95 Comments

1. Foobarista:

She should release her tax returns and her

financial statements, and the media should

dig through it with a fine-tooth comb. If you

can’t stand the heat…

On the other hand, I hope that the media actually

makes _real_ discoveries about her holdings, and

doesn’t do stupid stuff like accuse her of

holding PM or HAL because she has money

in Vanguard Total Market or owns SPDRs. I’ve

seen this sort of thing done on several

occasions. And HAL has been a rather suckful

holding in any case over the past few years.

Since Cheney became veep, it’s down 25% or so…

Not that I’m voting for Kerry or anything. I

just hate stupid, idiotic reportage on things

financial. Recent case in point: the NYT

claiming that Edwards “dodged taxes” because he

*gasp* was a partner in an S corp who did most of

his draws as dividends rather than being paid

his draws as salary. (This avoids Medicare

taxes on the dividend part, and any CPA

worthy of the name would insist on you doing

if you own or are a partner in an S corp and have

a draw of over about $90K/year.) If that was

criminal, pretty much every self-employed

professional in America would be “guilty as

charged”.

Jul 15, 2004 - 12:44 am 2. Matt Welch:

Disclose everything, sure. But as far as I can reckon, being rich as Midas doesn’t necessarily mean that you “own” a company whose ex-CEO is the sitting vice president, and whose business has benefitted handsomely from no-bid contracts in Iraq.

Personally, if I was weighing the various attributes of the two major candidates, I might put the tax details from the wife’s fortune somewhere around 949,434th on my list. What with the whole War on Terror and all.

And I sure loved this bit from Luskin’s “report”: “Mrs. Kerry may be the world’s greatest cheat.”

TOO TRUE! And I may be the world’s greatest pole vaulter! You never really know!!!!

It’s also nice to see the National Review take a principled stand against A) immense private wealth, and B) “a woman who serially marries senators.” Someone’s got to stand up for what *really* counts in this election….

Jul 15, 2004 - 12:59 am 3. Roger:

Foorbarista, when I wrote “Maybe She Owns Halliburton,” I meant ALL of it, not stock. It was a joke. (Okay, you didn’t think it was funny… next time)

Jul 15, 2004 - 1:00 am 4. too many steves:

I’m still trying to figure out why, after the passage of McCain-Feingold, our choice for President/Vice President this year is from bunch of rich white guys.

For the same reason I don’t care about Teresa’s opinion on matters of national concern I don’t care about her personal finances: she isn’t running for office.

To the extent she is bankrolling Kerry’s candidacy there should be full disclosure; but isn’t Kerry required to itemize his source(s) of funding?

Jul 15, 2004 - 4:51 am 5. Matthew Cromer:

Why would the DNC argue for this? Kerry wants to raise taxes to confiscatory rates on people who earn $200,000 a year from a small business. He’s got his — punishing the people who are the up-and-coming rich is a perfect fit for the yacht and polo set. I haven’t heard from him yet about taxing people who marry money.

Welch, I think it’s relevant when a duo who preach class warfare and ballooning tax rates on small business owners hide their money in tax shelters. It shows how mean-spirited and full of BS is their rhetoric about the rich paying taxes. In fact, its all about high INCOME taxes (which punish those who want to get rich) while there is low to no taxation on those who are already rich who can shelter their investment income (sheltering earned income will send you to prison).

Jul 15, 2004 - 5:06 am 6. Matthew Cromer:

Oh, and running a law practice as an S corp so you can withdraw earnings as dividends is a tax dodge. Lots of people do it, but the purpose is to avoid paying medicare taxes (and social security taxes too if the salary paid is below 90K or so). I’m not claiming it is immoral or unethical or illegal — unless your platform for president is raising taxes on “high earners” when your own career as a high earner shows a marked propensity to avoid paying taxes — which makes you a flaming hypocrite.

Jul 15, 2004 - 5:38 am 7. DennisThePeasant:

Well, since my name has been invoked, I guess I will offer my two cents.

Before doing that I need to clarify a few things, because I think what I am going to say is probably going to come as a surprise to some. Those who visit this site regularly are probably aware that I am an unabashed Reagan Republican, and have been for nearly a quarter century. They will also know I have no particular objection to partisanship in politics, and I also have no particular compunction about laying waste the arguments of those dimwitted Lefties dimwitted enough to annoy me via whatever amount of caustic wit and logic I possess. But it should also be noted that I am a C.P.A. with formal training and a couple of decades of experience in the areas of taxation and financial planning (although I want to be careful and clear in stating that I claim no particular expertise on either subject that rises above the level of professional competence).

That said, I now find myself in the distinctly strange position of defending Teresa Heinz Kerry from the unfair, inaccurate and dishonest attack of Donald Luskin. I don’t know anything more about Donald Luskin than what is stated at the end of “Teresa’s Taxes”, but I have to extend a degree of professional courtesy and assume that the Chief Financial Officer of an economics and investment research firm would possess a degree of professional competence to know and understand certain basics with regards to taxation, tax planning, investment theory and personal financial planning. The unfortunate side-effect of granting Luskin his competence on a professional level, however, is that I must now assume that he is personally dishonest enough to engage in the kind of Krugmanesque partisan political hackery I despise. As I said, I have no problem with partisan politics…but I do have a problem with dishonest partisan politics, and that is exactly why I have problems with Donald Luskin.

Although unwittingly, I think Roger has put his finger on exactly what constitutes my objection to Luskin?s thesis. Here it is:

…In 1984 the husband of Democratic presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro made his tax returns public in response to pressure from voters.

That?s pure, unadulterated bullshit, and Luskin knows it. Geraldine Ferraro’s husband was the victim of a vicious smear campaign orchestrated by certain Republican Party operatives abetted by certain elements of the New York press. It was implied that because he was a successful Italian-American businessman in New York City, he had to be mobbed-up. The argument for demanding his tax returns centered around whether those returns would disclose ties to known Mafia figures. It was a dishonest campaign tactic used in an attempt to smear Geraldine Ferraro, and the tax returns that released provided absolutely no useful information whatsoever regarding the “issue” involved. And the “public” didn?t have a damn thing to do with it.

Similarly, Teresa Heinz Kerry’s personal tax returns have absolutely nothing to do with whether John Kerry is qualified to be President. Rather than waste time pouring over Heinz Kerry’s returns, I would suggest that anyone serious about the future of the nation could better employ their time reviewing such matters as Kerry’s senatorial voting record, his actions at Laurel Canyon III, or his Winter Soldier testimony. Besides, as Luskin should well know, there is no way (absent detailed information Luskin does not possess) to determine whether income of five million correlates meaningfully to a net worth of 800 million or three billion. For all Luskin knows, that net worth could largely be a representation of the value of pristine forest land that is in no way used to generate current income for fear of inconveniencing the rare spotted owls that inhabit those lands. So just how do we ascribe the notion that Heinz Kerry’s intent is purely tax avoidance based on that? And what does it tell us about John Kerry that she is doing it?

Beyond that, what really annoys me is that Luskin is engaging in good, old-fashioned Democratic class warfare. When he states “Mrs. Kerry is filthy rich. Why is her taxable income so small?”, he is saying the exact same thing I would expect from a moron like Ted Kennedy. It begs the fact, no doubt well known by Luskin, that the only obligation any taxpayer has is the obligation to pay the minimum amount of tax required by law. There is no legal, ethical or moral justification for demanding that anyone, no matter how rich, should have to pay one penny more than that. As a Republican, the last thing I want is some idiot Republican calling for the exact same tax philosophy as that endorsed by the likes of a crew that includes people like Fat Teddy, Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich.

And let’s not be completely provincial here. Does anyone really think Teresa sits around at the end of the year with her statement from Charles Schwab and a copy of TurboTax? Get serious. As any person of the net worth of Heinz Kerry, she no doubt employs a small army of highly qualified tax attorneys, tax accountants, investment advisors and financial planners. They all take home large fees for working very hard at ensuring their clients invest and manage their money as tax-efficiently as possible. Go to the library and pick up any book on financial planning, and it will tell that is exactly what you should be doing. And if you doubt me on that, call up Suzi Orman and ask her.

I could burn a few more million pixels ranting on about Luskin, but it would involve having to subject all of you to a level of tax and investing specifics that should not be imposed on anyone other than financial professionals or certain types of criminals (overlapping categories, at times). Therefore, I am going to let it drop at what I have said as to the specifics. But I want to re-emphasize that what I am objecting to here is not the bashing of Teresa Heinz Kerry. What I am objecting to is the dishonest bashing of Teresa Heinz Kerry. Donald Luskin should know better than to try to pass this kind of crap off on the public. It is what I have come to expect from the likes of Paul Krugman and Josh Marshall, and I think we Republicans should try to be better than that. Krugman and Marshall are what they are because they have neither the ideas or the arguments to carry the day. We Republicans do. And because we do, what Luskin is peddling is not needed. I suggest he apologize to Heinz Kerry and then shut the hell up.

Jul 15, 2004 - 6:16 am 8. Sun-Tzu:

DtP:

Thanks for one of the best arguments I’ve ever seen on how (and why) it’s important that politics needs to stop its downward spiral.

I, for one, heartily agree that one side needs to be first to step up to the plate and say enough is enough. And if it’s the GOP that does it, so much the better. (The really sad part being that, given the media’s tendency to give the likes of Dems a pass, the GOP may not be giving up that much, but what it gains morally and in ability to look itself in the mirror would still be worth it.)

Jul 15, 2004 - 6:51 am 9. ricpic:

Although I am personally discomforted by the insistance that we the public have a right to invade the financial privacy of presidential candidates and their spouses, it has become the tradition.

And given the fact that most of the holier than thou insistance has come from the left…it’s time to put up or shut up Terrayzzza.

Jul 15, 2004 - 6:54 am 10. richard mcenroe:

Dennis the Peasant ó Since my financial acumen pretty much stops at choosing between the 1040 long form or the EZ in any given year (with an occasionaly jaunt into the frontiers of Schedule C), I won’t question your accounting expertise.

From a political standpoint, yes, please release Terry’s tax forms “a few days” before the election. I’m sure the voters whose taxes Kerry wants to raise by soaking the rich will want his own family’s tax record fresh in their minds when they go into the voting booth.

The interesting point to me is not how much they dodge, but that the Kerries and Edwards dodge at all in areas where they call on us to suck it up and pay more is and will be infuriating.

