The Columbus Dispatch reports that state officials are investigating whether state employees illegally accessed the BMV records of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the Plumber."
Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.
Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed through accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.
It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver's license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law-enforcement and government business. . . .
The attorney general's office is investigating whether the access of Wurzelbacher's BMV information through the office's Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway computer system was unauthorized, spokeswoman Jennifer Brindisi said.
"We're trying to pinpoint where it came from," she said. The investigation could become "criminal in nature," she said. Brindisi would not identify the account that pulled the information on Oct. 16.
Which response are you referring to?
I would think everybody should be outraged if state employees have been using official databases to run freelance investigations of members of the public. Wouldn't you? I ask because your comments suggest you're fine with this kind of behavior as long as people you perceive to be political opponents are on the receiving end.
Agreed.
If memory serves, Democrats were outraged to find out that a State Dept. official had peeked at Bill Clinton's passport file in the 1992 election. So now I guess it is OK?
Do we know for a fact that Mr. Wurzelbacher is a GOP/conservative?
The Award - a solid tin bust of Joe Klein - will go to the BHO apologist best able to present a scenario under which this was not both an attempt to find dirt on someone who had dared to question The One but also a preview of one way a BHO admin will deal with their adversaries.
In that case, several neutral observers, as well as the defense noted that the prosecutors seemed rather uninterested in going after Pellicano's clients:
I certainly agree that the US Attorney's failure to make a serious effort to go after Pellicano's clients doesn't excuse Pellicano or his associates. All the same, the fact that Pellicano was hired by expensive attorneys leaves a lingering stench of corruption that the US Attorney did little to dissipate.
As I said, this is provided as a non-partisan example. I hope it stimulates a better discussion than might be the case if I provided links for the very recent events in New Mexico.
I think the treatment Joe's getting from the press is really meant as a warning: "don't mess with BHO, or we will get you-- remember what happened to Joe." I'm sure if they can't find any dirt, they will make it up. Let's recall that personal dirt seems to come out about BHO's political opponents, such as Jack Ryan where the press sued to gain access to his divorce records.
.
GOP/conservatives have no standing to complain about government intrusion, meanwhile, Democrats can? That's just plain unfair, plus it inherently emboldens an oppressive government.
.
Seems you've just announced an intention to snoop like hell against political enemies, and become the enabler of a government-sponsored political oppression.
Michael Barone has understated what is coming.
Really? Is this the new Obama offical policy?
This sort of snooping needs to stop.
.
Tweak your sarcasm detector a bit to the center, and reread AntonK.
Help me out here. If the members of one class of taxpayers have their tax rate increased so that the members of another class can have their's lowered, how is that a transfer of wealth from the one class to the other? But if it is a transfer, then note that there must currently be a transfer of wealth going in the other direction. I.e., the low (relative to income) rate of the well-off is being purchased by the high (relative to income) rate of the not-as-well-off. Basically, wealthy taxpayers get to keep more of their income now because middle class taxpayers get to keep less of their's. That can be called a transfer, too.
.
LOL. Methinks he protests too much. Why not just, "We understand the concern, and the access to these records should be investigated fully."
.
[My] tongue in cheek, he might have said "Our campaign accessed these records in full conformity with the law. Investigation is pointless."
Of course it is not appropriate for anyone to do it against anyone for any improper purpose, but that doesn't stop those who are urging that it be done in Ohio, et al, in order to depress the Democratic vote. This is not all that complicated. It is no surprise that Bush has asked Mukasey to intervene for a partisan purpose.
But you all complain too late. There is no reason to expect that a new Obama administration will do anything like the buss administration has done. Stop projecting. Such invasions of privacy became the norm during the Bush years, and the GOP'ers supported it against anyone they didn't like. The standards for identifying /fighting "terrorists", and the range of people who became formally or informally authorized to do so became so low that it is too late to really do anything about it. The GOP'ers were quite content to let it go on when it was being done against those whom they considered "bad guys". Now there is no standard. Thanks. You have helped change the world for the worse.
Finally, for those familiar with defamation law, what SJW did was to make himself a public figure, or at least semi-public figure by going on camera. He asked for the attention and scrutiny by asking a closed ended question that anyone here who actually practices litigation will recognize: "Under your plan, my taxes will go up, won't they? [paraphrase]." That is not a neutral fact gathering question from an ordinary citizen, it is a chance to get on the air. If he did not want to subject himself to scrutiny he would not have done interviews, gotten a book agent, etc.
"Help me out here."
I'm happy to. As I understand the matter, BHO proposes to "lower" taxes for people who pay no income tax by rebating money to them. That's not a reduction in taxes; it's a direct transfer from everyone else who pays taxes. BTW about 45% of taxpayers pay no federal income tax at all. Taxpayers below the median income level pay about 3% of federal taxes. It seems to me that everyone should pay something, because everyone benefits.
If memory serves, Democrats were outraged to find out that a State Dept. official had peeked at Bill Clinton's passport file in the 1992 election. So now I guess it is OK?"
Not OK then, and not now. Actually, it was a lot more than peeking.
So naturally it's perfectly OK to turn his life upside down, check out his educational background and personal finances, investigate his business, (possibly) illegally inspect state databases to see what they might have on him, and to publish and broadcast all this information on Obama-supporting news media. The public is entitled to know, right?
Let's be honest: there's nothing more going on here than an attempt to punish an ordinary citizen for asking an embarrassing but perfectly ordinary question of a politician, and to divert attention from the question itself. Clearly, this is ok with you. Appalling.
But don't we already have this in the Earned Income Tax Credit? We've had the EITC since 1975. It's not original with Obama.
