Tag Archives: Tim Kaine

About those tax returns, Mr. Trump

tax-return-form

Let’s revisit an issue that seems to have re-entered the debate over Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy.

Tax returns.

The Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee, Tim Kaine, brought the issue up again Wednesday night while accepting his party’s nomination. He asked out loud and in front of the nation why the GOP nominee won’t follow custom and release his tax returns.

He wondered — again out loud — whether Trump is hiding anything from the public whose votes he is seeking.

There’s no law requiring presidential and vice-presidential nominees to reveal their tax returns to the public. It has become a custom since the 1976 election between President Ford and former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter.

For four decades, candidates have released this information for public review.

Kaine and others have wondered many things about Trump’s personal financial information.

* Is he as rich as he says he is? I mean, he boasts constantly about his vast wealth.

* Is he giving sufficient amounts of his income to charity?

* Is he — as Sen. Kaine wondered — paying his “fair share of taxes”?

* Are there some foreign investments that need careful scrutiny? Hasn’t the candidate vowed to “put America first”?

* Does the real estate mogul have some connection with Russia, which has become a serious discussion point in recent days?

Trump has said he can’t release his returns because of an on-going audit. Internal Revenue Service officials say an audit does not preclude someone from releasing his or her returns.

Who’s lying here? I tend to believe the IRS version of what’s allowed and what is not.

Trump’s campaign is based in large part on his business acumen. He says he wants to do for the country what he’s done in private business. If that’s his major selling point, well, it seems to me that the public has a right to examine precisely what he has done in his business life.

The public also has the right to determine whether the income he has earned and the taxes he has paid match up the way they should — and must — for all the rest of us.

The nominee has said he’s “on your side.” Let’s see for ourselves.

Democrats do their job … on both fronts

BBuYGTG

Presidential nominating conventions historically aim to do two things.

They seek to paint their nominee as more qualified than the other party’s nominee and they seek to illustrate why the other guy is the wrong choice for the country.

It must be said: The Democratic National Convention — to my ears — as accomplished its mission.

The Democrats brought out the all-stars Wednesday night to do their job.

Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, is unfit for the job he seeks. You heard it time and time and time again from the big hitters in the heart of the Democrats’ lineup.

Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta said Trump has no plan to make us safe; Vice President Joe Biden reminded listeners that Trump has always put himself first; vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine wondered out loud whether Trump is hiding anything by refusing to release his tax returns.

Perhaps the big surprise was that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a self-described independent and billionaire businessman, told us how Trump parlayed his inheritance into a business that has resulted in repeated failure.

Then came the cleanup hitter, President Barack Obama, who well might have given the speech of his political career as he tore into Trump, reminding voters that Americans comprise a nation of people who don’t want to be “ruled.” The country is a family of achievers, believers and optimists, he said. The darkness and dystopia painted by Trump and the Republicans have no basis in reality.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/winners-and-losers-from-the-third-night-of-the-democratic-convention/ar-BBuYgTk?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Oh, and then the big hitters turned their love toward Hillary Clinton.

And it was Obama who told the cheering crowd that no candidate ever has been more qualified to serve as president than the party’s newest presidential nominee. Her husband, the 42nd president, cheered right along with the rest of them.

Political conventions often in recent times have turned in snooze fests. Not this year. Both of them generated their share of excitement, unpredictability and tension.

Trump got a decent bounce out of his GOP convention. It’s Clinton’s turn now to wait to see how the public responds to her event.

Her task tonight, though, is h-u-u-u-g-e.

She’s got to follow the president of the United States.

Tim Kaine: serious about the oath he takes

24KAINE1-master768

Tim Kaine’s selection as Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential running mate is bringing forth the expected public vetting of the U.S. senator’s public policy record.

One item that’s been drawing some attention has involved capital punishment.

A New York Times story Sunday notes that although Kaine is vehemently opposed to executing people for capital crimes he was able to carry out executions while serving as governor of Virginia.

My reaction: Well, duuuhhh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/us/politics/tim-kaine-death-penalty.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Felection-2016&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=14&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Kaine has moved on to the Senate, where he gets to vote on laws that affect all Americans. But while serving as governor, he took a solemn oath to do one thing essentially: to follow the law as prescribed and written by the legislative assembly of his state.

