Charlie Rangel Is a Symptom of a Bigger Problem

Via-Townhall

Star Parker

Charlie Rangel, convicted of eleven ethics violations – the most ever found against any member of Congress – was resoundingly re-elected, getting 80% of his district’s vote.

After 40 years representing these folks, you can’t conclude he was an unknown commodity. Granted, the conviction occurred after the election, but the charges were well publicized.

Has Charlie Rangel’s leadership produced life so grand in Harlem that flagrant and persistent unethical behavior by their Congressman means nothing to its residents?

The national poverty rate is around 14%. In the 15th district of New York, Charlie Rangel’s district, it’s 24.3%. The child poverty rate is 30.9%.

Whatever it is that Harlem voters find so attractive about Mr. Rangel, it’s hard to conclude that quality of life is something they feel they owe to him.

But let’s think about this in a broader context.

Charlie Rangel is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

There are now 41 House members who belong to the Caucus. In the most recent elections, 37 of them ran as incumbents and all regained their seats handily. The four seats that were vacated were easily captured by new black Democrats.

That’s a 100% return rate. These Black Caucus Democrats recaptured their seats getting an average 75% of their district’s vote.

In a year when 62 Democrats were defeated – a 25% reduction in the bloc of 252 Democrats in the current Congress – the reduction of the bloc of 41 black Democrats was zero.

The average poverty rate in the districts of Congressional Black Caucus members is 20.3% - six points higher than the national average. The average child poverty rate in these districts is 28.8%.

So, as in Charlie Rangel’s case, it’s hard to conclude that these Black Caucus Democrats are being sent back to Washington by large voting margins, year after year, because they are delivering such fine lives to their constituents.

A problem here is that elections in Black Caucus districts are not exactly what might be described as free and open.

About three quarters of these districts are Majority Minority districts, hard wired to guarantee election of blacks. The remaining districts are also gerrymandered through various schemes flowing from collusion of political parties and state legislatures.

The initial provision of the Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, to deal with voting problems was structured to counter schemes going on in the South – literacy tests, etc – rigged to keep blacks from registering and voting.

But by the 1970’s, this provision morphed into district gerrymandering. What was initially meant to protect the voting rights of blacks evolved into provisions to guarantee the election of blacks.

The result of this overall process is a bloc of politically manipulated districts which, coupled with other institutional biases protecting incumbents, virtually guarantees the election of black Democrats.

You might say that rigged elections might be justified if it meant better lives for black constituents.

But given that these districts are largely characterized by persistent poverty and some of the worst public schools in the country, this is a conclusion that’s hard to reach.

Earlier this year, the New York Times profiled the prodigious money raising prowess and dubious ethics of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. The Times editorialized, “Of all the money machines shaving ethical corners, few rival the Congressional Black Caucus…..the caucus spends far more on gala entertainments and golf outings than on the scholarships that billboard its charity drives.”

Political markets are like commercial markets. The absence of competition results in shoddy products.

When we send American soldiers into harm’s way abroad to fight for free elections, perhaps we should spend more time considering the quality of our own democracy at home.

Time to stand up and vote all the Rangels out

Via-NY POST

Michael Goodwin

It's official: Charlie Rangel is a crook. A liar. And a tax cheat.

The guilty finding by a bipartisan group of his peers lays to rest any illusion the flimflam man's disgraceful conduct was an aberration or mere sloppiness. The case revealed a decades-long pattern of willful deceit and intentional evasion.

In a better world, we would be bidding him good riddance. He would be expelled from Congress, and a federal prosecutor would be waiting at the door, ready to pounce on the ton of evidence that convicted him. A grand jury would be going through the bank accounts bulging with cash, the sources of which remain suspiciously unclear.


In that better world, his colleagues, shocked and embarrassed by how he flaunted his violations of tax laws and ethics rules, would immediately tighten the screws and increase the penalties. They would denounce him from the floor, ashamed to have accepted his friendship and favors.

They would call for a vote on term limits, conceding that permanent incumbency magnifies the corruption of power. Rangel, after all, was just elected to his 21st term, and men and women of goodwill would proudly shout "aye" to eliminate the temptations that pile up in a job for life.

Of course, that's not the world we live in. What justice we have in this one is too often corrupted by a double standard, one for the public and one for our government masters.

Any ordinary American who scammed the IRS the way Rangel did would be socked with fines and probably jail. Any private worker who cheated his employer the way Rangel cheated taxpayers would get fired and arrested.

Rangel will most likely get a letter of reprimand. Tsk, tsk.

And where are the prosecutors? Quaking in their hideaways, afraid to take on someone so big. Cowards all.

Try a little experiment. Walk into a government building -- a courthouse, motor vehicles, unemployment -- and take note of how you, the taxpayer, are treated. My experience is that it quickly becomes clear who is working for whom.

Most government workers don't believe they work for you or me. They know we work for them. Public servants? Grow up, sucker.

That's the overarching lesson of the Charlie Rangel moment. His unruffled arrogance, his air of entitlement, his lack of remorse personify everything wrong with Washington in particular and government in general.

He was shocked -- genuinely, I believe -- that anybody would dare accuse him of doing anything remotely wrong. Don't we know who he is!

