Spokane7
38°
A special House Ethics Committee has voted 4-3 along party lines to clear Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol, of conflict of interest charges over his votes on various tax legislation while pressing his own tax fights against state and federal income tax. “I don’t think that the allegations were specific enough,” said Rep. Rich Wills, R-Glenns Ferry. “I hope if nothing else that come out of this, that it’s a wakeup call for all of us to be very careful about our appearances.” The three minority Democrats on the committee said Hart’s actions showed a pattern of ignoring the House rule that requires conflicts of interest be disclosed. They favored a motion to reprimand Hart and recommend his removal from the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, but it failed on a party-line vote. “I think that the behavior does reflect badly on all of us,” said Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum. “It reflects badly on the credibility of the body. So I can’t vote to dismiss here.” More here - Betsy Russell, Eye on Boise
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
Find DFO on Facebook
DFO on Twitter
Soaf on July 29 at 12:28 p.m.
Other than the slope-head slack-jawed idiots that voted for this neanderthal, who didn’t see this one coming.
Pathetic!
Sisyphus on July 29 at 12:37 p.m.
Republicans now own the ethical stain he left on the statehouse carpet. And they’ll be complicit when criminal charges ensue.
Ravenlady on July 29 at 12:43 p.m.
Boy, am I disappointed in this ruling. It is hard to believe that these people that go to Boise to help us, can’t see what a scam that Hart has pulled on the state, the IRS and the people of the third district. How about a write in for all those of you in the third district?
tfwyhf on July 29 at 12:46 p.m.
Please reread my entry of July 20 at 2:45. I may have gotten the number voting wrong (I thought there were 5 members not seven) but I knew the GOP reps didn’t have the guts or brains to do the right thing. The only thing left to do is for the people of that district to come to their senses and find a canidate that abides by the law, not hide behide it.
oldfisherman on July 29 at 2:39 p.m.
Surprise Surprise !!! Many of us predicted the final outcome of 4 - 3 (party lines) He Did not even get a hand slap, and I agree with Sis’s comment of the party’s earning the stain on the Statehouse carpet. Another reason why Idaho needs a better balanced state Government. Shame Shame on the party of 4 R’s !!!
sue on July 29 at 2:50 p.m.
Phil Hart is a tax cheat, and his republican colleagues endorsed that illegal and unethical behavior. Nothing? Really, Rich Wills of Glens Ferry, you think this was about appearances? He was trying to have penalties reduced on failure to pay income tax, he would’ve benefitted financially from that move. That’s the definition of conflict of interest. But that’s okay by the majority party in Idaho.
Lizard_People on July 29 at 2:51 p.m.
Mounting a constitutional challenge is a noble thing, not an ethics violation. Phil Hart is a hero, and if he were a democrat, you’d all be cheering him on!
Sisyphus on July 29 at 2:54 p.m.
If he were a Democrat he’d be in jail.
Phaedrus on July 29 at 3:21 p.m.
Mounting a constitutional challenge is a noble thing, not an ethics violation—LP
He mounted it. He lost. And he has been shirking his financial and ethical responsibilities ever since.
Duffer on July 29 at 3:39 p.m.
He and Charles Rangel must have taken the same class in Ethics!
Both of them should have gone to jail a long time ago.
Sisyphus on July 29 at 4:01 p.m.
I strongly doubt Rangel is going to get a pass from his Democratic colleagues. I also note that Rangel 1) requested the ethics investigation, 2) resigned from the Ways and Means committee when he did so.
CommonIdeal on July 29 at 4:08 p.m.
Phaed
He did lose, but he did not shirk his responsibilities. He paid the amount he owed. The IRS, and state, then denied the exemptions, added on more “back taxes” (they denied all the payments he made between the court decision and today), then the IRS demands names of people who bought his book. c’mon man. An oversimplified example would be: you borrowing money from me, you pay me back, I then deny you paid me anything (or find your payment unacceptable), then I claim you owe me what you already paid (and then some), and now people try to make an example out of you by showing your peers how untrustworthy you are to lend to, all because I didn’t like the way you paid me back.
The IRS is a sham. Stop thinking the taxes collected pay for government operations. We operate on debt. Nearly every bill that passes allows for bonds to be issued to fund the appropriation because the expenditure exceeds revenue. The IRS merely collects taxes to pay interest on those debt obligations. Seriously, we owe more than we have. That’s why we have a deficit that is mathematically impossible to discharge.
OutofStaterTater on July 29 at 4:11 p.m.
LP, you’ve got to be kidding. I don’t like paying taxes, but I pay them because it’s the law of the land. I’m not such a sociopath as to think that I’m above the rules, unlike Phil Hart. He fought a constitutional battle, he lost, and now he continues to thumb his nose at the rule of law.
Count me as a Republican who is disgusted and embarassed that Hart didn’t even get a slap on the wrist. He’s a classic tax protestor who continually tries to hide behind smoke and mirrors instead of being truthful. He claims to have learned his lesson, but he continues to game the system to avoid his obligations.
