Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/palin.travel.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...dex.html</a> I used to routinely fire and prosecute employees for crap like this.
Originally Posted By Mr X I love this part... **In the original travel form, Palin listed a number of events that her children attended and said they were there "in official capacity helping." She did not identify any specific roles for the girls.**
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm actually inclined to buy into the excuse that they were "first family" reps at the Alaska events. But trips to freakin New York and Philly and all that? Staying in their own room at the Ritz? Gimme a break. That's totally crap. I said it before, I hope she goes to jail. That'd send a great message to the other fat cats out there.
Originally Posted By mawnck What? And force her to be separated from her kids? Not a good issue to go chasing after, Dems. Stay the course. Don't let's blow it now.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't know what to think of this. If she clearly violated the law she should step down as McCain's running mate. What does the government typically do in regards to the travel expenses of the Chief Executive's family? For instance, did the government pay to fly Hillary and Chelsea around with Bill? I suspect they did. I can see how it would be difficult to pay for this stuff yourself on the Alaska Governor's salary of $81,648. Is it reasonable to expect a mother of young children to leave them behind every time she travels? I don't know. There are a lot of questions here. But if she clearly violated the law she should go.
Originally Posted By Mr X Hardly. Her conference in New York was 5 hours long. She could've done it as an overnight, there was no need to stay 5 days. In fact, what about the poor other kids who had to stay home..ONLY the oldest one made that trip. Nope, Maw. I think it's a fine issue to bring up. Some reformer maverick she is...except for all the corruption.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Is it reasonable to expect a mother of young children to leave them behind every time she travels?*** Of course it's reasonable. It's her JOB. Should she have brought the kids along to the border of Iraq too? It's the job she took. If she wanted to be closer to the kids, she could've either taken a job that didn't require travel or paid for the kids herself. Like everyone else has to do.
Originally Posted By Mr X One more thing, I do realize the issue can be complex, and the example of the first family is a good one. But they truly are international ambassadors, all of them. As for a governor, well that's why I said I think the in-state stuff is somewhat reasonable. Luxury trips out of state though? Totally out of line.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I am shocked that they got a room at the Ritz Carlton for just $215 a night. That's a pretty good rate.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>I don't know what to think of this. If she clearly violated the law she should step down as McCain's running mate.<< Don't most politicians clearly violate the law at some point or another. Heck, Bush and Cheney have been doing it for years. I think it's par for the course for politicians. However, she is portraying herself as a good Christian woman, which would be a whole other issue showing lack of Christian values if she's lying and commiting fraud. It's a hard line a "Christian" politician has to follow.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>which would be a whole other issue showing lack of Christian values if she's lying and commiting fraud<< Good point. But maybe she's a maverick Christian.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>Good point. But maybe she's a maverick Christian.<< If maverick Christian means cheating the government but still going to Heaven, I'm in!!!!! ;-)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Like everyone else has to do.>> But do they? Sure, you and I have to if we bring our kids on a business trip. But how about the CEO of a major company? Do you think they pay for the kids to go too if that us what the CEO wants? I bet they do. I think part of the problem is the crappy salaries we pay governors. A governor salary of under $82K is pathetic. In Minnesota we have a helluva time attracting city managers, school district suprintendents, etc. because of a dumb-crap law that says no one in Minnesota government can make more than the governor. Fortunatley, the University does not have to follow that because according to the Minnesota State Constitution the University is autonomous and does not have to follow the dictates of the state. Good thing... how the hell would we ever hire a football coach??
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >> A governor salary of under $82K is pathetic.<< But her state has a small number of people. So really, she makes about $.24/person. Not a lot, but the governator here in Cali makes $0.00000. BTW, everyone I know would have to pay to take their kids along on a business trip, but I don't know any CEOs. I bet George Lucas never paid to take his kids. I've noticed the more a person makes, the more they lie about things on their taxes (not referring to Lucas in any way, just an observation in general).
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But how about the CEO of a major company? Do you think they pay for the kids to go too if that us what the CEO wants?<< That was in the old days (and by "old days" I mean mid September, 2008.) If the purpose of these trips was to drum up awareness of Alaska, to attract business, I think an argument for bringing the kids along to charm some movers and shakers could be probably be made. It would depend on the various events, who they were meeting with and so on. But I think what's really happening in this report is that you have a mom from a small town pushing the envelope and having taxpayers pick up the tab for the kids getting to see a bit of the world. It was a family adventure. Really, it's up to the people of Alaska to be mad about it or not. But it is food for thought. Here is a self-proclaimed maverick, talking about shaking things up and changing the culture in Washington, and in reality, it seems she's padding the expense account like a seasoned Washington insider for her own family's benefit.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I've noticed the more a person makes, the more they lie about things on their taxes >>> It's certainly true that the more one makes, the more ambiguous things get. It's surprisingly easy to be completely unambiguous on one's taxes if one is a salaried employee, especially without discretionary authority over spending. You get taxed on your wages, and employer-reimbursed expenses are not taxed, but the employer decides based on their rules and under the tax code which expenses are allowable. Personal deductions in such situations are also pretty black and white. I don't think a lot of people that have always been in this situation realize how ambiguous the situation can be for others. But for a business owner, such as Lucas, or someone in an executive position, such as a Governor, it's a lot more murky. Sometimes it's just not clear what the right thing to do is, and it's not always a tax issue as far as one's personal taxes go: often, the issue is whether the decision is consistent with the fiduciary duty to the employer (whether it be a publicly-traded company or a government agency). <<< I am shocked that they got a room at the Ritz Carlton for just $215 a night. That's a pretty good rate. >>> Yea it is! I paid $600 a night at the RC the only time I stayed there, but my room did have an expansive view of Central Park (and included breakfast! ). They must have been on the "government rate" <<< However, she is portraying herself as a good Christian woman, which would be a whole other issue showing lack of Christian values if she's lying and commiting fraud. It's a hard line a "Christian" politician has to follow. >>> There many forms of Christianity. One in particular come into mind in relation to this situation: there's the notion of the "prosperity gospel." One subset of this absolutely believes in taking maximum advantage of each and every situation in order to reduce one's tax burden. I think you'd be surprised to find just how many "hard core" Christians push things to the max (and beyond) when it comes to taxes and consider it absolutely consistent with their faith.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Yea it is! I paid $600 a night at the RC the only time I stayed there, but my room did have an expansive view of Central Park (and included breakfast! ). They must have been on the "government rate" *** The Ritz was someplace else, I think. In New York they stayed at the Essex (Mom and daughter, leaving the poor other kids back home) at $700+ per night.
Originally Posted By mele <<Here is a self-proclaimed maverick, talking about shaking things up and changing the culture in Washington, and in reality, it seems she's padding the expense account like a seasoned Washington insider for her own family's benefit.>> Exactly. Not maverick at all. But of course we already knew that. And can we set some sort of rule for how many times a person can call themselves a maverick before it loses any meaning at all. Didn't she call she and McCain mavericks 6 times in an hour and a half during the last debate? <<<Tue 10/21/2008 10:13p I am shocked that they got a room at the Ritz Carlton for just $215 a night. That's a pretty good rate. >> Haha!
