22 September 2012

Add City of New Britain To McMahon's Bad Debts


It's not  the tax windfall that municipal government is looking for these days,  but last week's uncovering of Vince and Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon's bankruptcy records by the Day of New London shows the City of New Britain was one of the creditors.
Included on a list of debts to banks, stores, the phone company, unions, individuals and the IRS is an item from April 30, 1976 showing the McMahons stiffed the city where they once lived $988.22.  The debt to the Town of West Hartford was considerably higher at $9,729.96. These are paltry sums compared to hundreds of thousands owed the IRS and banks,  but are part of the record of a rags-to-riches narrative -- riches made possible by taking over a family wrestling enterprise and using sleaze to make a fortune.


The press revelations led Mrs. McMahon's campaign to announce that she and her wrestling mogul husband will now repay some of the  debts with interest to individuals if they can find them. Under bankruptcy laws, however,  debtors may often "discharge" government taxes owed under statutes of limitations and the timing of court actions. Debtors like the McMahons are often  given a pass on tax debts to reorganize and start anew without the liability. The McMahons maintain that they paid back taxes and nearly half of the money owed but have not produced any documents to show when debts were paid prior to the revelations reported in recent days.

The Day, whose reporter J.C. Reindl uncovered the debt list in IRS archives, editorialized on September 21st that McMahon's move to finally pay creditors is the "most insincere"  stunt of the 2012 campaign. It went on to lambaste McMahon for her hypocrisy:
The old adage about not tossing stones from a glass house seems to apply. The McMahon campaign has had great fun poking Mr. Murphy about news reports of his fiscal missteps over the past 10 years - being late on mortgage, rent and car tax payments. But he did pay, and his debts were paltry compared to the McMahons' 1976 meltdown. Then came word Friday the McMahons were late on paying taxes on their Stamford penthouse. Oops!
On the heels of the McMahons' mea culpa to creditors they had long ago stiffed and forgotten, Linda and Vince (as noted in the Day editorial) were  hit with a new tax delinquency this month on their "penthouse" in Stamford, according to a story in the Hartford Courant.

Meanwhile, the McMahon campaign, on a track to spend $100 million over two campaigns to buy a U.S. Senate seat, continues its saturation ad campaign on the housing debts of Cong. Chris Murphy -- all of which were reconciled and  paid in full. 

She refuses to meet with journalists and editorial boards and has limited her exposure in debates with Murphy, avoiding exchanges on issues that should be front and center in this senate race.
McMahon, who hides her Republican affiliation in paid advertising, is also running as fast and far away from the Republican-Romney-Ryan agenda that she would most certainly support in the Senate to protect her wealth and keep her taxes low -- WHEN SHE PAYS THEM.

Debunking Romney's 47% Assertion


Myth Four: It's poor people who are the biggest freeloaders. What's especially galling about conservative attacks on "takers" is that they focus exclusively on lower income groups and leave out all the subsidies to middle and upper income households. Yes, tax breaks for the working poor -- like the EITC -- have been expanded, but they still pale in comparison to the giveaways to better off groups. The three biggest tax breaks in FY 2014, according to Congressional Research Service, will be as follows: $164 billion for employer-provided health insurance, $162 billion for retirement savings (mainly 401ks), and $99.8 billion for the home mortgage interest deduction. Needless to say, most poor people don't benefit from these giant breaks because they don't have employer-provided health insurance, 401ks, or own homes. Meanwhile, the EITC will cost $58 billion in FY 2014.
Beating up on the economic losers is not new in America. It was popular in the late 19th century, when Social Darwinism was in vogue. But today such attacks have moved to the very heart of the conservative project. 

Excerpted from DEMOS - The Policy Weblog at  Freeloader Fabrications