Both payroll tax bills stink

George Rebane

On the surface it just looks like more congressional bickering.  But the two current versions of the payroll tax bills have written in things which go beyond the 'kick the can' capers that the Dems are promoting and the Repubs are fighting.  Our congressman Tom McClintock peeled back a bit of the sleaze to quietly re-fund Fannie and Freddie through these pieces of legislative legerdemain.  (Some useful idiots still argue that Fannie and Freddie are not government departments.)  He made the following speech on the House floor today.

The Problem with Both Payroll Bills
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
December 20, 2011

Mr. Speaker:

In all this debate, I fear both parties have missed a critical point.  

Both versions of this bill impose a permanent new tax on every mortgage backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

To pay for an additional two months of tax relief under the Senate version or 12 months under the House version, more than $3,000 of new taxes will be imposed on every $150,000 mortgage backed by Fannie or Freddie.

A family taking out a $250,000 mortgage will pay $5,000 more in taxes – directly and solely because of this bill – hidden in their future mortgage payments.

This is atrocious public policy.  It shifts the burden for this bill to future homebuyers, kicks the housing market when it’s already down, makes it that much more expensive for home buyers to re-enter that market, and adds to the pressures that have chronically depressed everyone’s home values.

That’s the reason that both the Senate and the House versions need to go back for major revision.

Comments

[We Can Work Together]

I can see the both sides of this.

The Republican congressman from Utah is challenging Republican senators on this bill. The Republican senators are on vacation now. It appears the Utah congressman is being a citizen congressman on this issue and I applaud him for it. It might come at great cost to him personally -- vacations are sacrosanct.

Democratic senators and congresspeople are hoping the spotlight will stay on the Republican imbroglio -- they also don't want anyone messing with their vacations.

I think Obama made a good political play by focusing on vacations. Let's see how it works itself out.

Michael Anderson

[Todd Juvinall]

We are living in the Twilight Zone. The HOR passes a bill and sends it to the Senate, The Senate makes changes and sends it back to the HOR. SOP is a conference committee to iron out the differences. Senate says adios we are outta here. HOR says "wait"! We need a conference. Senate Democrats say "up yours" pass our bill which actually is yours which we modified. Somehow this becomes a problem for the R's! Do do do Do.

[Paul Emery]

It's the R's insistence in including the XL pipeline as part of the vote that's holding things up. That's an entirely unrelated subject and should not be part of this deliberation. This is what is known as an unrelated rider, another word for hostage. According to the State Department it is probably not legal since it bypasses required procedures. Whether you like it or not these procedures are the law and must be followed for legislation to be valid.

"Should Congress impose an arbitrary deadline for the permit decision, its actions would not only compromise the process, it would prohibit the Department from acting consistently with National Environmental Policy Act requirements," the State Department said, according to the Huffington Post. "In the absence of properly completing the process, the Department would be unable to make a determination to issue a permit for this project."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/keystone-xl-state-department_n_1144570.html?1323732302&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

[Gregory]

There's always bundles. Remember Pelosi's 'we need to pass the bill in order to see what's in it' over health care?

A pipeline will be built, either down to the largest refinery complex in the world, in Texas, or entirely on Canadian soil over to BC's Pacific coast where the oil can be tankered off to Asia. Take your pick.

[Todd Juvinall]

The boys and girls are caving as I write this.

[Gregory]

Regarding Keystone, it's Obvious the Administration doesn't want to be seen to kill the project, perceived as anti-commerce and anti-jobs, and doesn't want to approve it lest they tick off the hard left anti-petroleum core voters they need to be showing some enthusiasm next November. Sitting on their collective hands, kicking the can down the road is their choice.

[Paul Emery]

They'll be able to do that because of the regs that require State Dept approval to comply with NEPA requirements. That will easily extend it till 2013 for final approval.

The R's in the House took a pretty good whomping on this one with even the WSJ and Carl Rove jumping on them. They need a break. 2012 will be a tough year for the House Freshmen and the Grover drones. It will be fun.

[Douglas Keachie]

Grover's Groover* Movers will packing up and looking for some other place to dump.

*Please reference river rafting to make appropriate connection for terminology used here.

[Gregory]

Paul, the fraudulent CO2 endangerment finding is a wrong that is yet to be corrected, but will. And Keystone will be hard to kill.

[Paul Emery]

I'm sure it will be hard to kill because of the millions of dollars of special interest money supporting it. My contention is that the process for approval that is in place now will delay any decision for at least a year and a half.

[Douglas Keachie]

How many of the Grover drones ran on the notion of throwing the old career guys out, and replacing them, and doing the same to them in two years time? Guess what, time's up! Out you go, or stay on as a hypocrite hoisted by your own petard.

In 2012 , it's time to expel, the GOP freshmen, for hazing the poor and middle classes.