Edwards disguising his income as “dividends” to avoid taxes the vast majority of Americans have yankied out of their payrolls willy-nilly will not endear him to voters.

Kerry calling for a tax increase on people making more than his own base salary is hypocritical, to say the least, and not likely to make him best beloved of the electorate.

Kerry calling on people to pay more taxes, when he had the opportunity to, himsaelf, through Massachusetts optional tax rate, and didn’t, is hypocritical, to say the least, and not likely to make him best beloved of the electorate.

Kerry condemning Bush for not stopping outsourcing while Kerry himself is a major stockholder in a corporation that does nothing but outsource, is hypocritical, to say the least, and not likely to make him best beloved of the electorate.

The entire Democratic tax platform is predicated on, “you guys tighten your belts, I’ll be a Spago’s.” I think folks will notice that.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:06 am 11. Matthew Cromer:

Dennis,

I think you are off base. The party of class warfare who talks about making the rich “pay their share” but fields candidates who pay very little in taxes — this is about exposing hypocrits.

Personally I have no problems with subchapter S corporations and had one in the past myself. But then again, I am not running a campaign based on “soak the rich” BS rhetoric, either. And I do find disgraceful the fact that high earned incomes (which help people to become rich) are treated so punitively while wealth and investment income (which people who are already rich have) are treated so favorably.

We should be encouraging people to become wealthy, not punishing it.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:18 am 12. Knucklehead:

DtP and Foobarista (there’s a handle I can relate to!),

Thank you both for excellent posts.

I do not have the financial or accounting knowledge of either of you – not even close. In this fight my dog is just an ordinary old taxpaying knucklehead.

Here’s all I know in a nutshell:

- politicians create the tax codes. The tax codes are byzantine things which have all sorts of loopholes available to those with knowledge and/or the money to rent knowledge. They are designed to be that way and politicians (pure speculation!) take every advantage of that which they designed. Some politicians are truly wealthy people with yachts and multiple homes and ranches and family compounds and such. I do not envy them and, in my most lucid moments, do not begrudge them those luxuries.

- twice in my working life I have, fortunately, approached what many politicians seem to believe is a year’s income that qualifies on as “wealthy” and I when I paid my taxes I was FURIOUS because I got clobbered – it was a freakin’ mugging by the government. What wasn’t vacuumed out of my wallet was stashed for future expenses (those who don’t have children in college – you just wait for that rude awakening!) None of my sources of income are subject to knowledgeable and legal tax dodging. The feds and the states have had full knowledge of virtually every penny I’ve ever earned and have taken their cuts – always, every year, year in and year out. When I do well the gubmint does well. When I don’t do so well they still do OK. They share my successes but not my failures.

- those designing our tax codes and blathering about what who is wealthy and what should be confiscated from them should, IMO, be subject to higher “transparency”. They should open up their tax returns for all to see. And this should include their immediate family (no tax authority lets me hide any income my wife or pre-14 yr. old children have or had).

If they are going to label people and priveledge or attack them through the tax codes then I believe we the people have a right to get danged pushy about seeing some info about their incomes and taxes.

And since they are also the ones who devise the election finance laws, I think we have an understandable right to get darned pushy about seeing what political movements they support and how they go about it. When any of us send a few dollars to a candidate our name will show up on a publicly searchable database. I can go look at what donations my neighbors have made. I have no way to see what Ms. Heinz is donating to whom by avenues only the wealthy or those involved with Trusts can afford. She apparently wants to live in the White House (or at least see that her hubby gets to live there) so if she can see mine I wanna see hers.

I’d like the info to be analyzed honestly and sensibly, and I’m not sure we should put full disclosure laws into place, but I think as taxpayers we have a right to say, “Hey, Bubba, if you aren’t willing to come out and show the data I’m gonna make assumptions and they will be worst case assumptions.”

I’m sorry, but when a purple faced screamer arrives by limo from family compound #6 and starts screaming at me that I’m a rich, selfish, bigotted asshole who isn’t paying his fair share, I get danged testy.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:20 am 13. Fausta:

From Kudrow’s The Anti-Growth Ticket

On torts, trade, and taxes, Kerry and Edwards will do big damage: “The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay over one-third of income-tax collections. The top 10 percent pay two-thirds. The bottom 50 percent pay only 4 percent of income taxes. And those making under $30,000 a year essentially pay no income taxes at all.

By the time Kerry and Edwards get finished with their proposed $900 billion tab on higher health-care spending, you can bet their tax-hiking proposals will reach much deeper into the American pocket book than their publicly stated $200,000 DMZ line.

Of course, this sort of thinking argues that successful earners and investors are never entitled to reap the fruits of their labor ? even though the rest of the population is entitled to massive health-care subsidies and central-planning price-control schemes. But the politics of envy misses a key point: Higher tax rates on success blunt incentives for the non-rich who are working hard to climb the American ladder of prosperity. Study after study shows that the middle class is shrinking ? not because more are becoming poor, but because more are getting richer.

Repealing tax cuts on investment would also do great damage to economic recovery. It was the decimated investment sector that brought the economy down between 2000 and 2002. The Kerry-Edwards tax-the-rich proposals would in effect prevent the investment seed corn from reinvigorating the very businesses that create jobs in the first place. The so-called rich won?t suffer ? they?re already rich. Instead, the middle class will face a higher toll-gate barrier as they try to move up the ladder.”

Since Kerry/Edwards are running on a class-warfare ticket, they really should reveal the sources of their wealth.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:26 am 14. Rick Ballard:

ricpic,

“Traditional” does not equal ethically or morally justifiable. A little reflection on that premise leads one to the “traditional” practice of honor killing in some societies. Not much more defensible than “He did it first” or “All my friends are doing it”.

JohnJohn have histories that bear examination because they are seeking the public trust. I agree with DtP 100% that scrutinizing those records and going through them with a fine tooth comb will generate more than enough discussion points to last for the next 110 days. The candidates tax records are only minimally interesting to me. Raising health care costs by using junk science to convince juries to award against obstetricians and then proclaiming yourself to be a champion of “repairing” the health care system is a subject more worthy of scrutiny.

That said I do not take quite as much umbrage at Mr. Luskin as DtP does. The paragraph concerning big John’s inclusion of a tax loophole for the Heinz Corporation in legislation concerning companies doing business overseas reeks of the hypocrisy that lies at the center of Kerry’s being. That fact could have been the centerpoint of Mr. Luskin’s analysis rather than a justification served up in the penultimate paragragh.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:30 am 15. BigFire:

One possible problem with Teresa’s tax return is the amount of money spend on Tide Foundation. You can look up what Tide Foundation stands for.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:35 am 16. DennisThePeasant:

Richard-

Edwards disguising his income as “dividends” to avoid taxes the vast majority of Americans have yankied out of their payrolls willy-nilly will not endear him to voters.

When you say the above, I understand exactly what you are trying to say. However, here is what I would point out. What Edwards is actually doing here, for the most part, is avoiding paying exactly 1.45% on the Medicare portion of his wages, and also whatever state worker’s compensation taxes might be levied on wages. He is neither avoiding income taxes, nor is he avoiding the 6.2% of wages paid on Social Security on the first 90,000 or so of his wages. This is not a big deal as far as the Federal treasury goes.

There are tax savings here, and they are perfectly legitimate in the eyes of the law as long as the wages paid to Edwards by the corporation are “reasonable”. I recommend this stategy, which is basically straight out of Tax Planning 101, to those of my clients that would benefit. My problem with arguments such as Luskin’s is that there is nothing wrong with using tax law to your advantage…if you want to rag on John Edwards about tax policy, then rag on him about tax policy. Pointing out he is being smart about his own taxes doesn’t have anything to do with that.

Another Thought on Heinz Kerry-

Just how bogus is Luskin? Try this on for size:

Heinz-Kerry invests her entire fortune of 3 billion in the common stock of Dell Corporation in 1995. During 2003, she neither buys nor sells any stock. What is her taxable investment income in 2003?

Zero.

Dell doesn’t pay dividends, and the appreciation in market value in a stock in not recognized for tax purposes until the time of sale. So, technically, Heinz Kerry’s 3 billion fortune didn’t make her a penny in 2003. But how many of you would argue that buying Dell in 1995 and holding it untouched through today would be BAD financial planning?

Is that “tax avoidance” of a scale that is immoral, illegal or fattening?

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:36 am 17. richard mcenroe:

Dennis ó Again, the point is, these people are running on a platform of “soaking the rich” who “take unfair advantage” of the very tax breaks you mention, while at the same time making vigorous use of them and even legislating for more. The voters, I think, will notice this, and remember.

At this point I would reference not the tax code, but Shakespeare. Remember what he said about Caesar’s wife: she must not only be above reproach but be seen to be above reproach. Both the Kerries and Edwards fail that test while at the same time arrogantly behaving as though they’ve passed it.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:46 am 18. Matthew Cromer:

DtP,

I believe the Medicare total is 2.9% if you include both employer and employee contributions.

Like I said, I do not begrudge folks from availing themselves of subchapter S corporations. I’ve used one myself for the same reasons. However for folks whose platform is based on class warfare and are members of the stratospherically wealthy — yes they need to be called to account.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:47 am 19. richard mcenroe:

BTW ó The Ferraros? Wretched people.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:47 am 20. DennisThePeasant:

Matthew-

The party of class warfare who talks about making the rich “pay their share” but fields candidates who pay very little in taxes — this is about exposing hypocrits.

I don’t have a problem with exposing hypocrisy, but in my opinion that isn’t what Luskin is really doing. He is cutting corners to arrive at a conclusion that isn’t backed by the evidence. That in no way helps in dealing with the issue of the difference in the visions of Republican and Democratic regarding tax laws and tax ‘fairness’.

You need ONLY LOOK at Kerry’s and Edward’s voting record on tax and business issues to get all the evidence of hypocrisy you need. Therefore, you don’t need Donald Luskin misrepresenting Teresa’s tax bill.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:47 am 21. Matthew Cromer:

DtP, you may be correct that Theresa Heinz is not using a trust to avoid paying taxes. I seriously doubt it, but it is possible.

She is welcome to open her 2000-2002 taxes which have already been filed so we can see for ourselves. That’s the price you pay when your husband is the candidate working “for the little guy” on a “soak the rich” platform.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:50 am 22. Knucklehead:

DtP,

I find it amusing that I found a topic where we might positioned on different sides of the yard

I don’t want candidates and their wives to disclose their tax returns for the purpose of trying to catch them doing something illegal or shady or smart or stupid, well-advised or ill-advised.

