Where to begin?

[Denny Crane]

I am not a republican, though I admit I voted for Reagan twice. I voted for the Libertarian candidates every election since then, though this time I wrote in Ron Paul because I couldn't stomach voting for Bob Barr.

I have huge beefs with the republicans. They talk a good game - about smaller government and lower taxes and individual Liberty. But they controlled both houses and the presidency for 6 of the last 8 years, spent money like drunken sailors, and basically blew a real chance to govern by the principles they claim to have. The nature of the $350B in bailout money spent so far (how it's been spent, how it's been earmarked to be spent) is downright frightening; why do we want the govt. to own any part of anything private sector?

I am no fan.

All that pales in comparison to what we're about to go through. As bad as anyone claims the last 8 years have been, when Democrats have controlled both houses and the presidency, things have been worse.

Before the 2006 election cycle, things in the USA were considerably better than they are today. The housing market was strong, unemployment low, businesses were stronger. We can debate whether things really went south when the Democrats took over congress or whether it was just coincidence, though my life's experience is that it's not the latter.

I lived in Vegas for the first 6 years of Bush's presidency, and the city grew rapidly. 6500 new residents per month for a few years. The govt. was having a hard time finding land to sell out in parcels to developers, and houses were huge and cheap and sold with multiple offers.

I've heard the rhetoric about how trickle down doesn't work, the tax cuts didn't help the lower classes, blah blah blah, but what I saw was a booming casino industry and the license plates on cars were from nearly every state as well as Canada and Mexico. In other words, those lower class people had the wherewithal to drive to Vegas from wherever and spend their money in the casinos. If you think these people were destitute and looking to get out of economic problems by hopefully striking it big at the craps table, think again. The gambling part of the casino business steeply declined, and it was the shows and buffets and restaurants and hotel rooms that made up the bulk of their revenues.

Business was so good that Trump built apartment complexes on the strip and others did, too. The older casinos were destroyed and newer $2B+ ones built in their places (see Wynn).

So minstrel asks me why I don't vote Democrat, since they're (supposedly) closer to my views on social issues. The answer is that I find them fascist, power hungry, and unamerican to a huge degree. Not the voters, the guys who get elected. The voters (of either party) are dupes to a large degree.

I mentioned Reagan. He cut taxes and did other things that turned the economy around. Technically, the economy then was worse than now by most measures: unemployment was higher, few people could afford homes at 19% interest rates, and inflation was so high it made a good pay raise meaningless since you couldn't buy as much and were pushed into a higher tax bracket in the process. He asked for 2 key things from congress that never happened: line item veto, and a balanced budget. Only someone in denial could not see that the Democrats then proceeded to outright sabotage the economy and nation for the political benefit of making Reagan not look as good as he actually was. They declared his budgets DOA and rewrote them to be the largest deficits (at the time) so they could have that as an issue to run on next cycle.

I submit to you that they sabotaged things the past two years (and past 8 for that matter) along the same lines and for the same reasons (to hurt W). And no, I don't think W has been the greatest president, but I don't think he's been the worst by any means, either. The current state of things is in large part proof of the sabotage, but I'd also point out the lack of any real legislation from congress in the past two years to improve things, veto threat or not.

So now the republicans are about as marginalized as can be and the democrats get to rule their way. What are we already seeing?

Corruption on the highest order. Be it Blago or Spitzer or Hsu or Richardson, realize they're just the ones that got caught so far.

One party rule. I see a huge difference between wanting control of govt. to get agenda passed and simply wanting control of govt. I see the republicans having been in the former camp, and the democrats in the latter.

Spending on levels that make the republicans look like fiscal conservatives. They did pass a $700B bailout package on their terms that has not had much effect or was properly targeted. They have given us a $1.2T deficit this year. Obama's promising $1T deficits as far as the eye can see.

The one party rule thing is probably the greater threat to the nation. We're talking as undemocratic as Cuba, where Fidel Castro was the only guy on the ballot and won with 100% of the vote. I mean, why have elections at all? I think this last question is the Democrats' ultimate goal.

I asked where to begin. The reasons for my latest rant are severalfold, and in the news today.

Story #1. Democrats refused to seat Roland Burris in the senate. While I agree anyone appointed by Blago should be scrutinized especially because he was trying to sell the seat, I don't see that there's even a whiff of Burris or his backers actually buying the seat. Or any other real improprieties here. I'm not seeing the principles by which Harry Reid (who I voted for! but never again) is standing. It only looks like he wants to run the politburo his way and only his hand picked guys can get in.

