Quote:

---

Nancy Killefer, who failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, has withdrawn her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government, the White House said Tuesday.
Killefer was the second major Obama administration nominee to withdraw and the third to have tax problems complicate their nomination after President Barack Obama announced their selection.

---

Official: Performance czar withdraws candidacy

Of course we could eliminate this issue by new legislation... let's call it the Rangel Geithner Daschel Killefer flat tax bill.

No one will need pay taxes on rental properties ; self employment/speaking fees ,lobbying fees ,limo services ,domestic help , or quarterly payments . (I think that covers it but who knows ?)

I'm all for reforming the tax code; although I don't know much about the Flat Tax. I do have a liking for a VAT tax to replace income tax; although I will admit I am woefully ignorant of the details or the potential benefits or problems with a VAT tax. It just makes more sense to me that those who can afford to consume will pay for that consumption through a VAT tax. If you can't afford to consume then you pay less taxes. Seems fair to me.

As for those appointees not paying their taxes. I have no sympathy for those who can afford household help or any other luxury and not pay their taxes; whether that person be Republican or Democrat. The wealthy have enough benefits, do they have to cheat the American public for even more dollars?

Why didn't she just pay the taxes, say "I'm sorry" and go for it? That seems to be working for Geithner and Daschle. It doesn't matter what the Democrat "culture of corruption" problem is, there's always a way out and a perfectly good excuse, so no more problem.

I just called it flat tax .It is more like tax avoidance provisions .

Check this out :

The longtime senior partner at the giant global consulting firm McKinsey & Co. has previously worked at the Treasury to modernize the IRS and on a public-private oversight board to push the tax agency to more aggressively pursue corporate and high-income tax cheats.
http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_11404575

Steve the reason she had to resign is that the amt she cheated on doesn't reach the threshold . She only made a $900 mistake .
That doesn't reach Daschle numbers .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Why didn't she just pay the taxes, say "I'm sorry" and go for it? That seems to be working for Geithner and Daschle. It doesn't matter what the Democrat "culture of corruption" problem is, there's always a way out and a perfectly good excuse, so no more problem.

---

I suppose by association (being Democrats) these people were part of the choir denouncing Republican corruption during the Bush administration. It disappoints me but doesn't necessarily surprise me that these politicians as slimy as the rest.

You are right that President Obama promised change, and I think his team should have vetted these people better before ever trying to appoint them; because we do want change, we want a group in the government we can trust (if that's possible).

Score one for your side, a disappointment to be sure.

Tom, so she wasn't a big enough cheat to make the team. LOL.

Obama and the Democrat leadership are actually getting roughed up a bit and with good cause. Sen. Jim DeMint is bucking the trend and calling on Obama to withdraw Daschle's name... and the NY Times is actually calling on Daschle to withdraw. I'm sure it's with the best intentions in mind.

You're absolutely right Tex, this is not the "change we can believe in." As you obviously get, the Democrats were swept into power in 2006 on changing "the Republican culture of corruption" and on the argument that Republicans had locked Democrats out of the legislative process. More than 50 House Democrats have written a letter for Majority Leader Steny Hoyer protesting them being locked out of that very process by their own leadership.

Ain't that ironic?

If we had the Fair Tax it would solve a lot of problems with tax cheats.

Daschle has withdrawn -

Daschle withdraws as HHS nominee - CNN.com

- which is a shame in my opinion; he was the best man for the post. However, he deserves
The consequences of his actions, it's time we held our Government officials to higher standard. That's the promise isn't it? That's what we voted for.

At least he fell on his own sword, rather than excused his way into the job.

Still it's a shame... sigh.

No one else can implement socialist health care as good as he .

The taxes were just the tip of the iceberg. He was majority leader in the Senate for years while his wife was a top K Street lobbyist. Clearly there is more he doesn't want revealed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No one else can implement socialist health care as good as he .

---

How about affordable healthcare without pre-existing conditions.

This is a personal issue for me as my wife is a breast cancer survivor. Almost nobady wants to give her health insurance, an if we find a way the cost is insanely prohibative.

So if the cancer returns, she will receive substandard care; and we will likely have to declare bankruptcy and dump the burden on the taxpayer or hospital without having the reasonable opportunity to pay into the insurance pool.

If there was no preexisiting conditions clause then what would prevent me from not buying health care insurance until the day before I go to the doctor or realize I am sick ? What would prevent me from dropping it as soon as I am well... only to purchase it again the next time I'm ill ?

I don't want to sound uncaring but I've seen how people are treated in the existing socialized system . It isn't pretty .

I have had two family members be treated for cancer while I lived in Canada; both were treated professionally and in a timely manner and are both alive today 10+ years after treatment.

As for being dropped, as long as you don't represent a risk to the insurance companies they will cover you. Once you represent a risk to their bottom line, you will be dropped. Now that is uncaring. How about the people in their 50's who have paid their insurance or their company has paid their insurance all their life and never needed it and now they have been let go and are unemployed and suddenly become sick?

A blogger has developed a new form 1040Dem which amounts to:

Line 1: Are you a Democrat?
Line 2: How much income do you want to declare for this year?
Line 3: How much tax do you feel like paying on that income?

Here's an image of the new form:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/...0e5abd19_o.jpg

Fortunately in Texas I don't have to register with a party affiliation so I should be able to file this form without signing up. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

A blogger has developed a new form 1040Dem which amounts to:

Line 1: Are you a Democrat?
Line 2: How much income do you want to declare for this year?
Line 3: How much tax do you feel like paying on that income?

Here's an image of the new form:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/...0e5abd19_o.jpg

Fortunately in Texas I don't have to register with a party affiliation so I should be able to file this form without signing up. :D

---

Thank goodness I identify with the Democrats more than the Republican's surely I will qualify for these tax breaks.

Hmmm... now that I think about it, why are you upset about this speech? I mean, y'all have been promoting stimulus through tax breaks; surely if 53% of American's get them it's better than none getting them... ;)

Upset? I have no problem pretending to be a Democrat so I can file the 1040DEM. It's about time we got some of the perks that politicians get, and I'll gladly stimulate the economy with my savings. ;)

This is really starting to be some trend. In another interesting choice for Obama's new, more transparent government, he's named Ron Sims, to the no. 2 position in HUD. Sims is the “most fined” Washington State bureaucrat, for of all things "blatant violations of the state Public Records Act."

Buried in the bucket list is a new pseudo agency calledb "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research." Bureaucrats will "coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research."

In other words they will be responsible to cut health care costs by preventing Americans from getting treatments that the government decides don't meet their standards for cost effectiveness.

This is an idea that originated in Tom Daschle's manifesto Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis
Amazon.com: Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis: Tom Daschle, Jeanne M. Lambrew, Scott S. Greenberger: Books

Health Blog : Tom Daschle's Blueprint for Health Reform

This panel of bureaucrats would decide what is and what is not cost-effective by their definition.Then based on their recommendation the government will stop paying for treatments, medicines, therapies or devices that they deem unworthy.

Daschle's intention (which I'm sure would not go away just because he no longer will be the pointman)was/is to expand the Coordinating Council's power even further, allowing the government to deny tax benefits for private insurance that covers treatments deemed too expensive by the Council.

So not only would they decide which treatments work ;but also they would decide which ones work... but cost too much to be covered .

That is what the Dems and Daschle have in mind to reform health care. There is a word for it... rationing .

I try to explain that to fellow employees who thing universal healthcare administered by the government is the way to go.

If you are overweight and are type 2 diabetic the treatment will be: lose weight.

If you are a smoker, forget about getting COPD treatment or transplants.

Most treatments will involve taking 2 ibuprofen and hope it goes away (standard Navy health care guidelines).

I would much rather see Congress pass a law that says if your employer offers healthcare then you are required to take it. My employer pays 60% and most don't take advantage of it because they can't "afford" it. They can afford a carton of smokes, cable TV, new clothes, etc. Makes me crazy!

Now tom, he only has the best intentions, that “ Medicare should pay more for care that leads to good outcomes, and should stop paying for unnecessary or harmful treatments.”

Right, and I’m really Superman. What’s ironic about this is it’s no different than the complaint about private insurance, deciding what treatments they’ll pay for. My insurance changed at the first of the year and when I had my recent MRI’s I was told they had to be pre-approved. Well, that would have been nice but the new provider had no record of me yet. I may face protesting a denial even though I had a red flag headache that cannot wait for pre-approval.

Same with prescriptions, every time the wife or I get a new prescription we have to first find out if it’s covered. With my wife that’s a real challenge so she sometimes has to opt for what may be a less effective medication so we can afford it. I can’t wait for the day when the feds decide what may be an effective treatment.

I LOVE this little quote from the WSJ article:

Quote:

---

The basic idea is to create an institution, run by experts, that answers to the government but is “largely insulated from the politics and passions of the moment,” he writes.

---

After Fanny and Freddie and the feds handling of the bailouts, etc. that inspires a tremendous amount of confidence