I would like to the disclosure and analysis (by honest experts such as yourself) because of the inherent “conflict of interest” that politicians have. Many politicians are wealthy by most any standards. Fine – its no crime to be wealthy and we’ve allowed our system to become one where its hard to serve if one isn’t wealthy. Most politicians have friends in high places. Fine – that’s the nature of the beast. But tax law affects us all and we should once in a while get a good look at how it effects those who control it.

Then we can sit there and point to this and that and say, “hmmm… why is he calling me ‘rich’? I haven’t made his income in the past 30 years combined. Hey, wait a second… taxes paid vs. total income… this guy is paying a smaller percentage of his total than I am… why does he want to hike my marginal rate?”

And I’d like to have a similar analysis of political donations. I can’t afford even the very limited max campaign donation. That’s fine, I give what I feel appropriate. But when a candidates wife and children can each give the max and then turn around and fund 527s and other organizations which, while legally non-profits and NGOs and such, are VERY politically motivated and operated, I think we have a right to have a look at that. I’m not looking for “illegal”, I want a look at some of the stuff that is “perfectly legal”.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:51 am 23. DennisThePeasant:

Matthew-

You are right, it would be 2.9%. I didn’t include employer’s portion because that would be deductible as an expense (Edwards as owner would be beneficiary of that deduction).

But enough about taxes…

Richard-

I have no doubt the Ferraros are wretched. It doesn’t change the accuracy of what I said, though.

I’m getting off this thread for an hour or so. I’ve spent the whole damn morning defending Democrats. That does not constitute productivity in my book.

Toodles…

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:54 am 24. Matthew Cromer:

Knucklehead,

Exactly right.

DtP, thanks for standing up for what you believe, even if you have to defend the Democrats.

Jul 15, 2004 - 8:02 am 25. Fresh Air:

To take up the cudgel for a minute, I, with DTP, am not terribly interested in Teresa’s income, taxable or otherwise. What does interest me, however, is her balance sheet. The voters need to know into what New Age foundations she’s channelling her money. What are her pet causes? Does JFK believe in them, too? These are issues of priority and character, not tax avoidance.

I’m sure with over a billion bucks in assets she has conflicts that would make Cheney’s (former) Halliburton stock look like a high school investing project.

Jul 15, 2004 - 8:41 am 26. Katherine:

Knucklehead,

Exactly right. My thoughts precisely.

I even think that we do not need limitations on campaign donations PROVIDED that donors and the sums donated are exactly disclosed.

Jul 15, 2004 - 8:45 am 27. doug b:

Have we ever learned anything important from the release of tax information? I doubt it.

And the hypocrisy angle doesn’t cut it. If you don’t think the tax code should direct investment, and think that the mortgage interest deduction is a bad idea are you a hypocrite if you use that deduction? You follow the current rules even as you seek to change them. Indeed, the following of those rules may lead you to conclusions about where they need to be changed.

This sort of “issue” just trivializes political discourse. NRO should be able to do better.

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:03 am 28. Knucklehead:

Katherine,

“I even think that we do not need limitations on campaign donations PROVIDED that donors and the sums donated are exactly disclosed.”

I’ll return the 100% agreement. If people want to use their money to support political campaigns, projuects, actions, whatever, that is their right. I don’t thing “free speech” necessarily fits whatever this is, but its similar enough. Call it free speech, allow it, and then give us all the ability to go “hear” it if we are so inclined.

Limiting contributions strikes me as silly. Full disclosure of who gave what, rather than hiding multi-million dollar contributions behind some facade strikes me as a good idea.

I have no way to verify the accuracy, but there was some campaign finance analysis a few months ago that claimed that far more millionaires made far more big bucks contributions to the Democratic party than two the Republican party. If this is true (no reason to believe it isn’t) shouldn’t it be interesting information to all those “little guys” the Democratic Party claims to protect? And I’d love to see what corporations are donating how much to whom. Might be interesting to note that, SURPRISE!, corporations donate to whoever holds the legistlative power and then tries to keep that party in power. Most corps are non-partisan, they just want access to the power.

BTW, the PC pusher moonbats always puzzle me when they show such intense hatred for large corporations. Do they really not know that it is the big corporations who are putting the most money into PC type programs and that once they have invested (and created a big PC industry) they want everything to continue so that they can get some ROI and have known costs and such? Those who are big Political Correctness and Affirmative Action supporters need to recognize that Big Bidness in On Your Side! (Hillary recognizes this, BTW – don’t hear much big business bashing out of her, do we)

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:06 am 29. Roberts:

Matt, I hope you are being sarcastic above because I’m sure you know better otherwise. The reason one can make cracks about Cheney and Halliburton is because we know what his assets are in, unlike the Kerrys.

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:09 am 30. Sandy P:

I don’t agree, foobarista.

–was a partner in an S corp who did most of

his draws as dividends rather than being paid

his draws as salary.–

My husband is also a sub-S. He is, however, an EEEVVIIIILLLLLL reptilian republican who, of course, is expected to not pay his “fair share.”

I do not expect it from a “man of the people.”

Interested in my Warren Buffet rant?

Or my Bono and the wells in Africa rant?

In short, I want them to walk their talk. That includes all those sanctimonious, morally superior democrats and “rich” who said they didn’t need their tax cut.

Bully for them, did they send it back?

Did they walk their talk?

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:26 am 31. Mark Poling:

DtP, concur yr analysis.

Somebody above pointed out that TK might fund flaky organizations with her money. So what? Nancy Reagan brough astrologers into the White House, and aside from the bad comic routines that inspired, tne nation survived just fine. TK won’t be president. Get serious.

On the other hand, I noticed that the Senate cloture vote on the FMA went down 48-50. Anyone have any idea which two senators couldn’t be bothered to vote? I’m serious here; I’m googling around trying to find an actual roll call listing and I’m finding bubkus.

I have my suspicions, though.

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:28 am 32. Charlie (Colorado):

But as far as I can reckon, being rich as Midas doesn’t necessarily mean that you “own” a company whose ex-CEO is the sitting vice president, and whose business has benefitted handsomely from no-bid contracts in Iraq.

Dammit, Matt, you’re normally better than that. Cheyney no longer owns any Halliburton stock, the money he gets is deferred compensation that is unaffected by any change in Halliburton’s business results, the “no bid” contract was let by the Clinton administration, and Halliburton is barely more than breaking even on the Iraq stuff — hell, considering opportunity costs, they’re losing their shorts. They’d make more money if they put the investment in a CD.

Any damn fool could confirm these things in ten minutes googling.

Well, apparently not any damn fool, at that.

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:32 am 33. Sandy P:

–Similarly, Teresa Heinz Kerry’s personal tax returns have absolutely nothing to do with whether John Kerry is qualified to be President.–

I don’t agree, Dennis. I want to see which groups she’s funding and who they support. Like Tides.

We need all NFPs to be audited and start toeing the line and tightening up reporting. If her returns start people talking at least, so much the better.

Not only that, but I’d love to see Jesse and Sharpton do the perp walk amongst others.

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:35 am 34. Sandy P:

Fausta:

–The so-called rich won?t suffer ? they?re already rich. Instead, the middle class will face a higher toll-gate barrier as they try to move up the ladder.”–

Didn’t Bastiat say something along the lines of, “They have theirs and they spend their wealth to make sure you don’t get yours?”

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:45 am 35. Knucklehead:

Doug B,

“Have we ever learned anything important from the release of tax information? I doubt it.”

You may be correct. What we learn from released information may not be important at all. Are we learning anything important from a refusal or delay in releasing tack information? Of course not, but we may think we are and it can’t be shown that there isn’t something important in there until the tax info is released. The “appearance of blahblah” and all that.

“And the hypocrisy angle doesn’t cut it. If you don’t think the tax code should direct investment, and think that the mortgage interest deduction is a bad idea are you a hypocrite if you use that deduction? You follow the current rules even as you seek to change them. Indeed, the following of those rules may lead you to conclusions about where they need to be changed.”

Charges of hypocracy always strike me as the next to last refuge of a scoundrel. I take advantage of the mortgage deduction. I’d be a fool not to. But I’ve wondered time and again why the federal government should be subsidizing my mortgage interest payments at the level of my tax rate (which, if I’ve done the arithmetic correctly, is what it amounts to – if you’re tax rate is 21% then Uncle is picking up 21% of your interest payments (well, letting you shift that from a tax payment to an interest payment, we need DtP to accurately describe what it is).

I suppose they want really nice people like me to own homes. That’s nice, but…

Same with other things. I’d like to see SocSec payments means tested against all forms of income. For the life of me I can’t see why someone with some large investment or other “unearned” (I hate that term, unearned, didn’t they earn the money they invested to get the income?) income should be free from means testing but the person who needs to keep working for some pittance gets means tested against “earned” income. Hmmm… wassupwitdat? If one reaches SSS collection age in a wealthy condition (assuming we define wealthy correctly) why should they get “social security” payments (or full ones)? They are socially secure. Leave the money to those who aren’t – its a safety net (if its a retirement plan then it is one crappy retirement plan!) But only a fool would say, “hey, I don’t need my SS payments, keep ‘em”.

Hypocracy charges are lame – its like trying to trap someone because they have a thought in their head but are unwilling to be stupid at the same time.

“This sort of “issue” just trivializes political discourse.”

I disagree. I think these are perfectly valid issues for political discourse. When a politician presents his policy ideas, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to have some idea of how those policies effect him and his. Rich people may very well be interested in helping poor people but it is a fully valid issue to wonder whose dime is going to be used to do the helping in addition to who the policy will help and who it will harm. I think it matters whether a politician is putting his own resources into his policies. They sure are willing to use big hunks of their own and other people’s money to get elected, why is it not valid to know whether they are prepared to use their own money, or just other people’s, in support of their policies?

“NRO should be able to do better.”

NRO is able to do better and generally does much better. I don’t bother reading Krugman (I just dismiss him out of hand, sight unseen, he’s a bozo and nothind he will ever say has any interest to me) so I gave up on Luskin also since he was way too focused on Krugman and was starting to sound more and more like his target. I check in on his pieces from time to time and will read them if they are not about Krugman and are about something interesting.

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:45 am 36. Sandy P:

Kuncklehead:

Opensecrets.org

poke around there.

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:50 am 37. Stan:

Folks,

At the core, I’m with Dennis on this one.

