Allow me to illustrate.It's as petty and/or foolish to claim that the language from the Obama website doesn't have a limiting descriptor as it is to claim that I want to have Joxur's babies or that Skycrasher wears a crown and people should bow to him.

Now, if the only part you've read or heard is, "Skycrasher is the king," you have every expectation to take that at face value. If/When you find out that it's part of a larger outline and there's a limiting descriptor, i.e. Skycrasher is the king (of the pains in my ass), it's understandable that you may be momentarily confused or upset.

However, hurt feelings don't change the intent of the original message. Nor can the original author be completely responsible for quotations taken out of context (sure, each point should be as clear as possible, but it's completely impossible to remove all opportunities for corruption).

So, for those of you following along at home, here's the secret meaning of the above list:If you caught on to the subtle differences in use, very good! The first example, "Skycrasher is the king of the pains in my ass," shows categorization. The second example, "Joxur is a pain in my ass, but I still like him," shows competing ideas. And the last example, "Tarot is a pain in my ass when she talks too much," shows timeliness.

The Obama quote is an example of categorization.

Once you practice a bit, you'll find there's really nothing to it!

You're gonna stick to your guns, I'm gonna stick to mine

Pretty funny post.

I don't agree that the title of that snippet locks down disclosure of bills to spending bills only, though I can see why you are sticking to it. It's definitely ambiguous. I guess the only way we'll know is if the administration is confronted by it. They will have the opportunity to clarify. I have a feeling they'll say something along the lines of "we're still setting up the system and will do a better job of making sure these bills are up there like we promised" and NOT "we only meant that to be about spending bills". We'll see.

I aim to please

Ok, Leo.

SCHIP passes (woohoo!).

Nothing posted on WH website.

Your thoughts?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/ ... 667/692937

In more transparency news, the #2 guy at HUD had the biggest fine for illegal record withholding in Washington State history with more litigation pending.

http://soundpolitics.com/archives/012510.html

Sweet.

How does it feel to know that while you were defending him your hero was back in DC proving your defense wrong by signing into law a spending bill?

In the interests of fairness:



So, posted for comment but only a working version rather than the final version. Interesting that the intent of the promise is made clear that it is all legislation, not just spending bills.

More screwups:

Hilda Solis, Labor nominee, faces tax questions
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 4871.story

--

General Says His Iraq Envoy Job Was Rescinded
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/washi ... =permalink
(the beautiful thing here is that not only was it rescinded and he was never told, but the eventual replacement does not speak Arabic and has no middle east experience)

--

RIAA and BSA's Lawyers Taking Top Justice Posts
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid ... 05/1539251

I really don't know why I bother, since anything I write's going to get twisted...but...

Did you read the article on Solis all the way through? Having a city / county tax lien doesn't mean you're a scofflaw. Municipalities, in my experience, tend to stick liens on first, and then it is up to the individual to try to get it removed.

From personal experience, I found out over the summer that I've had a lien against me from the City of Bristol CT since 2004. I had no idea it existed until a got a letter from a collections agency. The City has apparently decided that the fact that I moved from CT to TX before the start of their car excise tax period is immaterial, and assessed an annual tax anway.

I never received a bill (gee, maybe because I no longer lived in the City...wow, what a crazy thought...). Nothing was ever forwarded to me in all the years I lived in Texas. But, apparently that doesn't matter, because CT state law allows a municipality to lay claim to penalties and interest on assessed taxes regardless of whether or not the assessed person or business knows about it, or whether or not the municipality ever sent them a bill. It's fucking ridiculous.

So for the last six months, I've been sending them every possible piece of data I have that might possible prove that I didn't live in Bristol, CT, from Oct 2003 until Sept 2004. One of the few pieces of paper I don't have is the original TX registration. I've sent registration renewals, a certified title history, my TX lease, my correspondence with my CT landlord about terminating the lease, payroll stubs for the period in question, etc. None of it is enough.

So I'm stuck in Mass trying to get TX DoT to get the info I need to some jackass collections dude in NY in order to clear everything with a city clerk in CT. I've spent several hours on the phone with TX, NY, and CT, sent three different requests for documentation, etc. etc. etc. It's been six months so far, and I have no idea how long it will take to clear.

So, yeah... liens? Half the time they're a crock of shit. And from the article, her husband's small business has been trying to contest them for a while. I feel for the guy, because, seriously, by the time you get done dealing with them, it would have been less painful to just pay the damn things. And they know that.

As far as I'm concerned, it's governmental extortion.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Yeah, I did read it. The tax code is complex, no doubt.

Here's another write-up:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... axes_N.htm

That's a lot of liens, for a variety of reasons, spanning county and state government, over almost two decades. Remember Joe the Plumber? Didn't he have some liens against him..? I seem to recall some people on here pointing that out, though you might not be one. /shrug

If I read this correctly, it happened in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999. At what point do you hire a competent tax advisor and take care of the problem?

I guess you could ask about the coincidental nature of so many people being nominated that have outstanding taxes, but I think the larger issue is that they are only just now paying them, after being nominated.

I guess that I've seen a lot of situations over the years involving small businesses getting in over their heads tax-wise. In a lot of circumstances, it is easier when cash flows are tight to push off paying county taxes, or use the cash set aside for payroll withholding, than it is to push off paying your suppliers or your employees. Someplace else I read (can't remember where atm - Sullivan? Kos?) that he's an auto mechanic that runs his own garage with like two bays and three employees, and that husband and wife combined have a net worth of under $150,000.

So it seems interesting to me that I'm seeing it raised as an issue by folks like Glenn Beck and Rush, since if this was anyone other than the husband of a Democratic confirmation nominee, folks like them would be using him as an example of the little guy getting run over by petty bureaucrats in an overly burdensome tax structure.

I haven't read up on the other two you linked, so I can't speak with any authority on them. The Solis case I've been folowing specifically because the nature of the tax questions caught my interest.

_________________
Hope is the new black.