In fact, we do know his kind all too well, and that was the point voters made two weeks ago. President Obama and Democrats in Congress lost the consent of the governed, just as Republicans sitting in their seats lost it in 2006 and 2008.

Members of both parties believed their own smoke until it was too late, then took turns being shocked to find themselves cast from the temples and into the shadows.

They lost their jobs, but too many who have them still don't get it. There are thousands of Charlie Rangels in Washington and Albany and in state capitals and city halls across America who believe they are above the law. They have convinced themselves they are public rulers, not public servants.

For too long, we let them get away with it. We the people always deserve the government we get. If we want a better one, we have to earn it by working like crazy for it. We have to relentlessly demand a single standard of justice and refuse to accept anything less.

Above all, we must root out all the Charlie Rangels until all the people in those jobs know they work for us.

We can do it. Yes we can.

Toon

Via-Washington Ecaminer

The Rangel Center for Public Service

Via-RCP

By Debra Saunders

The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct -- also known as the House ethics committee -- issued a Statement of Alleged Violation last week to Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. To sum it up, Rangel thought he could skirt the rules and get away with it.

Earlier this year, the ethics committee admonished Rangel for taking corporate trips to the Caribbean in violation of House rules.



This go-round involves -- I kid you not -- the 20-term congressman's quest for a Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York. Rangel thought it would serve the public interest to "preserve the work of (his) public life." So in 2005, while a top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, he began requesting earmarks of $6 million for the center.

In what the committee sees as a probable violation of House rules, Rangel had his staff draw up a list of potential donors -- which happened to include large corporations, tax-exempt foundations and charitable trusts with interests in his committee's rulings. He sent letters on House stationery, using the House franking privilege, to deep pockets and squeezed donations from individuals with intense interest in Ways and Means Committee votes.

Rangel's lawyers issued a response that argued, "If he mistakenly used the wrong letterhead or other modest resources for this worthy cause" -- that worthy cause being the Rangel Center for Public Service -- "the error was made in good faith." (Ahem. That's like forgetting to pay your taxes in good faith.)

The ethics committee also hit Rangel for receiving a rent-controlled apartment for his political action committee and failing to claim rental income on federal tax returns.

Rangel's predicament must be very painful for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, who once argued that she would "drain the swamp" of corruption in Congress.

Now Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill stresses the "bipartisan, confidential and independent ethics process in the House."

You can argue that it does not reflect on Pelosi if Rangel broke the rules. But it does reflect on Pelosi if Democrats behave as if they don't have to abide by the rules. What drives voters crazy is not so much that some lawmakers abuse their office as the fact that they get away with it for so long.

The ethics committee offered to allow Rangel to accept a reprimand -- read: slap on the wrist -- on the 13 charges, but Rangel refused.

Then on Monday, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, followed Rangel's lead in challenging an ethics committee probe into her possible role in lobbying for a bank in which her husband owned stock. The bank, OneUnited, got $12.1 million in TARP funds.

It always was a conceit for Democrats to portray themselves as the ethical political party. The Republicans had Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay to prove that power corrupts on the right by turning the party of small government into an agent of big spending. The Democrats have Rangel and Waters -- who have managed to mix racial politics with the arrogance of incumbency.

In that spirit, Rangel and Waters have demanded trials where, at best, they may convince their peers that if they did not break the rules, then they showed little interest in safeguarding the reputations of their party or their institution.

As the November elections approach, two House trials will parade two Democrats who will argue that they acted in the name of "disadvantaged and minority students" (Rangel) or "minority-owned banks" (Waters). And you think Americans have contempt for Congress now.

Toon

Via-Washington Examiner

Rangel's Republican Replacement?

Via-Human Events

by Mark Impomeni

Rep. Charlie Rangel’s reelection prospects may have taken a big hit last week when the House Ethics Committee announced it’s two-year investigation had found “substantial reason to believe” that Rangel had violated House ethics rules.

Rangel (D.-N.Y.) is facing perhaps the most difficult re-election campaign of his 40-year career representing Harlem in the House. Several Democrats have lined up to face Rangel in September’s Democratic primary, buoyed by charges that Rangel violated House rules in taking two Caribbean trips that were funded by corporations with lobbying interests before Congress. The scandal has already cost Rangel the chairmanship of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee last March.

Unlike in past reelection campaigns, however, the Democratic primary will not decide the election. A Republican has stepped up to challenge Rangel, and he believes he has a good shot at winning. Michel Faulkner is no stranger to adversity. As a football player at Virginia Tech, he suffered an injury that rendered any hope of a career in professional football all but over. But Faulkner came to New York to try out with the Jets and made the team, playing one season before suffering another—this time career ending—injury. Faulker takes the same determination into his campaign.

“I was the slowest, the shortest, the weakest player in camp,” Faulkner recounts. “But six weeks later I was on the team. I view this campaign the same way. I know what it’s like to come from behind.”


Faulkner has more than just determination, however. He has a strategy for winning as a Republican in a district with a Cook Partisan Voter Index of D+41, that gave Barack Obama 93% of the vote in 2008, and has had only two representatives since World War II, Democrats Rangel and Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.

Faulkner says that while the district is overwhelmingly Democratic, less than 30% of the eligible population is registered to vote. Of that group, Faulkner says less than half actually turns out to the polls. “That should tell everybody something,” Faulkner said, describing what he sees an opportunity to engage with disaffected members of the community.

