View Full Version : Romney Donor feeling the screws....
Eagle5US
07-20-2012, 18:21
Brought to my attention by an astute individual...
Unwanted attention.... (http://online.wsj.com/article/potomac_watch.html)
The simple read of this article reflects a childish wielding of power that is grossly inappropriate. Coincidences tend not to align with a single planetary event of 50yrs or more...
No doubt it will be dismissed by some as "his turn", I would wager a much more nefarious purpose.
Unfortunately, this practice (if shown to be as deliberate as it seems) does not surprise me in the least with the current administration.
No doubt it will be dismissed by some as "his turn", I would wager a much more nefarious purpose.
MOO, one does not necessarily discount the other.
That is, an administration can abuse its power by going after someone because of his political affiliation. And that someone could merit a level of additional scrutiny for activities unrelated to his campaign contributions <<LINK (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1011/089.html)>>.
Eagle5US
07-20-2012, 18:38
Indeed...
and if the administration was looking INTO his records form 2004, when that particular article was written, it would seem to have a sliver of credibility that they would have selected him for additional scrutiny.
But....they aren't.
During the GOP primaries, the fourth estate regularly repeated the scuttlebutt that the current administration preferred Romney.
Maybe Mr. VanderSloot's background is one of the reasons why.
Eagle5US
07-20-2012, 18:52
During the GOP primaries, the fourth estate regularly repeated the scuttlebutt that the current administration preferred Romney.
Maybe Mr. VanderSloot's background is one of the reasons why.
I have no idea what you just said-
Sorry...
ETA:
I read it again (twice)...nuthin...
I'll take my simple self back over to my ring of stones and keep rubbing my sticks together to try and make fire.
I have no idea what you just said-
Sorry...
I am suggesting that the president's camp has wanted Romney to get the GOP nomination all along.
Having this ace to play is one of the reasons why. .GOV goes after Mr. VanderSloot. This distracts his ability to raise funds for Romney. Meanwhile, the president can talk about the GOP being beholden to "special big money interests."
ETA: The fault is mine. My previous post didn't get a clarity check.
I do not know this taxpayer - but I do know a little something about politicians and politically appointed tax administrators.
Having worked for and advised a very large revenue agency - and worked under at least three different top administrators - I can state that IME auditors often take cues from the top administrator - who is generally a powerful political appointee.
Auditor's have a great deal of discretion on audit. Make no mistake, they are very aware of the power of the state in the tax arena.
Moreover, management (SES) legal, etc., rarely hear about what field auditors fail to identify and disclose - even possible refunds/offsets - that auditors fail to identify (whether intentional or unintentional) while they write up a substantial tax deficiency.
That deficiency can be VERY expensive to defend. I have reviewed, literally, thousands of audit files - that is, the extensive write up (some files take up small rooms) that have proceeded through an entire administrative process - years - and now the last stop might be litigation. Litigation creates even more files...and expense.
I can share that the audit supervisors take cues from the top. The technical folks take cues from the top. General Counsel's office takes cues from the top. Litigation takes cues from the top. The highest level political appointee, takes cues from the top. Few, if any are immune.
I have worked under both Democrat and Republican administrations and can state unequivocally, that IME there are substantial differences in - what is and what is not - acceptable audit practice based on the incumbent administration. Some administrations make protection of the fisc a priority. Others, not so much. Make no mistake, politics play a huge role in tax administration at the top levels and with the cutting issues.
IME, all revenue organizations take cues from the top (I suspect most government agencies do - but limit my observations here to revenue orgs). I have sat in the office of the top political appointee (as advisor) and have reviewed various proposed revenue agency positions. The top political appointee often asks for, among other things, the legal, financial and political ramifications of tax matters that rise to their attention.
I have no doubt that folks under the AG's office and Treasury have taken cues from Obama and Holder. It happens. Who knows what happened in the OP case, but it is important to know that SHIT does happen. We are far from pure.
I am suggesting that the president's camp has wanted Romney to get the GOP nomination all along.
Having this ace to play is one of the reasons why. .GOV goes after Mr. VanderSloot. This distracts his ability to raise funds for Romney. Meanwhile, the president can talk about the GOP being beholden to "special big money interests."
ETA: The fault is mine. My previous post didn't get a clarity check.
The premise of the article was that the current administration is identifying large donors to the Romney campaign and then using government agencies to harass these Romney supporters.
From your comments quoted above I have concluded that you agree that the government has specifically targeted this individual with the hope of discouraging others from contributing to Romney's campaign.