[Gregory]

Paul, if by "special interests" you mean everyone who uses and benefits from affordable fuels, yes, there's special interest money in play here.

[Paul Emery]

This was an easy example to find about the Koch brothers usintg their influence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/idUS292515702420110210

"The company's website says it is "among Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters." Koch Industries also owns Koch Exploration Canada, L.P., an oil sands-focused exploration company also based in Calgary that acquires, develops and trades petroleum properties...........

The Koch brothers are not run-of-the-mill political opponents. An investigative report last year by the New Yorker magazine on the secretive and deep-pocketed pair have shown them to be "waging a war against Obama." They have bankrolled the Tea Party movement, climate change skepticism and right-wing think tanks, such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis.

[Todd Juvinall]

Merry Christmas to the Koch Brothers. True American patriots!

[Gregory]

Paul, so what? Name a billionaire Democrat who doesn't throw money into their favorite groups!

I think it would be just fine if the Koch's would give more money to Cato and Reason. Even CEI. Double or triple. Great idea.

[Paul Emery]

Yeah Todd Real sweethearts the Koch Brothers. You're kind of guys

"In regards to the sales to Iran, the company made them through foreign subsidiaries, thwarting a U.S. trade ban. The company’s products helped build a methanol plant for Zagros Petrochemical Co., a unit of Iran’s state-owned National Iranian Petrochemical Company. The facility, in the coastal city of Bandar Assaluyeh, is now the largest methanol plant in the world, according to IHS Inc., an Englewood, Colorado-based provider of chemicals, energy and economic data.

“Every single chance they had to do business with Iran, or anyone else, they did,” George Bentu, a former Koch engineer, says."

http://www.huliq.com/3257/koch-brothers-elbow-deep-corruption-and-murky-deals-iran

[Todd Juvinall]

Why thanks PaulE, they are my kind of guys. Successful capitalists, they support freedom with their riches, have a large philanthropic arm and are proud to be Americans. Your buddy George Soros and your favorite President, Obummer, are the exact opposite. So, it would appear you have the lame relationships, not me.

[Douglas Keachie]

Well Todd, glad to know you support the Milo Minderbinder mentality so well illustrated in Joseph Heller's "Catch -22."

[Todd Juvinall]

Koch Brothers are patriots so what is your point?

[Gregory]

And Soros waged war agin' Bush. So what?

The world's largest refinery is run by Dr.R.Pachauri's patron. The fact that the IPCC's work gives them a competitive advantage is secondary. Yep. No doubt. You bet.

[Paul Emery]

Patriots don't do illegal business with our enemies. See my post above.

[Todd Juvinall]

It was explained and you are just desperate. You probably think GE and Jeffry Immellt (Obama's bud) are patriots. No, the Koch Brothers are patriots, they just support the opposite ideas of yours, but hey ain't America great!

[Douglas Keachie]

Todd, did Patriots sell war materials to the Germans during WWII? You have a funny vision of a Patriot.

[Todd Juvinall]

PaulE, I checked out your link and did some research and I'll be darned if I can't seem to find out anything about the fellow who owns the internet link you placed here. His name is Armen Hareyan and he seems to be a ghost. So I would be careful using links to people or websites no one can check for their political background.

Keachie, I think you are misguided.

[Douglas Keachie]

Well, the feeling is mutual, Todd At lkeast it is one thing we have in common. Do you like Irish coffee?

[Gregory]

Golly Paul, Obama's Justice Department has had almost three years to make a case against the dastardly Kochs. How's that coming along?

But innuendo is so much more fun, eh?

[Douglas Keachie]

If the Koch brothers went out and got drunk, would they be hoochie-koochie men?

[Gregory]

Behold, the deep thinking from a bona fide public school teacher. Doing your profession proud, Keach.

Get any good pictures of Pelline at Cornish Christmas last night?

[Todd Juvinall]

The Koch brothers probably own the brewery and they take their profits and send them to conservative organizations. Ain't America great!

[Douglas Keachie]

Well Koch sells Brawny and Northern paper products, which we do not buy, but which are on sale (marked down) now at SPD. I wonder how many other follow the money and have chosen to cut it off too? As for Jeff Pelline and Howard Levine, you can find them in the most recent Christmas set on the left, here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/keachie/collections/72157627003553262/

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Here's more on your buddies and American patriots the Koch brothers. This time from Bloomberg. Is that legit enough for you?

"A Bloomberg Markets investigation has found that Koch Industries -- in addition to being involved in improper payments to win business in Africa, India and the Middle East -- has sold millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism.
The ‘Koch Method’

Internal company documents show that the company made those sales through foreign subsidiaries, thwarting a U.S. trade ban. Koch Industries units have also rigged prices with competitors, lied to regulators and repeatedly run afoul of environmental regulations, resulting in five criminal convictions since 1999 in the U.S. and Canada. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html

[Todd Juvinall]

Already explained so keep trying. They are patriots toe ideals of America, sort of a mirror image of your bud Obama and Clinton. You know, the Prez who sold our rocket secrets for cash to a Chinese general. Yep, just like them, oh sure..