“We need to ignite the electorate. Just as President Obama won by bringing in a large number of new voters, we need to do that in this district,” he said.

“I’ve never sought political office before, but I was driven to do so now because I’m outraged at…what’s going on with our nation,” Faulkner said. “It’s as if people’s votes don’t count. They’ve grown disconnected from their government because they don’t trust their elected officials. We have a culture of career politicians instead of public servants.”

After his football days, Faulker was drawn to the ministry. Ordained in New York City in 1991, he held various pastoral positions in churches throughout the city until 2006, when he started his own church, Horizon Church of New York in Harlem. Along the way, he has held positions in public service, including places on the Task Force on Police Community Relations under Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the city Board of Education’s HIV/AIDS Task Force. He currently serves as a board member on the New York City Department of Youth and Community Assistance.

His ministerial work and community involvement could give Faulkner a quality that most Republican candidates in Harlem lack: credibility. Combined with Rangel’s ethics troubles, he could prove a more formidable foe than past challengers. Faulker insists that his campaign is not about Rangel; although, he couldn’t resist listing Rangel’s varied ethical problems in a recent New York Post op-ed.

“Unfortunately Mr. Rangel has come to epitomize what is wrong with Washington today,” Faulkner wrote. “His gross underpayment of federal income taxes while chairing the House Ways and Means Committee shows the hypocrisy of our Congress. Furthermore, his occupation of four rent-stabilized apartments (while so many in our community are in desperate need of affordable housing), demonstrates his disconnect from our needs and struggles. It could not be clearer that the people of this city deserve a new direction and need new leadership.”

The Ethics Committee action last week could serve to drive that message home to Harlem voters looking for a fresh start.

Rangel was first elected to Congress in 1970, beating the legendary Powell in the Democratic primary. Powell had been beset by ethics scandals, just as Rangel is now. Forty years later, Faulkner looks for history to repeat itself. With new voters, a bit of luck, and a healthy dose of determination, Faulkner stands a good chance to benefit from Rangel’s ethical lapses.

Rangel charged with multiple ethics violations

New York Dem gave up Ways and Means gavel in February

Via-AP

A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, a blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and an election-year headache for Democrats.

The committee did not immediately specify the charges against the Democrat, who has served in the House for some 40 years and is fourth in House seniority. The announcement by a four-member panel of the House ethics committee sends the case to a House trial, where a separate eight-member panel of Republicans and Democrats will decide whether the violations can be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

The timing of the announcement ensures that it will stretch into the fall campaign, and Republicans are certain to make it an issue as they try to capture majority control of the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had once promised to "drain the swamp" of ethical misdeeds by lawmakers in arguing that Democrats should be in charge.

Rangel led the tax-writing Ways and Means panel until he stepped aside last March after the ethics committee criticized him in a separate case — finding that he should have known corporate money was paying for his trips to two Caribbean conferences.

Officials said that in the current case, the committee and Rangel's attorney tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a settlement. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions. A settlement would have required Rangel to agree that he violated ethics rules.

The investigation of Rangel has focused on:

•His use of official stationery to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.

•Whether he had the Ways and Means Committee consider legislation that would benefit donors to the Rangel Center at the same time the congressman solicited donations or pledges.

•Preserved a tax shelter for an oil drilling company, Nabors Industries, which has a chief executive who donated money to the center while Rangel's committee considered the loophole legislation.

•Used four rent-controlled apartment units in New York City, when the city's rent stabilization program is supposed to apply to one's primary residence. This raises the question of how all the units could be primary residences. One was a campaign office, raising the separate question of whether the rent break was an improper gift.

•Whether Rangel, as required, publicly reported information on the financing and rental of his ownership interest in a unit within the Punta Cana Yacht Club in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Rangel also had to pay back taxes on the rental income.

•Intentionally failed to report — when required — hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in assets. The amended disclosure reports added a credit union IRA, mutual fund accounts and stock.

Ain't Politics Quaint?

Via-Jer

Washington politics has become so corrupt and unresponsive to the American people it is almost impossible to keep track of all the shenanigans and ineptness.

So much has been going on that it is near impossible to keep track of all the regular old corruption that is always present in our political system, but sometimes is just unconscionable. One such case is that of Charlie Rangel.


Representative Charlie Rangel (D) New York is the powerful chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, the folks in charge of the tax code. Earlier this year while I awaited the Congressional ethics committee report on Charlie which Nancy Pelosi said would be out in January (still waiting) I wrote some posts on the amazing Mr Rangel, here , here and here
Please do read them as they lay out all of Charlie's little deals in some detail. But to summarize here is a list of some of Charlie's misdeeds.

* Occupying multiple rent controlled apartments in New York and using one as an office in violation of city codes. Or as the New York Post explained:

Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence.

Mr. Rangel, who has a net worth of $566,000 to $1.2 million, according to Congressional disclosure records, paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly in 2007 for the four apartments at Lenox Terrace, a 1,700-unit luxury development of six towers, with doormen, that is described in real estate publications as Harlem’s most prestigious address.

The current market-rate rent for similar apartments in Mr. Rangel’s building would total $7,465 to $8,125 a month, according to the Web site of the owner, the Olnick Organization.