I really don't believe it would have made a difference who the Republicans chose as their candidate, the Obama administration would use the same tactic. If an administration lacks a moral compass, they just see these nefarious tactics as a means to an end.
The elephant in the room is that the mainstream media is not up in arms about this situation.
The premise of the article was that the current administration is identifying large donors to the Romney campaign and then using government agencies to harass these Romney supporters.
From your comments quoted above I have concluded that you agree that the government has specifically targeted this individual with the hope of discouraging others from contributing to Romney's campaign.
I really don't believe it would have made a difference who the Republicans chose as their candidate, the [current] administration would use the same tactic. If an administration lacks a moral compass, they just see these nefarious tactics as a means to an end.
The elephant in the room is that the mainstream media is not up in arms about this situation.
IMO, the current administration is neither the first nor the last to use the advantages of incumbency to seek re-election.
Contributors to Romney's campaign can avoid Mr. VanderSloot's dilemma by making sure their noses are clean before they blot the drying ink on the checks.
I don't know why conservative critics of the fourth estate get so upset with what the news media do and do not report when it comes to politics. First, the criticisms undermine the arguments for the free market deciding which businesses succeed and which ones do not. Second, politically-biased journalism in America dates back to the eighteenth century. If it was good enough for the founders....
YMMV.
Contributors to Romney's campaign can avoid Mr. VanderSloot's dilemma by making sure their noses are clean before they blot the drying ink on the checks.
What dilemma are you referring to? Did the article say the IRS made an adjustment to his tax return and levied additional taxes? Are you suggesting Mr. VanderSloot's nose is not clean? What do you mean by this statement?
rubberneck
07-21-2012, 19:19
Contributors to Romney's campaign can avoid Mr. VanderSloot's dilemma by making sure their noses are clean before they blot the drying ink on the checks.
What a load of unadulterated horse crap. Every American citizen should be free to engage in the political process without worrying about being the subject of a fishing exhibition by the government. I can't recall a single major Dem donor that was publicly identified by the campaign staff of a sitting Republican president, as being unsavory, only to be audited by not one, but two different government agencies shortly after. The implication that it's done all the time is absurd. The fact that you're so blithe about makes me a bit queasy.
What a load of unadulterated horse crap. Every American citizen should be free to engage in the political process without worrying about being the subject of a fishing exhibition by the government. I can't recall a single major Dem donor that was publicly identified by the campaign staff of a sitting Republican president, as being unsavory, only to be audited by not one, but two different government agencies shortly after. The implication that it's done all the time is absurd. The fact that you're so blithe about makes me a bit queasy.
All that matters is that you have someone to cover you ass...Geitner (https://www.google.com/search?q=claire+mccaskill+tax+problems&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=DU7&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=pGALUJC3H8jq0gHp8dT5Aw&ved=0CFMQvwUoAQ&q=geithner+tax+problems&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=76164df474c2d4e8&biw=1360&bih=622), Sebelus (https://www.google.com/search?q=claire+mccaskill+tax+problems&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=d9R&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=sebelius+tax+problems&oq=sebelius+tax+problems&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i5i30.27212.29134.1.29440.8.8.0 .0.0.0.133.848.4j4.8.0...0.0...1c.AfmszVp2rco&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=76164df474c2d4e8&biw=1360&bih=622), McCaskill (https://www.google.com/search?q=claire+mccaskill+tax+problems&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), Cleaver (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/11/Cleaver-SBA-Bank-of-America-Car-Wash), Rangel (https://www.google.com/search?q=claire+mccaskill+tax+problems&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=49R&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=rangel+tax+problems&oq=rangel+tax+problems&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i5i30l3.52996.54865.2.55349.7.7 .0.0.0.1.210.950.1j5j1.7.0...0.0...1c.ZHad_EoOKQk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=76164df474c2d4e8&biw=1360&bih=622)
Google search - democratic obama donor conviction & democratic obama administration tax problems
The Reaper
07-22-2012, 09:08
Nixon was reviled for doing much less than I suspect has already been done by the Obama campaign.
TR
What a load of unadulterated horse crap. Every American citizen should be free to engage in the political process without worrying about being the subject of a fishing exhibition by the government. I can't recall a single major Dem donor that was publicly identified by the campaign staff of a sitting Republican president, as being unsavory, only to be audited by not one, but two different government agencies shortly after. The implication that it's done all the time is absurd. The fact that you're so blithe about makes me a bit queasy.rubberneck--
First, Mr. VanderSloot has gone out of his way to engender controversy. Second, the American political landscape has been characterized by the great game of Gotcha. Third, the implication of your post is that contributors to political campaigns should not be scrutinized in the day and Age of Gotcha is, IMO, out of step with the times. If one is going to play the game in this day and age, one needs to know the rules or stay off the road.