[Paul Emery]

Can you document Clinton's cash sales of rocket secrets to a Chinese General?

[Paul Emery]

Here's more about the American Patriots you so admire, Todd, did you actually read the article I linked to?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html

"federal grand jury issued a 97-count indictment against Koch Petroleum Group, Mietlicki and three refinery managers on Sept. 28, 2000. Koch Petroleum Group pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to the government about its benzene emissions in April 2001.

Judge Jack fined Koch Petroleum $10 million and ordered that it pay another $10 million to fund environmental projects in south Texas. Koch earned $176 million in profit from the Corpus Christi plant in 1995, prosecutors told the court. The company said in a hearing that it would have cost $7 million to comply with the benzene emission regulation. "

[Todd Juvinall]

The Kochs are patriots and your stories are old and worn out PaulE. Life is a balance and the scale tips way to the right and good. They paid their fines and stopped the trading. Why don't you travel to their headquarters for a pow-wow.

[Gregory]

Koch Industries owns Flint Hills, the 17th largest refinery in the world... not exactly a monopoly position. In this list of the largest refineries, ExxonMobil has 10 times their capacity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#World.27s_largest_refineries

Regarding the Iran sales, they apparently happened when it was legal for subsidiaries to make such sales as long as Americans were not involved and the company took steps to assure that. The law changed, and they follow the new law, too.

As far as I can tell, none of the legal troubles implicate the Koch brothers directly. Paul, is that also your understanding?

Now Soros actually has a personal conviction for insider trading, in France, and amassed his fortune not by actually producing goods and services but by currency manipulations. Is that to be admired?

[Todd Juvinall]

PaulE likes Soros. never a word of criticism. That is why there is no veracity in his outrage. Soros made a few hundred million in the last few weeks on the troubles with the Euro. What a guy.

[Paul Emery]

I'm suprised Todd that you are such a fan of the Koch bros. They were stridently against the Iraq invasion, support gay marriage and stem cell research, and push for the decriminalization of marijuana. True American patriots right Todd.

[Paul Emery]

Todd, Gregory. Please verify that I have never expressed affection for Soros on these pages. To pull that out of the hat to distract the discussion is a a pretty obvious cop out. I am opposed to the influence of big money on either side.

[Todd Juvinall]

PaulE, it is a liberal trait to reject someone for a one or two issue activity. The Koch brothers put their money where their mouths are and support causes I agree with in the most part. There is no one on earth I totally agree with so your incredulity is laughable.

[Gregory]

I've no idea if you have or have not, Paul. I do find it curious you pummel the Kochs for apparent criminal acts by a handful of their 50000 US employees and legal commerce with Iran years ago while ignoring Soros, perhaps the most visible bankroller of left-leaning causes, who has actually been found personally guilty of at least one criminal act while profiting from the destruction of value of the savings of millions if not billions of people.

[Todd Juvinall]

Heck PaulE, we on the right are much more forgiving than you lefties. I even have a few things I like about Obama! But you leftwingers hate a person 100% when they disagree with you even on one item. That is why the left is headed to the dustbin, thank goodness.

[Paul Emery]

Wrong Todd. I'm assuming you are clumping me in as a leftie. Gee Todd, George and I disagree on many things but we're friends and I consider you a friend as well. I certainly don't hate you. I don't know why you always revert to such simplistic conclusions when challenged.

[Gregory]

"Patriots don't do illegal business with our enemies." Paul 24 December 2011 at 04:17 PM

“The decision did not find that Koch-Glitsch GmbH engaged in price fixing or any illegal behavior.” Bloomberg, in the actual article referenced
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html

Paul, maybe I missed something. Where was the actual *illegal* sales to Iran documented? Lots of european corporations, including US subsidiaries, were legally selling to Iran in those days.

[Todd Juvinall]

So PaulE you are not a lefty? Hmmm. I never held anything against you but if you think my criticism of your unwavering defense of all that is left and your 100% criticisms of all that is right doesn't make you a lefty then I guess I am confused. Also your belief in the man on the grassy knoll.

You also said

"I don't know why you always revert to such simplistic conclusions when challenged."

I would say you are the fellow that runs and hides when challenged on your statements. You always tell us after we catch your lefty doubletalk that you were simply tossing it out there for a discussion rather than holding yourself responsible for your statements. That is not a good debate tactic PaulE because no one will take you seriously.

