The tax returns look a little fishy.
Will the Obama camp and IRS check them out?
What about the thousands of big prize money Todd made winning his races.....
In typical news-dump fashion, the McCain campaign put out the last two years of Sarah Palin's tax returns late Friday afternoon.
The information contained a few interesting revelations in what was, otherwise, a fairly mundane filing. Palin, it appears, did not pay taxes on the more than $60,000 of travel reimbursements that she and her family members reportedly billed the state during her 18 months as governor. There is a fairly wonky debate over whether she should have been charged for these trips or whether it was accounted for in her salary. John Bogdanski, a tax professor at the Lewis and Clark Law School, told the Huffington Post's Seth Colter Walls that they did qualify as taxable income.
It does not appear that such deductions would have been allowable for any amounts attributable to travel by her husband and children. Section 274(m)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code strictly forbids deductions for bringing spouses and dependents along on business travel unless the spouses and dependents (a) are employees of the taxpayer (here, the taxpayer is the governor), (b) are traveling for a bona fide business purpose, and (c) would otherwise be entitled to deduct the travel on their own tax returns. Unless Palin's spouse and kids are also her employees and she can show that they were away on their own businesses, their expenses would not be deductible by the governor. And therefore she cannot exclude from income any per diems attributable to any of them. (By the way, since she's the employee, the income would be required to be reported on her own return, not her kids'.)
Overall, the Palins reported a gross income of $127,869 in 2006, and paid taxes amounting to $11,944 (an effective rate of 9.3 percent). In 2007, the family reported earning a gross income of $166,080 ($107,987.00 of which came from Gov. Palin) and paid taxes totaling $24,738, for a rate of 14.9 percent.
But there is some discrepancy with the latter number. According to an accompanying 2007 personal financial disclosure report, Palin's "income" as governor of Alaska was $196,531.50, well above the $107,987.00 that was noted on her W2 form from that same year. An email was sent to the McCain campaign for clarification. And this story will be updated should aides reply.
Palin's personal financial disclosure form also showed a moderate amount of assets. The family has ownership or interest in several properties, including tracts on several Alaska fishing spots. And Todd made between $50,000 and $100,000 from British Petroleum's retirement plan.
Also, what about the thousands of dollars Todd received as big prize money for his racing.
Palin's Tax Return Mystery: Where Are The Per Diems?
Why were her taxes prepared in September 2008. Isn't that a little late?
Also, she received income for living in her home the whole year instead of living at the governors mansion.
I read where they have a fishing business and Todd has income too.
I also read they earn about $250,000 together, have 5 properties, two boats and a plane. Did Todd receive money when he survied land for Alaska?
These forms do not make sense.
http://www.johnmccain.com/palinfinancial/
Duh, I am so stupid, I looked at my husbands last call and there is the number
312-348-3696... I called and no one answered, it is a Chicago area
I just received a telephone call from someone who said he was from the Obama campaign. He said he noticed I made a contribution back in December. I told him I made several donations. He said he just saw one. Anyway, he said for financial reasons, finance comittee needed to verify I was a US Citizen. I said yes. He said he needed my passport number and I should email it to him. I said no.
Who called me?
McCain and Team Have Many Ties to Gambling Industry
Over 40 Current Campaign Fundraisers, Top Advisers Tied To Gambling Industry... Senior Aides Worried McCain Gambled Too Much... Casino Lobbyists In McCain's Inner Circle Pushed Abramoff Probe To Pick Off Clients, Settle Scores
Senator John McCain was on a roll. In a room reserved for high-stakes gamblers at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, he tossed $100 chips around a hot craps table. When the marathon session ended around 2:30 a.m., the Arizona senator and his entourage emerged with thousands of dollars in winnings.
A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table. He was throwing dice that night not long after his failed 2000 presidential bid, in which he was skewered by the Republican Party’s evangelical base, opponents of gambling. Mr. McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates of Mr. McCain.
The visit had been arranged by the lobbyist, Scott Reed, who works for the Mashantucket Pequot, a tribe that has contributed heavily to Mr. McCain’s campaigns and built Foxwoods into the world’s second-largest casino. Joining them was Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s current campaign manager. Their night of good fortune epitomized not just Mr. McCain’s affection for gambling, but also the close relationship he has built with the gambling industry and its lobbyists during his 25-year career in Congress.
As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.
“One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming” is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain.
As factions of the ferociously competitive gambling industry have vied for an edge, they have found it advantageous to cultivate a relationship with Mr. McCain or hire someone who has one, according to an examination based on more than 70 interviews and thousands of pages of documents.
Mr. McCain portrays himself as a Washington maverick unswayed by special interests, referring recently to lobbyists as “birds of prey.” Yet in his current campaign, more than 40 fund-raisers and top advisers have lobbied or worked for an array of gambling interests — including tribal and Las Vegas casinos, lottery companies and online poker purveyors.
When rules being considered by Congress threatened a California tribe’s planned casino in 2005, Mr. McCain helped spare the tribe. Its lobbyist, who had no prior experience in the gambling industry, had a nearly 20-year friendship with Mr. McCain.
In Connecticut that year, when a tribe was looking to open the state’s third casino, staff members on the Indian Affairs Committee provided guidance to lobbyists representing those fighting the casino, e-mail messages and interviews show. The proposed casino, which would have cut into the Pequots’ market share, was opposed by Mr. McCain’s colleagues in Connecticut.
Mr. McCain declined to be interviewed. In written answers to questions, his campaign staff said he was “justifiably proud” of his record on regulating Indian gambling. “Senator McCain has taken positions on policy issues because he believed they are in the public interest,” the campaign said.
Mr. McCain’s spokesman, Tucker Bounds, would not discuss the senator’s night of gambling at Foxwoods, saying: “Your paper has repeatedly attempted to insinuate impropriety on the part of Senator McCain where none exists — and it reveals that your publication is desperately willing to gamble away what little credibility it still has.”
Over his career, Mr. McCain has taken on special interests, like big tobacco, and angered the capital’s powerbrokers by promoting campaign finance reform and pushing to limit gifts that lobbyists can shower on lawmakers. On occasion, he has crossed the gambling industry on issues like regulating slot machines.
Perhaps no episode burnished Mr. McCain’s image as a reformer more than his stewardship three years ago of the Congressional investigation into Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican Indian gambling lobbyist who became a national symbol of the pay-to-play culture in Washington. The senator’s leadership during the scandal set the stage for the most sweeping overhaul of lobbying laws since Watergate.
“I’ve fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes,” the senator said in his speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination this month.
But interviews and records show that lobbyists and political operatives in Mr. McCain’s inner circle played a behind-the-scenes role in bringing Mr. Abramoff’s misdeeds to Mr. McCain’s attention — and then cashed in on the resulting investigation. The senator’s longtime chief political strategist, for example, was paid $100,000 over four months as a consultant to one tribe caught up in the inquiry, records show.
Mr. McCain’s campaign said the senator acted solely to protect American Indians, even though the inquiry posed “grave risk to his political interests.”
As public opposition to tribal casinos has grown in recent years, Mr. McCain has distanced himself from Indian gambling, Congressional and American Indian officials said.
But he has rarely wavered in his loyalty to Las Vegas, where he counts casino executives among his close friends and most prolific fund-raisers. “Beyond just his support for gaming, Nevada supports John McCain because he’s one of us, a Westerner at heart,” said Sig Rogich, a Nevada Republican kingmaker who raised nearly $2 million for Mr. McCain at an event at his home in June.
Only six members of Congress have received more money from the gambling industry than Mr. McCain, and five hail from the casino hubs of Nevada and New Jersey, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics dating back to 1989. In the presidential race, Senator Barack Obama has also received money from the industry; Mr. McCain has raised almost twice as much.
In May 2007, as Mr. McCain’s presidential bid was floundering, he spent a weekend at the MGM Grand on the Las Vegas strip. A fund-raiser hosted by J. Terrence Lanni, the casino’s top executive and a longtime friend of the senator, raised $400,000 for his campaign. Afterward, Mr. McCain attended a boxing match and hit the craps tables.
For much of his adult life, Mr. McCain has gambled as often as once a month, friends and associates said, traveling to Las Vegas for weekend betting marathons. Former senior campaign officials said they worried about Mr. McCain’s patronage of casinos, given the power he wields over the industry. The officials, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.
“We were always concerned about appearances,” one former official said. “If you go around saying that appearances matter, then they matter.”
The former official said he would tell Mr. McCain: “Do we really have to go to a casino? I don’t think it’s a good idea. The base doesn’t like it. It doesn’t look good. And good things don’t happen in casinos at midnight.”
“You worry too much,” Mr. McCain would respond, the official said.
A Record of Support
In one of their last conversations, Representative Morris K. Udall, Arizona’s powerful Democrat, whose devotion to American Indian causes was legendary, implored his friend Mr. McCain to carry on his legacy.
“Don’t forget the Indians,” Mr. Udall, who died in 1998, told Mr. McCain in a directive that the senator has recounted to others.
More than a decade earlier, Mr. Udall had persuaded Mr. McCain to join the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. Mr. McCain, whose home state has the third-highest Indian population, eloquently decried the “grinding poverty” that gripped many reservations.
The two men helped write the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 after the Supreme Court found that states had virtually no right to control wagering on reservations. The legislation provided a framework for the oversight and growth of Indian casinos: In 1988, Indian gambling represented less than 1 percent of the nation’s gambling revenues; today it captures more than one third.
On the Senate floor after the bill’s passage, Mr. McCain said he personally opposed Indian gambling, but when impoverished communities “are faced with only one option for economic development, and that is to set up gambling on their reservations, then I cannot disapprove.”
In 1994, Mr. McCain pushed an amendment that enabled dozens of additional tribes to win federal recognition and open casinos. And in 1998, Mr. McCain fought a Senate effort to rein in the boom.
He also voted twice in the last decade to give casinos tax breaks estimated to cost the government more than $326 million over a dozen years.
The first tax break benefited the industry in Las Vegas, one of a number of ways Mr. McCain has helped nontribal casinos. Mr. Lanni, the MGM Mirage chief executive, said that an unsuccessful bid by the senator to ban wagering on college sports in Nevada was the only time he could recall Mr. McCain opposing Las Vegas. “I can’t think of any other issue,” Mr. Lanni said.
The second tax break helped tribal casinos like Foxwoods and was pushed by Scott Reed, the Pequots’ lobbyist.
Mr. McCain had gotten to know Mr. Reed during Senator Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign, which Mr. Reed managed. Four years later, when Mr. McCain ran for president, Mr. Reed recommended he hire his close friend and protégé, Rick Davis, to manage that campaign.
During his 2000 primary race against George W. Bush, Mr. McCain promoted his record of helping Indian Country, telling reporters on a campaign swing that he had provided critical support to “the Pequot, now the proud owners of the largest casino in the world.”
But Mr. McCain’s record on Indian gambling was fast becoming a difficult issue for him in the primary. Bush supporters like Gov. John Engler of Michigan lambasted Mr. McCain for his “close ties to Indian gambling.”
A decade after Mr. McCain co-authored the Indian gambling act, the political tides had turned. Tribal casinos, which were growing at a blazing pace, had become increasingly unpopular around the country for reasons as varied as morality and traffic.
Then came the biggest lobbying scandal to shake Washington.
Continued..
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/us/politics/28gambling-web.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
Sarah is done and the VP debates will finish her off.
The news media is not reporting on her anymore unless it is bad.
Her 15 minutes of fame is gone.
Bye bye, Sarah....
Good Judgement, McCain
Front page of Huffington.................Yes We Can
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics/
Boy, this debate will put the icing on the cake for McCain.
I bet he finds some way to cancel it... Maybe Sarah will come up sick...
Most people on CNN are saying it is a tie.
That is ok. McCain needed to win and he didn't.
Vote for Obama, McCain is 15,000 points ahead of Obama...
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Obama is answering questions, McCain is talking about talking to people on the campaign trail, wearing a bracelet...
Obama is doing great............................
Radio talk show host Ed Schultz reports:
Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin. The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as "disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."
On Friday, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker said that after seeing Palin in interviews, she thinks the vice presidential nominee should drop out.
John McCain may think he's already won the debate, and Jim Lehrer may ask a lot of questions about the economy, but as this Obama campaign memo shows, the Obama team isn't shying away from questions over foreign policy or national security.
As Obama has consistently argued, it's a question of judgment -- not a question of experience.
Although this memo doesn't focus on temperament, I think that's the other key contrast in this debate: Obama's steady-hand versus McCain's erratic, gambling nature.
TO: Interested PartiesFR: The Obama CampaignRE: Obama's Good Judgment Proven Right; McCain's Bad Judgment Proven WrongDA: September 26, 2008On the biggest foreign policy questions of the last 8 years, Barack Obama has made the right judgment, and John McCain sided with George Bush in making the wrong one. Those Bush-McCain judgments have been a disaster for our security and standing, leading to the most catastrophic foreign policy record in generations. As time has proven Obama right and McCain wrong, events have repeatedly forced the Bush Administration in the direction of Obama. In some cases, McCain has shifted his positions; in others, he has stubbornly clung to his failed policies. So in John McCain, the American people will get four more years of the worst parts of the Bush foreign policy. With Barack Obama, we will get change, and judgment we can trust.IraqJudgment: In 2002, Obama opposed going to war in Iraq. He warned of an "occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences." McCain was George Bush's biggest cheerleader for war, and said we'd be "greeted as liberators." Now, we've spent over five years, lost over 4,000 lives, and spent nearly a trillion dollars fighting a war against a country that had no WMD, and nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Obama was right about Iraq. McCain was wrong.Plans: Obama has consistently called for a timetable to responsibly remove our combat brigades from Iraq, and to succeed by transitioning control to the sovereign Iraqi government. McCain called any timetable "surrender." The Iraqi Prime Minister then endorsed Obama's timetable, forcing the Bush Administration to agree to a "time horizon," and leaving McCain alone in his stubborn refusal to end this war. Obama has a plan to succeed in Iraq and to end the war. McCain has a plan for staying. AfghanistanJudgment: For years, Obama has called for a focus on Afghanistan, which is the central front in the war on terror. McCain said we could "muddle through" in Afghanistan, and said in 2005 that we'd "already succeeded" in Afghanistan. Now, seven years after 9/11, Afghanistan is sliding into deeper violence and chaos. Obama was right about Afghanistan. McCain was wrong.Plans: Obama called over a year ago for at least 2 combat brigades, more training for Afghan security forces, and increased non-military assistance. McCain followed Obama's call for more troops by a year, but couldn't say how many troops or how we could get them without ending the war in Iraq. The Bush Administration - responding to military commanders - announced a modest plan to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan that doesn't go far enough. Obama has led on Afghanistan with a plan to win. McCain has followed and has no plan to win. Osama bin Laden / al QaedaJudgment: Obama said in 2002 that we should "finish the fight with bin Laden" instead of shifting our focus to Iraq. McCain said in 2002 that catching bin Laden was not that important. Now, bin Laden is still on the loose. Obama was right about bin Laden, McCain was wrong. Plans: After al Qaeda established a safe-haven on the Afghan-Pakistani border, Obama said last August that we should take out high level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have actionable intelligence about their whereabouts, and Pakistan cannot or will not act. McCain called that position "naïve." Now, as al Qaeda has built up its sanctuary and launched more attacks, the Bush Administration has been forced by events to embrace the Obama position. McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to take out bin Laden if he is in Pakistan. Obama will take out bin Laden if we have him in our sights, McCain won't. IranJudgment: Obama has consistently said that we must use all tools of American power - including tough, direct American diplomacy - to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. McCain supported the Bush policy of not talking to Iran, and saber rattling in Washington. Now, after 8 years of Bush-McCain policy, Iran has advanced its nuclear program, increased its influence in the region, continued its support for terror, elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad President, and Israel is more endangered. Obama was right about Iran, McCain was wrong. Plans: Obama's call for pressure on Iran through direct diplomacy without preconditions has been endorsed by five Secretaries of State - including Republicans Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. Even the Bush Administration relented, and sent a high-ranking diplomat to participate in direct talks with Iran and our European allies. McCain stands alone in unconditionally ruling out diplomacy. Obama will use the strength of American diplomacy to pressure Iran, McCain offers no alternative to more of the same or a war with IranGeorgiaJudgment: Obama called for a solution to the crises in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and said last spring that we need intensive international engagement to preserve Georgia's territorial integrity. McCain has belligerently called for Russia's expulsion from the G-8, breaking with our European allies, and antagonizing Russia. Obama was right, McCain was wrong. Plans: Both Obama and McCain called from the outset of the conflict in Georgia for Georgia's territorial integrity to be respected. Obama and Joe Biden proposed $1 billion in humanitarian assistance for the people of Georgia, and McCain offered belligerent rhetoric. The Bush Administration has embraced the Obama-Biden proposal. Obama has a plan to stand with Georgia. McCain has empty tough talk and dangerous saber rattling.Alliances and NATOJudgment: Obama supports strong alliances to advance American interest, including a greater NATO contribution to Afghanistan. McCain has marched in lockstep with the Bush rhetoric, with the kind of cowboy bluster that has shredded our alliances and alienated us in the world. In the run-up to the Iraq War, he called key European allies "vacuous and posturing" even as they had troops serving alongside us in Afghanistan. Obama is respected around the world, McCain's approach has squandered our standing. Plans: Obama will meet with our NATO ally Spain, which currently has troops serving in Afghanistan. Secretary Rice has described our relations with the Zapatero government as "warm." McCain refuses to meet with the Prime Minster of Spain. Obama will restore relations with our allies and seek greater contributions to the mission in Afghanistan. McCain won't even meet with a NATO ally.
TO: Interested PartiesFR: The Obama CampaignRE: Obama's Good Judgment Proven Right; McCain's Bad Judgment Proven WrongDA: September 26, 2008
On the biggest foreign policy questions of the last 8 years, Barack Obama has made the right judgment, and John McCain sided with George Bush in making the wrong one. Those Bush-McCain judgments have been a disaster for our security and standing, leading to the most catastrophic foreign policy record in generations. As time has proven Obama right and McCain wrong, events have repeatedly forced the Bush Administration in the direction of Obama. In some cases, McCain has shifted his positions; in others, he has stubbornly clung to his failed policies. So in John McCain, the American people will get four more years of the worst parts of the Bush foreign policy. With Barack Obama, we will get change, and judgment we can trust.
Iraq
Judgment: In 2002, Obama opposed going to war in Iraq. He warned of an "occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences." McCain was George Bush's biggest cheerleader for war, and said we'd be "greeted as liberators." Now, we've spent over five years, lost over 4,000 lives, and spent nearly a trillion dollars fighting a war against a country that had no WMD, and nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Obama was right about Iraq. McCain was wrong.
Plans: Obama has consistently called for a timetable to responsibly remove our combat brigades from Iraq, and to succeed by transitioning control to the sovereign Iraqi government. McCain called any timetable "surrender." The Iraqi Prime Minister then endorsed Obama's timetable, forcing the Bush Administration to agree to a "time horizon," and leaving McCain alone in his stubborn refusal to end this war. Obama has a plan to succeed in Iraq and to end the war. McCain has a plan for staying.
Afghanistan
Judgment: For years, Obama has called for a focus on Afghanistan, which is the central front in the war on terror. McCain said we could "muddle through" in Afghanistan, and said in 2005 that we'd "already succeeded" in Afghanistan. Now, seven years after 9/11, Afghanistan is sliding into deeper violence and chaos. Obama was right about Afghanistan. McCain was wrong.
Plans: Obama called over a year ago for at least 2 combat brigades, more training for Afghan security forces, and increased non-military assistance. McCain followed Obama's call for more troops by a year, but couldn't say how many troops or how we could get them without ending the war in Iraq. The Bush Administration - responding to military commanders - announced a modest plan to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan that doesn't go far enough. Obama has led on Afghanistan with a plan to win. McCain has followed and has no plan to win.
Osama bin Laden / al Qaeda
Judgment: Obama said in 2002 that we should "finish the fight with bin Laden" instead of shifting our focus to Iraq. McCain said in 2002 that catching bin Laden was not that important. Now, bin Laden is still on the loose. Obama was right about bin Laden, McCain was wrong.
Plans: After al Qaeda established a safe-haven on the Afghan-Pakistani border, Obama said last August that we should take out high level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have actionable intelligence about their whereabouts, and Pakistan cannot or will not act. McCain called that position "naïve." Now, as al Qaeda has built up its sanctuary and launched more attacks, the Bush Administration has been forced by events to embrace the Obama position. McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to take out bin Laden if he is in Pakistan. Obama will take out bin Laden if we have him in our sights, McCain won't.
Iran
Judgment: Obama has consistently said that we must use all tools of American power - including tough, direct American diplomacy - to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. McCain supported the Bush policy of not talking to Iran, and saber rattling in Washington. Now, after 8 years of Bush-McCain policy, Iran has advanced its nuclear program, increased its influence in the region, continued its support for terror, elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad President, and Israel is more endangered. Obama was right about Iran, McCain was wrong.
Plans: Obama's call for pressure on Iran through direct diplomacy without preconditions has been endorsed by five Secretaries of State - including Republicans Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. Even the Bush Administration relented, and sent a high-ranking diplomat to participate in direct talks with Iran and our European allies. McCain stands alone in unconditionally ruling out diplomacy. Obama will use the strength of American diplomacy to pressure Iran, McCain offers no alternative to more of the same or a war with Iran
Georgia
Judgment: Obama called for a solution to the crises in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and said last spring that we need intensive international engagement to preserve Georgia's territorial integrity. McCain has belligerently called for Russia's expulsion from the G-8, breaking with our European allies, and antagonizing Russia. Obama was right, McCain was wrong.
Plans: Both Obama and McCain called from the outset of the conflict in Georgia for Georgia's territorial integrity to be respected. Obama and Joe Biden proposed $1 billion in humanitarian assistance for the people of Georgia, and McCain offered belligerent rhetoric. The Bush Administration has embraced the Obama-Biden proposal. Obama has a plan to stand with Georgia. McCain has empty tough talk and dangerous saber rattling.
Alliances and NATO
Judgment: Obama supports strong alliances to advance American interest, including a greater NATO contribution to Afghanistan. McCain has marched in lockstep with the Bush rhetoric, with the kind of cowboy bluster that has shredded our alliances and alienated us in the world. In the run-up to the Iraq War, he called key European allies "vacuous and posturing" even as they had troops serving alongside us in Afghanistan. Obama is respected around the world, McCain's approach has squandered our standing.
Plans: Obama will meet with our NATO ally Spain, which currently has troops serving in Afghanistan. Secretary Rice has described our relations with the Zapatero government as "warm." McCain refuses to meet with the Prime Minster of Spain. Obama will restore relations with our allies and seek greater contributions to the mission in Afghanistan. McCain won't even meet with a NATO ally.
