Rangel just keeps rooooooooooling along!
(Emphasis TH's)

December 11, 2008

Editorial

Mr. Rangel’s Problems Roll On

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is heading into the new Congress without the quick resolution she dearly hoped for on Representative Charles Rangel’s mushrooming and deeply embarrassing ethics problems.

The normally mute and far-too-passive House ethics committee has done the right thing in announcing that it is broadening its inquiry to look into the recent report that Mr. Rangel — chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — helped preserve a lucrative off-shore tax loophole for an oil drilling executive.

While Mr. Rangel and the executive deny any link, the businessman conveniently pledged $1 million for a planned Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. (Now that’s what we call service from the public.)

“Bar nothing,” demanded Mr. Rangel, the powerful New York Democrat, calling on the ethics panel to look into various questionable dealings. He insists the charges are either false or honest mistakes.

Beyond suspicions about the offshore tax loophole worth tens of millions, the panel must look into Mr. Rangel’s use of congressional letterhead to solicit support for his eponymous center. Then there’s his use of rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem at cut rates and his failure to pay taxes and disclose $75,000 in income from a Dominican villa on which he enjoyed an interest-free mortgage.

The ethics panel must muster the courage to actually vet one of the House lions (especially with voter cynicism again rising with fresh headlines about the Illinois Statehouse scandal). Ms. Pelosi must muster the courage to urge — or demand — that Mr. Rangel give up his chairmanship while the investigation proceeds. If he won’t, she should strip him of his gavel.

There can be no clean start here until the ethics panel answers all of the questions about Mr. Rangel, his center, his apartments, his villa and that loophole. With huge fiscal and tax issues looming for the next Congress, there can be no doubts about the leadership’s priorities.

Original Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/opinion/11thu3.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=rangel&st=cse

TH
Watching Out For The Village!

The Charles Rangel Saga Continues

The saga continues. Read the article below.

The community may want Charlie gone, but who is there to replace him?

Again, the community needs to begin to have earnest and productive discussions about who it feels should replace this albatross around the Harlem's neck.

The discussions do not need to focus on just one person, having several choices would lead to competitive and revealing political campaigns among "the best" in the Village.

Let us hope this drama does not continue to go on endlessly and that Harlem will have some good candidates for the position.

December 10, 2008
House Ethics Panel Expands Rangel Inquiry
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI

The House ethics committee voted on Tuesday to expand its investigation into Representative Charles B. Rangel to examine his role in preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company whose chief executive pledged $1 million to a City College of New York project that will bear the congressman’s name.

Mr. Rangel, whose personal finances and fund-raising have been the subject of an inquiry for several months, came under renewed scrutiny last month, when The New York Times reported that he was a pivotal figure in stymieing efforts to close a tax shelter for Nabors Industries and three other companies during the same month that the chief executive of Nabors made a $100,000 donation to C.C.N.Y.’s Rangel Center of Public Service.

The chief executive, Eugene M. Isenberg, had acknowledged that he and a company lobbyist met with Mr. Rangel at the Carlyle Hotel in New York on Feb. 12, 2007, the same day that the Ways and Means Committee, of which Mr. Rangel is chairman, was considering a bill that left the loophole intact, but said they did not discuss his pledge to donate $1 million to the school.

Mr. Rangel, a Democrat from Harlem, has strenuously denied any wrongdoing and this week asked that the ethics panel examine his relationship with Nabors.

The ethics committee statement did not set a timetable for the inquiry, but lawyers and congressional aides said that the expansion of the investigation means it is unlikely that the panel will complete its case by Jan. 3, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested last month.

Republicans have called for Mr. Rangel to step down as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which shapes tax policy and will be instrumental in crafting President-elect Barack Obama’s proposed fiscal stimulus program to jump-start the flagging economy.

Original Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/nyregion/10rangel.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=rangel&st=cse

TH
Watching Out For The Village!

More Shenanigans from Chanles Rangel.

Charlie is now involving more of his family in his shenanigans. At one time he tried to blame his wife, that is, tried to say his wife was the responsible one for managing the finances associated with the unreported rental income from a luxury villa in the Dominican Republic. Now, apparently, he has been overpaying his son for web site work.