All taxes transfer money. It's only a question of cui bono.
I find it rather scary that so many liberals have screamed for the last 8 years about FISA and wiretapping but now see digging around in Joe's records as acceptable-all in the name of getting Obama elected.
If Obama gets elected this way now, what can we expect out of his presidency. I always sort of saw obama as Jimmy Carter's second term, but I am starting to think we may be looking at Nixon's third term.
Even people who don't pay federal income taxes pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, state and local taxes, etc. And yes, if Obama "reduces" the amount of "taxes" these "people" "pay" then he will apparently "lower" their taxes.
How poor do you have to be to not pay federal income tax?
Has anyone checked the bar association records? Maybe he's really Joe the Lawyer, who should have realized that he was inviting scrutiny under the closed-ended-questions-waive-your-privacy provision of Ohio law.
"But don't we already have this in the Earned Income Tax Credit? We've had the EITC since 1975. It's not original with Obama."
If the EITC results in some people getting a rebate who would otherwise have paid no taxes, then indeed it is income transfer. BHO intends to increase the rebates, that's what's at issue.
MarkField:
"... people who pay no income taxes certainly do pay other taxes."
Those "other" taxes are mainly state and municipal taxes. Income taxes are the primary source of funding for the federal government. This is an issue of presidential politics, not state politics.
"All taxes transfer money. It's only a question of cui bono."
Historically the purpose of the federal income tax is to fund the operations of the federal government, not the direct and explicit transfer of income. One can argue that in effect the income tax transfers income, but that's incidental. In theory we should correct that effect if it gets out of hand. But BHO proposes to open the door to a whole new policy agenda. One obviously intended to keep his party in power by creating a patronage class. Not surprising for a Chicago politician.
Federal income taxes, however, are mandatory. Unless you're in the lower 45% of the population which, as we all know, is living in poverty.
.
I hear ya. That the Democrats didn't want his notoriety to translate into public visibility and success, is telling. Democrats at least put their anguish to use, by eagerly working to discredit him as a person.
"Even people who don't pay federal income taxes pay payroll taxes ..."
Payroll taxes are different because they are levied to purchase a future annuity, and not to explicitly fund government operations. The future cash flows from a SS annuity are an extremely non-linear function of the total contributions. As such it provides a high rate of return for low income contributors, and a negative rate of return for high wage earners. Thus low wage earners (the target group for BHO's income tax rebates) get a substantial benefit. For them it's a "tax" in name only.
"How poor do you have to be to not pay federal income tax?"
A little poorer than the median income as the lower 50% pays only 3% of federal income taxes, and the lower 45% pays nothing.
1. Was it a crime to access Wurzlebacher's motor vehicle records? Of course it was. Whoever did it should serve time.
2. Did the Obama campaign have anything to do with the snooping? Right now, there is absolutely no evidence of that, which hasn't kept the McCain campaign from charging Obama's staff with a serious crime, just as the McCain campaign tried to create a flap out of the racial fantasies of one of its mentally-ill volunteers in Pittsburgh. That should tell every reasonable person what assertions from the McCain campaign are worth.
3. Are any facts about Wurzlebacher relevant to the campaign? Of course. He pretended to be, and is held out by the McCain campaign as being, a small businessman whose taxes would go up under the Obama plan. It turns out that he is neither. It also turns out that he's a tax-dodger and a racist (who likened Obama to Sammy Davis, Jr.). McCain can legitimately be challenged about his judgment in making Wurzlebacher into some sort of hero/poster boy, and facts about Wurzlebacher are relevant to that challenge.
As to whether the publicity is somehow unfair to Wurzlebacher, he aggressively sought it out, starting with his decision to confront Sen. Obama as Obama campaigned in Wurzlebacher's neighborhood and continuing with his baseless allegation -- which has become a McCain-campaign mantra -- that Obama's opposition to the same tax cuts McCain opposed back in 2001 makes Obama a "socialist."
As to Wurzlebacher's lack of a plumber's license: plumbing is a highly skilled occupation, requiring a license in every state. Of course those licensure rules can be abused, but since the average consumer is utterly incapable of jugding the quality of plumbing, and since homebuyers have no way of knowing the quality of the plumbing services previously purchased by homesellers, and since the potential damage from bad plumbing work is substantial, licensure is not an unreasonable rule (by contrast, for example, with licensure of hairstylists).
By claiming to be a plumber when he actually dropped out of an apprenticeship program, Wurzlebacher is padding his resume, just as much as a law school dropout working as a clerk-typist at a law firm would be unjustified in calling himself "Joe the Lawyer." Even libertarians who believe that anyone should be allowed to practice law ought to condemn such resume-padding, unless their snobbery is such as to deny that qualified plumbers, like qualified lawyers, possess a legitimate occupational status based on their training and knowledge.
All that said, not every fact about Wurzlebacher is relevant to the campaign, and some of the attempts to damage him personally because of the political stance he chose to take ought properly to be condemned. But again, since there is no evidence that the Obama campaign was involved in any of those attempts, loose talk about "the coming Obama thugocracy," along with false claims about massive vote fraud and campaign-finance fraud, ought to be dismissed for what they are: pre-emptive whining by a bunch of (in both senses of the term) losers.
With respect, that's not the thrust of what you originally wrote:
That implies novelty. I merely pointed out that it's not new. Moreover, the EITC has been periodically increased under both Democratic and Republican administrations:
FICA? And if you state has a sales tax on food I guess you can always choose to starve rather than pay.
BHO proposes to "lower" taxes for people who pay no income tax by rebating money to them. That's not a reduction in taxes; it's a direct transfer from everyone else who pays taxes.
