eisely

So ordinary use by BSA units of public schools would not be affected by this proposed legislation - is that correct?

In keeping with Merlyn's admonition to relate topics to scouting, I offer the following. The story is reported by Fox News. I have no reason to doubt the basic accuracy of the facts reported.

 

Since Merlyn among others would say that BSA is a religious organization, does that mean BSA would get the boot from all public schools affected by this legislation?

 

This idea has come up before and resulted in legislation initiated by Jesse Helms to ensure that BSA was treated no differently than any other organization using public school facilities. Wonder where this might take us. Article follows:

 

______________________________________

 

 

Democrats in Congress have declared war on prayer, say conservative groups who object to a provision in the stimulus bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last week.

 

The provision bans money designated for school renovation from being spent on facilities that allow "religious worship." It has ignited a fury among critics who say it violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to prevent religious practice in schools.

 

According to the bill, which the Democratic-controlled House passed despite unanimous Republican opposition, funds are prohibited from being used for the "modernization, renovation, or repair" of facilities that allow "sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity."

 

Critics say that could include public schools that permit religious groups to meet on campus. The House provided $20 billion for the infrastructure improvements, of which $6 billion would go to higher education facilities where the limitations would be applied.

 

"What the government is doing is discriminating against religious viewpoints," said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that works to advance religious freedom.

 

"President Obama's version of faith-based initiatives is to remove the faith from initiative," said Staver, who believes Obama has "a completely different view on faith" from what he said during his presidential campaign.

 

"He is not the infallible messiah that some thought he would be," Staver said.

 

Civil liberty groups like the Americans United for Separation of Church and State vehemently defend the stimulus bill's provision, arguing that it in no way violates the Constitution.

 

"This provision upholds constitutional standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court and in no way affects student groups that meet on public school campuses," said the Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union also defends the constitutionality of the restriction, which they say has been the law since 1972.

 

"It's almost a restatement of what the Constitution requires so there's nothing novel in what the House did in its restriction," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the ACLU. "For 37 years, the law of the land is that the government can't pay for buildings that are used for religious purposes."

 

Not so, says the Traditional Values Coalition, which issued a statement Wednesday charging that Obama is using his stimulus plan to restrict the exercise of religion in public facilities -- a provision it says violates the right to free speech.

 

"The economic crisis is being used as a pretext to curb religious liberty at institutions of higher learning," said Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.

 

"We are not asking that federal funding be used to construct a church, but if a campus ministry wants to hold a Bible study or Mass in the student activity building, we should be encouraging that -- not punishing a college for permitting it," she said.

 

According to some constitutional law experts, any complaint filed against the provision will gain little ground in court.

 

"Certainly the provision is treating the act of religious organizations differently from the activities of the school itself," Harvard University constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet told FOXNews.com.

 

"It's not frivolous to say there's a constitutional problem with excluding religious facilities from these grants, but I think the way of the law is in the other direction," he said.

 

Tushnet cited a 2004 Supreme Court case in which a Washington student lost a college scholarship awarded by the state after it was revealed that he planned to pursue a degree in pastoral ministries. Though the student argued that rescinding the money discriminated on the basis of religion, the court ruled in the state's favor -- declaring that the taxpayer-funded scholarship's restriction is constitutional.

 

The White House said Wednesday that it plans to keep in place the basic structure of the faith-based initiative office established by former President George W. Bush.

 

Administration officials said the office is a substantial programming and policy arm of the federal government, which allows federal agencies to connect with local neighborhood and faith-based groups to deliver social services.

 

 

I function in this capacity for our troop. I see my role as purely administrative and I do not want and do not attempt to replace the SM in his capacity. Functioning as a collection point for letters of recommendation is one of the things that I do. I do have to be available for consultation, but I am also pro active if a letter is missing and I notify the eagle candidate of that on a timely basis. All our EBORs are conducted at the district level so my role is very limited. I would also add that ours is a large troop. I see this role as another way to divide up responsibilities and share loads. Smaller troops will have fewer adults available and less need to relieve the SM of purely administrative burdens.

Of all the available vices, smoking tobacco is fairly low in my personal ranking. I too enjoy an occasional cigar, but have never had one anywhere close to a scout event of any kind.

 

A private word without a public humiliation or argument is the best way to proceed.