Read the articles below from the Wall Street Journal and Politico.com!

Tick, tick, tick .....

DECEMBER 6, 2008, 11:37 A.M. ET
Rangel Paid Son $57,500 for Web Work


By CHRISTOPHER COOPER and JOHN R. WILKE

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel paid $57,500 from a campaign account to a Web-design company owned by his son over two years, paying more for Internet services than any other House member during the same period, according to federal records.

Using campaign funds to pay relatives is legal, as long as the products or services are priced at fair market value.

Associated Press

House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel is currently facing four investigations by the House ethics panel for possible misuse of his office.

House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel is currently facing four investigations by the House ethics panel for possible misuse of his office.

Federal records show Rep. Rangel paid Edisonian Innovative Works LLC, which Steven Charles Rangel ran from his Maryland home. Rep. Rangel, 78 years old, a New York Democrat, also lives there when the House is in session, according to his autobiography.

The amount of money paid to Edisonian exceeds what fellow House members paid for similar services during a two-year period beginning in 2005, according to the analysis of federal records by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.

The average House member buying Internet services spent $4,541 on campaign Web sites during that period. Mr. Rangel paid his 40-year-old son $57,500, the analysis shows. The second-highest spender was Rep. Ralph Regula, an Ohio Republican, who paid $44,000 during that period. Seven other congressmen report spending more than $20,000 on their Web sites.

In total, Rep. Rangel's campaign account paid his son's company $79,000 over 30 months, from 2004 to 2007, records show.

A spokesman for the lawmaker, Emile Milne, said Steven Rangel earned less than a Web firm the congressman used in 2004 to perform essentially the same work. During that year, a Brooklyn company called Networked Politics received $41,000 from Rep. Rangel's political action committee and campaign committee, while the junior Rangel received $19,560 for about a half-year of work, Mr. Milne said.

Rep. Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is currently facing several separate House ethics committee investigations for possible misuse of his office reported by the New York Post and New York Times in recent months.

Among the allegations under review by the committee are that he improperly used a rent-subsidized New York apartment as his office; and that he failed to disclose rental income from a luxury villa in the Dominican Republic purchased in part with loans from a lobbyist.

Rep. Rangel denied wrongdoing in the ethics complaints, though he has said that he will restate his financial disclosures, which are required annually from all lawmakers.

Earlier, Rep. Rangel helped his son get a job with the Federal Communications Commission in 2000. The younger Rangel worked on various projects at the FCC in 2000 and 2001, including ensuring telecommunications access on tribal lands, according to commission records. Mr. Rangel through Mr. Milne, the spokesman, acknowledged that he "did make an initial call on Steven's behalf to the FCC -- an agency he had no legislative oversight or responsibility for."

A spokesman for the FCC declined to comment, and Steven Rangel didn't return a call for comment.

After leaving the FCC, Steven Rangel, an ex-Marine, incorporated his Web company in June 2004. The first $9,780 payment from Mr. Rangel's political action committee came a week before the company was incorporated. A second $9,780 payment was made one month later. In 2005, Steven Rangel's company received $22,500 from his father's re-election campaign, and in 2006, the company received another $32,500, federal records show.

It isn't uncommon for congressmen to pay family members small amounts of money for campaign or administrative work. Most lawmakers disclose the names of relatives receiving these payments, although it isn't required. Rep. Rangel's disclosure doesn't indicate his son was associated with Edisonian.

The payments from the Rangel campaign account to Steven Rangel's company ended January 2007, the same month he got a job on the staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The job coincided with the arrival of a new chairman, John Dingell (D., Mich.), a close political ally of Rep. Rangel.

"No one is alleging that Steven Rangel performed poorly," Mr. Milne said. He added that Steven Rangel is fully qualified for his House staff job.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Dingell's committee issued a statement calling him "one of the most hard-working members of our staff," who has been involved in both FCC and Food and Drug Administration inquiries. "Steven has been a welcome addition to the committee and would serve any chairman well," the statement said.

A person with direct knowledge of Steven Rangel's hiring on Energy and Commerce said his father helped him get hired. "How does anyone get any gig on Capitol Hill? It's who you know," this person said.

