So, how is it that some of our presidential candidates have hidden their tax returns from the public view, while average Americans must prove their fiscal high standards to even join Blockbuster video?
Here is how the tax return playing field looks for our presidential and vice presidential hopefuls:
- Obama: Released 6 years of tax returns last winter during his campaign
- McCain: After much prodding by the press, released his one year (2006-2007) returns after he filed in April 2008
- Biden: Just released his returns this August
- Palin: Crickets
Biden's returns look like this:
- Joint income for Joe and Jill hovered between $215,000 and $320,000, and tax rates between 16% and 20% of their income.
- They claim very little investment income
- Their largest deduction was for the mortgage interest on their Wilmington, DE home which totaled $38,000 in 2007.
- 33% taxed income on $215,304 salary in 2006 (congressional salary and US Navy pension combined)
- Donated his book royalties to charities
But, where is Palin? Why has she not disclosed her tax returns? And, perhaps, after Biden's olive branch to release his, she and Todd will also be an "open book," a term she used with Charlie Gibson this week like it was going out of style. Have no doubts, Sarah Palin is bringing "open book" back with a vengeance. And this time, she's not wearing lipstick.
What it boils down to for me, and what most Americans should be wondering themselves, is why is disclosing your tax returns an option when you are running for the highest office in the country? This should be a requirement. Your credit report, your tax returns for the last decade and any ties you have to lobbyists should be uncovered on day one of your candidacy as if you were being scanned at the airport.
I am skeptical of what Palin's returns will show. Reports already point to her claim for $43,000 in travel expenses for her family members who accompanied her on official trips and billed tax payers $17,000 in her per-diem travel fees for herself, although it's also substantiated that she spent much of that time in her home in Wasila.
There's something fishy going on, and it's called, Faked Alaska.
Posts
9 comments:
Why the "Palin bashing?" It's only been a couple weeks since she joined the ticket, so she isn't far off of the normal schedule for releasing her tax returns. In do time....in do time. Also, I take offense to your "Faked Alaska" comment at the end of your hate-filled screed. It's the people who live in Alaska that are the backbone of this great country. Nothing "fake" about them or Palin. She's the real thing and Lord knows our country could use some genuine candidates that love our nation and don't bash it! By the way, what do you make of Obama's association with a former member of the domestic terrorist group "The Weathermen" which bombed several targets in the late 1960s? That's some scary stuff.
Nice job. Although, Thank God for W seems a bit angry. You may have hit a nerve. I'll check later to see if there are any additional comments.
Thank God for "W", I just love it when conservatives don't do any fact checking. The Obama/Weatherman connection is tenuous at best, and now every conservative and liberal publication from here to London (where the story originated) will agree. That's why the story died. The only connection was that William Ayers donated $200 to Obama's 2001 State Senate reelection campaign. Ayers was also never convicted. Ayers now teaches at the University of Chicago and still serves on the board of the anti-poverty group in Chicago the Woods Fund. Obama also served on the board of the Woods Fund between 1999 and 2002, which is where they met. The Weatherman were active in the early 70s.
Wow, what's worse - being endorsed by a University of Chicago professor who works to fight poverty and simply donated $200 to your Senate campaign, or a man who lied to his country and sent thousands of young men and women to fight a lie of a war. There are more examples of questionable endorsements on the McCain side - Rev. John Hagee, Ralph Reed (with ties to Pat Robertson and Jack Abramoff). If you don't know why these endorsements are far scarier than Ayers, you might want to try fact checking. For the record, Jack Abramoff was convicted, but his lobbying firm also donated $100,000 to the McCain campaign...McCain sure does hate those lobbyists.
I state my case and I am not bashing anyone. The facts are there , and Palin is just one Alaskan. The comment was a play on words about Palin who is from Alaska, and not intended to bash the general population of that state. The post in general was a call to action that all of our politicians go under the fiscal microscope. Sorry you read into the post with preconceived notions.
nTwo words....."Bush Doctrine" For those Palin lovers out there, did you even know who she was four weeks ago?1? Funny how one's party can come before one's love for our country.