 

I thinking drinking on an outing is a much more serious issue for a variety of reasons. Drinking impairs judgment and the last thing I want to have to deal with in any emergency is an impaired person. Smoking may be nasty and unhealthy but to my knowledge it does not impair performance and judgment the way alcohol or even some medications do.

Oh yes, Alberto Gonzales was also an incompetent hack and an unfortunate choice for AG.

The opinion of the attorney general of the US matters, but in this instance lacks credibility.

 

Eric Holder was the hack who pushed through clemency for convicted Puerto Rican terrorists who actually murdered people in order to enhance Hillary's senate prospects in New York and pushed through the Marc Rich pardon in the closing days of the Clinton administration. In both instances Holder knowingly bypassed regular procedures to get the desired result. Holder was, unfortunately, just confirmed this week as AG, but lacks judgment and a sense of propriety.

Some Japanese leaders were executed after trials, but I would be surprised to learn that any were executed solely for water boarding anybody. One of the more controversial cases involved the Japanese commander in the Philipines. I think his name was Yama **** a. In the closing months of the war he essentially lost control of most of his army as it was falling apart and units were separated from one another. Many of these isolated units perpetrated atrocities and he was held accountable for actions over which he had no control.

 

Oh no!!! Busted by the computer for correctly spelling a Japanese name. I hope I don't get thrown off the forum for this infraction.(This message has been edited by eisely)

Our troop reimburses (not advances) for fees for training. This includes such required training as CPR. We have no limit for training taken locally. We do not pay for training at Philmont. We do not pay for other expenses such as mileage, meals, etc., just the fees.

A bill to proscribe in detail those practices the congress thinks should be prohibited to employees of the federal government, whether CIA, FBI, military, or whatever. If the democrats in congress wish to prohibit certain practices then they should exercise their constitutional power to do so.

 

This has nothing to do with whether or not any charges should be brought against Bush administration people. They can only be charged under the law as it existed at the time, including applicable treaties that the US has signed and ratified.

 

If the congress wants to make it illegal for a federal employee to ask somebody's name, the congress can do that. Rather than dance around the issue, the congress should put up or shut up.

I am not convinced that the Bush administration did anything wrong in this area, but I keep an open mind on the subject.

 

What I am saying is that the democrat representatives (e.g., John Conyers) are serious in their intent to criminalize policy differences and demand prosecution of Bush administration people, then such representatives should have the guts to put a bill in the hopper again to force the issue. Show me a bill.

Prosecuting Japanese soldiers would be an important precedent. The main point of the article is not whether water boarding per se is properly considered torture beyond the boundaries of permissable interrogation techniques, but the hypocrisy of our congress. If the democrat majorities in congress really accept this view they should be willing to vote on it again when they have a president who shares their views.

I concur with the other posts that counseling one's own son is to be avoided, depending on the full circumstances. I would do so only with the full knowledge and concurrence of other responsible leaders in the troop.

 

An example of a special circumstance is when I performed as MB counselor for Canoeing MB on canoe treks. I did this for two of my sons on different treks. There were other scouts on those treks who also earned the MB. It was an ideal opportunity to add a MB to an outing and I was the only qualified adult on the outings. I discussed it ahead of time with other leaders and there was not a problem.

The following piece comes from the Wall Street Journal.

 

Now I don't know whether water boarding is torture or not. However, as the writer points out, if the congressional democrats still believe that water boarding is torture there is nothing preventing them from passing such legislation instead of merely relying on Obama's executive order. But then, that would require people in congress to take a stand on a difficult issue.

 

________________________________________

 

When Leon Panetta comes before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday about his nomination to head the Central Intelligence Agency, he ought to be asked tough questions about the things he's said about torture. And he will.

 

At a time when key congressional Democrats are backing calls to investigate Bush administration officials for war crimes, it would help if our elected representatives first answered the tough questions themselves. But they won't. And therein lies the key to understanding contemporary congressional morality.

 

For the past few years, no word has been more casually thrown about than "torture." At the same time, no word has been less precisely defined. That suits Congress just fine, because it allows members to take a pass on defining the law while reserving the right to second-guess the poor souls on the front lines who actually have to make decisions about what the law means.