Regarding your claiming I am simplistic. Yes, I usually boil down liberal BS into a couple of tried and true reasons they are so misguided and I state those things so that even a simple person can understand what I say. Yes, I am guilty of not being a "smarter than the average bear"" explainer.

[Todd Juvinall]

Oops, I also don't see any feedback from you PaulE on your unforgiving attitude towards the Koch brothers as we have towards Obama and many liberals. It show how you are an unwavering partisan.

[Paul Emery]

Todd. The Koch boys were making deals with Iran as late as 2007 while they were making bombs to kill our boys in Iraq. And still you call them American patriots. Really

[Paul Emery]

Gregory

Of course anything is considered legal unless you're prosecuted and convicted. The fact is that according to Bloomberg, "Koch Industries sold materials to the state-owned National Iranian Petrochemical Co in order for them to help build a methanol plant for Zagros Petrochemical Co. These deals were put together by way of Koch bypassing the government issued ban by inking the deals through Koch offices internationally, including posts in Germany and Italy."

Technically probably legal in the same way that Clinton was truthful when he claimed he "Didn't have sex with that Woman"

More from Bloomberg about the legality of dealing with Iran

"Since 1995, trading with Iran has been barred since President Clinton called the country an enemy of the state, a sentiment echoes an administration later by George W Bush, who called the country of the nations making up the Axis of Evil. The US State Department lists Iran as a supporter of terrorists groups including Hamas and Hezbollah, and has also tied the nation with insurgents affiliated with Taliban."

[Todd Juvinall]

PaulE, you don't listen. Adios.

[Paul Emery]

What is there to listen to? You admire persons who use cover back door techniques to do business for their personal profit with our enemies. It's one thing to appreciate their support for causes you believe in and another to admire them and consider them to be Americans patriots. That's what will get most reasonable people out of their seats.

[Gregory]

"Of course anything is considered legal unless you're prosecuted and convicted." - Paul 9:32PM

Paul, that is perhaps the silliest thing you've ever written.

The #1 cause of someone not even being indicted is a lack of any crime being committed.

[Paul Emery]

Gregory

You know that's not true. Are you contending that despite the fact that there have been no indictments or arrests in the mortgage scams that led to our current situation there were no crimes committed? White collar crime is seldom pursued or indicted because they can afford the big bucks for legal defense. It's these same special interests that buy favorable legislation which was the beginning or this discussion. I suggest you follow this link for my perspective.

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/09/william-black-why-nobody-went-to-jail.html

here's a teaser

"All right so you have massive fraud driving this crisis, hyperinflating the bubble, an FBI warning and how many criminal referrals did the same agency do, in this crisis. Remember it did well over 10,000 in the prior crisis. Well the answer is zero. They completely shut down making criminal referrals and whichever administration you hate the most, you can hate because while most of this certainly occurred in the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration has obviously not changed it. Obviously did not see it as a priority to prosecute these elite criminals who caused this devastating injury."

[Gregory]

Paul, along with changing the subject (a fine thing to try to do, although you're just digging your hole deeper) what you have manufactured is a recipe for accusing anyone of a crime you think they could have the opportunity to have committed.

When the Koch subsidiary in Europe was selling equipment into Iran for use in a methanol plant, it was legal for subsidiaries of US companies to do so. When it stopped being legal, the sales stopped.

One disgruntled ex-employee of the subsidiary was quoted saying “Every single chance they had to do business with Iran, or anyone else, they did”. Sounds like most companies, and given that the Iran business was legal at the time, less than damning.

[Paul Emery]

Can you reconcile the fact that Koch themselves admitted wrongdoing and violations of the law.

“Those activities constitute violations of criminal law,” Koch Industries wrote in a Dec. 8, 2008, letter giving details of its findings. The letter was made public in a civil court ruling in France in September 2010; the document has never before been reported by the media."

[Gregory]

Paul, that had NOTHING to do with any real or imagined violation of the Iran trade sanctions. That was Koch Industries declaration to a French court regarding "improper payments authorized by the business director of the company’s Koch-Glitsch affiliate in France" that Koch Industries found by an internal investigation. An age old problem... how do you do business with 3rd world kleptocracies that expect money under the table? Lose the sale, or figure how to do what other countries' vendors are allowed to do to clinch a sale?

What you have figured out how to do, Paul, is conflate two different issues covered in one story. Criminal payoffs authorized by one named French executive to corrupt officials of their customers was one, intimations of possibly improper sales to Iraq was another.

Keep it straight. I know that's hard to do when you just *know* the Koch's are into all sorts of nefarious deeds, but I need more than wild accusations to take you seriously.

[Paul Emery]

Gregory
We do know the Koch boys knowingly circumvented the desire of this nation to impose a boycott of business with Iran by using loopholes to do their bidding. I grant that may not be technically illegal but in your opinion do you consider them to be "patriots" as Todd does? This was as late as 2007. Do you believe that they were in essence aiding the enemy legally or illegally? The result is the same.

