Democrats Protect Taxpayer-Paid Tax Cheating Federal Employees

Does it bother you that Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury is a documented tax cheat?  Does it bother you that Charles Rangel, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee who wrote our nation’s tax laws, is a big time documented tax cheat?

If you answered “no,” you are a Democrat.  And a hypocrite.

It is amazing how many wealthy Democrats there are – both in elected or political office and in the private sector – who think high taxes are great, and then do everything they can to avoid the very high taxes they want everyone else to pay.

What follows is a demonstration of the fact that Democrats want to shelter government employees – who are paid with YOUR money – from being responsible for the legitimate consequences which should follow from working for the very government you are screwing.

Why would the Democrats take such a repugnant stand?  Two reasons: 1) Most government employees are unionized; 2) these unions support and work for Democrats.

Provision to fire tax-delinquent federal employees pulled
By Robert Brodsky  March 4, 2010

A legislative compromise that would have allowed agencies to fire tax-delinquent federal employees fell apart on Thursday.

The compromise softened an amendment to the 2009 Contracting and Tax Accountability Act that Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, introduced earlier this week. The act already would prohibit companies that don’t pay their taxes from winning federal contracts; Chaffetz’s amendment extended that principle to “seriously delinquent” federal employees and congressional staffers.

Modified language that would have provided federal employees with due process protection and a hardship exemption won support from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y. But, Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on the federal workforce, and other Democrats, said the compromise amendment still was unduly harsh because it defined delinquency as the issuance of a lien by the Internal Revenue Service, which could be an early stage in resolving a tax dispute.

Chaffetz, however, argued that the amendment offered protection to employees who were working to settle the tax disputes.

Democrats also raised concerns about whether the amendment would overburden the Office of Personnel Management, which would be responsible for administering the provision.

As debate over the provision disintegrated and Democrats called for an opportunity to hold a hearing, Towns pulled both the amendment and the bill from the floor and postponed a vote.

A committee source said there was too much “confusion” with the amendment and lingering issues needed to be resolved.

“We wanted to take a break to make sure there were no unintended consequences with the bill,” the source said.

But, Republicans accused the Democrats of protecting federal employees.

“I am thoroughly disappointed that Democrats rejected the chairman’s compromise and stubbornly refused to work with him on an effort to hold federal employees to the same standard as the private sector,” said Rep Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “There needs to be consequences for both contractors and federal employees who fail to pay their taxes.”

“Chairman Towns’ compromise proposal on my amendment was a sensible approach, and it’s puzzling that members on the other side didn’t agree,” Chaffetz said. “The IRS already has a similar policy in place and they have demonstrated that it works.”

Chaffetz said the tax delinquency rate for the Treasury Department — which includes the IRS – -is less than 1 percent, compared to 3.4 percent for the rest of the federal government. He said the government fails to collect roughly $1 billion in taxes annually from about 100,000 federal employees.

The committee source said it was not clear if the issues with the amendment would require a hearing or if they could be worked out in a private meeting with the IRS.

Imagine that: the very same Democrats who rushed the stimulus through so quickly that not one single elected member of Congress had a chance to read the damn bills, and the very same Democrats who have repeatedly tried to rush ObamaCare through, suddenly have found legislation that requires “taking a break” and “making sure there are no unintended consequences.”  An $862 billion stimulus package didn’t require that kind of consideration; a complete takeover of our health care system doesn’t require that kind of consideration; but firing tax cheating government employees is something that must be studied to the nth degree.

A 2,700-page Senate health care bill monstrosity can be rushed through by any means possible; but please, oh please let us not rush into getting rid of taxpayer-paid tax cheats.

The explanation that Democrats care about all the various nuances of rights that government workers who haven’t bothered to pay their taxes supposedly have is a joke: if they wanted to do anything about these taxpayer-paid tax cheats, they would have wheeled and dealed to get a bill.  The simple fact of the matter is that they didn’t WANT a bill.

Taxpayer-paid unionized government employees who cheat on their taxes have more money to fork over to Democrats.  And the Democrats who would never even consider tort reform because their lawsuit-happy lawyers wouldn’t like it are the very same Democrats who won’t step on their union supporters’ toes.  Over anything.