 

Last February, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid thumped loudly when they sent George W. Bush a bill that would have limited the CIA to the interrogation techniques found in the Army Field Manual -- knowing full well that he would veto it. Now they have a Democratic president who says he shares their views. So why not send him a bill declaring once and for all that waterboarding and other interrogation techniques constitute torture?

 

Manifestly our system of government gives them the right to do so. As CIA Director Michael Hayden noted in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in September 2007, the "CIA operates only within the space given to us by the American people. . . . That space is defined by the policy makers we elect and the laws our representatives pass."

 

Of course, defining that space would require something in short supply in Washington: an adult conversation. In such a conversation, good men and women could present the case for enhanced interrogation without having their words twisted and finding themselves held up in public as latter-day Torquemadas. Such a conversation might also begin by examining the reigning assumption of today's debate: that context and circumstances have nothing to say about what we call torture.

 

This is not the reasoning we apply in other areas. Consider a police officer who kills a criminal in a justifiable shooting. We do not call that murder, because the circumstances surrounding the act determine our judgment of that act. If that's true for something as serious as killing, is it really impossible that similar reasoning might apply to interrogation practices that leave no permanent physical or mental damage?

 

At times, even critics inadvertently make the point. When it is argued, for example, that Navy Seals have undergone waterboarding as part of their training, the response is, well, waterboarding someone as part of his military training is different from waterboarding someone in custody. Yes: Of course it is. In the real world, circumstances and context are crucial to our moral judgments.

 

While we're at it, let's forget about the theoretical ticking time bomb. Instead, consider a real assertion: Leaders in our intelligence community have declared that the intelligence gained from enhanced interrogations of high-value terrorists have helped save innocent lives.

 

You don't believe them? Fine. Bring in the people who know -- behind closed doors if you want them to speak honestly and avoid spilling classified information. And then come to an informed conclusion.

 

In a better day, Congress would allow the executive branch a great deal of latitude during a time of war. We, however, do not live in a better day. In our day, senators and congressmen call for inquisitions of people who operate within a vague torture statute that Congress could easily clarify if it wanted.

 

A year ago, the Speaker of the House expressed herself thus: "Failing to legally prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh techniques," she said, "undermines our nation's moral authority, puts American military and diplomatic personnel at risk, and undermines the quality of intelligence."

 

So what's stopping her? The ban President Barack Obama has put in place is not a law but an executive order that can be reversed. This order came, moreover, with a huge back door in the form of a "task force" that will study whether eliminating waterboarding and other enhanced techniques will affect our intelligence needs.

 

If Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid believe their own public statements that waterboarding and other techniques are both torture and ineffective, they ought to incorporate their words into a law that takes these practices off the table forever.

 

That, of course, would mean a vote that would force lawmakers to face up to the real-life consequences of their actions -- and submit those actions to the judgment of the American people.

 

And as Mr. Obama is learning, the one thing that frightens Congress more than al Qaeda is accountability.

 

 

Linda Chavez was withdrawn as nominee for Secretary of Labor when Bush was first elected because she shot her mouth off in a way that Bush did not appreciate, not because of any tax or other ethical lapses.

 

Bernard Kerik did have bona fide issues. I don't recall if non payment of taxes were among them.

 

You will have to refresh my recollection about the controversy about the third person you named.

Aside from the ethical issues faced by these nominees, I am disturbed by the incompetence demonstrated by the Obama administration in even putting such appointments forward. One hopes that this is not a harbinger of things to come.

Now another Obama appointee has withdrawn over undisclosed tax problems. Who is Nancy Killefer and what is a "chief peformance officer" anyway? Do you suppose she is related to Leona Helmsley?

Hi Jack!!

 

This reminds me of an accountant joke.

 

Just prior to our invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein offered to renew the inspections for WMD. He would open up all sites and have no restrictions. He had only one condition. He wanted Arthur Andersen to do the inspections.

Very helpful.

 

Mr. Turba needs to add a Circular 230 disclaimer to his document as well.

OGE,

 

Your recollection is the same as mine. As I recall, Nanny problems first came up with Clinton's first two nominees for Attorney General, both of whom withdrew. I don't know if those nominees paid any of the back taxes they may have owed, because their candidacies became moot.

 

Then we go Janet Reno - not exactly an improvement, but certainly no nanny problems.