Story #2. Democrats stole the election in Minnesota. Again, the Democrats refused to seat Franken. Is it truly due to technicalities, or is it to set some precedent for the Burris case that certainly will be heard by the Supreme Court? I think the latter.

This story: Reid: Coleman will "never ever serve" speaks to the arrogance of power of these people.

(As I write this, the Democrats apparently are going to seat Burris after all, but what was the deal that was struck?)

Story #3. Obama warns about years of trillion-dollar deficits - who let the dogs out? The republican bastards.

The amount of pork in those trillion-dollar deficits is something to pay attention to.

 

[Denny Crane]

And then there's this, which is actually good.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090107/ts_alt_afp/usmilitarygays_newsmlmmd

Obama era expected to end taboo on gays in US military

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Sixteen years after Bill Clinton tried to end restrictions on gays in the military, the US armed forces under Barack Obama may be forced to give homosexuals the same welcome as non-gays.

Under president Clinton, the policy that once saw homosexuals discharged from US military service evolved to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," allowing gays to remain in the military so long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation.

Obama has pledged to overhaul current law.

"The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited," reads an entry on the president-elect's transition website.

Shortly after taking the oath of office in 1993, Clinton originally moved for an outright ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation in the military.

That step, for better or worse, prompted an outcry among top military brass, along with many Republicans and a significant segment of the public.

Clinton quickly came up with his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise, allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they did not speak about their sexual orientation.

The law however still has seen a large number of dismissals of gay service members. Since its enactment, some 12,500 soldiers have been sent packing for acknowledging their homosexuality or after being outed as gay.

Those booted included some 800 key jobs such as Arabic translators, medical staff, pilots and intelligence personnel, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SDLN), a group which is fighting to end all restrictions on military service based on sexual orientation.

Backers of reform said the move toward loosening restriction reflects a change in societal attitudes.
"There has been a sea change in the way this issue is viewed, especially in light of our national security needs," said Democratic lawmaker Ellen Tauscher.

"We shouldn't be forcing good men and women out of military service," Tauscher told AFP.

The lawmaker is the lead sponsor in the House of Representatives of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA) which would replace "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

"The momentum for repeal has already begun. This summer we held first hearing on this issue in 15 years and recent public surveys show 75 percent of Americans believe (homosexual) men and women should be able to serve openly," the California lawmaker continued.

"My bill to repeal the policy last year had 148 co-sponsors in the House. I will reintroduce this legislation in the coming Congress," Tauscher added.

Even a group of some 100 retired generals and admirals recently appealed for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to be scrapped.

"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the former military brass wrote in their November 2008 letter.

Still, many in the traditionally conservative military community continue to have misgivings.

A poll of some 2,000 active duty military taken in December by the US media group Military Times found that 58 percent opposed the policy of non-discrimination against homosexuals. Twenty-nine percent said they approved the change.

But that lack of support should not impede getting rid of the law, opponents said.

"There will always be some people who will prefer the status quo, but people who preferred segregated units (banned in the US military in 1948) didn't leave the military by and large," notes Aubrey Sarvis, director of the SDLN.

Obama will have to be firm in his commitment to ending discrimination against gays in the military, he warned, despite a full agenda of burgeoning crises.

"Of course, the economy has to be the first priority, but it's a matter of developing a plan on how to move forward successfully," said Sarvis, who predicted a new law within the year.

"I take the president-elect on his word," he said. "I think he'll do it."

 

[Denny Crane]

^^^ On the other hand, it could be seen as a way to raise more troops to fight in the escalated war in Afghanistan that appears to be in the plans.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

What we need is a reformer in the oval office. One who isn't afraid to take on the real issues of our government. Sadly, there are none around.

 

[Ed O]

What we need is a reformer in the oval office. One who isn't afraid to take on the real issues of our government. Sadly, there are none around.

The things that exist now didn't randomly come to life. Most of the things that would be "reformed" are of value to a significant number of people... I don't think that anyone on the planet could come in and reform things on a massive scale without pissing a ton of people off.

I prefer baby steps to revolution, so I don't really think a reformer in a true sense would be a good idea.

Ed O.

 

[Entity]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Sixteen years after Bill Clinton tried to end restrictions on gays in the military, the US armed forces under Barack Obama may be forced to give homosexuals the same welcome as non-gays.