Luskin IS cutting corners and throwing-up (that’s appropriate) everything and anything to see what might stick. It’s not rigorous, intelligent or seemly and only serves to discredit other thoughts of his (ours).

The comparison to Krugman and Marshall is damning.

Goodness knows there is plenty of material on Kerry/Edwards regarding hypocrisy, mendacious knee-jerk tax and economic policies without engaging in this kind of yellow journalism.

All we need to know about Kerry was his election to keep the Mass. State income tax cut. He had the opportunity to pay that voluntarily (that is forego the tax cut – there was an election on the tax form) and elected to keep the money. The point here is that on his measely income (compared to wife Teresa that actually bankrolls their lifestyle) it’s not but pocket change and he kept the money! But, he wants everyone else to pay increased taxes.

And there is the key – the “tax the rich” folks don’t believe there is a “moral” or even theoretical obligation for higher income taxpayers to pay even more in (or else they would do it themselves when the opportunity is there – Kerry and Edwards too with his Sub S tax dodge; perfectly legal, but optional) but rather they want to get their hands (via taxes) on that money and dispense the goodies so they get credit for it and accrue power to themselves.

I’m a CPA and have clients that actually eschew some of my advice because they feel they want to pay a bit more in tax as an obligation to pay “their fair share” as they see it. They also give to charities and don’t claim some of it so that it won’t taint their purpose. Some are liberal some are conservative but their actions, un-heralded but sincere are in marked contrast to the Kerry’s and Edwards that say one thing and practice another.

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:53 am 38. Bob:

Too Many Steves says, “I’m still trying to figure out why, after the passage of McCain-Feingold, our choice for President/Vice President this year is from bunch of rich white guys.”

Gosh, Steve. You think it might be because the Republicrats and the Demoblicans — the Single Beast With Two Heads — are the Parties of the Rich White Guys?

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:54 am 39. Sandy P:

–why should they get “social security” payments (or full ones)? They are socially secure.–

Because people like my husband pays both sides?

AFter everything we pay, we’re giving over 15% his both sides, plus my one side involuntarily?

I’m being penalized because I didn’t mortgage myself to the hilt, I did what I was supposed to do, low debt, SACRIFICE and save for my future? And they grab ANOTHER 15% on top AFTER working for 40++++ years????

If you modified your statement to what we put in, plus some interest, I’d agree.

My husband made $100K less than Kerry, we paid the same amount in taxes. But we’re not as aggressive as he, plus we don’t have any Monet’s(?) to sell to fund the campaign.

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:57 am 40. thibaud:

Speaking as a Democrat, I don’t particularly care about either W’s or Heinz Kerry’s wealth, or how much tax they legally evade. I doubt many voters care, either.

But what concerns me is the extent to which the new get tough, fire-vs.-fire Democratic posture has led the current party leadership into the same morass as the Republicans: they’re as heavily influenced by big money as are the Repubs. 92% of contributions greater than $1 million go to the Dems; something like 65% of contributions under $100 go to the Repubs.

It used to be the AFL-CIO, the NEA etc who provided the big bucks and grabbed much of the candidates’ time and attention. Now it’s the Wall Street sharks, Hollywood shit vendors and bubbleheads, and of course the trial lawyers.

TO clarify, nothing wrong with free speech or free and fair fund-raising. But when top leaders spend a large amount of time pandering to crackpot conspiracymongers like Soros, Mickey Maroon and Barbra “Timber-companies are behind the Iraq War!!!” Streisand, it shall we say detracts from their ability to address the nuances of the health insurance crisis or medicare or national security. No wonder my party no longer has any intelligent, big, compelling ideas.

A pox on both your houses!

Respectfully,

A Concerned Democrat

Jul 15, 2004 - 9:59 am 41. Charlie (Colorado):

Knuck, a quibble: they no longer reduce Social Security payments based on other income, earned or unearned. That happened under Bush’s administration, as I recall.

I don’t have any slick transition, but the thing about means testing seems a little rank anyway: Social Security was alwayss supposed to be a forced investment in Treasury securities. Notice the name on your pay stub: FICA is “Federal Insurance Contribution Act”.

I guess “Federal Statutory Ponzi Scheme” didn’t sound as good.

Jul 15, 2004 - 10:00 am 42. Silicon valley Jim:

I don’t know whether $5 million is her gross income, her adjusted gross income, or her taxable income. If it’s either of the first, it would be difficult, although not impossible, for her investment portfolio to be $3.2 billion. There are stocks that don’t pay dividends. There are stocks that pay minimal dividends. The S&P 500 index as a whole, however, pays dividends of between 1.5% and 2% of market value. Bonds pay more in terms of current income. She might control $3.2 billion via trusteeship of funds, etc., but it would be difficult, although not impossible (the Dell stock example is valid), to do so and still have a gross income of $5 million.

What I’m more interested in is the distinction between the high-income and the rich. The income tax, not surprisingly, taxes income. Raising income taxes for those making more than, say, $200,000 taxes the high-income (let’s put aside for the moment the question of whether $200,000 is high-income). It does not tax the rich. A married couple who make $200,000 between the two of them, pay $80,000 in federal and state income taxes, and spend $115,000 on living expenses is never going to be rich, absent wealth already present or inherited. A married couple who make $100,000 per year, pay $30,000 in federal and state income taxes, and spend $30,000 annually on living expenses might well get to be rich.

There are certainly high-income individuals who are not rich and might never be. There are probably a few rich people who don’t have high incomes (assets consisting primarily of an expensive residence, for example). The Kerry’s are clearly both, as are the Edwards’s. Raising income taxes on individuals and couples with high incomes, however, is not the same thing as taxing the rich.

It may be worth noting with respect to this subject that I am a Certified Financial PlannerÆ.

Jul 15, 2004 - 10:07 am 43. thibaud:

Bob,

The parties are indeed converging. Bush’s Republicans spend like drunken sailors. Kerry’s Democrats are Wall Streeters given to rhetorical stands for the working guy, and nothing more, on crucial bread-and-butter issues.

Neither party (except Senator Doctor Frist) has anything intelligent to say about have nothing intelligent to say about the health insurance crisis, which threatens to bankrupt GM, Ford, Boeing and about half of the Fortune 500.

Neither party has any kind of intelligent or courageous ideas about avoiding the looming SocSec’y debacle.

Neither party has a coherent, well-articulated strategy for dealing with the second-most important foreign policy challenge we face: the eclipsing of Europe by China and the other Asian powers within the next 10-15 years.

A pox on both your houses!

Jul 15, 2004 - 10:08 am 44. Matt Welch:

Charlie — Nothing that I wrote was inaccurate; the insinuations that you defend against are ones I didn’t make.

And the only reason to bring up Halliburton at all is that it was introduced as one of those “It’s all about OOOIIILLLL”-type jokes, which serve to ridicule something that is actually a legitimate target of criticism. Halliburton *has* overcharged the U.S. government, *has* benefited from no-bid contracts & cozy relationships with government officials … just like Oil Politics *do* affect our policy toward the Middle East (especially toward the country that supplied the manpower & ideology behind the Sept. 11 massacre).

In the scheme of things, barring some bizarre Heinz-Kerry financial relationship that could somehow undermine national security (I don’t know how, but I guess it’s possible), I’m more concerned about the U.S. awarding no-bid contracts to politically connected, over-charging firms in Iraq than I am with the rich lady’s tax returns. And at any rate, none of that really has anything to do with how I (nor likely any of you) will vote.

Jul 15, 2004 - 10:21 am 45. Knucklehead:

Sandy P,

Good site – Thanks!

DtP,

Thanks to Sandy P I will soon be armed and dangerous. Now I need you to ‘fess up. Why have You Accountants (everyone knows how You People Are!), over the past 13 years, gone from marginal net Dem contributors to wild-eyed Rep favorers?

I would have never guessed that accountants would be anyhing other than completely representative of the population as a whole. Hmmm…. Follow the money, show me the money, never misunderestimate the people who know the money better than the people who have the money, if you can’t count your fingers hire an accountant…

Thibaud,

I could just be picking nits here, but…

“…Democratic posture has led the current party leadership into the same morass as the Republicans: they’re as heavily influenced by big money as are the Repubs. 92% of contributions greater than $1 million go to the Dems; something like 65% of contributions under $100 go to the Repubs.”

I wouldn’t say those numbers suggest that “Dems are as heavily influenced by big money as Repubs”.

I’d say that there’s a HUGE difference in who gets the rich folks money. That ain’t parity you showed us up there, that’s the morass having long since done an about-face, the worm having turned its tables, hell has frozen over and the Dems are the party of the well-healed (and clinically insane) while the Reps are the party of the little people (the Poor, if you prefer). Now how did that happen? Whoodathunkit.

Jul 15, 2004 - 10:23 am 46. DennisThePeasant:

Why have You Accountants (everyone knows how You People Are!), over the past 13 years, gone from marginal net Dem contributors to wild-eyed Rep favorers?

To be honest with you, I have no idea. I try to avoid other accountants. They bore the crap out of me.

Jul 15, 2004 - 10:36 am 47. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I agree with both DTP and Knucklehead.

The NRO article is classic Democrat class baiting, except from the right. As a many decade reader of NRO, I’m annoyed. As others have pointed out, the income of a rich person in any particular year is just no interesting, and they don’t have to “cheat” or be hypocritical to have a low income.

The hypocrisy issue is real, however. It doesn’t take the sophisticated financial knowledge of a CPA to recognize that a very wealthy person, even without using any “tax shelters” (a dubious term – is a tax free municipal bond a tax shelter?), is better off than someone who is near wealthy at tax time.

For example, assume Bill Gates makes 250,000,000 per year, and after taxes (no tax shelter) has left only 120,000,000 per year. Is that going to make any difference in his life style?

Now take the John-John tax defined rich. Someone makes $250,000 one year. After taxes it is $150,000 per year (or whatever). That HURTS! A lot! I speak from experience. The person who gets hurt the most is someone who normally makes a “non-rick” amount, but one year makes a pile (say, from selling a business). With the end of income tax averaging (1986), that means you are taxed as rich for that year (unless you can schedule deferred payment the right way).

Hence having the very rich proposing tax increases (and you’ll notice that it is in fact the very rich who tend to do this) hurts the next tier down, and indirectly through negative incentive effects, hurts the economy.