[Gregory]

Golly, Paul, "technically legal" really IS the equivalent of legal. You are making progress. Weren't you capable of reading the article without having to have your nose rubbed into your misrepresentations?

I've known too many Iranians to think of them as "the enemy", and being a minor supplier for a methanol plant isn't the same as selling them guns and explosives. While trade embargoes have limited effectiveness (how's that working with Cuba? On their knees yet?) I've no particular problem with either the limited embargo before 2007 or the more complete one since.

[Paul Emery]

The hypocrisy from the right is startling in this matter.
Here is a good summary:

"Texas Gov. Rick Perry rails against Iran's "extremist, repressive ideology." He condemns any company who does business with "a terrorist state like Iran" for aiding a country that wants to kill American troops. And as governor he told his state's biggest investment funds to divest from all companies with Iran ties; continuing such investments, he explained, was "investing in terrorism."

But now Perry, a top contender for the GOP presidential nomination, has an Iran problem: One of his most high-profile donors, Koch Industries, for years did business with Iran, helping to grow the Iranian energy industry. Which means that at the same time he was slamming companies profiting off of business with Iran, Perry was pocketing campaign cash from a company doing just that."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/rick-perry-koch-iran

[Gregory]

You're just repeating yourself, Paul, since MJ is just doing about as bad a job of repeating the "Bloomberg Markets" hit piece that you did. No new reporting at all besides repeating some activists using the piece to bash Perry, as if one needs some trumped up dare to come up with something.

Mother Jones, now there's a paragon of journalistic integrity. I was a subscriber for years but they were just too wrong most of the time to keep sending them money. And in this case, they got it completely wrong, since "Koch Industries" didn't actually do any business with Iran.

[Paul Emery]

Of of course. It was just their wholly owned subsidiaries sending home the profits to the Brothers who distribute millions to Right Wing causes.

[Gregory]

It's one subsidiary, not the plural you're claiming, and just the one methanol project in Iran, which no one seems to be claiming was more than a few million dollars in sales, is not likely to have generated millions in profits personally returned to the Kochs.

You're the gang that can't shoot straight on this one, Paul. It kind of reminds me of my two separate sets of friends in high school... my musician friends were kind of stupid in an academic sense, with logic and musical ability being inversely correlated. Then there was the college prep set who were scrambling for good grades and their place in the academic pecking order. I suspect you'd have been one of my music friends ;)

[Douglas Keachie]

Just how well in the hypocrisy dept are Perry and Ron Paul doing in Texas on the "anti-socialism and railroads" front. You'd think the two of them would be up in arms and very vocal in opposition to this [roject, and certainly capable of getting enough swing to block the project. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/02/1012916/-Tea-party-Republicans-cheer-federal-investment-in-Texas-rail-project

[Paul Emery]

I see you are in full retreat from discussing core principals of integrity. My logic is clear on this one. Koch as sugar daddies to right wing causes get a pass from you on the ethics of their business practices as long as they pay up.

I am opposed to special interest bribery of all persuasions. You don't think for a minute the bucks would keep flowing if they didn't produce results. That brings up back to the question of the Keystone pipeline which Koch has a major financial interest in seeing constructed. No doubt the Dems are getting big bucks as well. That's why I call them Republicrats. Different arms of the same body.

[Gregory]

"I see you are in full retreat from discussing core principals of integrity."

I suspect the word you're searching for is "principles". Can't get through your misquoting and misrepresentations to get to the issues of principles, which you apparently (and mistakenly) think requires oilmen not to try to produce oil. We'd be up to our collective asses with fossil fuels at the moment were it not so fashionable to block production in North America.

You've misquoted and misinterpreted time after time, and always in the direction of demonizing the Kochs.

An interesting aside that was apparently hidden by the authors of the Bloomberg Markets piece... the disgruntled former employee that brought suit against the european subsidiary and generated all that good copy actually lost in court and had to pay the Koch subsidiary the cost of their legal defense. In short, they might not be as believable as the Paul Emerys of the world might want them to be.

[Paul Emery]

Yes, principles

What gives you the idea that I'm trying to prevent oilmen from producing oil? That came out of nowhere.

The Koch's were dealing directly with the Iranian government for their own profit at the same time the Iranians were producing bombs they exported to Iraq that were specifically designed to kill our troops. They then would kick back to conservative causes with not a word of concern from the Repubs in charge. The NPC was their client.

http://www.icis.com/Articles/2010/04/14/9350527/irans-npc-runs-zagros-methanol-plants-at-low-operating-rates.html

"The National Petrochemical Company (NPC) , a subsidiary to the Iranian Petroleum Ministry,is owned by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran . It is responsible for the development and operation of the country's petrochemical sector.Founded in 1964,NPC began its activities by operating a small fertilizer plant.Today,NPC is the second largest producer and exporter of petrochemicals in the Middle East .Over these years,it has not only expanded the range and volume of its products, but it has also taken steps in areas such as Research and Technology to achieve more self-sufficiency. Read more..."