I'm in the service (intelligence), and a lot of my coworkers are gay. They seem to gravitate towards my career field, or maybe some folks are just too afraid to admit it in others. I have yet to meet a straight coworker of mine that has a problem with them, or even reacts uncomfortably around them. They're some of my best friends, and they work just as hard and honorably as anybody else, so it shocks the hell out of me that they have to hide it from anybody. But often my whole shop (about two dozen) will spend their off-work time together. There's no "don't ask, don't tell" between any of us. We're a pretty tight knit group, and we'll openly discuss it outside of work, joke with each other, indulge each other, enjoy our company. There is a fear, though, that those that want to serve don't want to get kicked out because somebody "slipped up" somewhere, even though they want to be open about it. This is really something that has been overdue, and I think while there are some that would be opposed to it, a majority of us would support it.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The things that exist now didn't randomly come to life. Most of the things that would be "reformed" are of value to a significant number of people... I don't think that anyone on the planet could come in and reform things on a massive scale without pissing a ton of people off.

I prefer baby steps to revolution, so I don't really think a reformer in a true sense would be a good idea.

Ed O.

I think you'd be surprised. The national debt, social security... are all problems than can be solved. But not by a 'business as usual' politician.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm in the service (intelligence), and a lot of my coworkers are gay. They seem to gravitate towards my career field, or maybe some folks are just too afraid to admit it in others. I have yet to meet a straight coworker of mine that has a problem with them, or even reacts uncomfortably around them. They're some of my best friends, and they work just as hard and honorably as anybody else, so it shocks the hell out of me that they have to hide it from anybody. But often my whole shop (about two dozen) will spend their off-work time together. There's no "don't ask, don't tell" between any of us. We're a pretty tight knit group, and we'll openly discuss it outside of work, joke with each other, indulge each other, enjoy our company. There is a fear, though, that those that want to serve don't want to get kicked out because somebody "slipped up" somewhere, even though they want to be open about it. This is really something that has been overdue, and I think while there are some that would be opposed to it, a majority of us would support it.

Well, I have an additional qualification that Obama seems to forget. Whether a gay soldier can kick the enemy's ass. I have little doubt they can.

 

[Real]

"You shouldn't have to be straight to be in the military. You just have to be able to shoot straight."-Barry Goldwater

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-dixon0109,0,3147190.story

Mayor Sheila Dixon indicted

Counts of perjury, theft, misconduct in office among 12-count indictment

<dl class="byline">By Annie Linskey and Julie Bykowicz | annie.linskey@baltsun.com and julie.bykowicz@baltsun.com<dd>9:01 PM EST, January 9, 2009</dd></dl>Baltimore Mayor Sheila A. Dixon was charged today with 12 counts of felony theft, perjury, fraud and misconduct in office, becoming the city's first sitting mayor to be criminally indicted.

The case stems in part from at least $15,348 in gifts Dixon allegedly received from her former boyfriend, prominent city developer Ronald H. Lipscomb, while she was City Council president. She also is accused of using as much as $3,400 in gift cards, some donated to her office for distribution to "needy families," to purchase Best Buy electronics and other items for herself and her staff.

Lipscomb was not indicted in the Dixon case, but he and City Councilwoman Helen L. Holton were charged this week in a separate $12,500 bribery scheme. Both cases grew out of a nearly three-year probe by the state prosecutor into City Hall corruption.

The investigation has hung over Dixon, a Democrat, even as she became the city's first female mayor and oversaw a significant decrease in the city's homicide rate, reducing killings to a 20-year low. Viewed as an energetic and charismatic leader, she has earned praise from residents for implementing an easy-to-use recycling program and displaying a willingness to tackle the city's systemic racial and economic disparities.

It is unclear what the indictment will mean for the mayor. She has pledged to remain focused on her job, and many local officials rallied behind her today. But even ceremonial events will take on new dimensions. Many wondered today, for example, whether Dixon will appear with president-elect Barack Obama next week when he makes a planned stop in the city.

At a news conference today at her attorney's office in Clipper Mill near Hampden, a composed Dixon said she was innocent.

"I will not let these charges deter me from keeping Baltimore on the path that we have set, or from carrying forward the significant progress we have made thus far," she said, reading a prepared statement. "I am being unfairly accused. Time will prove that I have done nothing wrong, and I am confident that I will be found innocent of these charges."