And JSM proposes to help people buy health insurance by givng them money - a $5000 refundable tax credit, just like the one you're objecting to.
.
I usually don't hang out in election goings on, but this election is a hoot! Call somebody a tap dancer the likes of Sammy Davis, take the "racist" brand.
.
Hell, you are a race-baiter. Pure and simple. Why should anybody take you seriously? You ought to be ashamed of yourself, you race-baiting hussy.
1. Was it a crime to access Wurzlebacher's motor vehicle records? Of course it was. Whoever did it should serve time. "
Your post should have stopped here. You're as much a latent thug as the other idiot, RPT.
Illegal access of someones records is still wrong!!!!!!
Does plumbing in fact require a personal license in Ohio? Many sites have reported as fact that Wurzlebacher doesn't need a plumbing license as long as his employer has one, which he apparently does. If he works on plumbing all day for money, he is in fact a plumber, licensed or not.
Similarly, many excellent teachers are unlicensed, which is perfectly legal as long as they work in private or charter schools. Would you say that they're not really teachers because they haven't taken a lot of stupid ed courses? If they teach all day for pay, I think they're teachers.
"That implies novelty. I merely pointed out that it's not new."
It is new. At least according to this analysis that appeared in the WSJ.If BHO were simply proposing to tinker with existing EIC, I suspect there would be little controversy. But as you can see he goes beyond tinkering so his plan is both new an novel.
Oh lighten up, for Christ's sake. My point was Joe's trying to cash in on his 15 minutes. Who can blame him? And this
is, forgive me, just silly. McCain was the one who pushed Joe out in the hot glare of the lights by repeating his "name" like a mantra in the last debate. He aroused all the subsequent interest; Democratic "anguish" had zero to do with it. And too date the effect of JTP on McCain's fortunes, if the polls are any indication, has been nugatory.
The statements I get always tell me that it's what I've contributed.
Another absurd argument. The current tax structure redistributes income upwards. His change will mitigate that redistribution.
You're just playing word games. Every tax redistributes money from those who pay it to those who don't. Current taxes do it, past taxes have done it, future taxes will do it. There's no avoiding it.
You are dancing around the issue. It doesn't matter if "Joe the Plumber" is even a real person. Are you asserting that no "Joe the Plumber" types exist? Of course not. The debate centers around tax policy for Schedule C filers. There are lots of small business owners that file this kind of tax return that commingles personal income and expenses with business expenses. If a business has a net income over $250k, then BHO's tax policy will act to its detriment. Do you dispute that? As such it could impact investment decisions such as the purchase of new equipment. A schedule C business already has to pay about 15% in FICA taxes right off the top. It's a burden. Believe me. I myself have given up doing consulting in the past because I could only get $0.35 on the dollar after federal, state, city, FICA. My leisure time was not worth giving up for such a low after tax return on effort.
Tax policy matters. It affects business and investment decisions. Why don't you talk about this instead of flinging insults as some guy?
"You're just playing word games."
That's a funny statement for a lawyer (assuming that's what you are). BHO's proposals are more than word games as should be clear to you from what I've already said.
It's not just food. No state allows people to go naked, so they pay sales tax on clothes which the law forces them to buy. They pay property tax when they rent. Etc.
But perhaps the real answer is this: making income is just as voluntary as buying goods. No income = no tax.
Well, we do get lots of practice recognizing them.
Only your first point [#1] is legitimate. The others are not. And the fact that you deal the race card from the bottom of the deck is, I suppose, to be expected. So tell us, how is comparing one African-American with another automatically "racist"? [This is the first I've heard of this, but recall Hillary's appeal to white Southerners.]
byomtov:Move to a state like California that doesn't tax food. And the state's money giveaways to the 'poor' and unemployed are extremely generous. FICA? What FICA? And anyway, that's more akin to a savings/insurance plan for workers than a tax.
And I note that the 'poor' are significantly fatter in America than the average citizen, so there's not much chance of us witnessing some poor folks laying around in the gutter starving, with pool cue sized arms and legs, and distended, malnourished bellies. The fact of the matter is that finding a truly destitute person in America is extremely difficult [after eliminating those who have made bad personal choices like drug or alcohol abuse, gambling, etc.]
Face it, poverty has been almost completely eliminated in America. Yet Obama intends to jack taxes way up [keeping in mind that business don't pay taxes; their customers do].
So why is Obama jacking up taxes? Simple: to add a new army of unelected, unresponsive, unaccountable bureaucrats sucking at the taxpayers' teat. They are his primary constituents.
"But don't we already have this in the Earned Income Tax Credit? We've had the EITC since 1975. It's not original with Obama."
Irony of ironies.
In other news, under RPT's theory, the standing of Democrats to even criticize Watergate would require that LBJ be pure as the driven snow.
Tangled webs all around!
.
is, forgive me, just silly. McCain was the one who pushed Joe out in the hot glare of the lights by repeating his "name" like a mantra in the last debate. --
.
That defense is non-responsive. The presence of notoriety (particularly attached to the message), without regard to how that notoriety came about (sure, he gets it by McCain using his name, fine), was intolerable to the Democrats. The preference was to turn that notoriety into a negative, rather than into success. In addition to going after "his message," they went after his reputation. Go ahead and defend the Democrats' conduct in that regard - you aren't alone.
So naturally it's perfectly OK to turn his life upside down, check out his educational background and personal finances, investigate his business, (possibly) illegally inspect state databases to see what they might have on him, and to publish and broadcast all this information on Obama-supporting news media."
No. I said it was wrong for anyone to access private databases about SJW. Wrong. Illegal. Period. Please review my post. Argue honestly.
