Sebelius admits errors, pays $7,000 in back taxes

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
This is the stuff they caught, imagine what they didn't catch.

This.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

You think? Bush couldnt wipe his ass incorrectly without a headline and 8 days of investigation. Yes Bush's appointee's went through the same process, and unbelievably they paid their taxes!!!!!!!!!

The Democrats spent a month trying to steal the election and another month screaming like little babies about John Ashcroft.

If they didn't do due diligence on these cabinet members, well, they're dumber than they look.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: mugs
Wow, she's such a terrible person that she apparently made 49 charitable contributions over $250, and she paid off a mortgage that was under-water rather than doing a walk-away foreclosure.

This is the stuff they caught, imagine what they didn't catch.

Imagine what they didn't catch in YOUR taxes!

 

[StageLeft]

Seems benign. Funny that so many of Obama's people are getting outed like this, but any one of us could probably get into these errors.

I really bet that if you took 100 average people and went back 7 years on each of them that over 90% would have some kind of an error somewhere, even if small.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Seems benign. Funny that so many of Obama's people are getting outed like this, but any one of us could probably get into these errors.

I really bet that if you took 100 average people and went back 7 years on each of them that over 90% would have some kind of an error somewhere, even if small.

:thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Seems benign. Funny that so many of Obama's people are getting outed like this, but any one of us could probably get into these errors.

I really bet that if you took 100 average people and went back 7 years on each of them that over 90% would have some kind of an error somewhere, even if small.

Most of these are more than simply errors. They are flatout avoidance of paying taxes. In this case claiming charitable donations without proper proof and using the mortgage deduction when you clearly cant. And they claimed business expenses without reciepts.

If you go down the list of the tax cheats in this administration. I dont think there is one of them who simply made mistakes. They were trying to avoid taxes and they knew it.

 

[cumhail]

God, both sides are just so disgusting. The rabid Democrat supporters are now excusing everything their side does and attacking everything the other side does with the same zeal (no more, no less) that the rabid Republican supporters have been doing throughout the Bush admin. And after 8 years of Repub-supporters accusing anyone who doesn't blindly support anything and everything their president does of unpatriotism (if not flat-out treason), suddenly they've decided that it's far more patriotic to oppose first and think later.

Both sides make me sick and always have. This is why I vote both ways (often in the same cycle) and will forever refuse to declare myself a member of either party (or any other).

Personally, I'd like to see all this crap trigger an automatic audit of every member of congress, the cabinet, the white house, and their state equivalents (to name just a few). If they can't manage to pay their taxes, then they shouldn't be party of a governmental body that not only requires that the rest of us do, but also set the rules for us (but not necessarily them) to follow. Republican, Democrat, Independent... run them all out on a rail.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

Ah, now it's OK to cheat on taxes as long as your predecessors may have also cheated on their taxes? Two wrongs make a right, even when you have no evidence of the first wrong? It all makes sense now. You want all of your social programs, but you don't want members of your party to pay for them. Can't someone else do it? Partisan hack doesn't really do you justice.

 

[SAWYER]

Originally posted by: cumhail
God, both sides are just so disgusting. The rabid Democrat supporters are now excusing everything their side does and attacking everything the other side does with the same zeal (no more, no less) that the rabid Republican supporters have been doing throughout the Bush admin. And after 8 years of Repub-supporters accusing anyone who doesn't blindly support anything and everything their president does of unpatriotism (if not flat-out treason), suddenly they've decided that it's far more patriotic to oppose first and think later.

Both sides make me sick and always have. This is why I vote both ways (often in the same cycle) and will forever refuse to declare myself a member of either party (or any other).

Personally, I'd like to see all this crap trigger an automatic audit of every member of congress, the cabinet, the white house, and their state equivalents (to name just a few). If they can't manage to pay their taxes, then they shouldn't be party of a governmental body that not only requires that the rest of us do, but also set the rules for us (but not necessarily them) to follow. Republican, Democrat, Independent... run them all out on a rail.

*applauds*

 

[Thump553]

We've gone way, way overboard on the vetting process. One of MAIN things Sebelius is being labeled as a tax cheat now was her failure to get acknowledgement letters from 2 or 3 of the 49 charities she donated to. That's ridiculous.

Newsweek had an interesting article about this process and how it has gotten stricter and stricter in the last two decades. They mentioned one potential appointee who had to get a second mortgage to have the funds to hire his own counsel and accountants to review his stuff before his nomination would be submitted. Paying many thousands of dollars out of your own pocket in order to perform a government service-that's just wrong.

As one commentator in the Newsweek article pointed out, this effectively precludes nearly anyone from the business world considering an appointment, even if they could live with the big salary cut. Our candidate pool is narrowing down to professional government workers, academics and slugs. Not the ideal formula for a well run government.