If convicted on all charges, the 55-year-old former teacher and mother of two could be sentenced to 85 years in prison. The most serious charges, two counts of felony theft, each carry a possible 15-year prison term.

Her attorney, Arnold M. Weiner, in a half-hour presentation carried live on local television and designed to win over the court of public opinion, accused those investigating the mayor of partisan motivations.

Weiner noted that State Prosecutor Robert A. Rohrbaugh and former U.S. Attorney Thomas M. DiBiagio, who investigated her earlier, were appointed by Republicans, and he accused Rohrbaugh of harboring an "obsession" in pursuing the mayor.

"There wasn't a bedsheet he did not look under or a lead he found too trivial to pursue personally," Weiner said.

The lawyer used courtroom exhibit-style poster boards to argue that Dixon did not perjure herself by failing to include the Lipscomb gifts on her city ethics forms, saying city code does not require disclosing gifts from subcontractors, such as Lipscomb.

Using a red pen, he pointed to a city code provision that requires the city's finance director to maintain a list of the companies doing business with the city. Weiner said that the city has not kept that list. Staff at the city's finance department could not be reached for comment by deadline.

Rohrbaugh declined to respond to questions, and prosecutors would not say whether their probe has ended. He said in a statement: "The public's trust in their elected officials is essential to the proper functioning of government."

The City Hall corruption probe dates to the fall of 2003, when federal authorities subpoenaed five years' worth of financial records from all City Council members. When that inquiry ended 18 months later with no charges filed, Weiner said, Rohrbaugh began an investigation of his own.

That state investigation eventually spanned as many as nine Baltimore grand juries. Weiner called it the longest and most expensive public corruption investigation he had ever seen.

In the end, a Baltimore Circuit Court grand jury that expired today returned a 31-page indictment of the mayor.

One theft charge involves misconduct in December 2007, when Dixon was mayor. According to the indictment, a Baltimore housing employee purchased Toys R Us gift cards to be distributed to underprivileged children during a holiday event. Dixon allegedly gave one of those gift cards to a member of her staff, and five others were discovered at her West Baltimore house when investigators raided it in June.

Among other accusations: In 2004, 2005 and 2006, Dixon solicited gift cards - to Target, Best Buy, Old Navy and Circuit City -- from two developers. She then used some of the cards to purchase a PlayStation2 controller, a PlayStation Portable, a Samsung digital camcorder and other items she either kept or gave to staff members as Christmas presents, the indictment said.

Neither developer is named, and the state prosecutor refers to them as Developer A and Developer B. Weiner identified Developer A as Lipscomb. Another part of the indictment covers lavish presents from Lipscomb, whom Dixon has said she dated briefly in late 2003 and early 2004. Those gifts include a $2,000 furrier certificate that she used to buy a Persian lamb coat and a "burnt umber mink coat"; $3,200 for a New York City trip that included a stay at the Trump International Hotel; a $1,518 plane ticket from Baltimore to Chicago; and thousands of dollars in cash to pay credit card bills amassed during a swanky Chicago shopping spree.

The indictment also alleges that Lipscomb passed Dixon thousands of dollars of cash - some of which she handed off to a staff member in a wad of 40 $100 bills while being driven around the city. The staff member, who is not named in the indictment, deposited the cash into his personal checking account and paid part of Dixon's American Express bill, the indictment says.

After the indictment was handed up, elected officials across the state came out strongly in support of Dixon, with many saying they were praying for her.

"I feel very sorry for her," said Baltimore State's Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy, a fellow Democrat. "She is a very hard worker. ... Based on what I know and my relationship with her, I hope this is resolved quickly so that she can continue conducting the business of the city."

City Council President Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake said in a statement that the mayor "is an effective public servant who has worked tirelessly for the citizens of Baltimore. I wish Mayor Dixon the best as this difficult case continues and allegations are answered as part of the legal process."

Gov. Martin O'Malley, who was mayor when some of the gifts were exchanged, called it "a tough day for all of us who care about Baltimore's progress."

"It is my sincere hope that all of these long, drawn-out matters will soon be resolved in a court of law once all the facts are known," he said.

Del. Maggie L. McIntosh, a Baltimore Democrat and influential leader in Annapolis, said, "I did note that there was no charge that she was in any way bribed. ... We now need to hear her side of the case."

The Maryland Republican Party released a statement saying the "culture of corruption is rearing its head" among Maryland Democratic politicians.

Baltimore's ethics laws, which Dixon helped to write, ban city employees from soliciting or accepting gifts from those who do business with the city.