Now, it was also foolish of him to misrepresent himself in the public sphere by saying he was a licenses plumber--if he was not--and that he was ready, willing and able to buy a $250-280K business--if he was not and could not afford to--and so on.
The point is that it is not wise to jump into public debates and make statements which partisan of any kind side can easily disprove.
Finally, re the "Obama-supporting news media", this is a fiction. It is not supported by any meaningful analysis of media ownership, behavior, news content, consolidation, and so on. There are actually facts available about such contentions, as well as re the dreaded "MSM". There is no reason to take seriously anyone who makes such contentions or uses such terms. Add up the combined annual salaries of Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly and tell us that "conservative" voices are not heard.
P.S. Do you believe that drosophila reasearch should be abandoned?
.
Priceless.
No. LBJ was never pure. Unlike Bush, he was actually subject to real intra-party criticism and opposition. The comment was not a "theory". The problem is that GOP supporters have worked to break down legal protections for privacy and personal information and have supported and enabled the process and practice of privacy invasion of which they now complain when it is wrongfully used against SJW. The only complaint is that the destructive process is being directed against a target GOPer's like.
Thanks!
OK then, economic illiteracy it is. And black is white, down is up, and evil is good. Tell us, Einstein, how do folks who pay no federal taxes redistribute their income upwards? We look forward to your erudition.
RPT:Well, that discredits you, doesn't it? Tell us, RPT, what's the color of the sky on your planet?
Aside from my snark, which becomes an irresistible force within me when I read comments like those, may I again remind everyone that the issue is Obama's dodging of the question, not the ad hominem attacks on a private citizen.
Actually, that's not true. He stated that he was thinking about purchasing a business that he expected would earn aboutr $250k/yr (didn't specify gross or net income).
He said he was unaware of the tax lien on his real property (Which is possible. I work in Real Estate, and sometimes we don't know a lien exists until we run a title search.) And since when is stating that someone can dance like SD Jr. a racist statement? Sammy was a great dancer, who happened to be black. Of course, I believe the new rule is: any critism of Obama is racist.
"may I again remind everyone that the issue is Obama's dodging of the question, not the ad hominem attacks on a private citizen."
We're not Rovian agents. The issue is that which gets talked about. Add your two cents if you wish.
RPT,
"Unlike Bush, he was actually subject to real intra-party criticism and opposition."
How would you know? Are you a Republican? On the other hand, what is your understanding of what happened at the Justice Department, where one would think there are some actual Republicans? If there were no opposition, why the firings? The controversy?
"The problem is that GOP supporters have worked to break down legal protections for privacy and personal information and have supported and enabled the process and practice of privacy invasion of which they now complain when it is wrongfully used against SJW."
They? Some Dem supporters were marching against the war, some carrying out LBJ dirty trickses. Perhaps a few were both. The whole lot? Unlikely. Do all R's look the same in your world? How's that working for you?
"The only complaint is that the destructive process is being directed against a target GOPer's like."
Only? Again, interesting theory. Needs more validity.
Your point might make sense if we were talking about the upper middle class versus large inherited wealth. But neither is getting a benefit here. Rather, it is a transfer to those who are already paying little if anything that is the issue.
Of course, the suggestion that it would only be applicable to those making over $250k is risible. Isn't this a major simplification, if nothing else, focusing on a married filing joint figure, and ignoring the fact that the threshold would be significantly lower for everyone else (who are likely a majority)?
1) There were 3 separate pulls of Wurzelbacher data.
2) The data pulls occurred in Toledo (Police), Cleveland (Cuyahoga Child Support Enforcement), and Columbus (AG's office).
3) According to my recollection of Ohio politics, these three offices would be controlled by Democrats.
4) These pulls all occurred within 48 hours of the Obama-McCain debate.
Given this, I am skeptical that these were 3 coincidental pulls of data by over-eager Obama supporters.
”RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.))"
It should come as no surprise to anyone that Obama would use it.
He never said he was licensed or that he owned a business. His question implied that he was thinking about buying a business that would pass Obama's threshold.
And whether he was lying or not really isn't germane to the answer, and the problem was in Obama's answer. Joe asked a question-we can even call it a hypothetical-and Obama answered it, and answered it poorly and ever since the focus has been on Joe not the answer.
I hope they are able to figure out who the people were rifling in Joe's records-and I hope those people are held accountable.
When it becomes a payment in excess of the actual taxes paid.
This is not to claim that this doesn't happen now, but Obama has been quite blatant about his intentions.
No, he said he hoped to be a small businessman. Read the actual interview, not the talking points.
Of course it does. Don't be ridiculous.
McCain wasn't talking about small buisnessmen in general. He made an issue one particular guy, whose story does not check out. In fact, it demonstrates how much McCain is misrepresenting Obama's proposals. No way Joe pays any extra taxes if he buys the business. He conflates revenue with profits and claims that a business that grosses $250K is going to face extra taxes.
Joe may not know better, but I bet McCain does.
Joe the Plumber has a lien on his property related to payment of state taxes. Not exactly the same thing as a tax dodger. Martin Nesbitt, the treasurer of Obama’s campaign, has tax liens and his companies have tax liens too. I'll be waiting for you to denounce Nesbitt and Obama's campaign as well.
I really don't get this. How on earth is comparing a black man - or anyone else - to Sammy Davis racist? You are absurd. If I compare Ronald Reagan (a white man) to Charlton Heston (another white man), is that racist too? Or is racist reserved only for those critical of Obama?
The funny thing is, Joe the Plumber was playing football in his own front yard when Obama walked into his neighborhood.