Actually it is much deeper and more unethical than that but you get the idea.

* Charlie also owns a luxury "bungalow" in the Dominican Republic and did not report income on it in Federal filings, (he didn't pay taxes) but it wasn't his fault you know.

* Charlie owned a house in DC and claimed a Homestead Exemption on it, as I wrote:

You see our powerful Congressman with the villa in Paradise and the luxury apartment in New York,also owned a home in Washington DC. A house in Washington which he claimed Homestead exemption. Now, as a homeowner I know that you only get one of those and it has to be on your primary residence. Well was this home in DC Charlie's primary residence? Must have been, he claimed it was for the exemption, but what about those luxury apartments up there in New York, I thought they had to be your primary residence to get that rent deal? Exactly.

* Charlie also used his position to strong arm some very powerful business interest to donate money to a City College of New York school of public service to be named in his honor. Then remarkably changed his vote on a key piece of legislation that helped that same business interest. OOPS. Or as CBS explained

The company, Nabors Industries, was one of four corporations based in the United States that were widely criticized in 2002 and 2003 for opening offices in the Caribbean to reduce their federal tax payments. Mr. Rangel was among dozens of representatives from both parties who bitterly opposed those offshore moves and, in 2004, pushed unsuccessfully for legislation to make the companies pay more tax.

But in 2007, when the United States Senate tried to crack down on the companies, Mr. Rangel, who had recently been sworn in as House Ways and Means chairman, fought to protect them. The tax shelter for the four companies was preserved, saving Nabors an estimated tens of millions of dollars annually and depriving the federal treasury of $1.1 billion in revenues over a decade, according to a Congressional analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

* Charlie also steered campaign funds to his son, abused congressional parking privileges and a host of other small violations.

Now here we are with no ethics committee report on Charlie, years after some of this has come to light and we learn there is more.

"love that ring"
TAX CHIEF CHARLIE A TAX 'CHEAT,' TOO

Not only has Charlie now found something like $750,000 he had failed to report on his Congressional financial disclosure forms, he is a chronic dead beat on paying property taxes on two vacant lots that he owns that he failed to disclose he owned:

He currently owes $159.39 in unpaid property taxes for the second and third quarters of this year, according to the clerk's office.

Rangel's second-quarter taxes were due May 1 and his third-quarter taxes were due at the beginning of this month.

Skating on property taxes is nothing new for Rangel.

A review of property records for the borough of Glassboro revealed at least six tax liens levied against Rangel's property during the past 16 years.

Just last year, two separate liens were levied against both properties owned by Rangel.

The June 5, 2008, liens totaled $339.64.

On Dec. 6, 2001, a tax lien was filed against the property for $125.57 in unpaid taxes.

Rangel's earliest tax lapse, according to the records still on file, was June 24, 1993, when a tax lien was filed against him for failure to pay $57.53 in property taxes.

In each case, Rangel eventually paid the lien and interest to prevent foreclosure on the properties

So why is Charlie Rangel not only still in congress and not been censored by the ethics committee? Why has he not been removed from one of the most powerful positions in the House? Why hasn't the national press hounded him and his protector Pelosi mercilessly even though both the New York Times and Post have called for his resignation? Why indeed.

The reason is simple Nancy Pelosi needs Charlie Rangel to pass her and Obama's agenda through his powerful committee. Nothing will insure compliance of the powerful chairman to your wants more than the threat of removal hanging over your head.

Make no mistake Charlie Rangel is only there because the Democratic leadership needs him there, just like they needed Henry Waxman in his new assignment and drove Dingel out to get him there.

Ain't politics quaint?
More...

For Ethics Hawks, Congress Could Be Next

Old Ways Of Washington Persist Despite Administration's Ambitious Ethics Agenda

The Obama administration has fielded some tough ethics questions lately, and Congress may be next.

House Democrats have done their best to tamp down smoldering controversies involving Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and John Murtha, D-Pa, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. But the questions dogging the two are not likely to go away soon, particularly given recent Republican efforts to revive the ethics wars.

Democratic leaders beat back a GOP bid to remove Rangel from his Ways and Means chairmanship last week as the chamber voted 242-157 to scuttle a resolution by Republican Conference Secretary John Carter, R-Texas. Carter had called on Rangel to step down as chairman until the House Standards of Official Conduct (Ethics) Committee concludes its probe into his activities. (Sixteen House members, including those investigating Rangel, voted present.)

Rangel himself called for the ethics inquiry last year following disclosures that he used congressional letterhead to solicit money for an educational charity named after him, a flat violation of House rules. Since then the allegations involving Rangel have piled up, and the ethics panel has expanded its probe to include other tax and fundraising questions.
More...
The most serious of these is that Rangel helped preserve a tax loophole for an oil and gas drilling company at the same time as its chief executive was pledging some $1 million to support the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. Rangel also stands accused of paying below-market rents for four apartments, failing to pay taxes on rental income from a vacation home in the Dominican Republic and failing to report the value of a Florida condominium.

Rangel has denied all the allegations against him and has expressed confidence that the ethics panel will clear him soon. But recently the committee voted to resume its probe, which has been handed off to a four-member investigative subcommittee headed by Reps. Gene Green, D-Texas, and Jo Bonner, R-Ala., also the full committee's ranking GOP member.