Starting in 1986, a lot of tax shelters and even ordinary deductions were removed. This was part of an attempt to simplify the taxes, and part of a soak-the-almost rich Democrat trade for Reagan’s flatter tax rates. For example, I used to deduct my medical expenses. Now that is subject to a 7.5% of income subtraction. As a side note, the removal of the deduction for passive loss investments (in other words, if you lose money in one of these investments, no tax deduction, but if you make money, you pay a tax) was the ultimate cause of the S&L collapse. Also, because of these various means tested deduction, the highest marginal tax rate (again, ignoring shelters or other things) is paid by folks in the $100,000 range (don’t remember exactly). People in higher ranges pay a low incremental tax rate!

In any case, we now have a system where progressivity has much more sting in it than in the past, and hence is more damaging to the economy.

One other subject… it is reasonable that the investments of the candidates and their spouses be public. After all, we have had four years of ranting about Halliburton. It’s only fair that the Democrat candidates be exposed to the same scruity – especially Theresa Heinz, who has given money to some far left organizations – a valid issue.

Jul 15, 2004 - 10:49 am 48. Knucklehead:

Matt Welch,

“…Halliburton *has* overcharged the U.S. government, *has* benefited from no-bid contracts & cozy relationships with government officials … just like Oil Politics *do* affect our policy toward the Middle East (especially toward the country that supplied the manpower & ideology behind the Sept. 11 massacre)…”

Googling up charges and news re: Halliburton is a simple exercise so I won’t bother doing it again just for the sake of finding some link others can just as easily find for themselves.

I did, however, once get one of those preposterous emails that accused Halliburton of everything from warpofiteering to stealing babies out of nurseries and selling their eyes (yes, I made that up but it wasn’t far off). So I went and spent the hour or so it took to examine each of the the charges.

Most were proposterous. The “no bid” contracts stuff is nonsense. No doubt there will be some quibbles with the “facts” as I’m about to give them, but as Steven Den Beste is fond of saying, if the correction is immaterial to the point, please don’t write letters.

Halliburton (and the subsidiary that is really the company most involved here, BLT or whatever the heck they are) won a competitive process that then entitled them to perform services (for which they have proven themselves qualified and have few, if any, legitimate competitors) for fees that essentially amount to cost+p with “p” being some agreed up level of profit.

In essence they are functioning as a rented regulated monopoly for a period of time that is contractually agreed upon. The overall scheme is much like it was way back when when MaBell had the phone franchise except that the franchise is much smaller and “p” is smaller (sorry, I don’t recall what “p” is, but 4% rings a bell). This arrangement is not unusual for types of services that one cannot completely describe or estimate beforehand and for which only a handful of companies are qualified or have demonstrated experience.

There have, indeed, been examples of Halliburton (or BLT or whatever) having been determined to have overcharged the US governement. In every single case I could find, however, these were all within expected ranges of contractual disagreement OR Halliburton/BLT was cleared of the charge of overcharging. If they were not cleared they returned the overcharge.

As an example, the DoD as per its contractual rights and fiduciary reponsibility, disputed the count of the number of military meals H/BLT served troops scattered around the world for some time period. Since we have 1.5 million or however many soldiers and some eat seconds and some are in the field one can easily imagine that there aren’t little guys working clickers and turnstyles counting all this. There are statistical methods for “counting” the number of meals. The DoD disputed the arithmetic, H/BLT disagreed, the diagreement went through a contractually defined process, DoD was declared correct, H/BLT removed the charge from the bill.

I daresay that most of us have had some company overcharge us in similar fashion somewhere along the lines and yet we don’t seem to determine who we vote for in presidential elections based upon the events.

I wish to see some actual evidence that H/BLT has done ANYTHING outside of normal and acceptable business practices and/or outside of the normal range of error or profit.

I have no interest or axe to grind re: Halliburton one way or another but I’ve done a level of due dilligence about this and can find no there there wrt to the never ending negativity about Halliburton.

Jul 15, 2004 - 10:54 am 49. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Too Many Steves

I’m still trying to figure out why, after the passage of McCain-Feingold, our choice for President/Vice President this year is from bunch of rich white guys.

Why? Because McCain-Feingold is one of the dumbest laws ever passed, and a loss of civil liberties far greater than any I have experienced in my lifetime. It is not to Bush’s credit that he signed it, even though he thought the Supreme Court would do the right thing and strike it down.

McCain-Feingold is a congressional incumbent protection act. It is a law that limits what YOU can say, but not what your “representative” can say. It is the classic result of messing with free speech that counts: political speech.

It gives an advantage to wealthy candidates, as their own spending is not limited (as far as I know). If you like McCain-Feingold, you should be happy with a congress and white house populated only by decimillionaires. Bill Gates has a huge advantage, should he choose to run, over a non-rich candidate.

I find it pathetic that those who were hysterical about the Patriot Act supported McCain-Feingold.

I guess if you use the word “reform” about something that is actually censorship, even civil libertarians are fooled.

Jul 15, 2004 - 11:00 am 50. ter0:

I actually agree with both DtP and Knucklehead (wow a Harley-Davidson cognomen on a political thread). One of the ways to get political candidates to focus on substantive issues is to make them pay a political price for demogoguery on non-substantive issues, especially when it can be exposed as hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, the Dems do not fear the main stream press so they feel no pressure on them on to avoid conflicting policy statements or non-disclosure of finances which might open them to further scrutiny. Has anyone pressured Kerry to reconcile his pro-abortion stance with his recent statement that life begins at conception? Especially after his BS explanation that he didn’t want to impose his views on others (as if that concerns him on other issues).

My guess is that Teresa’s army of tax-avoidance specialists follow the letter of the IRS Code and avoid overly aggressive schemes so that there is absolutely nothing controversial in her returns. Good for them. But if as a Presidential candidate, you are going to demogogue legitimate businesses as “Benedict Arnolds” for parallel attempts to minimize tax bills, or promote similar class warfare positions discussed in this thread, then you are fair game for critics who want to know if your pre-nup partner is hiding something. Likewise, Teresa’s stonewalling to protect her children seems particularly lame — it sure didn’t work for Jack Ryan. So if the Chicago Tribune wants to go poking around in Kerry’s private life, let’s go for the tax returns — I damn sure don’t care about his sealed divorce files.

The real shame is that capable reporters have ceded the job to Luskin and reasonable people can write off his reporting as partisanship. If Kerry’s campaign team were more concerned about press scrutiny generally, some of us might be less interested in what they are hiding.

Jul 15, 2004 - 11:04 am 51. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

If the MSM was interested in finding bad things about Kerry, there is material just waiting for them in plain sight.

But they aren’t – quite the opposite, they want to protect Kerry to further their Anybody But Bush agenda.

We don’t have news media any more. We have propaganda outlets.

Jul 15, 2004 - 11:09 am 52. Sandy P:

OK, that’s it, I’m wading into H.

Time to put up your vision, Matt.

What was/were the ultimate goal(s)?

How long was the bidding process going to take?

When should it have started?

What were the Iraqis and our soldiers supposed to do in the meantime?

Jul 15, 2004 - 11:17 am 53. Sandy P:

disclaimer:

I own no H directly,probably do in mutual funds, never have and do not now know anyone who worked there, other than the VP who I do not know personally.

Trust me, if I did, he’d be getting an earful.

—

We’re not bidding out a kitchen or roof here, Matt. We’re rebuilding a country which was more devistated than we thought.

Jul 15, 2004 - 11:22 am 54. Charlie (Colorado):

Matt, Knuck just explained the background to you that I would have otherwise had to do. Maybe you did mean it in a “ha ha only kidding” sense, but you invoked it as if you thought the Halliburton stuff was factual, and you defended it above as if it were factual. So maybe not any damn fool would check before saying it — but clearly some Knucklehead did.

I don’t agree with you about the Kerry-Heinz-etc tax returns for two reasons.

First, because I think it’s only reasonable, gien the number of times the issue has been raised in the past, that it continues to be an issue. Whether or not it made sense at the time, the fact that it’s no longer the cause celebre of the mainstream press at the same time that the mainstream press is being increasingly open about the general intention to elect Kerry (see, eg, Evan Thomas’ interview) at the very best looks really bad. Whatever the original reason was, the violation of precedent now is pretty suspicious.

Second, because — after some press coverage — I’m more than a little suspicious that Kerry et al are violating the campaign finance laws, via covert financing from Teresa’s funds (cf. the $6 million mortgage on Kerrys half of the house) and non-profits that Teresa controls.

Maybe it’s not true; I don’t know. I’d like to.

Jul 15, 2004 - 11:23 am 55. doug b:

What we would presumably learn from these returns or the possible gotchas would be of dubious merit.

I assume her money is being managed by professionals who are trying to maximize her after tax return subject to risk considerations. So taxes paid would fall out of those decisions. A low tax result would mean that money was directed in ways that government–in its infinite wisdom–wished to encourage (like tax free municipals) or in ways that delay the payment of taxes.

Looking at the specific investments also distorts since the investment consideration should be the portfolio. If you buy an index fund, presumably you own a number of companies that don’t mirror your political positions.

So what do we learn from this exercise other than that we can focus on the unimportant in dangerous times?

Jul 15, 2004 - 11:24 am 56. Charlie (Colorado):

Another quibble: John, you mean “dekamillionaires”. A “decimillionaire” would be someone who had 0.1 millions, eg, $100,000 net worth.

Just another INTP, what can I say?

Jul 15, 2004 - 11:26 am 57. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Charlie

I wondered if someone would catch that. I didn’t know dekamillionaire and was too busy to look it up.

Yes, I mean someone with $10 mil or more.

For those quibbling about the income tax returns, it’s a matter of fairness, and also the interesting aspect to me would be charitable givings, which are apparently hard left.

As to money management, there are no doubt pros doing it for her, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t give them some direction.

Jul 15, 2004 - 11:50 am 58. Roberts:

Ah, Matt, I’m sorry to see that you were not making a joke with the Halliburton comment. I thought you were above repeating those misrepresentations.

Jul 15, 2004 - 12:18 pm 59. Matt Welch:

Sandy P — At the risk of displaying my profound ignorance/naivete, and creating the mistaken impression that I lay awake at night muttering “Halliburton … Halliburton,” I’ll just say that I believe that even vague, open-ended government contracts in war-zones should be open to at least two bidders. If that means the bids have to be made & decided upon within 24 hours, well so be it. No-bids anywhere are an invitation to abuse, cronyism, and monopolist pricing.

Beyond that, I’ll just stress before ducking out that *my only point* here is that I care more about the way the U.S. government allocates its billions than how the candidate’s rich wife paid her taxes; and that in any case this has no bearing on how I (or I suspect any of you) will vote in the election.

Jul 15, 2004 - 12:18 pm 60. Knucklehead:

John Moore!

Don’t I wish! Nice link, BTW. Ahhh… if I only had a brain I might could afford such a thing. It would fit me well and if it didn’t, I wouldn’t care, I’d just pretend it did.

Speaking of catfishing, I wish I could provide a link but I can’t – I have a bunch of pictures of a big old catfish that got a child’s ball stuck in its mouth and kept bobbing up and down in a pond. Very amusing. Somebody finally burst the bubble and set the poor thing free.

Jul 15, 2004 - 12:29 pm 61. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Knucklehead

I saw those pictures. Don’t remember who sent them. It was a VERY ambitious catfish.

Jul 15, 2004 - 12:38 pm 62. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Matt

The contracts were let in the Clinton administration. Halliburton won long before the war – in fact, I think under the Clinton administration.

Halliburton provides the military with a lot of services that otherwise would be done by soldiers, allowing the military to have a better teeth to tail ratio. They provide food (there are Burger Kings in the strangest places) and other infrastructure services.

If you have ever been involved in Pentagon cost-plus contracting (I did it for a few years) you know it’s not a get rich quick scheme unless someone cheats.

Jul 15, 2004 - 12:42 pm 63. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

So much for failure to preview. Sigh.

Jul 15, 2004 - 12:43 pm 64. Forbes:

I think there are a couple non-partisan points regarding disclosure that have been missed.

Why do we ask candidates for federal office to make financial disclosures? Primarily for transparency, i.e. in order to understand if the candidate has any conflicts of interest, either real, or perceived in the light of public scrutiny.

A candidate married to a wealthy spouse is in no different a position regarding potential conflicts. (Were the wife the candidate, and the husband the wealthy candidate, there would be no question, here.)

As a source of funding, certainly Terry Kerry deserves scrutiny. Why? Prior to the Democratic primaries, last year, when John Kerry’s candidacy was floundering, he took out a $6.5 million mortgage on the Kerry’s jointly owned Boston townhouse (apparently appraised at $13 million, after it was purchased for $6.5 million a few years ago).

Needless to say, John Kerry’s income–which consists of his Senate salary–does not cover the interest on such a loan. This should lead anyone to the conclusion that Terry Kerry is financially supporting the candidacy of her husband. There is no insinuation of illegality in this, merely the request for the light of day regarding disclosure of the extent of such financial support. Such arrangements by an unaffiliated finacial supporter would require disclosure. Why should she be any different?

As to John Edwards, it’s been reported that he organized his law practice as an S Corp., in part to receive the multimillion dollar fees earned from his practice as a contingency-fee plaitiffs’ attorney, while having the S Corp. pay him a salary while recovering the monies due to his plaintiff clients, and his contingency fees. Recovery of these monies after a verdict is reached is not automatic, and can take some years. It was also reported that he sold his practice (presumably the S Corp.) for $5 million. Without going into a long discussion of how such value is determined, when a sole practioner in a tort litigation practice “sells” his practice, he’s selling assets, not goodwill, i.e. such clients are not a source of repeat business. It is more than likely that what he sold were the claims to collect his contingency fees, on the basis that those who “purchased” his practice would have to go through the legal motion to enforce the winning verdicts, and therefore, the fees.

In this manner, fee income could’ve been converted to a capital gain upon the sale of the practice (I don’t know the relevant year, so I don’t know the implication for various taxes as a result). It would be interesting to learn how this was treated, for income tax purposes.

As to someone’s earlier suggestion, that this type of S Corp arrangement is made all the time, and therefore many, many small businesses and professionals would be just as “guilty” is patently false. The IRS has rules regarding the “form” of a transaction, versus the “substance” of a transaction. The “form” of a declared and paid dividend would not meet the test where the “substance” of the transaction is merely the payment of accumulated income (the excess of revenues over expenses).

We could also debate this all day long. That is not my point. Yes, S Corps are used all the time. And converting income to capital and extracting it as dividends is probably tried often, but should be denied under straightforward rules. But the “everybody does excuse” does not fly.

Should we simplify the tax code. Of course, but that’s a different matter altogether.

Jul 15, 2004 - 12:53 pm 65. Knucklehead:

Matt Welch,

“I’ll just say that I believe that even vague, open-ended government contracts in war-zones should be open to at least two bidders. If that means the bids have to be made & decided upon within 24 hours, well so be it. No-bids anywhere are an invitation to abuse, cronyism, and monopolist pricing.”

Its not possible for it to work this way. First off, the “no bid” contract under which Halliburton (what the heck is the name of the that Boots company, darnit!) is providing SOME of the services in Iraq was negotiated with the government LONG ago. In the Clinton administration.

It was done with a formalized proposal review process. It “specs” were “we don’t know what we want but we want a company who can do most anything, like, heckfire, whattawe need here, Al, feed and water a half-million troops in the desert or jungle or polar ice cap, procure and deliver gogas to move a half-million troops anywhere in the world while in a hostile evironment, reubild dams and bridges we might have to blow up, get electrical grids up, rebuild ports and rail lines, just your run of the mill sort of basic country repair stuff that would have to be done if we have to kick the crap out of anyone like, idunno, Iraq or NK or whatever”.

The companies who could do that put proposals in to highlight there capalities and experience that then said, “we’ll do for a cap of cost + p” and the company with the best combination of capability, experience, history of reasonable cost and “p” got the contract.

You can’t suddenly call in a bunch of companies, even just two, and say “Hey, we’re gonna blow the crap outta Iraq, gimme and estimate to rebuild it”.

You cannot have what you insist you want. Stop and think about what you are suggesting.

The DoD can’t call in a bunch of contractors and tell them they are putting this many troops and that many tanks and helos and they’ll need x thousands of gallons of fuel delivered to Y and Z at thus and such a time and it will last Q days and there will be this damage to repair. Just the secrecy issues would forbid even trying.

How is any company supposed to estimate and competitively bid based upon specs like, “supply us during the coming war and rebuild the country we kick the crap out of”. It can’t be done except in a cost+ proposal (well, there are other ways but they generally assure that either the buyer or seller gets screwed and the government is not looking to get screwed and is not in the business of screwing sellers). That’s exactly what it was from the start 6 or 8 or whatever years ago. They “competitively bid” for an open ended contract to do whatever between now and some future date at which time the contract will be renewed or rebid”. Iraq is the “whatever”.

It is not possible to do what you seem to believe should have been done so please don’t cast your vote based upon it.

Are you trolling or do you not understand the basics of bids and proposals. If you can’t define the work you have to bid cost+ and then prove that you have good historic cost numbers for REALLY BIG AND OPENENDED PROJECTS and hope “p” is low enough that your competition’s “cost+p” history and proposal isn’t better. Everybody involved is making a SWAG.

There really is nothing nefarious here, Matt. Its business precisely as usual and its the sort of thing put in place to deal with unforeseen circumstances when the DoD goes to war. You’re afraid of $600 toilet seats and this is part of the process that was put in place to make sure we don’t get that. It is there to prevent the “cronyism” you are worried about. I don’t know if Cheney was there when the contract was landed, but he sure was no Croney of the Clinton administration.

And as for “monopolistic prices”, how many sellers of stuff like “gasoline” do you think there are in the middle of desert war zone? I’m back to asking if your trolling or if you just haven’t thought through your position on this sort of thing.

Jul 15, 2004 - 1:00 pm 66. Mark Poling:

Knucklehead, ask and ye shall receive:

An Ambitious Fish

Now, back to discussing other types of fishing….

Jul 15, 2004 - 1:03 pm 67. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Don’t you mean, back to discussing other fishy things?

Jul 15, 2004 - 1:12 pm 68. SJ:

It’s the tax loop hole, stupid!

http://www.techcentralstation.com/041504C.html

That is what is significant in all of this. I admit to being a financial/economics ignoramus, so if someone can explain to me why Kerry would have supported this tax bill with THIS SPECIFIC LOOP HOLE for any legitimate reason other than making sure his wife didn’t suffer, I would greatly appreciate it. Otherwise, I am afraid to say that it is one of the grossest examples of personal hypocrisy and greed in political life that I can think of.

Jul 15, 2004 - 1:19 pm 69. Matt Welch:

Knucklehead, John — Thanks for the education; I was not kidding when I mentioned “my profound ignorance/naivete.” And Knuck, what part of

“this has no bearing on how I … will vote in the election” do you not understand?

As for me “trolling,” well, I guess there’s a first time to be accused of just about anything nowadays! At any rate, since I can see the bells are trolling for me, if there’s anything else you’d like to say about my insufferable foolishness, I’d suggest taking it off Roger’s comments & sending it in an e-mail.

Jul 15, 2004 - 1:27 pm 70. Knucklehead:

Matt,

I owe you an apology. I get nuts when things like this silly Halliburton meme keep popping up. Its not like Halliberton is the biggest swingset and backyard pool company in West Osh. They are a real company with demonstrated capability to successfully do projects of the scale of “supply the US Army in a war zone” and “rebuild a national infrastructure”. They won a contract through legitimate processes designed to protect you an me – the taxpayer.

And the so called “scandals” around Halliburton or Boots and Shoelaces or whatever the heck that company’s name is are VERY minor things wrt to the scale of the contracts. That meals thing was something like a bill to DoD for 41 million meals and DoD thought it should be 40.x million meals. They are, proportionally, minor and understandable disputes and the contracts contain the provisions for resolving the disputes. This sort of thing happens every day in the world of business – especially GIMONGO levels of business.

And people who get to be Secretaries of Defense and jobs like that are the kinds of people who understand what companies like Halliburton are capable of and, yes, sometimes the types of people who get to be Vice President of the United States of America have had experience running really big, honking companies that are capable of doing really big, honking projects.

Another one that gets me all hot and bothered is the complaints about Condoleeza Rice having sat on the board of directors of Citgo or whichever oil company. That’s the kind of thing that people of Ms. Rice’s experience and caliber do. It isn’t something that should be kicked around as some disqualifier from important government office.

But in closing, please accept my apology for getting all overwrought and repetive in my response. Now, for you homework… JK! Peace and posters!

Jul 15, 2004 - 1:49 pm 71. thibaud:

John,

“[McCain-Feingold] gives an advantage to wealthy candidates, as their own spending is not limited (as far as I know). If you like McCain-Feingold, you should be happy with a congress and white house populated only by decimillionaires.”