The plumber asked candidate Obama a legitimate question about his economic plan and it was Obama who put his foot in his mouth and revealed that he wanted to Spread. The. Wealth. I think this is what has stuck a needle deep into the lefty psyche. The lefties went bananas over this guy. They pulled up his divorce records and found that he was - gasp! divorced. They found a "connection" (bogus) to the infamous Charles Keating based upon a common last name. They've found that he owes some taxes. They've found speeding tickets dating back to 1993. They've posted his home address and mortgage. This is all from the party of the "little people".
The press dug deeper into his background in hours than they have into Obama's background in months. This sends a chilling message to those who would ever exercise their First Amendment right to petition their government for a redress - or even a discussion! - of their grievances.
I don't think that Obama's campaign can itself be directly held responsible for the attacks on Joe the Plumber, but I don't think this thuggish attitude is rare among his supporters. And one of them is Mark Kleiman himself, demanding that the people who experimented and found the holes in the Obama's credit card donation system be prosecuted.
I can just imagine dealing with the thuggishness if Obama wins the election.
But unfortunately for our once great country, the guilty go free -- if they are DemocRats.
I will admit that I'm wrong -- once Rep. William Jefferson, who was caught red-handed by the FBI with $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer -- is behind bars. What's it been? Years since he was caught? And he's still not even indicted!
But Jefferson is a DemocRat, therefore he gets an automatic free pass on any and all criminal activity.
Prove me wrong.
Then I remembered previous discussions with him and recalled that he actually had no intellectual integrity then; it would be foolish to expect that he had developed some now.
Published: October 24, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has informed Congress that it is bypassing a law intended to forbid political interference with reports to lawmakers by the Department of Homeland Security.
The August 2007 law requires the agency’s chief privacy officer to report each year about Homeland Security activities that affect privacy, and requires that the reports be submitted directly to Congress “without any prior comment or amendment” by superiors at the department or the White House.
But newly disclosed documents show that the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last January questioning the basis for that restriction, and that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, later advised Congress that the administration would not “apply this provision strictly” because it infringed on the president’s powers.
Several members of Congress reacted with outrage to the administration’s claim, which was detailed in a memorandum posted this week on the Web site of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the move “unconstitutional.” He said Mr. Bush should have vetoed the bill if he did not like the provision, and compared the situation to Mr. Bush’s frequent use of signing statements to reserve a right to bypass newly enacted laws.
“This is a dictatorial, after-the-fact pronouncement by him in line with a lot of other cherry-picking he’s done on the signing statements,” Mr. Specter said in a telephone interview. He added, “To put it differently, I don’t like it worth a damn.”
The Bush administration defended the decision not to obey the statute. Erik Ablin, a Justice Department spokesman, said its legal view was consistent with what presidents of both parties had long maintained.
Mr. Ablin also said the administration had told Congress that the provision would be unconstitutional, but Congress passed the legislation — which enacted recommendations of the 9/11 Commission — without making the requested change. So the administration decided to sign the bill and fix what Mr. Ablin called its “defects” later."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It would be very easy to figure out who is guilty."
Well, who did it?
Mark Field,
You may want to check your talking points. Your theory only works if "income distribution" is entirely relative, based on temporal relations, not how money actually flows. Your argument seems to be: income flows more uphill now than it did several years ago, ergo, net distribution upward.
As we all know (or hopefully know, having passed the third grade), the difference in distribution does not reflect upon the actual distribution. In theory, there should not be a flat RATE of taxation, but a flat tax, period: everyone pays the same amount, under the assumption that they get the same services (or access to services) for that amount. Anything other than that, in which one citizen's bill is lowered due to his inability to pay, and another is raised, due to his greater ability to pay, is a distribution of wealth from the high earners to the low earners.
This all begs the question: if you don't believe that our tax structure redistributes income, nor that BHO's plan would further redistribute wealth, what do you think constitutes wealth distribution?
Prove me wrong.
Smokey,
Here's a news flash. The DOJ is headed by Michael Mukasey, a Republican. Let me repeat: he's a Republican, working for a Republican President. If you want to complain about Jefferson not being prosecuted he's the guy to talk to.
(I'm not defending Jefferson, BTW. I agree he should be prosecuted. But the notion that some magical all-powerful Democratic conspiracy is protecting him is psychotic.)
Here's what mCcain said in his radio address a week ago:
Joe explained that he works for a small plumbing and heating company. He's been thinking about maybe taking over the business when his boss retires. Problem is, that would make Joe one of millions of small business owners who face a sudden increase in taxes under my opponent's tax plan.
Now that's a flat lie. There would be no sudden increase for Joe and McCain knows it. Further, there aren't "millions of small business owners" who would face such an increase. McCain should know that too.
According to OpenSecrets, Department of Justice lawyers have given roughly three times as much money to Obama as to McCain. The idea that the Bush Department of Justice's failure to nail William Jefferson is some kind of "Democratic conspiracy" is not as absurd as you pretend.
At last, a rational argument. Wrong, IMO, but at least sane.
Yes, I'm making a temporal argument to some extent. It's clear that under Clinton's tax rates, the upper income brackets paid a higher percentage of taxes than they have under Bush's. Obama proposes a return to Clinton's rates. Thus, it makes just as much sense to claim that Bush redistributed wealth upward as it does to say that Obama will redistribute it downward.
Note by my response here that your last paragraph misunderstands my position. I agree that Obama's plan redistributes wealth. Every tax plan does so. There's no point in criticizing Obama for this if redistribution is inherent in any tax plan.
Your post suggests we can avoid this form of relativity by adopting a flat tax.* That's incorrect. Implicit in your suggestion is the assumption that a flat tax represents a neutral principle of taxation. It isn't; it's based on a value judgment just like every system of taxation is. There are no neutral starting points in economics any more than there are in Constitutional law; it's always relative. All starting points have value judgments attached to them. A flat tax would redistribute income downward relative to some systems (perhaps upward relative to some others).
