Another Obama Administration Tax Problem
Tags: Democrat Culture of Corruption, Gregory Craig.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
This one does explain why all the other tax problems slipped through the vetting process:
White House general counsel Gregory Craig has seized control of Obama’s vetting process after a series of nominees with unpaid taxes. But his wife’s business may also have avoided taxes. Who vets the vetter?
Derry Noyes, Craig’s wife, runs Noyes Graphics, a design business, out of the couple’s home in northwest Washington. Between Craig’s work and hers, they’ve been on Washington’s A-list for a decade.
PBS’s American Stamps aired a profile of her two days ago. She designs specialty postage for the U.S. Postal Service, including a number of notable stamps. One recent series celebrating the work of famous architect Charles Eames was featured in Metropolis. Noyes herself is the daughter of architect Eliot Noyes, a friend of Eames.
Operating a business out of one’s home in D.C. requires a home occupation permit and registration with the city’s division of corporations. Additionally, the government has instituted a new requirement for business license permits.
A spokesman at the Washington D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs told Gawker that no one has ever sought any kind of permit or registration for a business under the name of Noyes Graphics or at the Craigs’ home address. By not registering Craig may have avoided local business taxes.
Private investigator Joseph Culligan looked into business records for Noyes Graphics, which is run out of the Craigs’ home, and found Dun & Bradstreet records showing substantial annual sales, a Yellow Pages listing, and an online listing inviting customers to visit the business at her home address (now posted on Webofdeception.com).
You Democrats do realize that all those taxes you’ve piled up on the economy have to be paid by you, too, don’t you? Or is it only the little people who pay taxes? It is disgusting to note that those who advocate for higher taxes are people who seem to have a problem paying their own taxes. This is like an anti-smoking campaigner taking a cigarette break.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
28 Responses to “Another Obama Administration Tax Problem”
Caucus of Corruption
The real question is, who vets the fourth cousin thrice removed of the person who vets the uncle-in-law of the person who vets the vetters?
Don’t worry, Mark–his wife will apologize, blame her accountant, and pay the taxes, now that she’s been caught. The libs will cry, “Let’s move on!,” and all will be well with them.
Well said, Serg. Shows the hypocrisy you possess…
Saw a TV clip of Earbama; there were a lot of soldiers standing behind him. Prior to Earbama’s entering the White House, wasn’t this considered a “photo-op?”
More of the same hypocrisy…
3. 1luv2h8lib5 | February 28th, 2009 at 6:14 am
The President was in Camp Lejeune, NC addressing the Marines.
On the topic at hand I vote for the option that everyone in an appointed or elected position in government turn over their entire lives to a three person panel made up of Ryan Seacrest, Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow who will go through each and highlight the discrepancies in each of these people’s lives. At the end of this investigation anyone who has a tax problem, has had an std or missed a car payment will be subject to recall or forced to resign.
We must hold these people to a higher standard.
Anyone hear if Governor Palin had paid all that per diem money she stole from the good folks of Alaska? Do as I say not as I do, you betcha!
The President was in Camp Lejeune, NC addressing the Marines.
As I said, photo op. Thanks for the non-explanation, Ms. Angry.
As for the rest of your snarky comment regarding ethics, it’s crap. The same “vetting” you kooks were crying for, the same accountability, all goes out the window because it’s Earbama in office, with a big “D” behind his name.
Yet all you can do, Ms. Angry, is get sarcastic about the subject. What a joke you are…
A little off topic, but the following passage from Matthew 6, just seems so relevant at this stage in our politics:
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
The Democrats are famous for letting everyone know how much they care for the poor, but individually do little. Bloch, excoriated a Christian group the other day for building houses in Kenya for the underpriveledged, rahter than build them here. I pointed out that she could organize a group and begin that process, which was met with ridicule. So obviously, loch has no desire to personally do anything, but wants to be connected with a movement that “cares”.