Governors really have little leeway as it regards capital punishment. Sure, they can commute sentences, which Kaine did while serving as Virginia governor, and which he was empowered to do under the state constitution.

However, if the state executed someone who had been sentenced to death by a jury, then it follows that the governor — barring some extraordinary circumstance — is obligated to do what the law tells him to do.

Virginia is No.2 in the nation in executing capital criminals. No. 1? Oh, yeah … that would be Texas!

The two hats Kaine wears — as one who opposes certain public policy but who must adhere to the law –aren’t the least bit confusing, to me at least.

He struggles as well with abortion. Kaine is a devoted Catholic who believes in the doctrine of his church, which opposes abortion for any reason. However, abortion is legal in this country and, therefore, Kaine must follow the law.

Indeed, he also remains pro-choice on that issue, regardless of his personal opposition to the practice based on his own moral compass and the teachings of his church — believing, apparently, that the government should allow women to make that gut-wrenching decision for themselves.

Sen. Kaine is a serious man who now has been given a serious task, which is to run alongside the Democrats’ presidential candidate. His executive government experience owing to his days as a governor demonstrates he also is a serious public servant.

 

VP picks really do matter

Garner

John Nance Garner once famously described the vice presidency of the United States using language that has become legendary.

He said — and I’ll use his actual verbiage here — that the vice presidency “isn’t worth a bucket of warm piss.”

The prickly Texan wasn’t called “Cactus Jack” for nothing.

Well, the office has become something a bit more significant since the time Cactus Jack served with  Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Which brings us to the present day.

Republican nominee Donald J. Trump picked Indiana Gov. Mike Pence to run with him this fall. Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton selected Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia to run with her.

Both men are good picks, given the constituencies to which they appeal. My hope, though, is that the office they seek becomes worth the effort they both plan to expend to attain it.

I guess the modern vice presidency can be defined by the role that Walter Mondale assumed when he became VP during the Carter administration. It’s become an office of actual substance. Mondale showed that a vice president can serve as a key adviser to the president who selects him.

George H.W. Bush’s relationship with Ronald Reagan wasn’t particularly close. Dan Quayle brought youthful enthusiasm to the administration led by Bush. Al Gore and Bill Clinton worked closely together for eight years. Dick Cheney and George W. Bush had an extraordinarily close relationship. And Joe Biden and Barack Obama’s tenure has produced a close personal and professional relationship.

Has the office become worth more than a certain bodily fluid?

Absolutely!

Does it matter, though, in the selection of the next president? More than likely … no.

But anyone who’s “a heartbeat away from the presidency” needs to be taken seriously.

Only now, Kaine opposes TPP

clinton-appears-alongside-safe-vp-pick-sen-tim-kaine-at-virginia-campaign-stop_1

This is an element of this vice-presidential selection process I find distasteful.

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia has been a strong supporter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal favored by President Obama and others within the Democratic Party.

Now, though, Kaine is about to perform a 180-degree switcheroo and will oppose the TPP as a sop to Democratic Party progressives who might be unhappy with Hillary Clinton’s selection of Kaine as her running mate.

So, which is it, Sen. Kaine? Are you for the deal or against it … on principle?

What changed in the TPP treaty that caused him to turn himself inside out?

Oh, nothing! Politics got in the way.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288971-kaine-will-come-out-against-tpp-report

Politicians do this kind of so-called “pivot” all the time. My favorite example has been George H.W. Bush flipping from pro-choice on abortion to pro-life the instant he agreed to run in 1980 with Ronald Reagan.

Kaine is about to become another politician who seems willing to demonstrate that principle — on many issues — matters less than political expediency.

Welcome to the circus, Sen. Kaine

547384532-democratic-presidential-candidate-hillary-clinton-and.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2

Hillary Rodham Clinton laid down an important marker just before announcing her vice-presidential pick.

The Democratic presidential candidate said the person she would select first and foremost needed to be able to step into the presidency immediately if something would prevent her from continuing in the office.

Fine. Fair enough, Mme. Secretary.

Then she selected U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

Did politics have anything at all to do with the selection?

Let’s see. Clinton had several other names on her short list. They included Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Sherrod Brown of Ohio. All of them would fit that qualification. Oh, except for this: They all come from states governed by Republicans, which means that the GOP governor would fill their Senate seats with Republicans, thus putting in jeopardy the Democrats’ hopes of reclaiming the Senate majority.