If you can't see the utter mess that W and the republicans have plagued us with than you truly don't love our country or want to see us pull up our boot straps and make America a place that our kids will not be digging out from for years to come.
Couldn't have said it better myself, Curious James. This is not about party in the sense that Democrats are better than Republicans - that they too couldn't be capable of maleficence. It's just a fact that the current administration operates on hubris, and it's time to change. I personally didn't see anything that resembled the fabric of our country at the RNC with the lowest number of minority delegates in 40 years (1.5%). This as our country continues to become more colorful, and by 2042, white caucasian will be the minority. That's America, so let's do something to grow positively toward a more well-loved, diverse, free society.
The GOP has a big tent and anyone is welcomed to participate in GOP events and politics. To suggest that there must be a minimum number of different minority groups represented at a convention highlights why the Democratic Party has been such a failure in presidential politics since WW II. It isn't about style over substance that counts. Also, your attempt to explain away a pattern of strange bedfellows for Obama won't hold up. He's shown no guts and stood against people in his own party that have questionable pasts and current views that are way out of the mainstream. McCain has spoken on a number of occasions about the corruption of Abramoff and others. Finally, you are right that the make-up of the country will look different in 35 years but how does that have anything to do with those who support conservative thought? Are we supposed to cave in and allow this country to be the next member of the EU without pointing out policies that will make us stronger in the future?
Thanks for "W", I guess I feel sorry for your narrow minded way of thinking. You still have not shown me what partnerships Obama has or has had we should worry about, whereas I have clearly stated the scary ones on the McCain side. Let me add Charles Keating (S&L scandal fraud man) who McCain fought diligently to get off the hook. And there is not requirement for minorities at a convention, but it's alarming to think that so little of them showed up. How is that representative of our society? It isn't about Rs or Ds, it's about what Rs represent currently. Even Dwight Eisenhower's granddaughter stood up at the DNC in favor of Obama. The R camp has pandered to a small, right-wing group of backward thinking ideologues. If I were a Republican, and I have been one in the past, I would be totally ashamed of what the party has turned into. But, then again, it's not about party politics, it's about our country. You're not supposed to cave in, you are supposed to open up your mind, maybe just your front door and realize that the world (including the EU) is passing us by. You can have values and strategies for our country, but not whilst you live in a vacuum or an ivory tower.
I think I'll just leave with this - as perhaps my statements are a bit harsh. Thank god for "W", I appreciate the debate. I have stated nothing but facts on this blog that I retrieve from conservative (the National Review, WSJ, the Economist, the Scottsman) and liberal publications alike (NY Times, Wash Post). Yes, I do add in humor, but only the self-effacing kind that the politicians open themselves up to. I am very patriotic and have a family filled with both Rs and Ds (my grandmother, who I admired greatly was a very loyal R). I lived and was in New York on 9-11. But, I feel strongly that America is turning a blind eye if they choose a McCain-Palin ticket, and comments like comparing Obama's name to Osama just make us look grossly ignorant and retard our progress in the eyes of people looking in on the United States. We are no longer an island that takes 4 months to get to by boat. The only island we could be proud of is the kind that serves as a leader to the rest of the world - one that believes in free markets, but which does not embrace greed; one that keeps its citizens healthy by giving more access to affordable health care; one that takes the words of our founding fathers and adapts them to new times and new cultural shifts. There is nothing evil about change - why do you think both parties love that word so much. The difference is I feel the Democrats right now can actually do this because they have proven to start a movement. The Rs haven't shown me much but "drill, baby drill!" If you think that attitude makes us freer, just ask the Venezuelan, Russian and Middle Easter countries who are hungry for an administration who promotes more dependence on oil. Will be like putty in their hands. Now, that's what should keep us up at night.
It is obvious that Future Doctor is better read and more literate thant "Thank God for W." But intelligence doesn't aways overcome ignorence.
Post a Comment