Some republican nominees for cabinet level positions have had nanny problems, but I do not recall any republican nominees cheating on their taxes the way Geithner and Daeschle have. It is not that there aren't tax cheats among republicans. Most likely those republicans who might have been offered appointments and knew they had cheated, simply passed on the opportunities. If anybody has contrary information, please provide it.

 

I find these episodes more amusing than shocking. I think these two people should not have been appointed, but then this is the change we have been waiting for.

 

Obama's tolerance for tainted appointees probably stems from his growing up in the political environment of Chicago, where everybody is presumed to be dishonest to some degree and it is tolerated. Nobody has accused Obama of any personal impropriety as far as I am aware, but I suspect his lenient attitude towards these matters reflects his experience.

 

 

Regarding charitable deductions for scouting activities, it is legitimate to deduct as a charitable contribution unreimbursed expenses, such as uniform costs. You can also deduct unreimbursed mileage on your car, but not at the business mileage reate.

The following article appeared in the Seattle newspaper. While the article is fairly typical muck raking, it nevertheless raises interesting and important questions. I can easily believe that some logging has been done improperly, but I am not prepared to condemn all logging on all scout lands. Well managed logging may well be vitally important, not just for the economic benefit, in some situations. If I am not mistaken, a certain amount on ongoing logging takes place at Philmont. I would like to hear from others around the country about what they have seen.

 

_________________________________________________________

 

Scout councils defend logging of their lands

Lewis Kamb, Hearst Newspapers

 

Friday, January 30, 2009

 

 

(01-29) 20:11 PST -- For nearly a century, the Boy Scouts of America have proudly described themselves as campside conservationists, good stewards of the land.

 

"The Boy Scouts were green before it was cool to be green," said national spokesman Deron Smith.

 

But in recent decades, local Boy Scout councils around the nation have ordered clear-cutting or other high-impact logging on tens of thousands of acres of forestland they own, often in a quest for a different kind of green: cash.

 

A Hearst Newspapers investigation has found dozens of cases in which the scouts ordered the logging of prime woodlands or sold them to big timber interests and developers, turning quick money instead of seeking ways to save the trees.

 

"In public, they say they want to teach kids about saving the environment," said Jane Childers, a longtime scouting volunteer in Washington state who has fought against scouts' logging. "But in reality, it's all about the money."

 

Scout councils nationwide have hired loggers to carry out clear-cutting and salvage harvests in ecosystems that provided habitat for a host of protected species, including salmon, timber wolves, bald eagles and spotted owls, records show.

 

At times, the scout councils have logged or sold wild properties that had been bequeathed specifically for use as scout camps.

 

In some cases, councils have sought revenues from logging or land sales to make up for funding lost because of the organization's controversial bans on gays and atheists.

 

"The Boy Scouts had to suffer the consequences for sticking by their moral values," said Eugene Grant, president of the Portland, Ore., Cascade Pacific Council's board of directors. "There's no question" that the Scouts' anti-gay, anti-atheist stance has cost the organization money, he said. As a result, he said, "every council has looked at ways to generate funds ... and logging is one of them."

 

The scouts insist they manage the wild lands they own with sensitivity and care.

 

But the investigation - a nationwide review by five newspapers of more than 400 timber harvests, court papers, property records, tax filings and other documents since 1990 - also found that:

 

-- Scout councils have ordered the logging of more than 34,000 acres of forests - perhaps far more, as forestry records nationwide are incomplete.

 

-- More than 100 scout groups - one-third of all Boy Scouts councils nationwide - have conducted timber harvests.

 

-- Councils logged in or near protected wildlife habitat at least 53 times.

 

-- Councils have authorized at least 60 clear-cutting operations and 35 salvage harvests, logging practices that some experts say harm the environment but maximize profits.

 

A renewable resource

 

Scout officials generally defended logging as sound land stewardship. Trees are a renewable resource, said some, and the income from logging is put back into scouting, providing needed funds to underwrite programs and maintain scout camps and other properties.

 

Forestry records confirm that many councils practice only sustainable forestry. They selectively log to remove hazard trees, reduce fire risks and improve habitat, records show. With the help of professional foresters, dozens of councils have implemented long-range management plans to better manage woodlands, records also show. But the investigation also revealed that some stewardship plans were ignored. Most scout timber harvests were relatively small - 50 to 100 acres - and occurred mainly in the Western timber states. But scout councils across the country have authorized logging, Hearst Newspapers found.

 

"Every time (a council) gets a new scout director, they call a state forester to come out and see if there is any good timber to harvest," said Paul Tauke, Iowa state forester. "There's always pressure to make money."

 

Some scout councils say they have reluctantly resorted to logging simply to shore up sagging operating budgets.

 

"I butchered the property," said Bruce Faller, a district commissioner for a Vermont scout council, describing a 2006 logging operation he ordered for financial reasons. "It was old, big beautiful wood ... I wouldn't have done it if there (were) any other way."

 

26 logging councils

 

Others unabashedly identify themselves as logging councils that manage scout camps as for-profit tree farms.

 

The Cascade Pacific Council in Portland, Ore., and the Andrew Jackson Council in Jackson, Miss., are among 26 councils nationwide that log camps as tree farms under what they view as sustainable management plans.

 

"This is pine country," said Arnold Landry, the Mississippi council executive. "We cut when it's best for us to cut. We replant and ... make the best use of the property."

 

Properly managed logging is simply another resource councils can tap, some say, in an era when funding is hard to find.

 

"People talk about what a bad, evil, horrible thing it is to cut a tree," said Tim McCandless, executive for the Spokane, Wash., Inland Northwest Council. "But our mission is kids, not trees."

 

In southwest Washington, along a gravel county road, a denuded hillside piled with logging debris at the Pacific Harbor Council's Camp Delezene offers testament to how, even amid today's stagnant timber markets, trees are like gold.

 

The scout council obtained $140,000 by clear-cutting 12 acres of 80 year-old Douglas fir, said scout volunteer Douglas Dorr. The income allowed the scouts to put a new roof on the old lodge at the camp and make other improvements. The logging was done by the book, he said.

 

But a conservation biologist hired by Hearst Newspapers to review the project said the scouts' logging broke state rules meant to protect endangered salmon in a nearby stream.

 

"There are blatant rules violations here," said the consultant, Chris Mendoza. He said the council failed to leave a buffer zone of trees along the bank of the stream and on the slopes of a hillside - measures that would have protected the stream from mudslides and erosion.

 

"These were some big, valuable trees," Mendoza said. "It looks like they wanted to take as many as possible and broke the rules to do it."

 

Council officials disagreed, saying the logging followed all regulations and was thoughtfully planned to minimize impact.

 

The logging at Camp Delezene was one of several cases in which scouts were criticized for allegedly deviating from environmental laws, forestry rules or rules written into logging plans.

 

"It pays to do that," said Mendoza, who has worked for timber corporations and also serves on a state forest practices committee. "Some landowners are more prone to bending the rules, because if they get away with it, it can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars."

 

Smith, the Boy Scouts national spokesman, says the scouts are not just out to make a buck at the environment's expense.

 

The scouts are "good stewards of their resources," he said.

 

Funding scout programs

 

Among nonprofit groups, the scouts are perhaps the nation's biggest landowners, some scout officials say. How their land is used is largely left up to administrators and volunteer board members running the 304 local scouting councils. Tapping a council's assets, such as timber, can help ensure that there's money to fund scout programs, scout officials say.

 

In California, scout councils often cited moneymaking as an important goal of logging projects proposed for scout wildlands. Public records show that the foresters hired by the scouts to log their properties have usually followed California forestry rules. But critics caution that forestry agencies - even in heavily regulated timber states like California - can be lax in enforcement.

 

Around the country, critics have complained that logging operations on scout lands weren't conducted as promised.

 

Logging carried out by the Central Minnesota Council at its Parker Scout Reservation north of St. Cloud in 2005-2007 earned the scouts more than $100,000, records show, but it also drew complaints. One neighbor said she thought the project would be low-impact.

 

"I have watched with horror the devastation being exacted on the camp," neighbor Mary Novakowski wrote to a state forester. "The equipment being used has moved through the forest crushing many small trees that might have had a chance to benefit from the open canopy."

 

Logging at Virginia's Pipsico Scout Reservation led to a "direct discharge" of sediment into a pond and Chesapeake Bay, degrading waters and harming fish, a consultant's report said.

 

On a remote hillside in the Siskiyou National Forest in southwest Oregon, the McCaleb Scout Ranch overlooks the pristine Illinois River, an unobstructed stream with wild runs of salmon and steelhead.

