WASHINGTON – At least 13 firms receiving billions of dollars in bailout money owe a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes, a key lawmaker said Thursday.
Rep. John Lewis, chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the federal bailout, said two firms owe more than $100 million apiece.
"This is shameful. It is a disgrace," said Lewis, D-Ga. "We are going to get to the bottom of what is going on here."
The House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight discovered the unpaid taxes in a review of tax records from 23 of the firms receiving the most money, Lewis said as he opened a hearing on the issue.
"If we looked at all 470 recipients, how much would they owe?" Lewis asked.
He did not name the firms owing back taxes. To date, the Troubled Asset Relief Program has paid out more than $300 billion to private companies, with billions more on the way.
Full Article
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
27 comments:
The head of these companies will now be put into Obama's cabinet.
"This is the fault of Bush. Obama knew nothing."
Obama's teleprompter
Sounds like it was easier to get federal bailout money that it is to get $23.80 for a new timing belt. ROTFLMAO
The President and all his peeps, ain't going to the bottom of nothing, they are already at the bottom.
With the exception of a very few, voiceless, Congress persons and Senators as well as the President and his Cabinet there is no honor or integrity among them.
They believe they have successfully scammed the tax payer and we all believe what they are doing is the "right thing."
The Obama faithfuls will awaken, well after it is too late to stop this Nations descent into Socialism.
Well, let's have a look at the full 470 and see what they owe.
Joe:
The Bailout application was only two pages and did not ask anything about back taxes or even if the business was in "Good Standing" with the State.
A couple weeks ago you did a story about a small developer who was denied a permit because they had not filed their personal property taxes and were not in "good standing" with the State of Maryland.
They may owe back taxes, but payment of taxes or compliance with any rules was and still is not a part of the bailout money.
All the bank needs to do is complete a simple two page application.
Go figure
Is it still a fact that IRS agents are exempt from audit?
I bet if I post a story about oh, I dont know, ANYTHING, you crazy nuts out there would find some way to drag Obama into it.
Yea, Obama is not at fault for ANYTHING. It is not like he is the President of the country or anything. it is like he signed these bills and plans into law.
if everything was the fault of Bush, how come nothing is the fault of Obama? have to love liberals, they call everyone else nuts while they mess up everything and STILL blame others.
Thank you 1:44 and 1:47 for proving my point.
It was the companies' fault that they choose not to pay their taxes. Not Bush's or Obama's.
Or do we not care anymore about what is happening as long as Obama fails?
BTW, Idiot 1:44, Bush signed TARP into law, not that I blame him or anything. But I do seem to recall most people (taxpayers rep and dem, not politicians) being against the bailout. So tell us all why it's suddenly Obama's fault that he has to deal with this mess.
Careful what you wish for, you might get it. Their all a bunch of idiots. I am seriously considering just going back into my shell. All this stuff is starting to just give me a damn head-ache.
No 2 cents, the irony is that you can't get a permit (that you have to pay for yourself) without background checks, etc. but Billions in bailout money is being given on a two page, what's your favorite hobby, astrological sign, or color, application. I'm not the one blaming Bush or Obama and it's hard to tell if it's the same person or different people pushing your buttons, but just look at the irony and forget the partisanship.-ANYmouse
"No 2 cents, the irony is that you can't get a permit (that you have to pay for yourself) without background checks, etc. but Billions in bailout money is being given on a two page, what's your favorite hobby, astrological sign, or color, application."
That is clearly an irony. I was more shocked by the fact that these companies are not paying taxes, not that they got bailout money. But that too is also schocking.
1:44,
I meant that as sarcasm. Dodd knew what was in the bill, he wa told to put it there. This anger from the admin is trumped up and means nothing, except now they are creating a bill to go after money people earn under contract, just because politicians want to. This is about power and control, not economics. Why is there no outrage at fannie execs, no mention of anything about Holder sying gittmo detainees are going to be let go into America, esp. after Frank wants the names of the AIG people to become publicv even after receiving death threats!!
3:11,
You think the contracts should be honored? Did you feel the same way about the UAW contracts when they were debating the auto bailout in December?
The UAW contracts were not voided!
Congress pushed for these contracts to be homored, not they fake outrage to get power. bettr not be too happy, your money may be next. And how does the government taking private individuals income by 90 percent help anyone? All it does is hurt those families!
I need $23.80 that I'm short on paying my taxes... I mean $238,000.00. Please?