Murtha may be the next target of GOP ethics maneuvers. There's talk that House Republicans may also try to oust Murtha from his subcommittee chairmanship.

Federal agents have raided the offices of three defense firms closely tied with Murtha: Kuchera Industries and Kuchera Defense Systems in western Pennsylvania and the PMA Group in Arlington, Va. Murtha directed some $8.2 million in earmarks to the two Pennsylvania firms in fiscal 2008, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Murtha also helped direct some $38 million in earmarks to the PMA Group, the tax watchdog group has disclosed. The PMA Group and its clients also have donated some $167,400 to Murtha and to his political action committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Murtha has said categorically that the federal raids have nothing to do with him and that he is not the target of any investigation.

Still, the federal probes have caused fallout on K Street and may soon create more headaches on Capitol Hill. There's been an exodus of lobbyists from the PMA Group, which was founded by an ex-Murtha aide; some of those leaving have started a new firm dubbed Flagship Government Relations. And Murtha is not the only House lawmaker with financial ties to PMA. The top two recipients of PMA campaign contributions are Reps. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., and Jim Moran, D-Va.

The ethics-sensitive tone set by President Obama may make it harder for lawmakers on Capitol Hill to sweep ethics controversies under the rug. However, observers differ over whether Obama's new ethics rules have brought, or can bring, real change to Washington. There's little disagreement that recent steps to strengthen the ethics process on Capitol Hill have been largely symbolic.

The House did recently open its Office of Congressional Ethics, staffed by outside experts who will field initial complaints. But without subpoena power, that office lacks meaningful clout, reform advocates complain.

"The way it's been set up, it's nearly impossible for them to be successful," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "They have no real authority."

Obama's early pledges to extend new ethics rules to Capitol Hill, moreover, appear to have quickly fallen off the radar. Earlier this year, the administration's Change.gov and WhiteHouse.gov Web sites posted a multi-part ethics agenda that included plans to slash earmarks and push for "an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations" on Capitol Hill.

But less than a day after Roll Call reported the details of that plan, the Web page describing them mysteriously disappeared. The ethics agenda link on WhiteHouse.gov now reads: "The ethics section is currently being revised" to reflect President Obama's Jan. 21 ethics executive order.

It's "interesting that these things were on the White House Web site and they just kind of disappeared," said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation. "I think George Orwell called it the 'memory hole.'" Allison added that "both parties seem to make their ethics rules to break them." The simmering Rangel and Murtha controversies make that increasingly clear.

Complete Original Article

Rangel ethics inquiries vex House leaders

Democrat chairs committee writing key rescue, tax bills



The never ending saga of Charles Rangel. I have written about this extensively but it will continue for months as Charlie is an important part of The Ruling Class. This is beyond hypocrisy on the part of the Democratic Party, it is out and out arrogance to the American People and this is becoming more and more common.-Jer



A renewed ethics probe of Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York poses an embarrassing distraction for House Democrats, as the Ways and Means Committee that he leads will oversee House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plans for an $825 billion economic rescue and a tax increase on wealthy Americans.

The slow-moving investigation of Mr. Rangel's home finances, unpaid taxes and dodgy fundraising is now in the hands of Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Democrat and the new chairman of the Committee on Standards and Ethical Conduct.

She has not signaled whether the committee will take up the probe begun last year or start anew. Either way, the inquiry overshadows Mr. Rangel as he takes a key position, as head of the House's tax-writing panel, in tackling the recession and a looming battle over tax increases.

"It is more of a distraction because of the economic shape we are in, and so much of it is before his committee," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

GETTY IMAGES Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Democrat and chairman of the House Committee on Standards and Ethical Conduct, is in charge of the probe of Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, but hasn't signaled how that probe will be handled.

Miss Sloan said the speaker and other Democratic leaders shrugged off Mr. Rangel's problems and left the issue to the ethics committee, which rarely takes tough action against fellow members of Congress. Yet it persists as a "nagging thing," she said.

The episode is especially nagging for Mrs. Pelosi, who pledged during the 2006 campaign to "drain the swamp" of corruption in Congress when Democrats won the majority.

Mrs. Pelosi resisted calls for the long-serving New York Democrat to give up the chairmanship, despite revelations that Mr. Rangel failed to pay more than $10,000 in taxes on rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic and may have received an improper financial benefit from leasing four rent-stabilized New York apartments for use as a residence and a campaign office.

The ethics committee also is investigating whether Mr. Rangel abused the power of his office in soliciting donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.

Mrs. Pelosi has said little more than she "looks forward to seeing the report" from the ethics committee.

She expected the committee to wrap up the probe by the end of last session. But the case was prolonged, likely because of its growing complexity, particularly reports that Mr. Rangel switched his position on tax legislation to help a donor to the college center that bears his name. More...

Complete Original Article from Washington Times

*What About Charlie? The School of Public Service and Son

This is our final installment on the current life and times of Charlie Rangel. One thing we have learned is that everyone considers Charlie to be powerful. Every story we read about this 19 term congressman starts with "Charlie Rangel the powerful Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee....".

Besides being powerful,we learned that Charlie does not seem to play by the same rules in regards to houses that we normal folks have to, either in New York, his villa in the Dominican Republic or his former DC home.