Write to Christopher Cooper at christopher.cooper@wsj.com

Original Article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122852432614184499.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Tangled Web: Rangel son got campaign cash
By: Luke Rosiak and Glenn Thrush
December 5, 2008 03:22 PM EST

Between 2004 and 2007, Rep. Charles Rangel steered nearly $80,000 in campaign cash to an Internet company run by his son. Photo:AP

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.

The payments are apparently legal under federal law, but their disclosure raises new questions about the Ways and Means Committee chairman as he faces House ethics committee probes into his failure to pay taxes on rental income and his alleged use of House stationery to solicit contributions for a public policy center that bears his name.

Rangel’s leadership PAC and congressional committee shelled out $79,560 to Edisonian Innovative Works for “websites,” according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Edisonian Innovative Works, which lists several clients on its homepage — none of them politicians — was founded by Rangel’s son, Steven Charles Rangel, 40, of Greenbelt, Md.

“This is probably legal but is definitely wrong,” said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors compliance with electoral law.

“You're in a situation where you were given money for a campaign and it's being used to enrich family members,” she added. “The return argument is they're performing legitimate services. The question that needs to be asked in this case is: Was this a legitimate payment or was this a payoff?”

Rangel spokesman Emile Milne said Rangel’s son was a valuable member of the congressman’s re-election team and was paid a modest monthly retainer to build, maintain, update and publicize the site.

“Steven Rangel's firm was paid roughly $2,500 on a monthly basis — less than the firm that had previously managed Congressman Rangel's Web and online operation (Network Politics) — and the firm's fees included money for Web advertising designed to promote traffic to the website,” Milne wrote in an e-mail message to Politico.

“In 2007, the Rangel political organization made the decision to go with a scaled-back Web presence and hired NGP software” to run the site, he added.

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.

The vast majority of House candidates who set up campaign sites in 2006 paid a relative pittance, with 200 members spending less than $10,000 each for websites, according to the CRP analysis.

The payments to Steven Rangel began in mid-2004 and stopped in early 2007 when the former Marine, who is also a lawyer, was hired by the House Energy and Commerce Committee as an $80,000-per-year “investigative counsel,” according to records.

“It is difficult and often misleading to compare what individual members pay for Web services because of the wide range of activities that websites can support, depending on what campaigns choose to do with their sites,” Milne said.

Steven Rangel is close to his father and has long played an active role in his campaigns, even videotaping his dad’s campaign events in the early 1980s. The 78-year-old chairman often sleeps at his son’s house in Maryland, according to people who know both men.

Rangel is hardly the first House member to hire his family for campaigns. Between 2002 and 2005, Julie Doolittle was paid $136,000 in fundraising fees by the campaign of her husband, retiring Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.).

And Long Island Democratic Rep. Timothy Bishop raised eyebrows in 2005 when Newsday reported that he had paid his daughter Molly $87,828 in salary and travel expenses to act as his campaign’s finance director for two years.

But few relatives have ever played such a visible role.

Steven Rangel’s design for his father’s National Leadership PAC site appears to have been slapped together in a hurry, intermittently updated and never spell-checked.

An apologetic note near the top of the site warns readers that the page is undergoing “routine maintenace [sic]” and cautions that “much of our content is currently unavailable.”

Another button urges visitors to “Give Contribuition [sic].”

The site “is a one pager with a third party site taking donations,” said Jamie Newell of 7AZ Web Design, a company that creates sites for a wide array of businesses in Washington. “For something of that standard, I would not pay more than $100.”

The now-dormant page for the congressman’s 2006 reelection campaign should have cost “no more than $900,” excluding maintenance fees, Newell said.

Rangel’s 2008 campaign site was designed and run by nonrelatives for less than $25,000.

Messages left on Steven Rangel’s work phone weren’t returned.

In a short bio written on his now-defunct personal Web page, he described how his frustration with designers led him to learn the ropes himself — and write an e-book on how to make money on the Internet.

"I… spent a lot of money trying to get third-party vendors to develop to my standards. Fed up with their performance, I decided to teach my self,” he wrote.

Original Article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16219.html

TH
Watching Out For The Village!