In order for the government to spend money, it must have a source of income. Borrowing doesn't count -- that simply defers the taxation into the future. To spend is to tax.
Now, the question which remains is what's the best or fairest way to tax. This raises several issues, but I'll focus on the one at hand here, namely the how government should decide to distribute the tax burden among the various social classes. Your argument is that a flat tax is fair because it operates under the assumption that everyone gets access to the same services.
This, however, is not the only question we might ask. The more important one, IMO, is "who benefits most from our society and who, therefore, has the most to lose?". From this perspective, what's fairest is to tax those who have the most. It's actually of much more benefit to the rich to have a fire department -- the poor won't lose much in a fire, but the rich might lose a lot. It's only fair if they pay more.
These aren't the only ways to set up a tax structure. We could, for example, try to impose only Pigovian taxes. That would be difficult, but it might be possible and it would meet some other definition of fairness. The point is, there are lots of definitions of "fair".
*We've never had a flat tax in this country, so it still would make no sense to criticize Obama for returning to Clinton's rates. Even if a flat tax were a neutral point, the current tax system is not neutral. In the actual circumstances, therefore, it remains relative.
Yes, it is every bit that absurd.
Not only is it not absurd, but it makes perfect sense. As we all know, Bush is not a conservative; rather he is a liberal, or to put it more bluntly, a socialist. He's probably donated money to Obama himself.
Who are these people getting their taxes cut? I would have thought that this is 95% of the country, but apparently it consists of worthless deadbeats and welfare bums. Why do conservatives hate the American people?
"Then I remembered previous discussions with him and recalled that he actually had no intellectual integrity then; it would be foolish to expect that he had developed some now."
If that's not friendly fire, then you're a sociopath. Holster that weapon.
To repeat: it would be very easy to nail the guilty parties. But no one is investigating, or indicting.
Why do you suppose that is?
I repeat myself from an earlier thread, but one of the minor drolleries of this campaign is the unlicensed Joe the Plumber's being called a non-plumber by unlicensed journalists.
We're talking at cross-purposes here. I was referring to the middle-class folks who do pay taxes at a certain rate (me and, presumably, you), not folks who qualify for the EITC:
We got off on the EITC because of Zarkov's original response to my first post. I should have been clearer earlier on that I was talking about those who actually do pay taxes. My bad.
As for "may or may not be a plumber's assistant", that seems to be a lie on your part. Newspaper accounts agree that he has in fact been making his living working as a plumber. There's no "may or may not" about it. And you can't call him a "plumber's assistant" unless you have some evidence that he only stands around handing tools to the guy who does the work rather than actually getting down on his hands and knees and doing the work himself. The fact that he's unlicensed does not make him a non-plumber, any more than an unlicensed teacher is a non-teacher. If you know how to teach and someone is paying you to teach, you're a teacher, and the same goes for plumbers.
Absolutely.
My mother in law is one of them. She not only uses her middle name, she uses a diminutive of her middle name.
There are a lot of people out there that go by middle names, initials, shoot there is a local politician here in town that is known solely by hid nickname, which has absolutely nothing to do with his given first of middle name.
Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. Everybody knows BHO is a closet Muslim. That's how it's racist.
[/sarcasm]
There is everything wrong with digging for information illegally on anyone.
That either of these two assertions are debated at all is quite surprising.
.
Your ethical boundaries are clear from this. If it's not illegal, it's not "wrong" or unethical. All that's not forbidden by law is "not wrong."
Or in other words, Nixon was a ethical guy other than that break-in and cover-up thing.
"There is nothing at all wrong with doing a background check on Joe the Plumber on publically available information. If that calls into place any hypocracy, or double dealings, or whatever, too bad for him."
So if Sarah Palin happens into your yard and you ask her about gay marriage, there's nothing wrong with the Freepers doing a background check on you? Oh wait, it wasn't the fringe, it was the freakin' corporate media. And that's supposed to be OK?
It's merely an increase in the current transfer of wealth. Anything other than the same tax rate on all incomes is necessarily a transfer of wealth. You might be for it or against it for various reasons, but to deny it is in fact a transfer of wealth is ludicrous as well as dishonest.
As for a more valid view of taxes versus income:
(I coudn't get the link to be accepted. Just take out the spaces)
http://www.american.com/ archive/2008/october-10-08/ america-has-a-highly-progressive-tax-system
2. Every tax redistributes money from those who pay it to those who don't.
Could some please explain why these two statements are not contradictory? The assumption seems to be that those in the 'upward' area of income are not paying as much taxes as the rest are.
Who was meant to represent small busines men in general. This is done all the time by both parties. If you think this is something new, you haven't been around much.
I tend to think this will mostly cease after the election. Much of the media are just so obsessed with Obama that they will let nothing stand in the way of his election. I also tend to think many will get a rude awakening later on when they discover he's not quite what they thought he was. (Is that racist, too? It's hard to tell anymore.)
Even if McCain was making a claim about small businessmen in general, it was a false claim.
The fact is small businessmen who own businesses like the one Joe hopes to buy will not be harmed by Obama's tax plan - they will benefit. And this is true of the vast majority of small business owners.
Then, why not just focus on that rather than running a US citizen through the wringer?
To make a useful example. A warning, if you will.
The morning after the story about Joe the Plumber broke, I heard some of my co-employees laughing. When I asked what had happened, they told me that Joe the Plumber had tax liens against him. This is the type of information that can be accessed through my agency's datab bases...though it is also accessable through non-agency sources.