This is documentation about the Iranian bombs

"A sophisticated type of roadside bomb that U.S. officials have linked to Iran has been used increasingly against U.S. troops in Iraq.

The device is called an explosively formed projectile (EFP). It is usually made from a pipe filled with explosives and capped by a copper disk. When the explosives detonate, they transform the disk into a molten jet of metal capable of penetrating armor. They perform in the same way that U.S. anti-tank missiles do."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-01-30-ied-iran_x.htm

[Gregory]

"Koch's were dealing directly with the Iranian government"

The Koch brothers were dealing directly with the Iranian government? Without any evidence I have to call Absolute Bullsh*t, and you know it. They had a european subsidiary that, by all accounts, kept the lawful arms length required by law and you knew that. And you're doing your best to conflate a methanol plant with explosives production.

Shame on you, Paul. The number one principle is don't make up stuff in order to defame others.

[Douglas Keachie]

Paul was very clearly making the case for the fact that Iran was killing USA troops in Iraq, and that helping them do ANYTHING, including making methanol for whatever purpose (explosives have long since passed on the Molotov cocktail) is still helping a known enemy of the USA, that does their best to help others kill American troops. How come the "Patriots" on this blog aren't all over Greg for this?

[Douglas Keachie]

Methanol messes with our cars' performances, hardly a chemical designed to transform a disk into a molten jet of metal capable of capable of penetrating armor, inside of a couple of microseconds. C4 or PETN would be my guess, but I'm no expert. Is there a chemist in the house?

[Paul Emery]

To me owning a subsidiary means they are representing the owner therefore yes the Koch's were directly dealing with the Iranian government through their business representatives.

[Paul Emery]

The client of the Koch brothers was the Iranian government which was known to be producing bombs to kill our troops. This was well known and publicized yet the Koch's continued to deal with them.

I never said Methanol was directly used in making bombs.

[Gregory]

"To me owning a subsidiary means they are representing the owner therefore yes the Koch's were directly dealing with the Iranian government through their business representatives."

Paul, you can't shred the dictionary at will like the Queen of Hearts, making words mean just what you want them to mean. If an intermediary is used, it is by definition "indirect". The antonym of direct.

Koch Industries has something like 70,000 employees; an action taken by any one of them is not a "direct" action by Charles or David Koch, and the only reason this is being done by the left is character assassination, to try to taint a major campaign donor or two.

[Paul Emery]

So in your opinion the owner of a business assumes no responsibility for the actions and decisions of his employees? This was a major controversial event worth millions of dollars and surely must have had the approval of the "higher ups"

[Gregory]

Paul, no need for hypotheticals; it was "legal". So far as we know, no law was broken. The Federal Government had not declared Iran so toxic so as to bar even non-military sales from US subsidiaries keeping US personnel at arms length (which would include top management). When it did, in 2007, from all accounts the Koch subsidiaries shut down sales to Iran.

There's no there there. Nothing to get all foamy at the mouth over. No crime. Not even any real evidence Iran prospered with the deal; from what I can tell that huge methanol plant is not operating at anything close to full capacity and so Iran may well have been losers in the end.

All we have is the left screaming and shouting at a non event. Legal sales of non military equipment by a subsidiary of a US parent corporation whose majority owners are hated by the left because they donate to politicians and non-profits that the left hates.

[George Rebane]

For consideration. Our dealings with Iran, especially as it involves sanctions, are very nuanced. Both Bush2 and Obama could have said at any time that no American company deals with any company owned by Iran or with any company that deals with Iran, and we could have essentially shut down their central bank by using the same strictures in the banking industry. The fact that we didn't and still don't means that it is the policy of the US to allow such trading with no prejudice.

Therefore, all discussions as to who is the bigger patriot are moot with regard to the official policy of the United States. Anyone who has a gripe with such policy should contact their members of Congress of their President.

[Paul Emery]

George

Quite frankly I'm surprised you're threshold of American patriotic behavior includes accepting money from individuals who profited by doing business with governments that were at the same time manufacturing and distributing bombs specifically designed to kill our boys in Iraq. This activity was specifically illegal for US companies at the time but the Koch's took advantage or loopholes that always seem to be available to those who have no scruples and are able to pay off the politicos appropriately.