Seniority appears to be taking its last few breaths in Washington, DC

The seniority argument for keeping Charles Rangel in congress is going by the wayside under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives. Take a read on the following article posted in the Capitol Briefing section of the Washington Post newspaper on November 20, 2008. It appears that Seniority is not just dying but may be dead altogether.

Community! We must be about the business of getting some worthy people to run for the 15th Congressional District. We cannot be lax about this. Otherwise we open ourselves for opportunistic interlopers to run for and possibly win the seat.

Waxman's Win Marks Seismic Shift in House

The clash between Reps. Henry Waxman (Calif.) and John Dingell (Mich.) was notable in the recently quiet and stable House Democratic caucus.

By Ben Pershing

Democrats have a comfortable majority now in the House, and they will again in January. Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker now, and she will be again in January. In a capital that is in the midst of a titanic change, House Democrats have been a relatively calm sea of stability since Election Day. Until this morning.

Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-Calif.) defeat of Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) for the Energy and Commerce Committee gavel represents a huge shift in the way the Democratic Caucus runs itself, and in the broader culture that has developed over decades around a few hard and fast rules governing the distribution of power on Capitol Hill.

What does Waxman's victory really mean going forward? Given the shear scope of the panel's jurisdiction, and how long it's been since anyone other than Dingell was the committee's top Democrat, it will be weeks or months before all of the effects of Waxman's win are known. But here are three implications that are clear right now.

1) Seniority Is Dead. In a way, the House Democratic Caucus has long operated like a public employees' union. Seniority ruled the day, and if you stuck around long enough -- meaning you had a safe enough district to get reelected cycle after cycle -- you would keep moving up the committee ladder, almost without regard for merit. That's not to say the current crop of chairmen are necessarily bad at their jobs (though some probably are), only that the people who hold gavels don't necessarily have them because they are the agreed-upon masters of their field

In theory, Democrats did away with seniority as the determinative principle for chairmen back in 1974, but in practice the longest-serving committee member has nearly always gotten the gavel

Notably, since Democrats captured control of the House in the 2006 elections, Pelosi has kept on the books a Republican-authored rule mandating six-year term limits for chairmen, so many of the current chairs would be termed out in 2012. But there have been rumbles from Dingell and his ilk that they would try to get that rule scrapped, a step that appears highly unlikely given today's events.

Now, there are some nervous chairmen out there. If Dingell can be beaten, why not Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) or Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.)? Yes, those chairmen will support each other, just as most probably voted for Dingell. But there are a lot more members in the Democratic Caucus who aren't chairmen than members who are, and many of them would like their own shots at a gavel someday.

Also nervous today -- lobbyists. The seniority system has made it easy for K Street to know who will be in charge of a committee tomorrow, and the day after that, and thus where to put its money and whose former aides to hire. The system begat a cycle: The longer chairmen stayed in place, the more allies they had on K Street and the more money they raised, thereby cementing their power and helping them stay even longer.

Dingell has been the top Democrat on the Energy panel for 27 years. Is that really fair to the other members of the committee? The most common argument made in favor of the seniority system is that it allows chairmen to build up expertise. But Waxman has been on the committee for more than three decades himself. Is he really not an expert? Obviously, the "seniority = expertise" argument didn't fly today with the majority of the Democratic Caucus, which means it probably never will again.

After this morning, seniority isn't out the window altogether -- no freshman will chair a committee anytime soon -- but it's hurting.

2) Ideology Matters. The fact that seniority was the deciding factor in handing out chairmanships for so long meant that ideology wasn't. Members didn't get and keep their gavels because the majority of their colleagues thought they were right on the issues, they got them because their constituents did and kept sending them back to Washington for another term.

The lawmakers who can be reelected for decades tend to be from the safest districts. Which has generally meant that the most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats have accrued seniority. Dingell is an unusual case, in that he is actually to the right of his Caucus on a few issues, notably on abortion and, most importantly, on the environment. His district has a massive auto industry presence and his wife, Debbie, is a senior executive at General Motors; she is actually a descendant of the company's founders.

