opposed using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository, and I want to explain the many reasons why I've held that view.

In my state of Illinois, we have faced our own issues of nuclear waste management. There are some who believe that Illinois should serve as a repository for nuclear waste from other states. My view on this subject was made clear in a 2006 letter to Sen. Pete Domenici, who at the time was chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. "States should not be unfairly burdened with waste from other states," I wrote. "Every state should be afforded the opportunity to chart a course that addresses its own interim waste storage in a manner that makes sense for that state."

That is a position I hold to this day when it comes to both Illinois and Nevada.

After spending billions of dollars on the Yucca Mountain Project, there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there. I believe a better short-term solution is to store nuclear waste on-site at the reactors where it is produced, or at a designated facility in the state where it is produced, until we find a safe, long-term disposal solution that is based on sound science.

In the meantime, I believe all spending on Yucca Mountain should be redirected to other uses, such as improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country and exploring other long-term disposal options.

There is no doubt that this is a difficult issue. But I believe our approach must be based on sound science above all else. I do not do the bidding of any special interest or industry, including the nuclear industry, which has a major presence in my state.

In my own campaign, I have not accepted donations from political action committees or Washington lobbyists. In fact, I've often taken positions at odds with special interests. When I learned that radioactive tritium had leaked out of an Exelon nuclear plant in Illinois, I led an effort in the Senate to require utilities to notify the public of any unplanned release of radioactive substances.

All Nevadans should know that as president, I will bring to this issue not just independent judgment and careful deliberation, but a personal appreciation that comes from my own experience of living in the back yard of hazardous nuclear materials. The safety and security of Nevadans and all Americans requires nothing less.

Barack Obama

WASHINGTON, D.C.

You see. NO long term plan. Just let's not put in all in one safe place. 50 different not as safe places is much better.

Continuing on, we have our most recent ad:



Not bad. A little negative early on. Got a little less negative as it when on.

I would like to see Barack Obama's campaign hold fire on the "George W. Bush Guns" until the final weeks of the campaign. You know the "Do you really want another four years of George W. Bush?" stuff to push the undecided independents, if not into his column, at least out of John McCain's column.

Using this stuff with nearly three months left will lessen the effect it might have at the end. Obama isn't desperate yet is he? If his campaign is, well, that is a real problem. I personally think they are just unintentionally desensitizing people by using this stuff at this point.

Overall the commercials are definitely less negative than that which his "I won't go negative" opponent's campaign has been spewing of late. Still, I would like to see more of the "Hands" type commercials.

Of course, that's what we all say. What we actually respond to is the negative. Or at least that is what all the research shows. I wish they were less correct.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Seriously. Is this the best you've got?

Check out the grand "I will not do negative campaigning" strategy of the John McCain campaign:



Is this seriously how they expect to win the election. You mean this is how Al Gore should have run against George W. Bush in 2000? No issues? Or at least, no issues represented properly. Blatant lies which have been debunked repeatedly?

Now, at least with George, we wouldn't have had to make stuff up like the "tax increase if you make over $42,000" thing. (BTW, the grand old man from Arizona still has no real plan to reduce the deficit, never mind paying for his own new ideas. Another reason to make this kind of crap. It deflects attention from that.)

Still, I think the high road looks a little better.

After all, in the story, the one taking the low road was drowned in the end.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Stumping On Gas Tax

Seriously, does Senator Barack Obama want the biggest differentiation between himself and Senator Hillary Clinton to be supported a "tax holiday" or not? You're really going to be the 'guy on the other side' of this issue:



Obama really needs to make this a non-issue by supporting ASAP, stupid or not, before it does real damage to his campaign.

Update: Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central says that Howard Wolfson just confirmed on a conference call that Sen. Clinton would be going forward with introducing legislation on the gas tax holiday. As he points out, it is unlikely to even come to a vote in the House with Nancy Pelosi opposing it, but can you really be sure she will still be opposing it next week? We'll see....

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Is Still Trying

Senator Barack Obama is still trying to explain the truth to people:



While, as I have said, the truth is a great idea, putting money, even 25 or 30 bucks, in people's pockets is even better. Barack, we live in a short term society. 'Give me money now' is the mantra. It is why Wall St. works the way it does. Dozens of companies have gotten into trouble in the past because they maximized short term profits to the detriment of long term viability. Dozens more will in the future. They are a mirror of our society. Or, vice versa. Go argue about that in the comments.

From the Wall St. Journal:

But the political popularity of gas-price relief illustrates the uphill climb facing Sen. Obama. After making his plea Thursday at a retirement community in Columbia City, Ind., an older voter asked him why he couldn't support a gas-tax holiday that would be funded by a tax on oil companies, as Sen. Clinton has proposed, because it would offer some short-term relief. "A lot of us are short term," she quipped.

The New York Times reports Senator Hillary Clinton putting the full court press on Congress:

“Do they stand with hard-pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills at the gas station or do they once again stand with the big oil companies?” Mrs. Clinton, of New York, said. “That’s a vote I’m going to try to get, because I want to know where they stand, and I want them to tell us — are they with us or against us?” (Some Clinton supporters and superdelegates in Congress are among those who oppose a gas tax holiday.)