Secondly, how many times have we seen Democrats campaign in the churches mainly for the photo ops?
this is the guy that defended billary and his lewinski file…he has been in Govt for a long time…back in the reagan years he defended hinkley…so the guys a lawyer and exposed to all sorts of government activity…really…one of the first things the guy should have done…was to hire a corporate law firm to advise his wife about her obligations…directly because of his public life…
the guys a paid lawyer….government salary is what…150k, 200k per year? its pretty stupid what he done
It is obvious that the socialist Democrats, who demand that everyone “pays their fair share” (except for themselves of course, are using the same accountant or accounting firm.
There are just too many who are not paying their fair share for it to be a coincidence. Just chalk it up to inexperience or complexity of the tax code. There is no way that these always good natured socialists are cheating the system. They really do have our best interests at heart.
How can anyone blame them? ///sarcasm off.
bloch, it is a bitch that the socialists set the precedent that they now have to experience themselves. You know the saying “People in glass houses should not throw stones”.
5. 1luv2h8lib5 | February 28th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Hey you are the one in the minority bub. Full disclosure I am a member of ACORN.
6. cluster | February 28th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Not off topic it’s totally off base.
7. js02 | February 28th, 2009 at 7:42 am
A tax law firm not corporate law firm.
8. tiredoflibbs | February 28th, 2009 at 7:46 am
unlike you socials we don’t buld glass houses of perfection for ourselves.
bloch,
So you don’t think that failure to pay taxes is just more hypocrisy from liberals, whom desire every opportunity to preach to the world about their concern for the poor, but when left alone, they do nothing?
I think it’s more on topic than you realize.
bloch,
There was only perfect man. And it wasn’t Carl Pryor.
Just FYI.
Those who are blind to their own hypocrisy are doomed to repeat mistakes of the past. Those who are blind to the hypocrisy of those they put their faith in are doomed to experience the mistakes of those individuals. Those who cannot notice any problems, or those that notice that something is amiss but cannot figure out why when the evidence is right in front of them, are doomed to forever have a warped view of reality. This applies to everyone. Take heed that you do not become such a person.
observer20: Those who are blind to their own hypocrisy are doomed to repeat mistakes of the past. Those who are blind to the hypocrisy of those they put their faith in are doomed to experience the mistakes of those individuals. Those who cannot notice any problems, or those that notice that something is amiss but cannot figure out why when the evidence is right in front of them, are doomed to forever have a warped view of reality. This applies to everyone. Take heed that you do not become such a person.
Well said. So, could you provide a couple of examples? In so doing, it would help if you provided examples that adequately demonstrated the endpoints of the breadth you intended what you just said to be interpreted. Said in another way, you were very general. And too often those who express such lofty ideals often intend them to apply more constrictedly. So I respectfully ask you to demonstrate the breadth of your intended context.
Ricorun,
Well, as a good example, I don’t think it’s very wise to build up the illegal activities of those in parties you oppose, but at the same time trivialize those very same illegal activities done by those of a political affiliation you’re against. I believe that, in the past, quite a few of the people of the liberal mentality were upset about such alleged tax evasions or failure to pay taxes when attributed to Republicans. Yet now, when a Democrat is in the same problem, they seem to lose all of their fire. Or, conversely, for conservatives, they tended to ignore the potential problems of their Republican government officials, but now choose to highlight the very same problems performed by Democrats.
Why is this the case? Well, I actually don’t think they’re blind to that hypocrisy. But rather, due to retributive politics, they act out of spite regardless. They think that, since the other guy did it to them, it’s okay to perform the same hypocritical acts when applied to their opponents. It’s also very odd that the party not in power always makes a big hullaballoo over these things, but for those in power they treat it as politics as usual, or as if we’re to expect these kind of abuses in our leaders. The only problem comes when we try to hold these new officials accountable to their promises (Nancy Pelosi’s “most ethical Congress” and Obama’s “new politics”).
It’s rather hard to believe at this point that it’s only been a little over a month since Obama officially took office. As such, it is still a little early to attribute any blame for anything happening right now (aside from those spenduluses) to him. But there is one thing we can say for sure right now; thus far, his actions haven’t been very centrist. I would go so far as to say they’ve been the “leftiest” actions taken by a president in a long time. Therefore, for those individuals who voted for him or expected from him a centrist-style government, if they truly valued that kind of leadership, and he doesn’t do something equally right-of center in the future, then that is already one expectation thrown out the window. And it’s important to not trivialize the values we cherish in politicians because they act contrary to them. Sour grapes philosophy shouldn’t be present in politics.