Remarkably this entire ethics investigation got under way at the request of Charlie himself, to clear his name. Even more remarkably it had nothing to do with Charlie's housing misdeeds but rather our Congressman's simple desire to have something named after him.

Back in 2007 some people began to ask questions about The City College of New York and the building of what amounts to a monument to Charlie Rangel. Not a statue mind you but as CBS so aptly put it Is Rangel's 'Monument to Me' Worth It? N.Y. City College Building Presidential-Like Library For Congressman Paid For By Taxpayers

According to promotional brochures, the soon-to-be refurbished building will house the new "Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service," the "Rangel Conference Center," "a well-furnished office for Charles Rangel" and the "Charles Rangel Library" for his papers and memorabilia. It's kind of like a presidential library, but without a president. In fact, the brochure says Rangel's library will be as important as the Clinton and Carter libraries....

But the inspiration for Rangel's library and the idea to give it federal funding came from Rangel, not the college, according to Edmondson.

Well this bit of self aggrandizement piqued peoples attention and it was learned that perhaps a little arm twisting was done to fund this "Monument to Me" with a few tax breaks thrown in for good measure.

Representative Charles B. Rangel has helped raise $11 million for a City College of New York school of public service to be named in his honor. In recent months, as questions have emerged about his fund-raising, he has insisted that he has kept his efforts to attract donors scrupulously separate from his official duties in Congress.

But Congressional records and interviews show that Mr. Rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited an oil-drilling company last year, while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the project, the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.

What makes this worse was that apparently until Charlie saw a way to raise money for his tribute to himself, he was opposed to the very shenanigans he turned around and supported.

The company, Nabors Industries, was one of four corporations based in the United States that were widely criticized in 2002 and 2003 for opening offices in the Caribbean to reduce their federal tax payments. Mr. Rangel was among dozens of representatives from both parties who bitterly opposed those offshore moves and, in 2004, pushed unsuccessfully for legislation to make the companies pay more tax.

But in 2007, when the United States Senate tried to crack down on the companies, Mr. Rangel, who had recently been sworn in as House Ways and Means chairman, fought to protect them. The tax shelter for the four companies was preserved, saving Nabors an estimated tens of millions of dollars annually and depriving the federal treasury of $1.1 billion in revenues over a decade, according to a Congressional analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

The tale of how Charlie got the money from the company to help build his monument to self is about as obvious a pay to play story as their is, the only difference is that Charlie did not personally, as far as we know, benefit from the deal.

As if all this was not enough to drive our "powerful" chairman from at least his chair, it seems that there is nearly weekly revelation of Charlie's little power plays.

Between 2004 and 2007, Rep. Charles Rangel steered nearly $80,000 in campaign cash to an Internet company run by his son — paying lavishly for a pair of political websites so poorly designed an expert estimated one should have cost no more than $100 to create.

Of course there is nothing illegal about abusing the trust of your supporters and contributors to enrich relatives, powerful politicians do it all the time. But as the Politico pointed out, was this expenditure for services or a simple payoff

Still, the sum paid to Rangel’s son was the most paid for websites by any House member during the 2004-2006 election period, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings provided to Politico by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) and since-ousted Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) were distant runners-up, shelling out $44,000 and $30,000 for their websites, respectively, during the 2006 cycle.

Both Regula and Shays may have needed the exposure to fend off serious challengers. Rangel, a Harlem Democrat and dean of his state’s House delegation, hasn’t faced serious competition in years and retained his seat with 94 percent of the vote in 2006.

Obviously when you are that well entrenched and reach a certain point in the political system in Washington you become or seem to become, beyond accountable.So it seems is the attitude that Charlie developed.

Charles Rangel has been using a House of Representatives parking garage for years as free storage space for his old Mercedes-Benz - a violation of congressional rules and a potential new tax woe for the embattled lawmaker, The Post has learned.

The 1972 silver sedan is registered to Rangel, who is already under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, and is parked in a coveted section of an indoor lot, near elevators that lead to his office.

The car is covered with a protective tarp and has no license plates. Rangel's registration on the vehicle expired in 2004, state records show.

House rules forbid use of the garage for long-term storage more than 45 days - and congressional aides told The Post that Rangel's car has been sitting there for years.

A rather small little transgression really, however all things considered it seems that Charlie, in his long illustrious and powerful career has reached the point where he simply believes or at least acts as if the rules do not apply to him. He is definitely a member of the ever growing number of politicians we like to call "The Ruling Class".

So with all these indiscretions hanging over Charlie, why is he still not only a congressman but a powerful chairman of a vital committee? Why has he not been hounded from his chairmanship by his peers and asked to step aside by House Speaker Pelosi and even Mr. Change himself President-elect Obama?

Perhaps it is as simple as this. When you have an agenda of your own, you need powerful allies and if there is one thing we know, Charlie our public servant is powerful.




More...

What About Charlie? Homes, Homes, Homes

So we were talking about Charlie as in Rangel the powerful Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the tax writing folks. Let's review.

First we find out that Charlie has four apartments which are rent-controlled in a very prestigious building in his home District in New York. The purpose of which is to keep rents affordable to the normal citizens, one would wonder why such a rent stabilization program would be needed in a luxury apartment complex with door men and such but oh well it is New York. His place of domicile was not the issue, though one wonders how a mere public servant affords such places. The problem was that he used one of the four apartments for an office. This is a no no evidently when your rent by law is being trimmed to artificially low levels. Not to mention some other possible problems with Congressional ethic rules.