 

Salvage logging

 

Officially declared a state Scenic Waterway in 1970, the Illinois made the nation's list of Wild and Scenic Rivers in 1984.

 

Nevertheless, the Crater Lake Council conducted widespread logging at its camp after the huge Biscuit Fire in 2002. More than six years later, a massive mound of logging debris remained piled on a ravine's edge above the protected salmon stream. "They savagely logged it," Roy Keene, a former timber industry forester-turned-activist, said of the scout camp.

 

Council officials say that after the wildfire, they simply salvaged what revenues they could from the scorched but still valuable timber at the camp. They used the revenue - $67,000 - to rebuild camp buildings lost in the fire. But a growing number of forestry experts say such post-catastrophe logging is ecologically harmful.

 

The case is among at least 35 salvage harvests conducted by scouting groups nationwide since 1990, Hearst found.

 

"Salvage logging is almost never a positive for ecological recovery," said Jerry Franklin, professor of ecosystem analysis for the University of Washington's College of Forestry. "It is done to salvage economic values."

 

Recent scout-pursued salvage harvests have occurred in Georgia, California, New York, Montana and Pennsylvania after hurricanes, tornadoes, ice storms and insect infestations. After fires in 1999 and 2002, the scouts' National Council conducted by far the largest of scout salvage harvests reviewed - in all, nearly 3,400 acres - at the nation's premier scouting camp, the Philmont Scout Reservation in New Mexico.

 

Some critics say the 2002 salvage at the McCaleb Ranch on Oregon's Illinois River never should have happened anyway.

 

"The old woman who donated that property to the scouts had entered into an agreement with the state to protect it from logging," said Keene, senior forester for the Institute of Wildlife Protection

 

"No trees, shrubs, or brush shall be destroyed, cut, or removed from the restricted area without a written permit from (the state)," according to the 1974 easement signed by the donor, the late Betty McCaleb.

 

Nevertheless, the state gave the scout council permission to cut all "fire-killed trees of merchantable size" from the 106-acre ranch just a couple weeks after the fire burned across it.

 

Jan Houck, a parks official who approved the plan, said such logging "isn't necessarily prohibited" under the easement, "it just needs our permission first."

 

Scout council executive Rick Burr, who was hired after the logging, defended the harvest as "a one-time deal."

 

"The money from the (timber) sale was used to rebuild the structures," he said.

 

To critics, it was a dispiriting transaction.

 

"I've got nothing against the Boy Scouts," said Joseph Vaile, an Oregon environmental activist. "But it was really disheartening to see clear-cut logging right next to a Wild and Scenic River."

 

 

Doesn't this thread belong under "Camping & High Adventure?"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTc5ZWE2ZWIzMWZiM2NiZTc2NzNkM2E4MjY2ODkxNDQ=

 

 

The link above will take you to an article in the National Review online about Eric Holder. The article mostly focuses on Holder's role in the Marc Rich pardon, but also mentions in passing the clemency for the Puerto Rican terrorists whom Clinton pardoned to gain political advantage for Hillary in her initial senate campaign.

 

Just trying to keep the pot boiling.(This message has been edited by eisely)

Nevertheless Geithner signed statements on the application for the extra cash stating that he knew had to pay the tax and would do so. Perhaps he was not an independent contractor as I understand it, but he did sign, and he did accept the extra cash and kept it. He is still a tax cheat.

There is one huge difference between the controversy over Clarence Thomas and Geithner. In Thomas' case it was "he said - she said" and the facts of what was alleged were in dispute. In Geithner's case the facts are not in dispute. We will now have a knowing willful tax cheat for secretary of the treasury. If this were a republican administration trying to select and nominate a cabinet officer, Geithner would never have been nominated because he would have been crucified by the media.

 

I have been self employed in the past, and I consult with multi national corporations every day on their taxes. That is what I do for a living. I have also used Turbo Tax for years to do my own taxes. Turbo Tax will detect and inform you of this particular "error" and you have to override the software to submit a fraudulent return on the self employment tax issue.

 

Geithner had to apply to the IMF (for which he worked as an independent contractor) for the cash to pay the taxes and he signed those applications stating that he understood that he had to pay the taxes. So he was even reimbursed for the taxes he willfully did not pay. There is absolutely no excuse for what Geithner did. And he even got the penalties waived when we was caught by the IRS for the years he was audited!!