These legislators are going to look like a bunch of morons when federal investigators bring multiple criminal charges against Hart. Believe you me, those charges are coming. It’s one thing not to pay your taxes. It’s quite another to incite criminal behavior by advising others to follow your lead, as Hart’s “book” does. These are not mere trifles.
OutofStaterTater on July 29 at 4:17 p.m.
CI, that’s another obfuscation. Hart claimed a bunch of exemptions he didn’t qualify for, and the IRS called him on it. Since he didn’t get those exemptions, he owed more than he paid. HELLO!
He also didn’t pay the payroll taxes for his employees! How reckless is that? That’s endangering the people who work for him, who may or may not share his fringe ideas about taxation.
Hart has indeed continued to shirk his responsibilities. He lost his case years ago, but failed to pay his taxes several years afterward. He’s a scofflaw and an embarassment.
Sisyphus on July 29 at 4:19 p.m.
“It’s quite another to incite criminal behavior by advising others to follow your lead, as Hart’s “book” does. These are not mere trifles.”—really?! It says that? Common Ideal seems to like the taste of that kool aid.
OutofStaterTater on July 29 at 4:22 p.m.
Sis, Hart’s book advises people how to avoid their tax obligations. If tax evasion is a crime, then advising others on how to do the same is a crime as well - criminal incitement.
Soaf on July 29 at 4:26 p.m.
These legislators are going to look like a bunch of morons when federal investigators bring multiple criminal charges against Hart.
And you can count on CI & LP to be the first on the list to stand outside the Federal Prison protesting the incarceration of their hero and political prisoner, P.Hart.
Lizard_People on July 29 at 4:27 p.m.
Why the ironic quotes for “book”? It really is an interesting book. It documents the opposing sides of the debate as it was viewed nack when the income tax was first being proposed.
The book is actually shockingly progressive, in that in details how the “income tax” was supposed to be the working poor’s weapon against “unearned” income, and moneyed interests slyly changed the income tax to include all income, earned and “unearned” alike.
Not that I am some kind of pinko who has something against unearned income, but it was a surprising revelation that the elites twisted what was supposed to be a progressive tax.
OutofStaterTater on July 29 at 4:42 p.m.
LP, ironic quotes because it’s a thinly-veiled instruction manual on how to scam out of your obligations.
“Shockingly progressive”? Please don’t try to pass off Phil Hart as some sort of visionary genius. I’d be willing to bet the IRS has heard every argument Hart has made hundreds if not thousands of times. By and large, the courts have not agreed with these arguments.
Since 1916, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected arguments that the income tax doesn’t cover earned wages. All income, whether earned or not, has always been considered to be subject to the 16th Amendment, ever since it’s ratification.
OutofStaterTater on July 29 at 4:44 p.m.
I should have said “all income, unless explicitly exempted by statute…”
Phaedrus on July 29 at 6:16 p.m.
He paid the amount he owed—
False. He might have paid the amount HE felt he owed, but when he intentionally fail to pay your taxes you can, and should, be charged penalties and interest. he has not paid those.
Back in 200o the tax court judge said:
“petitioner has not behaved as a reasonable and prudent person. Petitioner has shown an intentional disregard for the rules and regulations.”
Phaedrus on July 29 at 6:20 p.m.
The court also found:
” Petitioner has pursued a frivolous and groundless position throughout this proceeding. At the beginning of this trial, petitioner was clearly warned that if he proceeded with the arguments contained in his written submission, then he would be subject to penalties. Petitioner knew or should have known that his position was groundless and frivolous, yet he persisted in maintaining this proceeding primarily to impede the proper workings of our judicial system and to delay the payment of his Federal income tax liabilities.”
Philip Lewis Hart, Petitioner
DFO on July 29 at 11:24 p.m.
I interrupt my vacation again to offer 2 words for the 4-3 party-line vote that cleared Phil Hart of conflict of interest charges (at least in the minds of the Republican supermajority in the Legislature: predictable & ridiculous.
powderfarmer on July 29 at 11:42 p.m.
what I want to know is how a guy like Lurch can wield so much power when there are about 1,001 people in his district.
the next legislative session will be interesting to watch to see how the repubs start the behind closed doors gerrymandering process to offset the recent census data.
sue on July 30 at 8:47 a.m.
Phil Hart’s tax cheating ways and the republicans on the ethics committee who support him, paint the picture of how I see the republican party at large: taxes are for the little people. There is a disconnect between our responsibility to providing for the safety and welfare of our community and the taxes we all need to contribute to support that. Rules are for others to follow, and they’ll look the other way when one of their own breaks them, even flagrantly. I’m not naive enough to believe dems can’t be caught in the same situation, but I know it will be handled differently than we saw in this case. Loertscher, Willis, Raybould, and Stevenson ought to be ashamed, but I’m sure that doesn’t compute.