 

[Carmen813]

Since all of us posting in this thread are perfect, we all have no problem volunteering to have every single one of our tax returns audited, right?

Vetting is supposed to be about finding qualified people for the job. If you are going to exclude everyone who has ever made a mistake or written/said a controversial statement you are going to end up with a very small pool of individuals.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Thump553
We've gone way, way overboard on the vetting process. One of MAIN things Sebelius is being labeled as a tax cheat now was her failure to get acknowledgement letters from 2 or 3 of the 49 charities she donated to. That's ridiculous.

And claiming mortgage deductions with no house and business expenses without receipts.

Newsweek had an interesting article about this process and how it has gotten stricter and stricter in the last two decades. They mentioned one potential appointee who had to get a second mortgage to have the funds to hire his own counsel and accountants to review his stuff before his nomination would be submitted. Paying many thousands of dollars out of your own pocket in order to perform a government service-that's just wrong.

As one commentator in the Newsweek article pointed out, this effectively precludes nearly anyone from the business world considering an appointment, even if they could live with the big salary cut. Our candidate pool is narrowing down to professional government workers, academics and slugs. Not the ideal formula for a well run government.

[/quote]

And yet Bush, the most inept and corrupt president to hold the office had how many people appointed with this recurring problem?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Since all of us posting in this thread are perfect, we all have no problem volunteering to have every single one of our tax returns audited, right?

Vetting is supposed to be about finding qualified people for the job. If you are going to exclude everyone who has ever made a mistake or written/said a controversial statement you are going to end up with a very small pool of individuals.

Are we accepting positions in the executive branch?!?!?!?!?!?!

You mean qualified like the man heading up the treadsury dept which runs the IRS cheating on his taxes? Yeah, nothing to see here folks.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: cumhail
God, both sides are just so disgusting. The rabid Democrat supporters are now excusing everything their side does and attacking everything the other side does with the same zeal (no more, no less) that the rabid Republican supporters have been doing throughout the Bush admin. And after 8 years of Repub-supporters accusing anyone who doesn't blindly support anything and everything their president does of unpatriotism (if not flat-out treason), suddenly they've decided that it's far more patriotic to oppose first and think later.

Both sides make me sick and always have. This is why I vote both ways (often in the same cycle) and will forever refuse to declare myself a member of either party (or any other).

Personally, I'd like to see all this crap trigger an automatic audit of every member of congress, the cabinet, the white house, and their state equivalents (to name just a few). If they can't manage to pay their taxes, then they shouldn't be party of a governmental body that not only requires that the rest of us do, but also set the rules for us (but not necessarily them) to follow. Republican, Democrat, Independent... run them all out on a rail.

Very much this. Also, I think this is indicative that we need a serious overhaul of the tax code. If the people that write the thing can't even figure it out, how can they possibly have any reasonable expectation that 200 million+ Americans will somehow nail it? How can you punish someone for any tax code violation when the majority of the executive branch can't seem to get it right?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Budmantom
This is the stuff they caught, imagine what they didn't catch.

This.

I imagine it's like that for many if not most of the high (over?) paid people that are always whining about how they pay too much in taxes.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Very much this. Also, I think this is indicative that we need a serious overhaul of the tax code. If the people that write the thing can't even figure it out, how can they possibly have any reasonable expectation that 200 million+ Americans will somehow nail it? How can you punish someone for any tax code violation when the majority of the executive branch can't seem to get it right?

This I very much agree. Our tax code is simply insane. An entire industry has sprung up to deal with it.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Very much this. Also, I think this is indicative that we need a serious overhaul of the tax code. If the people that write the thing can't even figure it out, how can they possibly have any reasonable expectation that 200 million+ Americans will somehow nail it? How can you punish someone for any tax code violation when the majority of the executive branch can't seem to get it right?

This I very much agree. Our tax code is simply insane. An entire industry has sprung up to deal with it.

The tax code has nothing to do with taking write-offs that you cannot prove. That is called "tax evasion".

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Very much this. Also, I think this is indicative that we need a serious overhaul of the tax code. If the people that write the thing can't even figure it out, how can they possibly have any reasonable expectation that 200 million+ Americans will somehow nail it? How can you punish someone for any tax code violation when the majority of the executive branch can't seem to get it right?

This I very much agree. Our tax code is simply insane. An entire industry has sprung up to deal with it.

The tax code has nothing to do with taking write-offs that you cannot prove. That is called "tax evasion".

Yes I know that. i was only agreeing that our tax code is ridiculous regardless of how many of Obama's appointee's tried to avoid it.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Very much this. Also, I think this is indicative that we need a serious overhaul of the tax code. If the people that write the thing can't even figure it out, how can they possibly have any reasonable expectation that 200 million+ Americans will somehow nail it? How can you punish someone for any tax code violation when the majority of the executive branch can't seem to get it right?