The fact that the existence of his tax liens is a matter of public record does not change the fact that it would be a violation of Ohio law for a member of my agency to browse the office databases to find information about Joe and to disclose that information to someone outside the agency.
Now it is possible that this record was on someone's desk legitimately and that no illegal access of records was made. But I am very suspicious about this. I am going to make a report to the Ohio Inspector General about this tomorrow morning. It should be easy enough for the IG and my agency's IT personnel to determine if illegal browsing was involved.
Because McCain brought him up as an example. McCain, not Obama. So why is it unfair for Obama to point out that the very individual McCain is using as an example of how terrible Obama's tax plan is will not be hurt at all, and probably will benefit?
Suppose I say, "The US health insurance situation is awful. Look what happened to Mr. Brown. He couldn't get insurance and then got sick and blah, blah, blah." Would it be unfair for you to point out that Brown in fact did have insurance, and that it covered his treatment, and there was no disaster? Of course not.
And if I tried to argue that I was just using Brown as ana example, you'd be right to point out that the example doesn't illustrate my point, as Joe doesn't illustrate McCain's.
Come on. Think.
Not so much true for their (soon to be former) employees. Higher taxes on those folks will do two things - force them to cut back on those nasty expenses like salaries, and pass along any increases to the consumer. Great unless you happen to be one of those elusive "consumers."
Even more so when you look at our obscene corporate tax rate(35%). The government takes more than a third of your income and we wonder why businesses move out of the US? You can't have it both ways - high taxes and lots of businesses.
States such as Texas has a low business tax base and a business friendly environment, but it also is rated in the top ten in it's poverty rates and the quality of life in the great state of Mississippi is grim despite the low tax rate for business and wealth.
Doesn't matter if they are in the public domain. If a state computer was used to access that information contrary to state rules-either ethics or criminal-by a state employee for a non approved purpose then that employee is subject to punishment, and should be.
Also, the article specifically states that his BMV information was searched and that information is not public record.
.
Following your advice for the Joe the plumber incident, the "attack" would be limited to something on the order of "If and when Joe takes on his plan to buy a business, his taxes under the Obama tax plan will be $xxx greater than under McCain. In exchange for spreading the wealth, he (or his employees) will get [fill in the blank]."
.
But what the Democrats offered first was 1) he's no goddamn plumber, he's a liar, he has no license; 2) he has tax liens, the fricking deadbeat; 3) he's lying about wanting to buy a business too, so the point is moot.
.
Demonstrating that the personal attack is alive and well.
.
Ahhh, another disciple of liberal use of the personal attack.
Also, the article specifically states that his BMV information was searched and that information is not public record."
The penalty for the enforcement of such laws is weak, and the reward for the findings of such records is high (it keeps newspapers in business). It is possible that said records of Joe the Plumber was widely known and or distributed.
The employee is not guilty until proven guilty. In a recent action in the state of California, a man lied and obtained AT&T phone records. AT&T was held harmless as AT&T only followed its own and legal procedure.
At long last, have you left no decency, sir?
Spare me the tu quoque.
Give Liberals a break and Joe the Plumber a rest. All I can say is if you are going to play Joe The Plumber - pay your taxes, own a permit, have some money in the bank, have a clean nose and do not appear like you are a political pant
Neurotics have several defenses for their actions too bad they are all executed poorly. I don't know anything about Joe Wurzelbacher, but I just have one bit of advice. If you have anything in your past that you're not proud of
— a messy divorce, a DUI, an unpaid bill, an indiscreet comment, whatever — be prepared for it to become public knowledge. Joe in the end might be bad for McCain at this point some might call into question his judgment not only about HIM and Joe but HER (Pain) and HIM.
.
I hear you loud and clear. I think the practice you are defending is despicable, but am willing to adopt it as a retaliatory action. Tit for tat baby. Bring it on.
I think they are depending on you having scruples.
That is the Chicago way. Leaders can be scoundrels because people have to be perfect before they challenge them.
.
Well, they define scruples by their own actions. I did some research on CB55, and concluded from his book reviews that he's a communist at heart. He voluntarily expresses demonstrably anti-American views. That explains the nature of his agitating on this forum.
Yeah. But he's depending on you having real scruples. He doesn't think you'll abandon your upbringing. He/they don't think you are capable of lowering yourself to their level.
Either way, they win. Either they take advantage of your superior ethical system, or they can insist you did something unethical.
It goes without saying that they are particularly vile, that they can use your principles against you and smile.
I think this is known as the 'fake but accurate' doctrine.
It's not a "fake allegation." There's ample evidence of funny business on this point:
Palin has said the file was in the public domain, even though it wasn't. It's pretty clear that Palin got access to records improperly via her sister's divorce lawyer.
Palin is also claiming she had the file, and in the same breath saying she didn't know that Wooten was punished. This is very implausible, for obvious reasons.
There are glaring contradictions here, and they've been mostly unexplored and unreported. Because Palin generates such a large amount of material that's more obvious and more humorous.
Speaking of intellectual integrity: your palin site contains a number of falsehoods. I've pointed this out several times, like here. Would it be foolish for us to expect that you will ever correct those falsehoods?
And I notice you have neither defended nor withdrawn your claims that Joe's name is really Sam and that he "may or may not" even work as a plumber's assistant. You also might want to check your claim that he's not even registered to vote: others have sneered at him for allegedly voting for McCain in Republican primary, as if that somehow disqualifies him from criticizing Obama. All in all, your 8:55am comment was a pile of inane snark. You really need to either revise and extend it or withdraw it.