Some Congressional ethics experts, while saying it appears legitimate for Mr. Rangel to have one rent-stabilized apartment, question whether his acceptance of the additional units may violate the House of Representatives’ ban on members’ accepting gifts of more than $100. They suggest that the difference between what Mr. Rangel pays for the second, third and fourth apartments and what a new market-rate tenant would pay — some $30,000 annually — could be considered a gift because it is given at the discretion of the landlord and it is not generally available to the public.

Next, we find out that Charlie has a "villa" in a very exclusive resort in the Dominican Republic. Putting aside how our frugal congressman has come upon the means to own four apartments in a luxury complex in New ork and a "villa" in paradise, our dedicated writer of tax laws, failed to pay the taxes on income derived from the rental of the "villa" when not in residence. Us non "ruling class" people and typically the IRS night call that tax evasion. He also, on occasion, failed to disclose this information as required on Congressional disclosure forms.























Of course this must all be a simple clerical error, after all here is what his top aide had to say when the New York Post inquired

His chief of staff, George Dalley, who prepares the congressman's financial disclosure forms, said it's possible Rangel is a "shareholder" in the company that owns the resort.

In 2006 and 2007 or other years, Rangel may have "plowed the [rental] money back" into the company, Dalley said.

But in 20 years of filings, Rangel has never disclosed owning or acquiring any shares or interest in the company, Grupo Punta Cana. The company also owns and operates an international airport, three luxury housing developments, a shopping village, golf courses, a spa, seven restaurants and a marina.

Now as bad as that sounds to me, that the guy who files your disclosure forms, says that the boss "might" be a shareholder in the property and it's "possible" that he may have invested, he obviously learned from his boss. When asked about this seemingly, dare we say illegal act our erstwhile congressman through his lawyer of course-blamed his wife.

Mr. Davis said the congressman did not realize he had to declare the money as income, and was unaware of the semiannual payments from the resort because his wife, Alma, handled the family finances and conferred with their accountant, John Viardi, on tax matters.

Comforting isn't it, the congressman overseeing our tax codes "did not realize he had to declare the money as income" I wonder if that will work for us common folk?

Of course when he had to go before the press himself and explain why he thought his $75,000 of income was tax free, he couldn't blame his wife in person, that would cause trouble mi casa. So being the problem was A Dominican Republic problem he pulled a reverse Sammy Sosa "No Hablo Espanol"

"I really don't believe that making mistakes means you have to give up your career," he said, although he admitted that, as chairman, he should be held to a higher standard.

He blamed the managers at the resort for not sending him annual financial statements, and when they did so, for sending them in Spanish.

"Well, there always been a question in my wife's mind," Rangel said of his wife, Alma, who he said handles the finances.

"I belittled the importance of the fact that I wasn't getting reports."

He added that he reached out to officials at the resort for more information - to no avail.

"Every time I thought I was getting somewhere, they'd start speaking Spanish," he said of his Dominican business partners.

Well he only sort of threw Alma under the bus. Enough of luxury apartments and villas in paradise it is time to go to Washington where a congressman belongs, but in Charlie's case, probably not.

You see our powerful Congressman with the villa in Paradise and the luxury apartment in New York,also owned a home in Washington DC. A house in Washington which he claimed Homestead exemption. Now, as a homeowner I know that you only get one of those and it has to be on your primary residence. Well was this home in DC Charlie's primary residence? Must have been, he claimed it was for the exemption, but what about those luxury apartments up there in New York, I thought they had to be your primary residence to get that rent deal? Exactly.

The situation raises a number of potential problems for the congressman, including:

* New York City law requires that tenants use rent-stabilized apartments as their primary residence.

* DC's real Property Homestead Deduction Act also requires that a property receiving the benefit be a primary residence.

* Tax lawyers told The Post that a property owner cannot have two primary residences - or take advantages provided to primary residences at two different addresses simultaneously.

* DC's law also requires that the owner of a property benefiting from the tax break be a personal-income taxpayer in DC. District law exempts members of Congress from paying personal DC income tax, but they must pay property tax.

The DC rules state that "by maintaining a residence in his home state and actively voting there, [a member of Congress] is demonstrating that he continues to be a part of the body politic of his home state . . . The Member is a domiciliary of his home state. Because he is not domiciled in the District, the Member cannot claim the District's homestead deduction."

But he did;

The agency would not allow The Post to view original tax documents, such as Rangel's applications, despite repeated requests.

However, Wagner provided spreadsheets showing Rangel's reduced tax bills for the years 1995 through 2000, along with this written statement: "According to records . . . the subject account received the homestead benefit for the tax years provided in the report."

At this point you would have to conclude that Congressman Rangel is inept in managing or overseeing the management of his vast property holdings, or that he has defrauded not only his home state, The District of Columbia and the IRS. In addition he has not accurately, at the minimum, or knowingly ignored proper Congressional disclosure. Perhaps that is the reward for being constantly described as "The Powerful Chairman..."

However I have run long here so we will discuss Charlie's further adventures in hopefully the final installment of What About Charlie? The School of Public Service and Sons




More...