[Todd Juvinall]

The reason many of us don't keep debating PaulE is right in te post above. After all the discussions PaulE writes as if no one has responded to his thesis. Blinders are really tight.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1259pm - By your logic, is it then time to start impeachment proceedings against President Obama and Eric Holder? And, perhaps, even criminal proceedings against Bush2 given appropriate statutes of limitation? I ask since both men were aware of the procedures and 'loopholes' they put in place and condoned. To this day there has been no congressional, let alone national outcry against such practices supported by both chief executives.

And as ToddJ has pointed out, you do sail right over his and Gregory's responses in (re)posing your charges.

[Gregory]

Perhaps Paul and Keach can point me to their writings prior to October that makes it clear how toxic Iran is to the US body politic.

[Paul Emery]

That's not the question. I've already conceded the matter appears to be legal. My interest was in the question of the patriotism of the Koch bros in this specific issue and how it applied to special interest investing in preferential governmental actions. I keep trying to get some kind of response based on moral turpitude with no interest from all of you about the question.

To make it simple I've included the defmation of Moral Turpiude

"conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals."[

[Gregory]

Can you point to some other example of moral turpitude that does not involve any violations of civil or criminal law?

Really, Paul, you're not getting anywhere. There's no smoke, no fire. Even now it appears, for example, that Boeing is allowed to sell parts to Iran needed for civilian aviation safety. Should that be stopped? Should anyone connected with Boeing be shunned?

[Todd Juvinall]

We are a nation of laws and if no law was broken then your point is not valid. Using your "moral turpitude" philosophy leads into a huge quagmire that liberals cannot win. They have sold our secrets to China for campaign cash yet that seems not to bother a liberal as long as it was a liberal practicing the "moral turpitude".

[George Rebane]

PaulE 205pm - to the extent you consider our Executive and Legislative branches to be patriotic and without moral turpitude, to that extent are also the Koch brothers and others who openly follow deliberately made laws. And to the same extent there is no differential 'moral turpitude' involved among these three categories of participants. It is hard to see how one group (Koch brothers) can be cherry picked while leaving the other two innocent of the same charges.

[We Can Work Together]

I would like to discuss the moral turpitude of sending AIM-9 Sidewinders (hello Contras!) and a lovely cake, delivered by one Oliver North, to the Iranians during a very different time and place.

Perhaps this is what's driving Paul's jihad against the Koch bros.

[Paul Emery]

Todd, Gregory

Actually moral turpitude has nothing to do with laws. Laws which uses government enforcement to insure behavior. It has to do with our codes of conduct that are generally accepted by the community as moral behavior. Certainly that includes hypocrisy which I contend is evident in this situation. It's not hard to find equivalent examples on both sides. Al Gores flying in private jets and living in 10,000 sg foot mansions while preaching against global warming is an example. George Bush lying about the true reasons for for the war in Iraq and Bill Clinton redefining what is sex are others. If you believe the actions of the Koch bros is acceptable behavior then that's your privilege. I will remind you of that threshold in later discussions for sure.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1228am - Excellent turn of argument, and one definitely worthy of an examination on its own merits. Moral behavior, as I have noted in these pages, is both a function of and an expression of a specific culture. In a multi-cultural society, morals in the public round must therefore give way to a universal set of laws enforced by the almighty state as the common template for its citizens.

For a review of the topic, I offer
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/10/the-morass-of-morals-and-morality.html

[Gregory]

Paul's evangelical fervor against any trade whatsoever with Iran seems to date not from their 'axis of evil' days but rather the very recent past when he discovered its use as a cudgel against all things Koch.

It was legal and stopped 4 years ago. The left only discovered their outrage a couple months ago.

[Todd Juvinall]

PaulE cherry picks with great aplomb. I you are no an outraged evangelical PaulE I ould expect a condemnation of liberals favorites like prostitution, drug use and abortion (against). Moral turpitude in my view is in the eye of the beholder and that is why we are not a country run by Mullahs. So, which is it, PaulE, are we a nation of laws or a nation governed by the "moral turpitude" of the temporary outraged?

[Paul Emery]

Gregory

The use of a loophole by the Kochs bros was only discovered and made public two months ago. Please advise me if you know otherwise.

Todd

If you were to poll Americans about whether it was OK to use loopholes to trade with a government that is manufacturing and providing bombs that were activity used against our soldiers in combat I'm sure they would overwhelmingly condemn such behavior.

\

[George Rebane]

China and Russia (nee USSR) have both supplied Iran with the electronics technology to allow it to make sophisticated radio controlled IED fuses (these screw into regular high explosive artillery shells in plentiful supply). We have been trading partners with both countries since their inception (sometimes going through obvious intermediaries like Taiwan and Hong Kong). During these times both China and the USSR always supplied weapons used against American GIs - most notably in Korea and Vietnam - during which we traded copious amounts of 'non-military' goods with both.