This I very much agree. Our tax code is simply insane. An entire industry has sprung up to deal with it.

The tax code has nothing to do with taking write-offs that you cannot prove. That is called "tax evasion".

Yes I know that. i was only agreeing that our tax code is ridiculous regardless of how many of Obama's appointee's tried to avoid it.

The errors Sebelius made were clearly non-malicious.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

Ah, now it's OK to cheat on taxes as long as your predecessors may have also cheated on their taxes? Two wrongs make a right, even when you have no evidence of the first wrong? It all makes sense now. You want all of your social programs, but you don't want members of your party to pay for them. Can't someone else do it? Partisan hack doesn't really do you justice.

Your first mistake was to assume they "cheated" on their taxes vs. merely making a mistake.

 

[DealMonkey]

I read an interesting article about this exact subject:

The Enemy Of the Good

President Obama has an ambitious agenda and an economy to fix. Yet hundreds of top government posts stand empty. One reason: over-the-top ethics rules are disqualifying or driving away some of the best and the brightest.

[...]

No one's quite sure when the process got out of control. Some point to John Tower, George H.W. Bush's first choice for Defense secretary, who was shot down for drinking and womanizing. Others cite Zoë Baird, Clinton's failed nominee for attorney general, who neglected to pay taxes on her nanny or look closely into her immigration status. Obama officials say they are ahead of recent presidents in staffing the government. To fill all Senate-confirmed positions took Ronald Reagan 194 days, George H.W. Bush 163 days, Bill Clinton 267 days and George W. Bush 242 days.

[...]

Tax issues loom large now, no matter how minor they may seem. At the Senate Finance Committee, which must give approval on key cabinet posts including HHS and Treasury, an IRS agent has been detailed to run tax audits on candidates. Congress voted to confirm Geithner only after he agreed to pay $42,702 in back taxes and interest; after that, the Senate Finance Committee in effect signaled no more tax scofflaws. There was a time, not long ago, when the White House could quietly inform Finance Committee members that a nominee had a tax problem, but that the taxes were being paid up. The committee would not stand in the way. No longer. Volunteer lawyers at the White House are now furiously examining the tax returns of nominees to make sure they are clean before they are sent to the Hill. Last week the administration's candidate to lead the federal bank-bailout program withdrew his name from consideration because of a nanny problem dating back to the 1990s.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/190355

Seems like the process for dealing with tax problems have changed. In the past, it appears noms were able to be quietly withdrawn or problems quietly resolved if a tax issue popped up.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Very much this. Also, I think this is indicative that we need a serious overhaul of the tax code. If the people that write the thing can't even figure it out, how can they possibly have any reasonable expectation that 200 million+ Americans will somehow nail it? How can you punish someone for any tax code violation when the majority of the executive branch can't seem to get it right?

This I very much agree. Our tax code is simply insane. An entire industry has sprung up to deal with it.

The tax code has nothing to do with taking write-offs that you cannot prove. That is called "tax evasion".

Yes I know that. i was only agreeing that our tax code is ridiculous regardless of how many of Obama's appointee's tried to avoid it.

The errors Sebelius made were clearly non-malicious.

Do you know it's non-malicious because she is a left wing liberal?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Seems benign. Funny that so many of Obama's people are getting outed like this, but any one of us could probably get into these errors.

I really bet that if you took 100 average people and went back 7 years on each of them that over 90% would have some kind of an error somewhere, even if small.

I believe you're probably right, which says what about our tax system?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

Ah, now it's OK to cheat on taxes as long as your predecessors may have also cheated on their taxes? Two wrongs make a right, even when you have no evidence of the first wrong? It all makes sense now. You want all of your social programs, but you don't want members of your party to pay for them. Can't someone else do it? Partisan hack doesn't really do you justice.

Your first mistake was to assume they "cheated" on their taxes vs. merely making a mistake.

Then I guess it was just a coincidence that all these 'mere mistakes' made by so many people resulted in the underpayment rather than overpayment of their 'fair share' of taxes. It's all just a coincidence? Is what you believe?

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Very much this. Also, I think this is indicative that we need a serious overhaul of the tax code. If the people that write the thing can't even figure it out, how can they possibly have any reasonable expectation that 200 million+ Americans will somehow nail it? How can you punish someone for any tax code violation when the majority of the executive branch can't seem to get it right?

This I very much agree. Our tax code is simply insane. An entire industry has sprung up to deal with it.

The tax code has nothing to do with taking write-offs that you cannot prove. That is called "tax evasion".

Yes I know that. i was only agreeing that our tax code is ridiculous regardless of how many of Obama's appointee's tried to avoid it.

The errors Sebelius made were clearly non-malicious.

Do you know it's non-malicious because she is a left wing liberal?

I know it's non-malicious because I can read and think.