Can’t speak to McC-F’s merits, but we’re in total agreement about politics becoming the exclusive preserve of very rich boys, or else the sons and daughters of politicians.

One could perhaps argue that in an information-based economy, outsized financial rewards increasingly will flow to very smart people, so it’s not necessarily disturbing that great wealth is seen as a requirement for entry into politics.

However, I don’t see superior intelligence and character as key factors in the financial success of bond traders (like Corzine) or goldigger/heiress husbands (like Kerry) or trial lawyers or Hollywood nits.

An odd thought: the more I learn about our military, the more impressed I am by the exceptional professionalism, technical competence, and managerial (and political) skills of our officers. Our military is far more meritocratic than any other US institution or entity–certainly more progressive than the NYTimes or elite academic institutions– and has given many of its officers a level of first-hand overseas experience that Johnny AmbulanceChaser or JonnyGoldenSlacks will never attain.

I would think that the Iraq War may have the unintended benefit of creating the future bench strength for a new political class, one that is deeply serious about national security (unlike Kerry) and that has seen war firsthand (unlike W) and at great length (unlike both W and Kerry). Additionally, having been smeared and slimed repeatedly by the press, they’re likely to have a degree of seriousness and sobriety that wacko Wesley Clark couldn’t muster.

I’d like to know more about some of our brave, intelligent, exceptionally well-trained colonels and lieutenants in Iraq. Probably some real gems to be found there.

Jul 15, 2004 - 1:52 pm 72. Charlie (Colorado):

I dunno, Knuck — seems as if you were asking, basically, “Are you trolling or are you being a dolt?” Since the answer seems to be “Not trolling” I guess it’s settled.

Seriously, I don’t think you should apologize: Matt really was repeating, as if true, something that’s both false and a libel of Cheney and/or Halliburton.

I suppose professing ignorance is something like an apology….

Jul 15, 2004 - 2:09 pm 73. Kevin P:

Roger:

I do beleive all people running for office should submit their tax returns for inspection. And that includes spouses.Since Mrs.Kerry is the primary bread winner in the family, and the collateral for JFK’s loan to his primary run,I think transperecy issue’s are legit.What I do not like is taking partial bits of info from her personal finances, and spinning possible conspiracy theories from it , and then saying ,”Well if you turn over your tax returns you can prove me wrong.” This is the type of guilt by association that Matt Welch does with Halliburton and Cheney. This is a Michael Moore style character assasination by taking partial truths and spinning them into conclusions that require all the facts to be presented and where conclusions shouldn’t be drawn if you don’t have or don’t present all the facts.. I am not saying that politics and rhetoric can’t be sharp and full of opinion. I think it is fine to push hard to get Heinz Kerry to release her returns. I think it is sleazy to manufacture fantasy possibilities.When Michael Moore takes random facts, strings them together and comes to the conclusion that Bush let potential 9-11 perpatrators loose because he was buds with the Bin Ladens this is crap.Lets not do the same thing with Mrs. Kerry, PS, Roger I knew that you were jokong, this is not intended for you.

Jul 15, 2004 - 2:23 pm 74. Matt Welch:

Charlie — If pointing out that Dick Cheney was an ex-CEO of Halliburton (which was the only thing I said about Dick Cheney), suddenly constitutes “libel,” then I shudder to imagine what kind of grave crime it would be in your world to falsely accuse someone of libel….

Jul 15, 2004 - 2:30 pm 75. thibaud:

Matt,

The bogus accusations against Cheney The WIcked Oilman have gone far beyond Halliburton and have alleged nefarious schemes to dominate the oil reserves of the middle east via military conquest.

What annoys me about these–and I’m a Democrat– is that they’re not only silly but a serious distraction from the more substantive critique of Cheney, which is that he has never had a serious interest in “nation-building” in Iraq or elsewhere. THAT’S the debate that should be taking place, not this asinine and wildly ignorant talk about mess hall contracts.

As to the silliness of the wicked oilman stuff, talk to a real oilman someday, or check their lobbyists’ public testimony on Iraq. The chiefs of XOM, Chevron, Conoco etc were unanimous in arguing for LIFTING THE SANCTIONS, ie they were against war. They wanted to do business with Saddam, not overthrow him.

If you can’t be bothered to check the record, then the next time you’re in Texas try talking to some knowledgeable folks here (I live in Cheney’s old neighborhood). No one here has ever viewed Cheney as an oilman. He’s no more an oilman than ex-Pfizer CEO Rumsfeld is a big pharma guy. The view of everyone I know in Dallas and Houston is that Cheney is a politician, period.

Best regards,

thibaud

Jul 15, 2004 - 3:10 pm 76. PeterUK:

So Roger,we are the Snooty Brits whilst”I will do my part by stating clearly here my deep and abiding respect for Arab culture”,and the difference between those two cultures?They have retained beheading,I knew it was a mistake to decommission Tower Green, you would be welcomed in London but I’m not sure about Riyadh.

BTW £300 mil equals $555 mil not exactly up to the level of the Bean Magnates Widow,but Liz has much better jewllery.

Jul 15, 2004 - 3:30 pm 77. Sandy P:

If you are the “Matt Welch” I think you are, you would have better sources, access and information than I do.

For better or worse, I base my argument on what someone posted in another forum awhile ago.

The UN’s bidding process takes 18 months.(Which explains a lot in Kosovo. If you are that Matt, maybe a story?) That got me to thinking about H’s no-bid.

The goal, IMHO, was to get the country up and running ASAP and to make sure our soldiers were fed.

Even if it were 9 months, it’s too long. We couldn’t start the bid process right after the War Dec in 10/02 – can you imagine the field day “the world” would have w/that? Divvying up the spoils before we even set foot in?

So, when do we begin the process? After it started? Wasn’t supposed to end as quickly as it did, was supposed to take 6 months or so. Even then there would have been a lag-time.

What about specs? We didn’t know until we got in there HOW BAD it was and how much Saddam ignored infrastructure. For them to be where they are today is short of amazing.

Then just the process of writing the bids, distributing the bids, the Euros whining because they weren’t allowed in on the bids, the frogs whining because their copy was in English, not their dead language, the vetting, all that goes into a bid process.

We’re not putting on a roof here, we’re trying to repair-rebuild a country the size of CA and over 20 mill people.

We needed people on the ground yesterday and we needed to start putting the Iraqi people to work.

I posted my thought on another forum and a response was, they could have waited.

So, for the sake of “fairness” and other things, the responder(s) would have let even more chaos reign (and who’s fault would that be) and people suffer so they would make sure the EEEVVVVIIILLLL Bush/Cheney and their corporate cronies wouldn’t get a piece of the pie. Which, from a nugget or 2 I’ve read lately, H is down or out about $1 billion in rev and their bottom line is hurting.

The goal was to get the 1 money-making product the Iraqis have, OIL, on the world market so they could start repairing/rebuilding themselves. And H did a magnificent job, they were pumping pre-war 1990 levels by last Dec, IIRC.

Going forward you’re going to get those contracts out for bidding.

I’m a secretary by trade and degree (AAS) and one thing I was taught in school those many years ago was prioritizing.

There are urgent things, there are important things, but not all important things are urgent. We drew a box split it into 4 sections and discussed a list of things to prioritize.

It was urgent to get the country going. It is now important to bid. And as far as I’m concerned, H has done an outstanding job. I’m not going to quibble over a few million here and there, especially since they’re pikers compared to my home state IL and largest city Chicago, and what our “elected reps” do to us.

Besides, unlike Cheney, if I want to be a corporate crony and partake in the booty, I can buy stock AND pay the taxes on the gains and distributions.

—

Kind of like the NCLB act. I have a friend who’s a former teacher complaining about it, and some of the problems that came up earlier this year and last year I would consider back office stuff, no biggie, administrative changes – which is what they were. Maybe I have a different perspective because I’ve been exposed to all that thru the positions I’ve held.

After all, being Assistant to the President(s) of multi-million $ entrepreneurial companies gives me a different view than most folks. Kind of like making sausage. I certainly don’t think like everyone else.

Take a step back and think thru the actual process and the magnitude and scope of what they were taking on.

I’m not as well read or educated as most people here, but, if I can’t run a small company, I’d certainly be one of the powers behind the throne.

And w/a little more of this and that, I am quite confident I could run a small company.

But the future Master of the Universe will be calling shortly, and I must attend to her.

Jack of all trades, master of none, that’s me.

Jul 15, 2004 - 3:31 pm 78. Matt Welch:

thibaud — Your argument is with people who use the phrase “Cheney the Wicked Oilman,” not me.

Kevin — Doesn’t the whole “guilt by association” thing kind of depend on, you know, actually *accusing* someone of being guilty of something? I have no idea if Dick Cheney is guilty of anything besides excessive head-tilting, and frankly up until today I probably haven’t even typed the word “Halliburton” more than once or twice in my life. I responded to Roger’s jokey comparison by pointing out that, of the two minor (to me) potential scandals, the one I’d be concerned with more would be the one involving the government’s expenditure on no-bid contracts, which I generally oppose no matter which political party is in power, or which country is doing it. Others have since pointed out that my H-burton take is naive at best; and I have thanked them. If this is a “Michael Moore style character assasination,” then all I can say is that I haven’t been very grateful to my supposed stylistic mentor.

Jul 15, 2004 - 3:42 pm 79. Knucklehead:

Thibaud,

Good points. Cheney is a politician. Most CEO’s of significant corporations are, basically, politicians. They are not paid to be on top of day to day operational details, they are paid to politic for the company. Whether or not the company is a good one or they do their job well are different issues. For the most part, and its a big gneralization, it is pretty safe to say that CEO’s are not stupid people and don’t get those jobs simply because of cronyism (I know you didn’t say that, its just a point I believe is important to make).

Another thing people tend to forget is that Cheney is the VP. This is not a particularly powerful position in the US system. Important, of course, especially when have a very close to deadlocked congress, and a lunatic fringe that is so whacked out and large and overwrought that, well… leave it at that. But Cheney is, as far as I can tell, a more than capable administrator and politician. He’s served the nation before and I don’t have any reason to believe he isn’t doing what he can to serve it now.