Such legal trading with Iran is now characterized by the Left as being done through unpatriotic loopholes even though it is/was carried out with full government knowledge. No criminality was involved, and only some sensitivities about violating universal morality have been bruised.

Difficult as it is to pursue such an illogical debate, it is apparently easier to change the subject (PaulE 926am) to one of public opinion about this matter. And what would be the public's opinion about such an issue? Well, it all depends on who informs them of what in the historical context of such commercial transactions, i.e. how you spin the subject.

This comment thread has borne some most peculiar fruit.

[Gregory]

Paul, it was only recently discovered by the Kochophobes thanks to a failed lawsuit by a disgruntled employee or two (they had to pay the company's legal bill) and its delayed sensational reporting, but the "loophole" was a feature of the legislation, not an oversight.

There's no there there. A non issue.

Compare the orders of magnitude of this *legal* and *open* methanol plant involvement with the billion$ of busine$$ over the years with the Soviet Union arranged by Armand Hammer, which continue even while there was a hot war with their largest client state in Southeast Asia with thousands of American lives lost.

[Gregory]

Here's a blog with a fairly interesting take on the Iran issue:
"[T]he list of American companies whose foreign subsidiaries have sold products or provided services in Iran is an impressive one. It includes Alcatel-Lucent, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Dresser-Rand, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Halliburton, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, Ingersoll Rand, KPMG and Tyson Foods, to name just a few. These companies aren’t “flouting the law” any more than Koch Industries is; they are following it. But one wonders; why, exactly, did Bloomberg choose to single out Koch? Has it done a similar “expose” on any of the other companies, numbering in the hundreds, that have legally done business in Iran?"

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/bloomberg-whiffs-part-1.php

[Paul Emery]

George

The way I worded the question is 100% accurate. They used carefully crafted loopholes for their own profit.

The question of public opinion on the matter was raised when I raised the question of moral "moral turpitude" on the matter.

"conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals."

The same question can be raised about those who knowingly gamed the mortgage crisis by making loans that they knew would fail. Illegal? Who cares. They got away with it.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 753pm - Your "crafting" the questions here has never been the issue. Since you have neither answered any of the points raised by GregG (legality, common practice, and singling out of Koch) and me (historical pactice, baseless morality), it is curious as to what is really the nature of your allegations beyond your personal grievance against the Koch brothers.

[Gregory]

George, I think Paul just doesn't want to admit he's been played for a fool by the folks wanting to drum up some faux outrage against the Kochs.

The very silly part of that was that the initial target, that horrible Perry who actually got some indirect Koch money (28 December 2011 at 04:14 PM), is going nowhere in the polls after a brief flash.

[Paul Emery]

Yes, the Koch bros have been singled out as an example of hypocrisy. Are there other examples? Sure. My interest in this conversation began with the influence of big money on national policy particularly on the Keystone project.

I conceded the legality of their actions so that question has been resolved.

Common practice? Sure. Look at Haliberton for example. They're making money on both sides of the battle lines. Baseless morality? No I stand by the questions I raise. I have the right to determine what that is as do you to disagree. Historical practice? Sure. It's well known that papa Koch built refineries for the USSR in the late 20's and early 30's.

More to follow.

[Todd Juvinall]

If a company does business utilizing a loophole is that a legal issue? Since America is a land of laws not men I would like PaulE to tell us what a loophole is. I guess I am confused. Did GE use PaulE's so called loopholes to pay no fed tax or did they use the laws to determine they did not have to pay a tax. PaulE, is that a moral or legal issue that GE paid no taxes? I believe the Kochs paid a gazllion bucks in taxes, so what is the real issue here PaulE. The Kochs support conservatives and the GE/Immenlt's support the Obamas?

[Gregory]

GE is one of Obama's favored companies. Their motives are obviously pure despite their involvement in Iran and not worthy of Paul's ire.

[Gregory]

Paul doesn't even know if either Brothers Koch even knew about the Iran deals; given the size of the Iraq methanol job compared to the entire Koch Industries deal, and the arms-length separation between the parent and the subsiiary the company legal department had for any Iraq issue, it is quite possible no one outside of France and Germany knew the details.

This is witch hunting, pure and simple.

[Gregory]

"More to follow."

Like maybe telling us why Alcatel-Lucent, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Dresser-Rand, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Halliburton, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, Ingersoll Rand, KPMG and Tyson Foods get a pass?

Tyson Foods, ringing a bell, was at one time the biggest polluter in Arkansas; might still be. Tyson, you might remember, was associated with the same trader, "Red" Bone, as Hillary Clinton used during her one year where she showed some remarkable beginners luck in cattle futures trading, using all those articles in the Wall Street Journal as a guide despite the WSJ claiming there were no articles on cattle futures. A beautiful job laundering a $100K Welcome to Arkansas gift/bribe from Tyson to the Clintons through a shady securities broker.