« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Ron Kirk Nomination Raises Question: Is Obama Vetting To Ensure He Picks People Who Do Not Pay Taxes?

This many cannot be an accident, can it?

By: Dan McLaughlin (Diary)  |  March 2nd, 2009 at 04:25 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I mean seriously, I dare you to manage, just at random, to come up with as many tax dodgers as Obama has, even if the vetters themselves have tax troubles. I’m pretty cynical about politicians, but I don’t think you could pull this off just by throwing darts at lists of DC insiders and Chicago pols, could you? I think you have to be trying.

Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee this afternoon revealed that another of President Obama’s nominees — U.S. Trade Representative-designate Ron Kirk — has tax problems.

Finance staff briefed aides to committee members today on the revelations, which indicate the former Dallas mayor underpaid taxes to the tune of $9,975 during 2005-07, and that he has agreed to promptly file adjustments. The underpayments deal in part with speaking honoraria he received that he listed as charitable donations to his alma mater, Austin College.

I mean, I was up until 2am last night wrestling with TurboTax and trying to figure out things like how to account for the small amount of income (arguably not even a net positive) I make from ads on my blog. I’m sure my taxes could easily be inaccurate by a few hundred bucks in either direction, as is true of a lot of people, no matter how hard you may try to account for all the possible sources of income, deductions, donations, etc. But who just forgets enough taxable income to underpay by ten grand?

The only alternative explanation, after all, is that there is something about the kinds of people Obama chooses to associate with and give power to that makes them think they don’t need to make sure they pay their taxes. I leave it to you to judge.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • johnCV
  • smitch61

    I wonder if it really matters at all. If the MSM is not covering it, then we are the only ones that know. I guess he can do what he wants.

    Unfortunate

    • Dan McLaughlin

      this afternoon. Give it time.

  • EzOnTheEyez

    I think that it certainly exposes a deficiency with Obama’s vetting process. That said, in this case it is more of an error in our favor. The previous nominee, U.S. Rep. Xavier Bacerra of California was extremely hostile to free trade while former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk is at least a proponent of trade.

    I say that if Republicans want to make a lot of hay over this, it should not be until after Kirk is confirmed to his post. Otherwise, we run the risk of getting another Bacerra-type candidate without tax problems nominated and confirmed.

  • red4ever

    $10 grand is barely noticeable. I mean, if he wants to compete with the other Obama appointees, he is going to have not pay taxes a lot more than that.

    Okay, really, what I am thinking is: hehehehehehehehehehehehe

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    It’s real simple, nearly ALL Democrat politicians cheat on their taxes, so it’s hard to find any who don’t.

  • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

    I had an issue where I’d been issued a 1099 but had never received it. I knew what it was about; I thought it was business income, but unfortunately it had to be counted as personal income.

    Honest mistake, but I ended up with a $3,000 bill for additional taxes and penalties.

    I think this constant stream of tax-issues with Obama nominees may be less of a commentary on Democrats who don’t pay taxes and more of a commentary on how incomprehensible is our tax code.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      It’s all “Oops! Well, we’ll pay that back.”

      No.

      What these people should do is be dragged through a three-month process of meetings, phone calls, letters of various threat levels, the hiring of a tax defense attorney, several arbitrary and probably highly unfair levies of additional penalties, the destruction of their credit rating, at least one garnisheed paycheck, and at least one typical bureaucratic screwup that takes five days of excruciating nit-picking to resolve. And a permanent placement on the short list of audit recipients. Because that’s what can happen to people in my America who owe ten grand in back taxes*.

      Moe

      *Before anybody asks: no, thank God, I’ve never had this happen to me. I just know a couple of people who have gone through this particular people. Everybody does, I think.

      • Han_Pritcher

        I am perfectly willing to believe that our tax code is sufficiently complicated that some of these folks screwed up WITHOUT malice aforethought, but that should not make them different from any other honest citizen who screwed up their taxes. The point of the investigation is, in part, to see whether or not it was malicious.

        The absurd bureaucratic harm is all part of the fun, I suppose. Geithner et al should have enjoyed those same tender mercies.

      • Jack_Savage

        Hits very, very close to home for me. And Moe is so spot on I almost believe it DID happen to him.

        Believe me, these little “do-overs” are not dealt out to the general population. These guys also have the luxury of being able to stroke a check to get all this taken care of – what happens to the business owner in a cash flow crisis? Or a Dad who gets every single bank account frozen?

        I will stop before I use the terms “IRS” and “gestapo” in the same sentence.

      • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

        The majority of these cases probably have at least some level of dishonesty.

        I believe some are clearly dishonest. This one just seems like it could be an honest mistake.

        I just don’t know.

      • gyorcnacain

        Are you saying it’s because these guys have money and influence, or because they’re high ranking Dems? Because my guess is it would be the same if instead of Tom Daschle it was (a retired version of) Mitch McConnell, or Warren Buffet, or someone like that. My guess is the most important thing is $$, followed by influence in Washington, and that isn’t a Dem/Repub thing. But I guess it’s how it works, that if you have enough money you don’t have to play by the same rules.

        • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

          Money is just one way of keeping score.

  • heyyou

    At least Kirk screwed up because he had speaking fees donated directly to a scholarship fund at a university, not because he was getting free limo and driver services!

    • ss396

      Unless the speaking fees themselves were tax exempt, it is still taxable income to him and must be reported as such, even though he donated them charitably. Having a US Trade Representative who doesn’t understand the tax code is a pretty scary ingredient in this recipe-for-disaster that Obama is cooking up.

      I cannot even applaud Mr. Kirk for making a charitable donation, because it would seem that he though he was dontaing someone else’s money. That’s not charity.

  • http://jctreke.com Janice Cantore

    I can’t help but think if we had an honest media there might be some digging.

  • mbecker908

    Where are all those folks who were bitching like crazy, or laughing like hyenas, about John McCain’s supposed shoddy vetting of Sarah Palin?

  • oklahomajon

    And face we probaly will have both as far Turbo Tax it works fine if you have W-2 and few Deductions i tryed to use one year but my taxes are so complicated that i feel better with a living talking human being

  • GreyCloak

    Who’d a thunk it!

    Nobody “accidentally” loses track of $10,000 in taxes owed … representing at least $30,000 in income. The details:

    ? He owes $5,800 because of $37,750 in honorariums from 16 speeches dating to 2004.
    ? Kirk owes $2,600 stemming from deductions for season tickets to the NBA Dallas Mavericks … [after] “he has substantiated $9,900 of the total $17,382 as qualifying entertainment expenses.”
    ? An additional $1,000 in back taxes involved deductions for $25,218 in tax and accounting fees over three years.
    Last October, Kirk also paid the IRS $2,188 plus $139 interest for tax year 2006, after the IRS notified him that he had failed to report a $5,000 speaking honorarium and $819 in dividend income.

    Kirk made $1 million last year as a lawyer. He was also a lobbyist for Texas Energy Future Capital Holdings, a group including Goldman Sachs that took TXU (a Texas utility) private. From 2007:

    The highest-paid lobbyist, at $351,000, was former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk.

    Fellow politicians defend Kirk and each other over “honest mistakes.” The reality is … junkets, honoraria, “entertainment expenses,” and a long list of other things paid to or for politicians never gets taxed. They write the laws, so they must be above them.

    Incidentally … when was the last time a company paid you to take the wife and kids on a business trip?