Of course! Any public information on me is just that: public! I can't stop anyone from digging up information on me now, and I'm sure many people do. Heck, people even dig up information on people when they go on a date, for pete's sake. Is that unethical? Dishonest? Even if it were, how are you going to stop it? Anyone with a computer and internet access can find out a whole boatload of information on you.
And if I were to tell Sarah Palin that I'm against gay marriage, and that's why I'm voting for her, then I can expect the journalists to do their job and find out that I belong to several gay organizations and have supported gay marriage publicly in many occasions, and if they call me a hypocrite for, then I get exactly what I deserve.
I do draw the line at obtaining any information illegally, however, for obvious reasons. But if you don't think some information should be available to the public, then perhaps you should write to your congressman and have him reserve the decisions that Congress has made in the past eight years regarding privacy. I didn't create this situation -- the Republicans did.
It goes without saying that they are particularly vile, that they can use your principles against you and smile."
Well, Michelle Malkin is a self proclaimed conservative, and she actually published the phone numbers and addresses of several students in LA who allegedly did something that she didn't approve of. (The phone nunmbers were not public information, BTW) The students got lots of death threats and other phone call and hate mail, yet Malkin refused to take down the information from her website.
So if you think that one side has ethics and the other does not, you are sadly mistaken.
Certainly. The Republicans perfected it against Cindy Sheehan. And Terry Shiavo's husband.
Or don't you remember?
What Malkin did that was classless was after hearing that people were making threatening phone calls to those numbers, refusing to take down the post upon being asked.
not sure about ohio, but in many jurisdictions, this information is public.
driver's license info is not (anywhere that I am aware of).
"Give Liberals a break"
We are the liberals, Einstein. What is this, tu quoque day, circular firing squad style?
Randy R.,
"Even if it were, how are you going to stop it?"
Self-respect? Ethics? Common decency? Or would you recommend mutually-assured-destruction?
[Godwin-censored] did it. I'm against [Godwin-censored]. Therefore, watch out world, here I come!
.
I remember just fine, thank you. And now I have learned that you are a "tit for tat" practitioner.
Those wascally Republicans - they drew Obama into Joe's yard and forced him to engage him. McCain saw him coming and used his vast mind control powers to steer Obama into a trap!
Absolutely. We can't have normal people questioning their betters.
David saved me the trouble of instructing you that the stuff--euphemism alert--you posted about Malkin was false. Also, that everybody knows it's false, including you who didn't know everybody knows it's false.
You learn something new every day.
No, cboldt. That's the McCain lie. If Joe buys the business he's interested in his taxes under Obama's plan will not be more than under McCain's.
As to the other points you mention, they came from a variety of press sources, including this one, for example. Isn't it perfectly natural for the press to probe a bit once McCain drags Joe onto the national scene. If you want to blame someone for Joe's treatment, blame McCain.
Thanks for the correction. Then the students got what they deserved. If you publish your phone number, then people might call it.
"I remember just fine, thank you. And now I have learned that you are a "tit for tat" practitioner."
And what I have learned from you is that if Republicans destroy a person's life, that's okay, but Democrats are evil no matter what they do.
Look, I'm not saying that it's okay to destroy a person. But public information is by its nature, public. Some blogger out there is going to find it out. So if you don't want information out about you, then don't publish it. There are students who post photos of themselves doing horrible things, and then are surprised when they go for an interview and find that the potential employer saw it. Most of the stuff that people are complaining about was put out voluntarily. (See Barbara West's website).
Obama has spoken with probably hundreds of people during this campaign, and every single one of them has not be scrutinized, except for Joe. Why? Partly because McCain made an issue of it. Now, that's not Joe's fault, but then, Joe shouldn't be calling himself a plumber if in fact he isn't.
Joe shouldn't be asking the One a tough question if he isn't ready to be raked over the coals.
Got it.
The issue with the Frosts and SCHIP was that the Frosts' circumstances discredited the dem assertion that SCHIP was for poor folks only.
The issue with JTP is that it serves to distract the discussion from Obama's answer, which is the real issue, and to warn others from even thinking about questioning The One.
Big difference.
That's right-wing BS.
The issue with JTP is that it serves to distract the discussion from Obama's answer, which is the real issue, and to warn others from even thinking about questioning The One.
BS again. The issue with JTP is not that he questioned Obama, but that McCain used him as a vehicle for lying about Obama's tax proposal.
Careful with the scatology. Might get you banned.
Why is the concern with the Frosts not a matter of demonstrating that SCHIP was not being used as advertised? They were well off, had a big home whose value was significantly higher than that necessary to buy a similar home in a somewhat less classy neighborhood and use the difference for, say, health care. Each of them had jobs which did not provide health care, but each of them had the opportunity to get one. This was like finding the poster child for one of the Clintons' tearjerkers had cleared the debt for his pool when he went bankrupt on account of medical debts. Supposedly.
And what does JTP's life have to do with Obama's answer, other than fervid foaming will serve to distract from Obama's answer, not to mention warn off future inadvertent acts of lese majeste?
The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Director confirms that records of Joe were accessed after the McCain-Obama debate, stating:
"Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look at them...."
Joe's driver license and vehicle registration was accessed three times from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database after the McCain-Obama debate.
Yeah. Just because, having nothing productive anybody can make us do, we look up records for the hell of it.
Sure as hell, this whole thing is both a warning and an attempt to distract from O's answer.
So, was it criminal?
I think the question is whether it's actionable as a suit over privacy. You can't plead out in civil suits in order to avoid discovery, can you? It's some other process and it involves cutting a very large check. Maybe JtP will be able to buy that business after all.
This was in addition to the checks in the child support system to determine if he owed back child support obligations.