So for years, Dingell has resisted efforts to force auto companies to make cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Though there are other Democrats who represent industrial states and share Dingell's concerns, most members of the party lean toward the environmentalist side. Dingell simply does not represent the majority of Democrats' views on environmental issues, and until today, he suffered no consequences for that.

Now, he's suffering, and the next time a chairman decides to use his committee to advance the interests of his district while ignoring the interests of most of his colleagues, he might think twice.

3) Pelosi Rules. Lest anyone doubted who was in charge of House Democrats, today's vote provided a helpful reminder.

Pelosi was publicly neutral in the race, but her silence spoke volumes. Her unwillingness to back the longtime chairman or publicly back the seniority system made it clear where she stood. Generally, if journalists write something that Pelosi or her staff think is wrong, they will hear about it in short order. Many reporters wrote that Pelosi was believed to be silently backing her fellow Californian Waxman, and Pelosi's office made no effort to dissuade the press from that storyline

(House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), meanwhile, tried to broker a deal between the two gavel contenders and then spoke out in favor of Dingell at Wednesday's Steering Committee meeting, and Dingell lost that vote anyway, before losing today's as well.

Pelosi has made it clear to chairmen since becoming Speaker that they answer to her. Most of the time, their interests and hers coincide, but her battles with Dingell have been the most high-profile exception. The Speaker created a special panel on global warming issues specifically because she knew Dingell wouldn't move a bill she found acceptable, and then Dingell mocked and tried to stymie the creation of that special committee. Pelosi is a committed environmentalist, and Waxman's win has cleared away her biggest internal obstacle to passing more stringent regulations on that front.

Beyond Dingell, the erosion of the seniority system means that Pelosi's hand is stronger than it was yesterday. Whereas before chairmen were able to defy their leaders largely without fear of losing their jobs, now they know that's no longer the case. Pelosi was already shaping up to be one of the most powerful Speakers in recent history. Now, with chairmen less likely to freelance and a larger majority being sworn in next January, she's even stronger.

Original Article:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/11/what_waxmans_win_means.html

TH
Watching Out For The Village!

The times, they are a changing.

Almost forgot this nugget.

Esquire Magazine endorsed Republican Edward Daniels and not Charles Rangel this election cycle for Congressman of the 15th Congressional District. This is how they summed up their decision. (italics by TH).

"District 15

Edward Daniels (R)
Charles Rangel (D)

Firebrand, infighter, mover, shaker, polarizer: For nearly four decades, Charlie Rangel, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, has earned these compliments--or epithets. We'll add two more: tax evader, for "forgetting" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned. And sweetheart dealmaker, for living in four cherished rent-stabilized New York City apartments priced far below market value. Maybe it's time for Charlie to retire and tend to his real estate holdings full-time.
Esquire endorses: Daniels"

And check out the following article dated November 20, 2008 (Again italics by TH). Yes Charlie, the seniority thing is playing itself out. Hopefully the Residents of the 15th Congressional District will understand that the one main playing card you had to keep them voting for you is slipping away from you. And, who appears to be the instigator of all of this? Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Ha!

Waxman Defeats Dingell

By Paul Kane

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) won the vote, 137-122, to become the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, defeating the legendary Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.).

The vote came a day after the House Democratic steering committee recommended Waxman for the post in a narrow 25-22 vote. The powerful Energy panel, with jurisdiction over health care, energy issues and telecommunications policy, will play a significant role in moving much of President-elect Barack Obama's agenda in the 111th Congress.

"It's the mantra of the Obama election. People want change," said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who supported Waxman. "He'll work best with the new administration."

Senior Democrats were stunned by the Waxman victory, which seemingly dealt a blow to the party's long-held principle of seniority.

"It's just been buried," Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said of seniority.

Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's public neutrality in the race, Rangel accused her of playing a role. "I assume that not playing a role is playing a role," Rangel said.

Ouch! Charlie you really are pissed off about this!

Original Articles:
http://www.esquire.com/features/esquire-endorsements-2008/new-york-1108
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/11/waxman_defeats_dingell.html

TH
Watching Out For The Village!

The Hill newspaper kicks in with its take on the matter of Congressman Charles Rangel.