Virginia’s governor is a Democrat, good Clinton friend Terry McAuliffe. He poses no such dilemma for the Democrats if they win the election this fall.

There were others as well: Labor Secretary Tom Perez, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, retired Admiral James Stavridis.

Indeed, Republican nominee Donald J. Trump surely needed someone to run with him who is capable of becoming president. He turned to Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate. Pence clearly fills the presidential qualification need for the GOP, given his executive and legislative government experience.

Clinton and Kaine are going to make their first joint appearance today in Miami. Kaine, incidentally, is fluent in Spanish; gosh, do you think he’ll get to say a few words — in Spanish — to his south Florida audience that might include something like, “We won’t build a wall to keep others out!”?

So, the tickets are set. Democrats are getting ready to convene their four-day event in Philadelphia.

Compared to what transpired at the GOP convention in Cleveland, the nominating event coming up is going to look utterly boring.

But in this case — if you’re a dedicated Democrat — boring will be a good thing.

Democrats wrong to boycott Bibi's speech

It’s probably too late to change anyone’s mind, but it’s never too late to drive home a point that needs to be made.

Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu’s audience as he speaks to a joint session of Congress this week will be missing about 30 congressional Democrats, who’ve decided to boycott the speech for a couple of reasons.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/bibis-boycotters-115612.html?hp=r3_3

One is that House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation of Netanyahu was done without consulting the White House. What’s more, Boehner wants the United States to impose sanctions on Iran, which is negotiating with other nations on a possible deal to end its nuclear development; Netanyahu is expected to make that case during his speech to Congress — which the White House doesn’t want to happen.

The other is that the invitation injects the United States into Israeli politics, given that Netanyahu’s governing coalition is facing an election shortly. President Obama has said it’s inappropriate to invite a foreign head of government to make such a speech so close to an election in his or her country.

Democrats shouldn’t boycott the speech. They should sit there, applaud politely, listen to Netanyahu and then decide whether they agree with whatever he says.

U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said, “I will not dignify it by being here. It is an unfortunate incursion into Israeli politics.”

“As a long-time supporter of the U.S-Israel relationship, I believe the timing of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress — just days before Israeli elections — is highly inappropriate,” U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement. “I am disappointed that, as of now, the speech has not been postponed. For this reason, I will not attend the speech.”

I don’t think Boehner’s invitation was appropriate, either. I also disagree with the idea of imposing sanctions at the very time we’re seeking a negotiated settlement on whether Iran should pursue its nuclear program. Let the negotiations run their course; if they fail, then drop the sanctions hammer.

But the Israeli prime minister is a key U.S. ally — the current spat notwithstanding. His standing among world leaders compels his foes to sit and listen to his message.

Having said all that, it’s good to know that the absent lawmakers will have access to TV, radio and the Internet to hear the prime minister’s remarks.

Be sure to listen.

 

Ready, set, bombs away!

Back and forth we go.

Congressional Republicans are so angry at President Obama that they want to sue him for taking on too much executive authority to get things done. Now comes a report that the White House is considering air strikes against targets in Syria.

The response from Congress, from Democrats and Republicans? Ask us for authorization, Mr. President, before you unleash our air power.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215962-corker-congress-must-authorize-airstrikes-in-syria

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., says the president should seek congressional approval. So has Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. Others on both sides of the aisle say the same thing.

They’re likely correct to request congressional approval. Recall that Obama earlier decided to seek congressional authorization after he threatened to hit the Syrian government over its use of chemical weapons on its people. Then the Russians intervened and brokered a deal to get the Syrians to surrender the WMD; they did and the weapons have been destroyed.

Congressional approval is likely the prudent course, given that the president has so few allies on Capitol Hill upon whom he can depend.

It’s fair to ask, though, whether senators like Corker and Kaine are going to stand with the commander in chief when the vote comes. If they’re going to demand congressional approval, then I hope they don’t double-cross Barack Obama with a “no” vote.

Obama reportedly wants to hit ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. He’s already authorized the use of surveillance aircraft to look for targets. I continue to hold out concern about where all this might lead.

I’ll say this next part slowly: I do not want my country to go to war … again. I’ve had enough. I do not want ground troops sent back to Iraq, where we’ve bled too heavily already.

But if we can lend our considerable and deadly air power to the struggle to rid the world of ISIS, then let’s get the job done.