Additionally, you might take another look at the activities of the FBI during the twentieth century IRT to the political opposition of the federal government.
Bluntly, if anything should make you "queasy" it is the propensity of the GOP to not vet key participants. In 2008, we dropped the ball on Governor Palin. Now, we're going to have to explain why it is okay for Romney to accept support from a man who ran a Ponzi scheme.
My $0.02.
Eagle5US
07-22-2012, 10:54
rubberneck--
First, Mr. VanderSloot has gone out of his way to engender controversy. Second, the American political landscape has been characterized by the great game of Gotcha. Third, the implication of your post is that contributors to political campaigns should not be scrutinized in the day and Age of Gotcha is, IMO, out of step with the times. If one is going to play the game in this day and age, one needs to know the rules or stay off the road.
Additionally, you might take another look at the activities of the FBI during the twentieth century IRT to the political opposition of the federal government.
Bluntly, if anything should make you "queasy" it is the propensity of the GOP to not vet key participants. In 2008, we dropped the ball on Governor Palin. Now, we're going to have to explain why it is okay for Romney to accept support from a man who ran a Ponzi scheme.
My $0.02.
it is absolutely incredible that, as intelligent as you are, you can actually post these statements regarding scrutiny of campaign donations and vetting of a candidate....VETTING of a CANDIDATE?!? With who is currently occupying Pennsylvania avenue? Are you KIDDING me?
The only thing lacking is truly the media giving 30 seconds of focus to the these exact issues towards the "non-GOP" candidate. The previous election cycle was indeed a "gotcha" fest...everything from busloads of ACORN voters voting in multiple states, to falsified petitions, to Black Panther reps at the polls, to campaign contributions from Hamas and other "unidentified, unemployed overseas donors".
A candidate who refused to release anything about his past (other than a fictitious memoir) - no college records, selective service record, birth certificate, college thesis, school application documents, financial aid documents...nothing....and yet the "vetting" was "complete and transparent".
No - it was simply that the standard is different for one than the other. The MSM has no standard...other than the one that will help promote who they want to be elected.
ETA:
Romney accepting funds from someone previously accused of a Ponzi scheme is kindergarten material when you compare it to the LENGTHY and PERSONAL relationships that the 2008 Dem nominee maintained for YEARS...Romney's receipt of a donation shouldn't even warrant a glance by comparison.
it is absolutely incredible that, as intelligent as you are, you can actually post these statements regarding scrutiny of campaign donations and vetting of a candidate....VETTING of a CANDIDATE?!? With who is currently occupying Pennsylvania avenue? Are you KIDDING me?Eagle5US--
IIRC, George Will <<LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202441.html)>>, Kathleen Parker <<LINK2 (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225784/palin-problem/kathleen-parker)>>, and others spoke for many conservatives when they raised questions about Gov. Palin's qualifications to be the vice president. Indeed, The Economist, a conservative newspaper, specifically cited the selection of Governor Palin as a key reason for why it endorsed the Democratic Party's candidate even though it had stood by Bush the Younger in 2004 <<LINK3 (http://www.economist.com/node/12516666?story_id=12516666&source=features_box1)>>.
MOO, the argument that the MSM applies a double standard when it comes to vetting politicians and political activists is sustainable. But is that point relevant to how we should comport ourselves? Just because the douche bags in the Fourth Estate are stuck in ass mode doesn't mean other Americans don't have an obligation--and the means--to do their own due diligence. It wasn't because of a vast left wing media conspiracy that we backed Palin or that we spent so much time this past primary season talking about Paul, Cain, Bachmann, and Perry.
My $0.02.
ZonieDiver
07-22-2012, 12:29
Just because the douche bags in the Fourth Estate are stuck in ass mode doesn't mean other Americans don't have an obligation--and the means--to do their own due diligence. It wasn't because of a vast left wing media conspiracy that we backed Palin or that we spent so much time this past primary season talking about Paul, Cain, Bachmann, and Perry.
Are you paraphrasing Pogo here? :D If so, I think you are onto something.
It also seems to me that the Grand Old Party is searching high and low for another way to sabotage their opportunity to "unelect" the most vulnerable sitting president since Herbert Hoover.
They should re-run tapes of Clinton's (Bill) campaign against Bush 41: "It's the economy, stupid!"