The same article quotes Senator John McCain in Iowa:

“You’d think that I was attacking Western civilization as we know it,” Mr. McCain replied. “The special interests, ‘Oh, my God. This will destroy our transportation system in America. This will have disastrous consequences.’ Look, all I think is we ought to give low-income Americans, in particular, a little relief.”

I guess the battle lines are drawn. I think that Senator Obama is finding himself on the wrong side.

A ray of hope? Over at First Read, Domenico Montanaro reports that:

Since a gas tax holiday doesn't look feasible, congressional Dems are pushing an alternative that could give some money back to consumers.

And:

“Democrats are likely to propose a temporary ‘windfall-profits tax,’ possibly of 25%, on major oil companies. Companies would be exempt from the tax if they invested profits in domestically produced renewable fuels or expanded refinery capacity or renewable electricity production. Democrats were discussing Thursday how the additional tax revenues might be used, with some advocating rebates for consumers and others backing additional investment in research and incentives for renewable energy."

Now, I am unsure, since I have not really seen it elsewhere, why a 'gas tax holiday' would be unfeasible. Nevertheless, the whole 'windfall-profits tax' thing would fall right into Obama's lap. While it wouldn't turn the issue around it would at least neutralize it.

Now, if you excuse me, I will continue to search, much like Obama, for why the 'gas tax holiday' would be unfeasible.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Gas Tax High On List Again Today

OK folks. As I said yesterday, this whole proposal of a gas tax holiday is stupid. We all know that. Barack Obama knows that. Hillary Clinton knows that. John McCain knows that. Have we settled that?

Apparently not. It will take an awful lot of energy to convince your average American that a gas tax "holiday" is smoke and mirrors but apparently, at least for now, the media has decided to see if they can support Senator Barack Obama in his quest.

The Chicago Tribune correctly pointed out in on Tuesday that Senator John McCain was the one who let the genie out of the bottle. A fact that is mentioned only in passing, while heaping abuse on Senator Hillary Clinton in the Washington Post today.

James Fallows has it mentioned prominently in his "Stupidest policy ever" contest update over at The Atlantic.

Now, please bear in mind that I too agree that the whole proposal is an exercise in futility. My reference to the genie in the bottle has a purpose. As I argued yesterday, there are just to many people who will find this idea appealing for it to merely 'go away.' McCain let the genie out and now it isn't going back in.

Senator Obama and, apparently, the media for the moment, are trying to patiently explain to this constituency why this is all a farce. The effectiveness of this strategy will be seen in the not too distant future.

Even the WaPo article has a caveat in it's criticism of the proposed holiday:

Political consultant Carter Eskew, a former Al Gore adviser, said that if he were advising Obama, he would have said: "If you want to oppose this . . . you're going to have to spend a lot of time and energy explaining.

"I don't think it's brilliant economics; unfortunately, it may be good politics. The smart people say 'It's stupid,' and the people who aren't as schooled say 'At least it will do something for me,' " he said. "I don't know that anyone connects the dots: that there have been a series of politically expedient decisions . . . that have added up to an economic picture that is not at all rosy and in fact fairly disastrous."

This explains, more concisely than I, why I don't think that the Clinton camp made a bad decision here. McCain brought it up. You aren't going to be able to keep quiet about it. Do you, if you are running for president in a close race, support or oppose such an idea? Duh! I think this was a no-brainer for the Clinton camp.

I applaud Senator Obama for his courageousness in trying to patiently explain to the American people that this is stupid. But, in the middle of an economic crisis, I still think the pocket book wins out over logic. He is wasting a lot of energy in a battle I think he will ultimately lose. Not a good idea when you are running for any office, much less president.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

It May Be a Gimmick...But If It Gets Votes

The whole gas tax "holiday" or "moratorium" or whatever we are calling it today may indeed be a "gimmick" as Sen. Obama says. It may also play well with the American public.

The Los Angeles Times has one column critical of the whole proposal. It even includes specific reasons that Sen. Obama may be hostile to the proposals of Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is refusing to play along with what he has called a gas-tax "scheme,” perhaps because he has learned from experience. When he was an Illinois state senator in 2000, he voted in favor of a six-month suspension of the state's sales tax on gasoline. A study later showed that the state lost $175 million in revenue, and consumers barely benefited -- gas prices simply rose to make up for the tax cut. Any economist could have predicted this: If you lower the price of gas without increasing the supply, it will only raise demand and thus boost prices.

Marc Ambinder has a post in The Atlantic that has reasoning from economist Jonah Gelbach on why all of this won't work.

Despite all of this, do you really think the idea of a "Gas Tax Holiday" is going to go away? Hell no! It sounds too good to too many Americans. It sounds good to conservatives and libertarians who hate taxes anyway. It sounds good to poor Americans who can't afford gas from week to week. It sounds good to middle class Americans who also can't afford gas from week to week.

Opposing the idea on the grounds that it is just a smoke screen is all well and good in and of itself but it won't matter to these people. A "Gas Tax Holiday" is going to be a popular idea. Senator Obama should get on board and shape it rather than oppose it. For instance, if Senator Clinton's plan goes forward, it will, allegedly, be revenue neutral while Senator McCain's plan will add to the deficit.

You aren't going to stop it. You might as well limit whatever damage might occur from all of this. Meanwhile, you are supporting a popular, if empty, position. Keyword: Popular. It may be stupid, but if it gets you votes than what the heck are you doing?! JMHO.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content