For the record, I for one appreciated cluster’s comment in #6. It is, in fact, one of those passages that I take most to heart. I try not to prosetylize, or to wear my faith on my sleeve, and to admonish those who do as gently as I can (though sometimes that requires a sledgehammer). I prefer instead to lead, or inspire, or whatever, only by example. I rarely talk about any of my charitable activities, and on the rare occasions when I do I try not to make it about myself, but about the activity.
Further, I am firmly convinced that in order to understand God in any manifestation on the one hand, or nature in any manifestation on the other, one has to come to a coherent appreciation of — or a merging if you will — of mind and heart, logic and emotion, physics and metaphysics, body and soul. That is an attitude I have no qualms about discussing — and have at various times in various ways. Sometimes that attitude makes me appear to some as an apostate, and to others as a religious zealot. To both I say… so be it, until you can come up with a better, more compelling, more transcendent “theory of everything”.
observer20 (#17), I thought yours was a very good answer. I only have one little bone to pick. It has to do with the definition of “centrist”. Personally, I think general popular opinion carries the most import, not the opinion of you or me. And on those grounds, it would be hard to characterize Obama as something too far from “centrist”. The challenge for the GOP is to somehow come to grips with that or attempt to redefine the term (or some combination of both). And, I would say, therein lies the fundamental battle within the party. All I can say is, as it is in psychology so to is it in politics (the latter is, after all, a manifestation of the former): it is incumbent upon anyone wishing to change the way things are to start where the behavior is at.
In other words, the extant context is very important. I believe it was you who mentioned Reagan’s comment, “Government isn’t the solution to the problem, government is the problem.” And in his time it was largely true. But we are not in his time anymore. I can’t be sure of course (given the fact that he’s dead), but I’m inclined to believe he would be acutely aware of that (a belief which is buttressed by several who served him as economic advisors who are still around), and would have adjusted his message accordingly. I guess you could say I take no more credence in the literal translation of Reagan’s words than I do in the literal translation of the Bible. I don’t intend to equate the two on any level other that that of which I speak, so allow me a certain poetic license: both have more superficial and deeper meanings, and the more superficial of both must be understood within the context of their time. Only the deeper meanings are of a more timeless character.
Ricorun,
I suppose the definition of centrism is somewhat subjective. I mean, are we talking in a current global context, current United States context, or some sort of historical context? I think there has to be some way to differentiate a centrist from a popularist though.
And then that begs the question: Why does such a proportion of people like Obama right now? Can it truly be because they support what he’s done so far? I don’t think we can make that conclusion just yet. For starters, we must remember that the average person isn’t very politically educated. They do not know the potential implications and ramifications of such a large bill. Nor, I believe, do they realize the magnitude of it when compared to prior historical context in government spending. So, my question is: Do they support Obama because of his plans, or do they support his plans because he’s Obama?
We constantly hear from those that like to argue about religious things about the circular logic of religion. It goes something like:
Q: Why follow the Bible?
A: Because it’s the word of God.
Q: But how can you be sure?
A: Because the Bible says so.
Q: But why believe what the Bible says?
A: Because the Bible is infallible.
I’d hate to see a political equivalent:
Q: Why support the president?
A: Because the president is right.
Q: But how can you be sure?
A: Because everyone says so.
Q: But why listen to everyone else?
A: Because everyone supports the president.
I don’t think I quoted Reagan, although I’m not completely certain. I think you are implying that the average person now supports a more left-leaning nation. I say that that data is still inconclusive.
And, of course, just because something is popular doesn’t mean it is the best decision, regardless.
No bloch, you build glass houses financed by gov’t, paying the highest bidder. That bidder builds it for half the cost, the contractor and the liberal politician pocket the other half of the appropriation and then does not claim it on their taxes.
The socialist liberals hold anyone non-left of center to the “perfection” standard while they themselves can be flawed.
Again, it is a bitch for them to be held to the standards they set.
observer20: I don’t think I quoted Reagan, although I’m not completely certain.
