Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (42590)	5/6/2004 4:27:07 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

Teresa was an "X" factor from the start. Washington Post editorial Teresa Heinz Kerry's Taxes Wednesday, May 5, 2004; Page A28 "IT WON'T DO." That was our bottom line in 1984 when Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, balked at releasing her husband's income tax returns. "Though Rep. Ferraro says she will release her own tax return, she cannot treat her spouse as a separate entity for this purpose and still claim to be providing complete data," we wrote. Ms. Ferraro eventually relented, providing five years' worth of tax returns from her husband, John Zaccaro. Twenty years later, in the midst of a similar controversy, we feel much the same way. Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of the putative Democratic presidential nominee, should make her tax returns public. Ms. Heinz Kerry has been reluctant to do so; campaign spokesman Michael Meehan now says she is preparing to make summary information available, though not necessarily her return itself. That's an improvement over no disclosure, but it is short of what ought to be done. Presidential candidates aren't legally required to release their tax returns, but such disclosure has become an expected part of seeking the office, and rightly so. The wrinkle for the Kerrys is that, unlike most political couples, the candidate and his wife, who inherited a fortune from her first husband, the late Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.), file separate returns (as did the Ferraro-Zaccaros.) Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has made his returns public for years, but his wife has been reluctant to follow suit. "What I have and what I receive is not just mine, it is also my children's, and I don't know that I have the right to make public what is theirs," she said. "If I could separate it, I would have no problem." It's true that even in the absence of tax returns, there is ample information available about the holdings of Mr. Kerry and his wife. Candidates for president and vice president, like other federal office-seekers, are required to file detailed reports listing their assets, liabilities and income, and those of their spouse as well. The Kerrys' most recent disclosure lists, within broad ranges, the assets contained in numerous Heinz family trusts. Mr. Kerry argues that this "very, very, very intrusive" disclosure ought to be sufficient. We're sympathetic to the feeling of intrusion that releasing tax returns entails, but candidates for president -- and their spouses -- necessarily relinquish a significant measure of privacy. Meanwhile, tax returns provide information not contained in financial disclosure forms, such as charitable contributions and the use of tax shelters. Questions about the Clintons' Whitewater investment, for example, came up in part because of information contained in their tax returns. There may well be nothing of great note in Ms. Heinz Kerry's tax returns other than the scope of her wealth. But with her husband seeking the presidency, her financial dealings, as well as his, ought to be as open as possible. Keeping her returns private would set a bad precedent. Imagine a future presidential candidate whose spouse has complicated business dealings or federal contracts, chooses to file a separate tax return, and refuses to make it public. Ms. Heinz Kerry's movement on this issue is welcome; we hope she'll see the wisdom, and the benefit, of doing more. © 2004 The Washington Post Company

To: LindyBill who wrote (42590)	5/6/2004 10:27:20 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793717

Rummy stays and Bush apologizes. Bush: Rumsfeld 'Will Stay in My Cabinet' I accept that. Keeping the boss informed is important, yet Rummy has done enough and enough good to be allowed an error or two. The Iraqis being interviewed on tv are ok with us punishing the perpetrators. I am having difficulty accepting America's response to this incident. I have seen and read of far worse hazing incidents at American Universities and high school hockey teams. IMO we are kissing too much butt. What really concerns me is the extent to which the Administration and their spokesmen have allowed themselves to be put on the defensive. Also, no one seems to be asking why those specific detainees were being detained. Remember when, in Afghanistan, several hundred prisoners were allowed to keep their clothes on? Later they pulled out weapons from under their clothes and proceeded to launch a firefight that took American lives. Has everyone already forgotten Mike Spann? It seems if our people would have made them disrobe it would have done immeasurable harm to those poor Islamic militant extremist Taliban types. We certainly wouldn't want to do that. We might not be loved as much as we are now in the Islamic world. I can tell you with certainty that stripping POWs and taking POW's pictures is, has and will continue to be done by all armies. This time it was not done according to protocol...that hardly seems sufficient to warrant an American national crisis. uw