I think all governemtn officals should be handed a pink slip and be made to pay back all their salaries to the people!
I didn't say they were voided. I asked if you thought they should have been voided or not.
Well?
NO private contract should be voided or changes by the government, none!
If the government owns 80% of a company, does that still make the contract private?
Chuck and T/S,
You bring up a couple of things worthy of comment. I'm the same guy who comments on your site you thought was a troll at first until you learned it was just healthy debate I was after.
First you say that people will try to drag Obama into anything. Well.....he brought himself into this one. He did state that he would do what he could to get those bonuses back. My response to that is: He is not Jesus Christ. He cannot just void a contract because he thinks they're not fair or appropriate. Contracts must be honored or they must be decided upon by a court if someone with standing in the situation has heartburn about it. Obama has no standing in a case in which a contract regarding bonuses between two other parties exists. The bailout money had no stipulations regarding bonuses contracted prior to the bailout.
Second, to pass legislation to TAX these bonuses by 90% is a knee jerk reaction by a Congress who can't live with the legislation created after they failed to do their homework. I believe it's post facto legislation and I believe it's illegal. The appropriate time to address the bonus issue would have been during negotiations PRIOR to any bailout money being dispersed. In the business world, if I fail to include or exclude something in a contract I live with the results, good or bad.
There is a reasonable way to deal with this situation in it's entirety. Let failing businesses fail. We cannot let the government get into the business of picking and choosing what businesses make it and which ones do not. if nothing else it creates an environment ripe for kick backs and corruption. Letting business with bad business practices fail tends to eliminate bad business.
New businesses will crop up and pick up the slack. Our economy is resilient and can recover if the government stays out of business to the extent possible. We are in this position because of government intervention. What now they're gonna fix what they broke? Everything they touch, regardless of the party affiliation, they break. And we want them to set up socialized medicine?
6:50,
It's good to talk to you, again. I agree that voiding the contracts or setting a 90% tax rate on those bonuses would be incorrect to do. And I also think the 90% rate would be, in effect, an ex post facto law. If I had my druthers, we'd go back in time, and deny the TARP funds in the first place (as well as the Lehman and AIG bailouts).
I hate bailouts. I think they're counterproductive to actually fixing the system. I was extremely unhappy when BOTH Presidential candidates voted for it, and I'm still unhappy that the only 'solution' the government is talking about is sinking money into the financial hole.
I disagree with you on letting business fail, with no caveats. While I agree that allowing some businesses to fail is good for competition, and part of the free market system, some businesses have been allowed to become so big, that they will take down the entire system if they fail... and create record unemployment. Our financial system has been allowed to get that big. So big that small businesses, completely unrelated to the industry, will not be able to get credit and operate, thus closing their doors and firing their workers. The collapse of the financial sector would spell doom for nearly ALL business in this country.
I also disagree that government intervention is the cause of this problem. It's been since 1999 that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed, deregulating the financial sector. Plus, we've had an SEC Chair (Cox) who put a near moratorium on oversight in the industry. These are direct acts of government NON-Involvement. Without proper oversight and regulation, these financial giants are allowed to act with impunity, and that's why we are in the mess we're in today.
My solution: Nationalize the banks, fire the executives, clean up the toxic assets, break them up into smaller subsidiaries, and sell them off on the open market. Then, you add regulation that limits the total % of the sector that any one bank can control, AND you give the SEC some real teeth on oversight, again. Limit their size, and then you won't have to deal with the term 'too big to fail' ever again... THEN your idea of letting the least competitive go under, properly, won't start a cascade of unemployment. At that point, the market can correct itself.
But, you're absolutely right: Sinking money into these institutions is like the young Dutch kid who puts his finger in the dike. It's madness, and it only benefits the bankers.
Chuck,
I spent the last half hour putting together a fantastic rebuttle (some of it not as much a rebuttle as an agreement for different reasons)It was a friggin' masterpiece. I may have even gotten a Nobel (OK - maybe not). Anyway, I went to stretch my hands and rest them along side the keyboard and I hit the escape button. It was gone in an instant. That really sicks for me because I just don't have the energy to try to do it again right now. But, as always I've enjoyed our debate. Thanks. We'll do it again soon.
6:14,
I feel your pain and can't tell you how many times I've done that on twosentz. Sorry for your loss :) I'll see you on the next go around.
Post a Comment