*What about Charlie? Part 1

Remember when a political scandal was like a blood sport for the media? Once upon a time a politician found with his pants down, preferred, or his hand in the cookie jar, not quite as titillating but still fodder for the media mill.

It seemed in the good old days that a politician found to have committed or even suspected of some ethical indiscretion would be perused, investigated and hounded until he either was driven from office or totally discredited. His reputation would be ruined and if he remained in office he would be stripped of all responsibility.

Who can forget Senator Craig's misdemeanor wide stance or un-indicted Congressman Foley's text messages. Of course there have been more serious malfeasance over the years which have been brought to the public light by our esteemed media and the political culprits shamed into resignation or at least contrition.

So what about Charlie? You know good old Charlie Rangel, one of the most powerful congressman in the House. Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, you know the one that does those incidental things like, well writing the tax codes for all of us that actually pay them. Fortunately Mr. Rangel understands that as a congressman he should be held to a high standard of ethical accountability and had something to say about it the other day.

"I would never do anything to embarrass my committee, the Congress or my country," Rangel (D-Harlem) told the Daily News. "It's really painful to make the front page of The New York Times with a nothing story because clearly I was supporting expanding educational opportunity for people."

Now that sounds very sincere doesn't it ? Well let's review how Charlie has not embarassed his committee, the Congress or his country.

First, I believe it is first, it is difficult to keep track of the chronology, Congressman Rangel was found to pocess four apartment in what in one of those interesting New York City phenomena called rent stabilized building. This as I understand it sort of freezes the rent you pay despite what the market may be. Basically people get grandfathered into their leases and don't have to worry too much about being priced out of their homes, one of those well meaning ideas sounds good in theory but tend to be either abused or destabilize the true market system. Regardless Congressman Rangel has four such apartments as The New York Times informed us back in July.

Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence.

Mr. Rangel, who has a net worth of $566,000 to $1.2 million, according to Congressional disclosure records, paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly in 2007 for the four apartments at Lenox Terrace, a 1,700-unit luxury development of six towers, with doormen, that is described in real estate publications as Harlem’s most prestigious address.

The current market-rate rent for similar apartments in Mr. Rangel’s building would total $7,465 to $8,125 a month, according to the Web site of the owner, the Olnick Organization.

Alma and Charles B. Rangel’s Harlem residence, as shown in “Style and Grace: African Americans at Home” (2003).

Nice diggs huh? By the way a little biographical note here Charles Rangel is serving in his nineteenth term in Congress, he was first elected in 1970.

So he was cheating the housing laws in New York, oh well these things happen, down here in Florida we have an almost as powerful congressman Robert Wexler who lived in Maryland while representing a District he did not live in. Not to get side tracked but I love this quote from his (Wexler's) local paper.

Acknowledging that accusations that he doesn't really live in Florida are raising "concerns" among his constituents, Democratic U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler said Tuesday that he will begin leasing an apartment in his congressional district rather than continue to claim residency at his in-laws' home near Delray Beach.

Wexler made the announcement on the same day that his two challengers produced records showing Wexler received property tax breaks by declaring his house in Potomac, Md., a "primary residence" from 1999 to 2002. He also signed a loan document with his wife in 2005 describing the house as "my/our principal residence."

As a Floridian I am a bit upset that a member of our congressional delegation admits that "he doesn't really live in Florida" Awful big of Bob to actually go to the expense of renting an apartment down this way and to at least part time live in the district he represents. Oh and I guess his constituents didn't much care anyway, they re-elected him. What's that old saying, you get the government you deserve? And we wonder why our Representatives in Washington ignore our wishes, we ignore their arrogance and deceit.

At least Charlie lived in the District he represented, well sort of, we'll get to that in a bit. But let's try to keep Charlie's ethical behavior in some sort of order here. The next un-embarrassing item on the roll call of political virtue was the revelation that our Chairman of the tax writing committee owned a little get away bungalow on a tropical island.


Now the New York Post calls Chairman Rangel's Dominican Republic pad a villa, maybe but I doubt if it was a real villa they would have gotten close enough for that embarrassing snooze picture. Either way our chief tax writing legislator, failed to pay taxes on the rental he received from the alleged villa.

For 20 years, Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel has owned a beachfront villa in a sun-drenched Dominican Republic resort, yet has only sporadically declared income on the property in federal filings.

While the villa was rented to paying guests for the past two years, for instance, Rangel reported no income from it in 2006 and 2007, The Post has learned. As a congressman, failure to fully list all income and investments can result in civil penalties or criminal charges.

The powerful Ways and Means Committee chairman, a Democrat, owns "casita" No. 412 on the Caribbean Sea at the Punta Cana Hotel, on the lush eastern tip of the country, where he is affectionately known as "el senador."


His three-bedroom, three-bath villa, which can accommodate three couples, is rented for between $500 in the low season to $1,100 a night in the busiest tourist season and is one of the resort's most popular, managers and staff say.

Notice how both the Post and the Times refer to Charlie as powerful, despite the less than flattering pose. He must be for by this time, August, both of these influential papers in Charlie's home town have called for him to step aside. But Charlie has just begun to be an embarrassment to his committee, the congress and his country.

(to be continued)



More...