Gov. Sarah Palin has joined the ranks of politicians with tax problems. Palin has been informed that she must pay income taxes on thousands of dollars in expense money claimed while living at her Wasilla home. It is not exactly the stuff of “small town values”: Palin charged $17,000 for meals and incidentals for 312 nights spent in her own house. It appears that such charges are perfectly legal and need only to be taxed.
Sharon Leighow, Palin’s spokeswoman insists that “The amount of taxes owed is a private matter. If the governor collects future per diem, those documents would be a matter of public record.” That is not exactly the position taken by the GOP on the Obama nominee as well as Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, who faces his own tax controversy.
Palin was charging $60 a day just to be at home in Wasilla since her technical residence is the Governor’s mansion. Thus, her own home was treated like a hotel stay in order to charge the state. Palin was clearly allowed to take this money and this may be the same rule in other states, but it seems a bit indulgent. I suppose the argument is that the Governor could have stayed in a hotel and that Wasilla is one of the bigger cities in the state.
Begich’s situation involved the back taxes he paid on a vehicle provided to him by the city when he was mayor.
This has not been a good week for Palin. First, colleagues reported that she appeared overly defensive at a recent meeting when asked about her plans for the new year as governor. Then her daughter Bristol gave an interview stating that abstinence is “not realistic” as a rule for teenagers — a position by Bristol that was already assumed. This follows a recent finding that Palin’s husband Todd and top aides were guilty of contempt in the Troopergate scandal.
For the full story, click here.
RC:
I POSTED too soon, sorry about that. after I had posted I saw the news. It is still an interesting thought though, is the Fairness Doctrine something that has merit or should it be relegated to the round file of bad ideas?
Bron 98
This is from a February 18, 2009 article at Huffington Post:
President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.
The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine — a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.
“As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com………..
What is this? Palin hasn’t paid all of her taxes?? She should resign immediately. That is the Republican way, isn’t it? Maybe Palin can sell some Moose meat to make ends meet. Such a shame that such a dirty politician should have to pay all of her taxes. This lady is going to make people forget about Bagojevich!
“Childerns do learn.”
I eat for about 700 a month for a family of 4 plus I thought she shoots moose and caribou, she is screwing Alaska, thank God she did not get the chance to bill US.
first of all let me say this has nothing to do with this thread. but i think it is important to all. it concerns the fairness doctrine. granted they want to muffle the right wing talk show hosts, but I think we should all be concerned by this left and right for the following reasons:
1. if they can do it to the right they can do it to the left when administrations change and I can tell you from where I sit the right is pretty pissed right now and I dont trust them to have any regard for the constitution if they regain office (based on recently being shown the light). I could see them going after “liberal” news outlets with much gusto.
2. since this is an issue of free speech could this not also apply to colleges and universities and certainly to network news and news papers and magazines?
3. could this constrict flow of information on the internet as well?
4. is this a direct violation of free speech or would it come under commerce?
5. could satellite radio or internet radio be effected?
is this over reaching government? As a person from the conservative (old style liberal) side of the asile this concerns me from a first amendment perspective. The McCain/Finegold bill bothered me too. Anyone, thoughts? Or am I just being a right wing whiney bitch.
“An Obama senior adviser has indicated that the administration is mulling whether the controversial Fairness Doctrine will get a new lease on life, according to a report in Broadcasting and Cable.
The now defunct Fairness Doctrine, if revived, could be used by a liberal administration to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other radio talk show hosts, as well as much of the new alternative media. The doctrine required broadcasters to report both sides of controversial issues. The Federal Communications Commission dropped it in 1987.
Asked by Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” whether he would rule out reimposing the doctrine, White House senior adviser David Axelrod responded: “I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, and the president to discuss, so I don’t have an answer for you now.”
This soft position is a departure from a much more definitive posture on the doctrine touted during the Obama campaign in June 2008:
“Senator Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to Broadcasting and Cable at that time.
“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz said.
The specter of a return to the doctrine has enjoyed renewed visibility over the last couple of weeks as leading Democrats have been discussing it more and more.
first of all let me say this has nothing to do with this thread. but i think it is important to all. it concerns the fairness doctrine. granted they want to muffle the right wing talk show hosts, but I think we should all be concerned by this left and right for the following reasons:
“Last week on a radio show, former President Bill Clinton announced that in his opinion something needed to be done to balance broadcasting.
“Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.”
Clinton targeted the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn’t reflect economic reality, according to Broadcasting and Cable.”
This poor woman shot and killed everything she ever ate (including vegetables) and I resent the fact that anyone would try to tax her for what amounts to engaging in her sport of choice.
Bristol just spoke truth to a powerful idiot. Good for her!