"A primary purpose of the yearly Financial Disclosure Forms is to disclose, monitor and deter conflicts of interest, thereby maintaining public confidence in the integrity of Baltimore's public officials," Rohrbaugh wrote in the indictment.

Over the course of the wide-ranging investigation, two people with ties to Dixon have pleaded guilty, and state officials spent seven hours searching the mayor's Hunting Ridge home in June.

Dixon came under intensified scrutiny after a Sun article in early 2006 revealed that she, as City Council president, used an investigative hearing to pressure an official from Comcast to give more work to several minority-owned firms, including a company that employed her sister.

Dixon also voted three times on awarding contracts to the company, Utech, worth about $1 million.

In March 2008, the president of Utech, Mildred E. Boyer, pleaded guilty to filing a false tax return and pledged cooperation with the state prosecutor's investigation. None of the charges filed today involved Utech, a fact noted by Dixon's attorney, who said the state prosecutor wasted time and taxpayer money pursuing fruitless leads.

The Sun also reported in 2006 that Dixon's campaign chairman, Dale G. Clark, received $600,000 over six years for developing a computer system for the City Council.

For five of those years, Clark worked without a contract and was instructed by Dixon's chief of staff to bill the city in increments below $5,000, an amount that does not require approval from the city's Board of Estimates.

In September 2007, Clark pleaded guilty to three counts of failure to file tax returns and is cooperating with a broader investigation. Today's indictment also had no mention of Clark.

Baltimore Sun staff researcher Paul McCardell and reporters Laura Smitherman and Gadi Dechter contributed to this article.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/clinton_letters___dollars

AP: Clinton acted on concerns of husband's donors

<cite class="vcard"> By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer
</cite><abbr title="2009-01-13T00:12:01-0800" class="timedate">Tue Jan 13, 3:12 am ET
</abbr>
<!-- end .byline --> WASHINGTON – Secretary of State appointee Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation, an Associated Press review of her official correspondence found.

The overlap of names on former President Bill Clinton's foundation donor list and business interests whose issues she championed raises new questions about potential ethics conflicts between her official actions and her husband's fundraising. The AP obtained three of the senator's government letters under the Freedom of Information Act.

Clinton was to begin her confirmation hearing Tuesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Under an agreement with President-elect Barack Obama, Bill Clinton recently released the names of donors to his foundation, a nonprofit that has raised at least $492 million — including millions from foreign governments — to fund his library in Little Rock, Ark., and charitable efforts worldwide on such issues as AIDS, poverty and climate change.

The letters and donations involve pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications and energy interests. An aide to the senator said she made no secret of her involvement in many of the issues. Bill Clinton's foundation declined to say when it received the donations or precisely how much was contributed.

"Throughout her tenure, Senator Clinton has proven that she acts solely based on what she believes is best for the state and people she represents, without consideration to any other factor," spokesman Philippe Reines said. "In these instances, she was doing what the people of New York elected her to do: Work hard on the issues of importance to them."

Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Clinton Foundation both declined to answer questions about whether the senator attempted to step away from issues directly affecting donors to her husband's charity, and whether the foundation tried to screen out money from those on whose issues the senator had intervened.

"Generally, through a combination of rigorous adherence to Senate and FEC income and asset disclosure rules, coupled with the voluntary and unprecedented release of the names of every single Foundation supporter since its inception, the Clintons are by far the most financially transparent former first couple in American history," Reines said.

Sen. Clinton wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in February 2004 expressing concern that changes to competitive local exchange carrier access rates could hurt carriers such as New York-based PAETEC Communications. PAETEC's chief executive is Arunas Chesonis, whose family and charity later contributed to the Clinton foundation.

Sarah Wood, executive director of the Chesonis Family Foundation, was invited by a part of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, to join the initiative after it was established in 2005, Wood said Monday. The Chesonis family personally paid $15,000 for Wood's membership in CGI in September 2007, and the Chesonis foundation paid $20,000 for it in March 2008, Wood said.

The Chesonis Family Foundation made a $10 million pledge last May to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for solar energy research, meeting Wood's commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative to act on a project, Wood said.

Wood said the Chesonis foundation was unaware of the senator's letter to the FCC on the PAETEC issue and didn't have any contact with the senator's office.

PAETEC spokesman Christopher Muller said PAETEC had no involvement in the Chesonis donations to the Clinton foundation. PAETEC asked Clinton to intervene with the FCC on its behalf, he said.

