Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0701290181jan29" target="_blank">http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/nationworld/chi-0701290181jan29</a>,1,5329059.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true >>It's hard to buy undeveloped land in booming northern Arizona for $166 an acre. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid effectively did just that when a longtime friend decided to sell property owned by the employee pension fund that he controlled. In 2002, the Nevada Democrat paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricant dealer and his friend for 50 years. The payment gave the senator full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Reid and the pension fund had jointly owned. Reid's price for the equivalent of 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the assessed value at the time. If Reid were to sell the property for any of the various estimates of its value, his gain on the $10,000 investment could range from $50,000 to $290,000. Six months after the deal closed, Reid introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricant dealers who had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. It was an issue the Haycock family brought to Reid's attention in 1994, according to a source familiar with the events. Reid's legislation was unsuccessful. It is a potential violation of congressional ethics for a member to accept anything of value--including a real estate discount--from a person with interests before Congress. In a statement, Reid's spokesman Jon Summers said the transaction was not a gift and that the price was due to the property's history and the fact that only a partial interest was sold. Reid's action on the lubricant issue was unrelated to the sale and reflected the senator's interest in fairness for small businesses, Summers said. Because an employee pension fund owned the land Reid purchased, a below-market sale raises additional questions, labor law experts said. Pension fund trustees have a duty in most cases to sell assets for their market value, the experts said. "I think this would have been considered a potentially serious issue" at the time, said Ian Lanoff, who led the Labor Department's pension division during the Carter administration and was provided basic details of the case--though not the identity of the lawmaker. "Theoretically it's a serious issue for the trustee who sold the property, though practically it may not be" because the plan is now closed and its obligations were met. John Haycock said workers received all promised benefits from the Haycock Distributing Co. pension plan and were unaffected by the land transaction. Federal records confirm that. <<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder But what do YOU think Darkbeer? Let's have YOUR opinion. Surely you must have some thought in there. Let's debate the issue, rather than hide behind a link? Come to think of it, what IS the issue here? Do you have anything of substance to say here yourself? Surely you didn't post this just because you can. There must be something here you'd like to discuss. You wouldn't do this just to be difficult. Please enlighten us if you're able.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj So, we have the typical Republican dirty tricks of character assassination by digging up old real estate transactions that don't amount to a hill of beans. Anyone remember Whitewater? At least the GOP is predictable in how they attack their opponents.
Originally Posted By jonvn What he thinks is based on his link, and how he has edited the information to suit his viewpoint. that's how he makes his statements. It's pathetic, really, but that's what it is.
Originally Posted By onlyme Hmmm....interesting. A few days ago, I received a stern, yet pleasant 'lecture' regarding my use of generalizations,i.e., putting all liberals into one basket. To which my response was that I wouldn't do it. So, where's the outrage now? *chirp, chirp, chirp* (crickets chirping) yes, I stole that one.
Originally Posted By DlandJB I generally don't read DB links anymore, so I can't tell you if I'm outraged or not. If the story has legs, it won't go away.
Originally Posted By friendofdd It must have legs as it's been around awhile. It's of interest that the NY Times is still mentioning it. Perhaps it is more important than previously thought.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --Hmmm....interesting. A few days ago, I received a stern, yet pleasant 'lecture' regarding my use of generalizations,i.e., putting all liberals into one basket.-- onlyme, I have tried to tell you that with liberals you have to expect a different set of rules that they apply to themselves on a board like this. Harry Reid has now been caught in multiple real estate scams, yet he gets a total pass from the left because he pushes the left wing agenda for them. Can you imagine the " outrage " from the pack on here if this exact real estate story was about Cheney or Mitt Romney? The thread would be 75 posts already and the orgy of Republican bashing would just be starting.
Originally Posted By onlyme >>Outrage over what?<< I was being sarcastic, but the outrage over the poster above me stating "...typical Republican dirty tricks of character assasination..." I would think that this generalization deserved a lecture, as well.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Sorry, make that the LA times.>>> I'd pay more attention if it was in the NY Times. Seriously, I haven't seen it before but if he's done something wrong it should be investigated. The same rules should apply to both parties. But I do get very weary over more finger pointing than actual policy making on Capitol Hill.
Originally Posted By onlyme >>onlyme, I have tried to tell you that with liberals you have to expect a different set of rules that they apply to themselves on a board like this.<< Honestly, I've been aware of this since I first posted, 3+ years ago. I really don't care. It's usless for some to comprehend this. So, I don't try. I mean, I've been called 'stupid', 'fool', 'ignorant', and a couple of others. Don't ask me to find the links, I just don't care. But, I have no intention of resorting to that type of stupidity.
Originally Posted By DlandDug What does make the subject at hand relevant is Pelosi's assurance that giving the Democrats control of the Congress would mean an end to the culture of corruption fostered by the GOP. It invited this kind of scrutiny, and to say otherwise is partisanship at the top of its form.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I've been called 'stupid', 'fool', 'ignorant', and a couple of others." So have I. Every name in the book. Doesn't really make the person saying it seem very bright, does it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>What does make the subject at hand relevant is Pelosi's assurance that giving the Democrats control of the Congress would mean an end to the culture of corruption fostered by the GOP. It invited this kind of scrutiny, and to say otherwise is partisanship at the top of its form.<< Can't argue with that!
Originally Posted By onlyme >>What does make the subject at hand relevant is Pelosi's assurance that giving the Democrats control of the Congress would mean an end to the culture of corruption fostered by the GOP<< "...that giving the Democrats control of the Congress would mean an end to the culture of corruption fostered by the GOP" Surely, you jest. But, I guess since Pelosi has stated this...it must be true. >>and to say otherwise is partisanship at the top of its form.<< And God knows, none of us, here, view politics in a partisian light.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line This is a bigger story than the Democrats would like to admit. Harry Reid has a history of these land deals, all unethical. This one might be the worst or all of them. Is it OK for a political figure to use his position in congress to make personal gains for his family by helping people get legislation passed if they pay the politician off? The regular liberal posters on here all of a sudden don't care if the leader of the Senate is operating land deals that break all rules of ethics? They are not even curious to learn more. Liberals just operate like this by nature it seems. Why am I not surprised. These same people could care less that Sandy Berger stole those documents that tied Clinton and Berger to letting Bin Laden go many times when they could have had him. But if Cheney says " Hogwash " in an interview??? Well that means it's time to start a thread and show the outrage!