Regarding the oil companies and “blood for oil” nonsense, it should be obvious to anyone who has done business of most sorts that oil companies are not interested in aquiring oil reserves through conquest. They want a stable situation that allows them to purchase at prices they can reasonably predict. They aren’t really selling oil, after all, they are selling the products they make from petroleum. Wagin war for oil reserves, as you point out, is not in their best interests and, frankly, waging war for oil – at least at this point in the game – is not economically sensible. So only a moonbat would buy into the “blood for oil” meme.

Matt,

Regarding “ex-CEO of Haliburton”, slander or libel is not accurate but the “ex-CEO…” it is normally thrown out as some sort of sneering perjorative with an implied wink-wink, “we all know that they only get big contracts because of crony contacts”. The “tone” of it is unwarranted. If it were Tyson Foods teamed up with some shipping outfit owned by the PLAN (and a different administration) who were handling the sorts of supply and construction projects that Haliburton is handling, then sneering perjoratives and wink-winks implying cronyism might be called for. But that’s not the case here.

Additionally there are some groups who have just gone over the top regarding large corporations and “CEO”, for them, has become a full-fledged pejorative that means something like: scumsucking rabid dog traitor. That, also, is an unwarranted condemnation of an entire group of people who are pretty darned smart and accomplished and who are doing difficult jobs under difficult circumstances while fully adhering to the law and the responsibilities they are paid to handle. Yeah, they get paid damn well to do it, but not only is that a different issue but they are not exactly dime a dozen type people. Most of us could not do their jobs effectively (some of them can’t).

Jul 15, 2004 - 3:46 pm 80. Matt Welch:

Knucklehead — I just think one should not become a slave (so to speak) to how words are popularly (mis)interpreted by people with whom you disagree. Just because some people use (or hear) the term “Mexican” as a pejorative, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop using it when we’re trying to describe a citizen of the country south of the border. Should I refrain from using the word “liberal” just because it’s used as a catch-all pejorative every day all over the damned place? Maybe, but I refuse to (and in fact describe myself as one, though I share little in common with whatever fantasy Rush Limbaugh is railing against).

When in doubt, I always say, take people at their literal word, *not* whatever wink-winks one normally associates with a certain phrase or two. We all should be able to use words like “Halliburton” and “CEO” and “oil” (or “terrorist” or “Clinton” or “PATRIOT Act”) without losing all our critical faculties, or immediately jumping to a thousand red-faced conclusions.

Jul 15, 2004 - 4:00 pm 81. thibaud:

Matt,

Fair enough. You seem like a reasonable guy – what is your blog called, again?

Do you seriously believe that Kerry or his ambulance-chasing sidekick will be an improvement over Bush in prosecuting this war (which Kerry refuses to call war), or that they will have any impact at all on the health insurance mess?

Looking ahead to 2008, assuming that Bush will win as Nader siphons off the “anti-war” vote from Kerry, which candidates do you think could bring the party back a sensible, serious Truman/JFK-style position (serious about economic security for ordinary working folks, serious about national security)? Thanks, T

Knuck,

The funniest (or saddest) thing about the blood-for-oil nonsense is that perhaps the biggest oil deal of all time was signed Nov 2002, with Chirac’s help, between TotalFinaElf, the part state-owned French oil giant, and Saddam’s regime. TotalFinaElf, whose predecessor firm, Elf Aquitaine, is notorious in French politics for its role as a slush fund for French politicians (both Socialist and RPR), got exclusive rights from Saddam to develop–get this– 20 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL, or one third of all Iraqi proven reserves, in the West Qurna oilfields.

This is truly blood for (French) oil contracts. Yet the left has been silent on this. As much as I dislike Bush, I’m even more disgusted by the complete loss of moral bearings from those in my party who opportunistically make common cause with idiotic left-wingers who blather about “blood for oil” while ignoring the real culprits, TotalFinaElf, LUKoil and their political pimps in Paris and Moscow.

Best,

thibaud

Jul 15, 2004 - 4:04 pm 82. Foobarista:

As for S corps, if you own one or are a partner

in one, you have basically two ways to get money

out: either as a salary, or as dividends. The

NYT article didn’t address his sale of his

business, and when I said that numerous

self-employed professionals do exactly what he

did in taking most of his draw as dividends,

this is

what I was referring to. The IRS does require

that you have some sort of salary, but any

decent accountant will set it up so that your

salary – and your payroll and medicare taxes – is

as low as legally allowed, allowing you to take

most of your draw as dividends, subject only to

income taxes (not cap-gains).

The NYT article came up with

the claim that Edwards avoided $591K of Medicare

taxes by figuring him doing his entire draw as

salary, which anyone would regard as being

Really Dumb (sufficiently dumb for me not to want

someone who did this anywhere near the federal

budget, as they were either incredibly wasteful,

really stupid, or extremely badly advised).

If someone wants to argue that this is unfair

since non-owner employees can’t play these

sorts of games, please take it up with your

congresscritters. I’d agree with it – the idea

of having “earmarked” taxes for this and that

attached to different types of income is rather

silly and Economically Bad. Another evil thing

is that the SS and Medicare taxes are partially

hidden by calling half the taxes “employer

contributions”, when they are really part of your

salary. But I’m way off the reservation now, so

I’ll shut up…

(NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/politics/campaign/10edwards.html)

Jul 15, 2004 - 4:23 pm 83. Charlie (Colorado):

Matt: “…and whose business has benefitted handsomely from no-bid contracts in Iraq.”

A little disingenuous, don’t'cha think?

Jul 15, 2004 - 4:36 pm 84. Matt Welch:

charlie — Um … no. Unless there haven’t been any no-bid contracts in Iraq, or HB didn’t benefit handsomely (by making a good profit), in which case the word you would be looking for is “inaccurate” or “wrong,” not “disingenuous.”

Jul 15, 2004 - 4:45 pm 85. Charlie (Colorado):

No, Matt, I already pointed out you were wrong — or rather Knucklehead did, and I referred to him. (Wrong why? Because Halliburton isn’t “profiting handsomely” — they’re losing their shorts — from the “no bid” contract — which isn’t a no-bid contract either. I forget the exact terminology, but we used to call them “level of effort” contracts: it’s a contract where you pre-establish a cost plus margin agreement for things that can’t effectively be pre-bid. But you bid competitively for the contract, and Halliburton did — just they did it in 1998.)

I’m rather pointing out that by quietly separating “ex-CEO of Halliburton” from the conjunct accusation that Halliburton is profiting handsomely etc — and the implication of that conjunct that there’s a causal connection — you’re being disingenuous. At best.

But, frankly, you wouldn’t be scrambling so to cover your ass if you didn’t recognize the problem, which was my point.

Jul 15, 2004 - 4:55 pm 86. Matt Welch:

Charlie — Well, have fun with your causal conjuncts! I actually prefer to debate about topics I actually care about, with people who don’t make false assumptions about my motivations while accusing me of libel. I’ll make sure to read up on Brown & Root or whatever, and catch you on the flipside!

Jul 15, 2004 - 5:52 pm 87. Charlie (Colorado):

*feh*

Jul 15, 2004 - 5:57 pm 88. Katherine:

This thread certainly is fun! I found myself pretty much completely agreeing with John, Knucklehead and Charlie; and Sandy, if you ever want to get together with me to throw mud pies at a picture of Warren Buffet, just say where and when, Iíll be there.

BTW, isnít it true that one additional reason why Haliburton got the contract was that they were already present in Kuwait? I thought that one of the important factors in choosing a company to do the work for the government is that they can start providing service right away.

Jul 15, 2004 - 6:10 pm 89. richard mcenroe:

Doug b ó If not for public financial disclosure of candidates’ fianances, we would not know that Kerry is firectly profiting off the out-sourcing of jobs he condemns in other businessmen. Works for me.

Jul 15, 2004 - 6:30 pm 90. ed:

Hmmmm.

My issues with Teresa’s tax returns are:

1. I believe the primary reason for not releasing them might be the backhanded way she is financing Kerry’s campaign. Teresa is not allowed to contribute directly to Kerry’s campaign, but she can contribute to 527 groups such as MoveOn.org.

Frankly I think the tax records would show that she is the primary contributor to MoveOn.org and the other DNC 527 groups. Whether this is illegal or not, I can’t say. I do think that it’s a little shady.

As a voter I’m uncomfortable about wealthy candidates *buying* an election.

2. The other issue I have is that Kerry has voted to include specific exceptions and loopholes that rewards the Heinz company. A primary source of wealth for Teresa, and therefore Kerry. This conflict of interest needs to be explored.

Jul 15, 2004 - 7:10 pm 91. Sandy P:

Katherine, care to bet how much Warren (oh, please, great Uncle Sam, make us pay 50% or more in death taxes because we’re greedy bastards and won’t donate as we go along) Buffet will pay when he passes to the great beyond?

I bet $100 that he hasn’t walked his talk. If he’s worth $30 B, I do not expect a $15 billion check to the Treasury although 50%++ is good enough for the rest of us.

It’s going to med research and they’ll sing his praises. How many people have died because he’s worth $30 billion?

He couldn’t get by on $25-$29 Billion or less?

I think deep down inside, it sticks in his craw that Gates has more. And say what you will about Gates, he’s giving it away as he goes along.

Jul 15, 2004 - 8:09 pm 92. Charlie (Colorado):

Katharine, if I understand the contracts correctly, that was more an effect than a cause: Halliburton was already in Kuwait because they had already competed for, and won, the support contract through which the additional money was routed.

Jul 15, 2004 - 8:10 pm 93. PeterUK:

I want to know purely out of prurient interest,after all if we can know the GNP of Burkina Faso why not Therese Heinz Kerry.

Jul 15, 2004 - 10:08 pm 94. Katherine:

Charlie,

thanks for clarification.

Sandy,

I share your disgust at WB hypocrisy (hence the mud pies). He is just like Kerry, he assumes that we need to be taxed at highest possible rate for our own goods, but he will make sure to avoid the same for himself.

Peter,

Terese will needs all those extra loopholes that President Kerry can give to Heinz corporation to catch up with Burkina Faso: according to the latest available data (2003) their GDP purchasing power parity was $14.33 billion.

Jul 15, 2004 - 10:42 pm 95. hollywood:

“The Kerrys would be by far the richest duo ever to inhabit the White House, if elected.” As to the White House, you may be correct. And I suppose he wasn’t elected, but let’s not forget Nelson Rockefeller was Vice President for about 3 years, had a lot of money and the country seemed to survive in a difficult period. So what if he died in the arms of a mistress.

Jul 18, 2004 - 3:43 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: