1 Boring Old Man

C Street House No Longer Tax Exempt
TPMMuckraker
by Zachary Roth
November 17, 2009

Residents of the C Street Christian fellowship house will no longer benefit from a loophole that had allowed the house’s owners to avoid paying property taxes. Previously, the house — despite being home to numerous lawmakers — had been tax exempt, because it was classified as a church. That arrangement had allowed the building’s owner, the secretive international Christian organization The Family, to charge significantly below market rents to its residents. In recent year, Senators John Ensign (R-NV), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Jim DeMint (R-SC), and Reps. Zach Wamp (R-TN), Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Mike Doyle (D-PA) have all reportedly called C Street home [add Chip Pickering (R-MS) and Mark Sanford (R-SC)].

Natalie Wilson, a spokeswoman for the Office of Tax and Revenue for Washington D.C., told TPMmuckraker that her office inspected the house this summer. "It was determined that portions of it were being rented out for private residential purposes," she said. As a result, the tax exempt status was partially revoked. Sixty-six percent of the value of the property is now subject to taxation. According to online records, the total taxable assessment is $1,834,500. The building’s owner last month paid taxes of $1714.70 on the property…

Radio Show for Focus on the Family Founder
New York Times
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
January 16, 2010

Dr. James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family and an influential voice for Christian conservatives, is about to depart from the organization he created and is starting a radio program that will give him greater leeway to hold forth on politics. Beginning in March, Dr. Dobson, 73, will co-host the radio show with his son, Ryan, 39, a tattooed surfer and skateboarder who wrote a book called “Be Intolerant” and who has honed an identity preaching to youths.

“Our nation is facing a crisis that threatens its very existence,” Dr. Dobson said on Dec. 29 in announcing his new venture on his Facebook page. “We are in a moral decline of shocking dimensions. I have asked myself how can I sit and watch the world go by without trying to help if I can. That is what motivates me at this time.” Dr. Dobson, a psychologist, founded Focus on the Family 33 years ago to offer advice on parenting, but he has increasingly used his substantial following among evangelicals to influence policy debates and elections. He is wooed by Republican candidates, and he conducted a sympathetic interview with Sarah Palin, then a vice-presidential candidate, after she stumbled badly in national television interviews…

The real reason for Dr. Dobson’s new venture may have been his son. A Focus board member who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that because Ryan Dobson has been divorced, it would be against the board’s policy for him to serve as the voice for Focus, which counsels people on marriage and child-rearing…

Pat Robertson says Haiti paying for ‘pact to the devil’
CNN
January 13, 2010

Pat Robertson, the evangelical Christian who once suggested God was punishing Americans with Hurricane Katrina, says a "pact to the devil" brought on the devastating earthquake in Haiti. Officials fear more than 100,000 people have died as a result of Tuesday’s 7.0-magnitude earthquake in Haiti. Robertson, the host of the "700 Club," blamed the tragedy on something that "happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it."

The Haitians "were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever," Robertson said on his broadcast Wednesday. "And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story. And so, the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’" Native Haitians defeated French colonists in 1804 and declared independence.

"You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other." Robertson has previously linked natural disasters and terrorist attacks to legalized abortion in the United States. Soon after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, killing more than 1,800 and wreaking unprecedented devastation on New Orleans, Louisiana, Robertson weighed in with his own theory.

"We have killed over 40 million unborn babies in America," Robertson said on his September 12, 2005, broadcast of "700 Club." "I was reading, yesterday, a book that was very interesting about what God has to say in the Old Testament about those who shed innocent blood. And he [the author] used the term that those who do this, ‘the land will vomit you out.’ … But have we found we are unable somehow to defend ourselves against some of the attacks that are coming against us, either by terrorists or now by natural disaster? Could they be connected in some way?"…

^{After addressing her friends and colleagues who she said helped her win the Golden Globe for “Actress In A Leading Role – Mini-Series Or Television Movie” for her performance in Angels In America, Streep used her final minutes in front of the camera to attack two specific parts of President Bush’s speech. While not directly addressing Bush by name, Streep pointed out that there is a big problem in this country if the biggest problems in the country are committed couples in love "who want to spend the rest of their lives together." She went on to denounce the priority of focusing on getting professional sports players to stop taking steroids.}

^{As you may recall if you watched the State of the Union Address, President Bush surprised most people by throwing in a paragraph about how he plans to get the professional sports players to stop using steroids because it sets a bad example. Critics have pointed out that Bush did little else in spelling out his plans for ensuring America a better future. Instead, he went on to announce his support for strengthening the institution of marriage by making sure it only applies to a relationship between a man and a woman, which critics have pointed out doesn’t lend itself to committed same-sex couples who would like to enjoy the same rights under the law. He even implied that he would lend his support to a Constitutional Amendment, if need be.}

^{Obviously Streep wasn’t a big fan of President Bush’s priorities mentioned in his speech and she made that known on live television tonight.}

What Didn’t Happen
New York Times
By PAUL KRUGMAN
January 17, 2010

^{Lately many people have been second-guessing the Obama administration’s political strategy. The conventional wisdom seems to be that President Obama tried to do too much — in particular, that he should have put health care on one side and focused on the economy. I disagree. The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations…}

^{Why was the stimulus underpowered? A number of economists [myself included] called for a stimulus substantially bigger than the one the administration ended up proposing. According to The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, however, in December 2008 Mr. Obama’s top economic and political advisers concluded that a bigger stimulus was neither economically necessary nor politically feasible…}

^{The same can be said about policy toward the banks. Some economists defend the administration’s decision not to take a harder line on banks, arguing that the banks are earning their way back to financial health. But the light-touch approach to the financial industry further entrenched the power of the very institutions that caused the crisis, even as it failed to revive lending: bailed-out banks have been reducing, not increasing, their loan balances. And it has had disastrous political consequences: the administration has placed itself on the wrong side of popular rage over bailouts and bonuses.}

^{Finally, about that narrative: It’s instructive to compare Mr. Obama’s rhetorical stance on the economy with that of Ronald Reagan. It’s often forgotten now, but unemployment actually soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Reagan, however, had a ready answer for critics: everything going wrong was the result of the failed policies of the past. In effect, Reagan spent his first few years in office continuing to run against Jimmy Carter. Mr. Obama could have done the same — with, I’d argue, considerably more justice. He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of America’s economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the banks…}

It seems like it was such a long time ago – Martin Luther King’s assassination – well over half my life ago. King had come to Memphis to march with the striking sanitation workers. It was a difficult time. LBJ had passed the Civil Rights Legislation, and the South was in turmoil as "forced" integration and school busing turned our part of the world upside down. King had expanded the Civil Rights Movement into  a war on poverty, into the anti-war movement, and the country was exploding. King’s non-violent approach was being challenged by Black Power and Malcolm X. Those of us in Memphis knew just how explosive it was. We had just elected a conservative Mayor who was unwilling to negotiate with the strikers and the tensions were palpable.

It was a polarized, angry time. And it doesn’t feel like we’ve ever really escaped from the divisiveness of those days. While Dr. King has become an American Icon as he should have, the symbol is different from the man of the times. I expect that’s always true. History can be a strange judge – almost always simplifying the character based on their overall impact. In the case of people like Martin Luther King, history has been forgiving. At the time of his death, his movement felt like it was drowning in the sea of violence that flooded the country.

Watching the non-stop coverage of the Haiti earthquake on CNN, I had something of an epiphany. On our cable menu, CNN is channel 12 and Fox News is channel 13. I’d never noticed that before [actually, I don’t think I’ve ever watched Fox News on our television set before]. This morning, I accidentally hit the wrong channel, something I’ve done frequently over the last several days. Every time I do it, I’m jarred. On CNN. there’s Anderson Cooper or Sanjay Gupta talking about the earthquake. On Fox, there’s a story about the possible Republican victory in Massachusetts or something similar to that. On CNN, the reporters are tense from what they’re seeing. On Fox, they’re joking, laughing together, sort of flip. It’s like a window into two separate realities literally next door to each other. Fox is covering Haiti, of course. But it’s different, just different.

^{RUSH: Look, we have to understand something.  The press, the State-Controlled Media, the Democrat Party politicize everything.  That’s what’s so laughable about them jumping on my case for politicizing this business in Haiti.  They politicize everything.  And they look at everything through a political prism.  Now, here’s the Media Tweak of the Day.  I would like to ask Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm’s brother, if they’re planning on cost-benefit considerations for the victims of the earthquake.  Remember, we’re going to have cost-benefit analysis to assign health care to people in this country, does it make sense to invest the money in their survival?  Are we going to do the same thing in Haiti since we’re the lead country?  Are we going to use the same principle in Haiti that we’re going to use here when Clinton and Obamacare finally sees the light of day?  Are we just going to decide some people are not worth saving in Haiti?  Or are we going to try to save ’em all?  What are we going to do?}

My epiphany is that in that other reality, the motives in my world are seen as naive, utopian, self-serving, bleeding-heart, liberal baloney. They see us as just wanting to give away money that’s not really ours to people who won’t help themselves – lazy, ungrateful people. We’re sort of like Communists – taking from the hard-working rich to give to the no-account poor. We want to tax "them" to help "us." "Big" government is exploitive of the "haves" in the service of the "lazy have nots." In Rush’s comment, he wants us to abandon Health Care reform and keep the system we’ve got that passively excludes the "have nots," while accusing us of playing God and killing off people with cost-benefit analysis – "death panels."

^{CALLER:  Mega Rush Baby dittos.  My question is, why did Obama in the sound bite you played earlier, when he’s talking about if you wanted to donate some money, you can go to WhiteHouse.gov –
RUSH:  Yeah.
CALLER: — to direct you how to do so.  If I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the WhiteHouse.gov page and –
RUSH:  Exactly.  Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?
CALLER:  No.
RUSH:  Would you trust that your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes.
CALLER:  Absolutely.
RUSH:  Absolutely right.
CALLER:  That’s the point.
RUSH:  Besides, we’ve already donated to Haiti.  It’s called the US income tax.}

^{RUSH: I’m gonna respond to this absolute BS that I said don’t donate.  But, you know, I do not make this program about me.  I try very hard not to make this program about me.  So if I have time to deal with that, I will.  I’m confident everybody in this audience knows what I said and what I didn’t say.  Even the Washington Post says without the context, "What Limbaugh said is horrible." All I said was, if you paid your income taxes, that’s how you donate to government for aid, and sure enough, here comes Obama announcing $100 million from the government for aid to Haiti, fine and dandy.  But, you paid for it, it’s your taxes.  All I said was if you’re going to donate do it outside the government, pure and simple.  I was attacked, folks, because I am the leading voice of mainstream conservative views, not for any other reason.  And this outrage is totally feigned, just as Tony Blankley said, all this outrage at me is totally faked up.  They know exactly what I said, and they know for a fact that I would never tell people not to donate to any charitable cause like this, so it is what it is.}

• Obama diverts donations to his own use through whitehouse.gov.
• Obama takes the names of visitors to whitehouse.gov and adds them to his list for future campaign fundraising.
• Obama shouldn’t have pledged $100,000,000 to the Haitians.
• Rush Limbaugh is the leading voice of mainstream conservative views.
• Had someone other than Rush Limbaugh said those things, it wouldn’t have bothered us.