"Yes, PAETEC feels strongly that a competitive telecom environment is in the best interests of New York businesses and consumers," Muller wrote in an e-mail to the AP. "PAETEC has petitioned numerous elected officials in the markets which we serve in an effort to retain the spirit of the Telecom Act of 1996." The issue is still pending at the FCC, and PAETEC remains involved in it, Muller said.

Pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. is also a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, company spokeswoman Amy Rose said. Merck joined CGI in 2006, when dues were $15,000, and also was a member in 2007 and in 2008, when membership dues rose to $20,000. As part of its commitment to CGI, Merck sponsors public health initiatives around the world, Rose said. Merck joined CGI on its own initiative, she said.

Sen. Clinton wrote a November 2005 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt urging approval of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Merck applied in December 2005 for approval of its HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and the vaccine was approved for use in females ages 9 to 26. Merck is still seeking approval for use in older women, Rose said.

Rose said Merck's participation in the Clinton Global Initiative was unrelated to Sen. Clinton's letter. Merck didn't communicate with Clinton or her office about its HPV vaccine and was unaware of her letter before it was sent, Rose said.

Another letter involved an issue important to Barr Laboratories. Sens. Clinton and Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote to Leavitt in August 2005 urging that "science, not politics" guide the agency and "that a decision be brought swiftly on Plan B's application." Leavitt's office described the Clinton letter as pertaining to Barr's application for Plan B, the emergency contraceptive also called the morning-after pill.

Barr Laboratories gave $10,001 to $25,000 to Clinton foundation, the charity's donor list shows. Barr joined the Clinton Global Initiative in April 2007, spokeswoman Carol Cox said. Cox didn't comment on Clinton's letter.

Several of the letters involve issues directly affecting KeySpan Corp., the energy company now known as National Grid. KeySpan didn't ask the senator to intervene, and had no communication with her office about its later donations to the Clinton foundation, company spokesman Chris Mostyn said.

KeySpan joined the Clinton Global Initiative in 2007 because it wanted to become involved in the climate change issue, Mostyn said. KeySpan paid $15,000 for its membership in 2007 and $20,000 for 2008, Mostyn said.

Clinton joined several other members of Congress from New York in February 2003 asking the Commerce Department to consider an appeal by Islander East, a limited liability company formed by subsidiaries of KeySpan Energy and another company, to build a natural gas pipeline to serve Connecticut, New York City and Long Island, N.Y.

Clinton and the other lawmakers wanted the Commerce Department to overturn the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's determination that Islander East's pipeline plan was inconsistent with the state's coastal zone management program. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and other Connecticut lawmakers wrote to Commerce urging denial of Islander East's appeal.

Clinton earlier wrote to the Long Island Power Authority and to KeySpan urging them to consider the modernization of KeySpan's New York power plants. Her letter in June 2002 offered her help on the issue. Also in 2002, Clinton wrote the federal government letters on the natural gas Millennium Pipeline Project in which KeySpan was involved, urging an extension of a deadline for public comment and forwarding information on route alternatives.

Mostyn said KeySpan didn't ask Clinton to get involved in the issues. The Millennium Pipeline began commercial operations in December, the Islander East project is on hold due to Connecticut's rejection of permits, and the company is working with the Long Island Power Authority to study power plant modernization, he said.

 

[maxiep]

Denny, don't you realize that only those right-of-center are dirty? Those on the left have nothing but the most noble of motives.

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, don't you realize that only those right-of-center are dirty? Those on the left have nothing but the most noble of motives.

Yeah. Right.

At least when those left of center are elected, we can hope that those who have whined the most over the past 8 years might STFU.

Ya know?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html

Geithner's Past Tax Problems Throw Wrench in Confirmation


By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON -- Timothy Geithner didn't pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for several years while he worked for the International Monetary Fund, and he employed an immigrant housekeeper who briefly lacked proper work papers.

<cite>
Getty Images</cite>
President-elect Barack Obama's pick for Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, left, employed an immigrant housekeeper with expired work papers.

Those issues, and a series of other tax matters, caused the postponement Tuesday of Mr. Geithner's confirmation hearing as Treasury secretary. They were instead the subject of a closed-door meeting between the nominee, currently president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and members of the Senate Finance Committee, in whose hands his confirmation lies.

Several senators said after the meeting that they intended to remain supporters of Mr. Geithner, who has playing a central role in tackling the financial crisis. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) called the issue serious, but not disqualifying.

"I still support him," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) as he emerged from the meeting. "He's a very competent guy."

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the committee's senior Republican, did not give Mr. Geithner a pass. "It's serious, and whether or not it's disqualifying is to be determined," Mr. Grassley said after the meeting. Similar issues have derailed other candidates for high office in the past.

Obama's Cabinet
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html#

• Are any of Obama's cabinet picks at risk of becoming a liability for the administration?

Obama aides said they didn't think these issues would present a problem, given what they characterized as the minor nature of the infractions and the gravity of the role Mr. Geithner has been nominated to take. Mr. Geithner's "service should not be tarnished by honest mistakes, which, upon learning of them, he quickly addressed," Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

Senate aides said a new hearing, which promises to be contentious, has been scheduled for Friday.

At the closed-door meeting, Mr. Geithner was contrite, several participants said. He told senators the mistakes were not intentional, but that he should have known better. The Internal Revenue Service claims by far the largest piece of the Treasury Department's budget.

Mr. Geithner declined to comment on any matters as he left the closed-door meeting Tuesday.

The tax issue relates to Mr. Geithner's work for the International Monetary Fund between 2001 and 2004. As an American citizen working for the IMF, Mr. Geithner was technically considered self-employed and was required to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for himself as both an employer and an employee.

More on Geithner

• Washington Wire: Nomination Hits a Snag
• Geithner docs (From Senate Finance Committee)

The IMF and World Bank reimburse employees, including U.S. citizens, for their U.S. income taxes, and make payments on a quarterly basis to cover those liabilities. They don't, however, make contributions toward Social Security and Medicare taxes, which individuals are expected to pay on their own.

In 2006, the IRS audited Mr. Geithner's 2003 and 2004 taxes and concluded he owed taxes and interest totaling $17,230, according to documents released by the Senate Finance Committee. The IRS waived the related penalties.

During the vetting of Mr. Geithner late last year, the Obama transition team discovered the nominee had similarly failed to pay the same taxes for 2001 and 2002. "Upon learning of this error on Nov. 21, 2008, Mr. Geithner immediately submitted payment for tax that would have been due in those years, plus interest," a transition aide said. The sum totaled $25,970.

The Obama team said that Mr. Geithner's taxes have been paid in full, and that he didn't intend to avoid payment, but made a mistake common for employees of international institutions. That characterization was contested by Senate Finance panel Republicans, who produced IMF documents showing that employees are repeatedly told they are responsible for paying their payroll taxes.

As to why Mr. Geithner didn't pay all his back taxes after the 2006 audit, an Obama aide said the nominee was advised by his accountant that he had no further liability. Senate Finance Committee aides said they were concerned that either Mr. Geithner or his accountant had used the IRS's statute of limitations to avoid further back-tax payments at the time of the audit.

"Some might say it was a character moment," said one Republican aide.

Other tax issues also surfaced during the vetting, including the fact that Mr. Geithner used his child's time at overnight camps in 2001, 2004 and 2005 to calculate certain dependent-care tax deductions. Sleepaway camps don't qualify.

Amended tax returns that Mr. Geithner filed recently include $4,334 in additional taxes, and $1,232 in interest for infractions, such as an early-withdrawal penalty from a retirement plan, an improper small-business deduction, a charitable-contribution deduction for ineligible items, and the expensing of utility costs that went for personal use.

The other cloud for Mr. Geithner involved an immigrant housekeeper whose work-authorization papers expired during her tenure working for Mr. Geithner. For three months, until she stopped working for the family to have a baby, the woman was working on the expired papers. An Obama aide said the woman reapplied for the papers and received them, and now resides legally in the U.S.

Mr. Geithner, 47 years old, has been a central figure in the government's efforts to tackle the housing collapse and its aftermath. He has spent most of his career managing government responses to financial crises, from the 1990s bailouts of Mexico, Indonesia and South Korea to the current meltdown that has brought Wall Street to its knees.

His nomination was widely praised last fall. People on both sides of the aisle saw him as someone capable of carrying on the government's efforts, while also representing a fresh start.

Such issues, however, have derailed other nominations. President Bill Clinton's first and second choices for attorney general both withdrew amid allegations they failed to pay taxes for household help. President George W. Bush's first choice for Labor secretary withdrew after it emerged that she had housed an illegal immigrant.

<cite class="tagline">—Bob Davis contributed to this article.
</cite>Write to Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com