That’s the bottom line.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Democrats Protect Taxpayer-Paid Tax Cheating Federal Employees”

  1. Keith Lepor Says:

    Stephen Lynch’s decision, in his capacity as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee that oversees government workers, to pull legislation that would force government and Hill staffers to pay back taxes or lose their jobs is indicative of everything that is wrong with a self-serving, arrogant and out of touch Democrat dominated Congress.

    This is the sort of outrageous and reprehensible behavior that convinced me that it was time to return to the USA from Afghanistan (where I had been working for ISAF) and get off the fence and stop complaining about politicians and run for Congress in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, running up here in Boston as a Republican the mainstream media is all but ignoring my candidacy because I have never run for political office before.

    I need to find outlets for exposure to get my message out as without such press the people will not know that I am running, potential supporters will not visit my campaign website and I will not be able to raise the funds necessary to successfully challenge the union backed incumbent responsible for this.

    I would appreciate the help of concerned citizens from throughout the country. Please spread the word that Keith Lepor is looking to unseat Stephen Lynch but will not be able to do it without the help of the American people. Thank you, Keith Lepor, candidate for Congress MA-9

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Keith, based on what you say here, you’re just the kind of person we need. I wish you well as you continue to struggled against the tide to fight to serve the people.

    Your story is why I believe in term limits. There is an entrenched political will that views public office the way royalty used to view their thrones – as a “divine right.” Now we’ve got people like Charlie Rangel, a 20-plus term Congressman who has been screwing the people for most of his terms. And thanks to the advantages of incumbency, and thanks to “redistricting” which is an insult to democracy, it is nearly impossible to get rid of these clowns.

    The founding fathers didn’t write term limits in to the Constitution (almost certainly because the young republic would have never gotten off the ground if the first Congress realized they’d be voting themselves out of office). But the writings of the key founding fathers are filled with beseechings and warnings that quality people should serve the people – and then go home – and that elected officials would corrupt the system to favor themselves unless the people restrained them.

    Virtue is nowhere to be found in the Democrat Party today. And sadly, it is too rare thing in the Republican Party.

    All that said, Scott Brown’s come from nowhere victory proves that there are ways through the political rodent maze.

    If I could suggest one thing, Keith, it is that you find yourself a wise old mentor who can guide you, and who might even be able to make a phone call on your behalf. There are young men who have been in your shoes before, and found a way to win. You need to acquaint yourself with a few good examples, and pursue the course they blazed before you.

  3. Keith Lepor Says:

    Hello Michael, as a novice in electoral politics I would welcome any specific thoughts and wonder whether or not we might speak by phone?

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    I don’t have a lot of advice to give, given I’ve never run for office. I got into blogging getting near to 2 years ago, as I watched the Jeremiah Wright revelations and realized that Barack Obama had voluntarily immersed himself in a genuinely evil and morally toxic environment for 23 years.

    I’ve learned about a lot of political issues, but have no knowledge of political insider baseball.

    Which is why I suggest you get to know someone who does.

    I’m in Southern California – obviously a long way from your neck of the woods. But if I were going to run for an office, I’d start by trying to get in touch with some Republican organizations (such as the Republican women, who frequently have local chapters, and who frequently have Republicans come to address them). If you have a vision for what you’d like to do, you might be able to speak to such a group at one of their luncheons. Heck, even I’ve just been asked to speak at a Republican Women’s luncheon, and I’m not even running for dogcatcher! They’re always looking for speakers. I’d also try to set up a meeting with Republican congressmen in other districts, and share your plans and ask for advice. What you want is a) to learn how to get started; b) to develop some contacts that might help you; and c) to hopefully inspire someone who has either the monetary or political ability to back you and give you some momentum.

    They talk about needing a fire in the belly. Why do you want to run? What is your message? What is your vision, and what is your plan to make your district better? You have to be able to coherently explain these, and you need to have a longer and shorter version of them.

    Beyond that, I can’t say I have a whole lot of additional insight to offer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: