Then there is Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), who has submitted a bill giving us a law requiring presidential candidates to release ten years of tax returns. For reasons not clear to the casual observer, he seems to have exempted those running for Congress. Meanwhile, CBS News yesterday told us this:
Over the course of three months, McClatchy Newspapers asked all 535 members of Congress to release their most recent tax returns, and just 17 members complied with the request. Nineteen congressmen refused while most never responded.Assuming that 499 didn't get the word, that is still not a sterling response. And it makes you wonder what else those 499 didn't get the word on. ACA before they voted?
Regards — Cliff
3 comments:
It is about the only thing bipartisan in Congress. As for the tax returns, I'm not at all certain what it really matters. Most of them have their returns prepared for them, so what you see is not necessarily what is the total story. And besides, what is the point? Over 50% of Americans don't file a tax return anyway, so one surmises that they wouldn't necessarily understand what they are looking at anyway. Besides, what on earth would the electorate do about some "irregularity" or other discovery? Surely they wouldn't run the person out of office. Most of the members of Congress with some sort of sordid action on their record keep getting reelected with regularity.
The whole tax return drama is nothing more than a jacked up red herring.
As for not knowing what is in the ACA, for most members of both chambers, they likely don't know what is on the menu in the Congressional Dining Room....let alone the content of bills they are contemplating. That is work for the staffers...who will give the Congressperson the "right" response.
The problem for Rmoney is that his taxes prove what we already know. The game is rigged for him and the 1%.
I don't think Rmoney did anything illegal. If he did, it would be one of those little white collar type things that we accept from the 1%.
I also tend to think hoarding grotesque amounts of wealth is immoral, especially when you buy off politicians. then change the laws to do it.
We sure spend a lot of time talking about "freeloaders" that exploit the welfare systems. Yet, we can be mind numbingly silent when Wall Street, et al does exactly the same sort of thing at several orders of magnitude greater.
So Jack, you are for income redistribution in order to "level the economic field?" At what income amount is it okay to keep what you earned and not be referred to as some horrible 1%? Is $250k the max someone should make before they have to turn over the excess to the government to redistribute?
Not being facetious. These are valid questions that are being debated today in one form or another.
Is it okay for someone to just not work at all and live instead off of society? This happens in a sizable portion of the society. Or is it reasonable for society to expect some sort of return on their "investment?"
Can there be welfare crooks just as their can be Wall Street shysters? Who is worse?
Post a Comment