I checked back and you’re right — I mistakenly attributed comments made by cluster to you. My apologies.
Interesting discussion. Where is the center? My guess is that it is somewhat of a moving target. The country has moved back and forth its beginning, although over all it has moved much further to the left than to the right over time. Witness the number of groups that are allowed to vote today as opposed to those allowed at the beginning of our country. While I would agree with observer20 that Obama is further to the left than any of our recent presidents, I would also speculate the the country itself has also moved to the left.
casper,
I think that question is entirely dependent upon how you define “left” and “right.” If we define “left” as anything that is progressive or new, then obviously we’ve moved more left, or else no progress would have been made. However, if we define “left” as desire to empower the government, I’m not so sure. Similarly, if you label “right” as being religious or issues related to religion, then you may argue that we are moving away from the right. However, if you identify “right” as championing individual and state rights over federal government, and free trade, then I don’t think you can exactly say the same thing. The whole left-right linear model is somewhat outdated anyway. Many people who are members of political parties take “left” views on some stances and “right” views on others.
That being said, I don’t agree with your assessment. First, on the issue of social issues (gay rights, abortion, religion, etc.) why was is the case that many of the individuals that voted for Obama also voted to turn down laws that would ratify homosexual marriage? Was it just a fluke? I’m fairly liberal when it comes to social issues, so I’m not saying that it was a good thing, but we can’t deny that there is some evidence that people’s desires right now are contrary to the traditional all-left or all-right model.
Second, I disagree that the majority of Americans want to empower the government further, at least not to the extent that Obama’s budget is implying. Backing up a statement of opinion on this issue is rather hard to do, because I don’t believe very much accurate data exists to reflect upon this. I guess all I can say is that we will see how the people react to a bigger government when that bigger government runs into conflict with their individual liberties.
observer20,
“The whole left-right linear model is somewhat outdated anyway. Many people who are members of political parties take “left” views on some stances and “right” views on others.”
I agree 100%. I have friends that view me as liberal and others who view me as conservative and they are all correct depending on the issue. When I look at right vs left, I am thinking of human rights more than anything else. When this country was founded the only ones allowed to vote were white males. The conservative position at that point would have been to keep it that way, yet now voting is open to members of both sexes and all races.
“Second, I disagree that the majority of Americans want to empower the government further, at least not to the extent that Obama’s budget is implying.”
You could be right, but it seems like Obama is receiving a lot of support right now. That might change once everyone figures out the implications of his programs, or not. The biggest frustration i have with Republicans right now, is that they don’t seem to have any new ideas of their own. Their only solution for the recession or any thing for that matter, seems to be more tax cuts for the rich. Other than that, they seem to be very happy opposing everything Obama does. It would be nice to see them once again became the party of ideas.
casper: Their only solution for the recession or any thing for that matter, seems to be more tax cuts for the rich. Other than that, they seem to be very happy opposing everything Obama does. It would be nice to see them once again became the party of ideas.
I have to agree. Seriously, how long is it going to take for the GOP to realize that being the “party of no” without so much as a single nuance, isn’t going to work? No one likes whiners, especially if all they have to offer is more whining. If that keeps up I suspect that Obama and his troops (should I say stormtroops? lol!) will continue to have their way, and the GOP will be deposited on the ashheap of history.
I’m exaggerating of course. But really… come on.
Re: 25 and 26,
Although I’m Republican, I’m going to have to agree. Although I think it is an exaggeration when you say that all they are for is tax cuts, that’s what the common conception of them is right now from people outside of the base.
They need to find a way to either revitalize their message so more people can empathize with their (hopefully honest) desire to keep government small, or create an entire new one. Opposing what Obama is doing might be the right decision, but unless they oppose in a more creative way then I think people will look to other individuals to replace the Democratic Congress instead of Republicans.
Of course, as the excuse is valid for Democrats, so too is is viable for Republicans: It’s only been a little over a month. Give them time.
observer20,
“They need to find a way to either revitalize their message so more people can empathize with their (hopefully honest) desire to keep government small, or create an entire new one.”
Agreed, but so far they haven’t come up with much of a message other than NO.