Washington Post says Rangel should step down
By Susan Crabtree
Posted: 11/29/08 06:05 PM [ET]

The Washington Post has joined the New York Times in calling for Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to step down as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in light of new ethics charges that emerged earlier this week.

The Times reported Tuesday that Rangel helped preserve a valuable tax loophole for an oil and gas drilling company while the company’s chief executive, Eugene Isenberg, was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at City College of New York.

Rangel has said the timing of the donation’s pledge was not related to his decision to oppose legislation closing the tax loophole.

But the Post editorial board on Saturday was skeptical about the coincidence, noting that Rangel met Isenberg to discuss the businessman’s support of the Rangel school the same day the tax legislation was being considered in the Ways and Means Committee. Right after his meeting with Isenberg, Rangel met with the company’s lobbyists, to make sure Rangel would not close the loophole.

The revelation is the latest in a series of allegations that have surfaced in the past five months. Rangel also has been accused of paying below-market rents on four apartments, including one that he illegally used as a campaign office. He has since given that office up. In addition, Rangel failed to pay tens of thousands of tax dollars on rental income on a vacation home in the Dominican Republic. He has since hired a forensic accountant to determine exactly how much he owes for the past 17 years. He failed to report the value of a condominium in Florida and did not report a privately sponsored trip on his House travel disclosure forms. He also used congressional letterhead to request meetings to promote donations to the City College education center bearing his name.

The ethics committee is investigating the allegations, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday said she expects the panel to wrap up its investigation by the end of this Congress, Jan. 3.

The Times on Wednesday called on Pelosi to force Rangel to step down from the Ways and Means panel. The Post also argued that the time has come for Rangel to relinquish the post.

“At a time when President-elect Barack Obama is holding frequent news conferences to reassure the markets and the American people that he is ready to lead the nation to economic recovery, the last thing he will need is a chairman of Ways and Means caught up in a swirl of serious allegations,” the Post opined.

Original Article: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/washington-post-says-rangel-should-step-down-2008-11-29.html

TH
Watching Out For The Villiage!

Charles Rangel and the Clock

Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick ..........!

Time is running out for Congressman Charles Rangel.

Check out yesterday's Washington Post Editorial on Charlie.

Step Aside, Rep. Rangel

The chairman of Ways and Means becomes an unnecessary distraction.

Saturday, November 29, 2008; A14

WHEN WE last wrote about Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, we urged that the House ethics committee be allowed to investigate before anyone drew final conclusions. But the latest revelation of Mr. Rangel's ethical tin ear is the most galling yet. While he remains innocent until proven otherwise, he should step aside as chairman while the ethics committee expands its inquiry.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Mr. Rangel helped preserve a valuable tax loophole for an oil and gas drilling company while the company's chief executive, Eugene M. Isenberg, was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at City College of New York. Mr. Rangel insists that the mutual favors were entirely coincidental. And quite a coincidence it seems to have been. On Feb. 12, 2007, the Times reported, the day the tax legislation was being considered in his committee, Mr. Rangel met in New York City with Mr. Isenberg to discuss the businessman's support of the Rangel School. Then Mr. Isenberg escorted Mr. Rangel across the room to his lobbyist, Kenneth J. Kies, who wanted to make sure Mr. Rangel would not close the loophole.

The revelation is the latest in a litany that has come to light since the summer. It was disclosed that Mr. Rangel was paying below-market rents on four Harlem apartments. One, which he has since given up, was illegally used as a campaign office. He owed taxes on at least $75,000 in rental income on a vacation home in the Dominican Republic. (He has since paid $10,800 to the IRS and New York State for three tax years and has hired a forensic accountant to determine how much he owes for the remaining 17 years.) Mr. Rangel underreported the value of a condominium he and his wife owned in Florida. He neglected to fully account on House travel disclosure forms for some privately sponsored trips. And he used his official stationary to ask for meetings to discuss his eponymous school of public service with titans of business and philanthropy.

At a time when President-elect Barack Obama is holding frequent news conferences to reassure the markets and the American people that he is ready to lead the nation to economic recovery, the last thing he will need is a chairman of Ways and Means caught up in a swirl of serious allegations.

Original Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802519.html

TH
Watching Out For The Village!