http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15227183/

Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even
though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property
deeds show.

--
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.

David Goldberg wrote:


This is much ado about nothing. From the dailykos:

The latest Reid hit piece
by kos
Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:58:29 PM PDT

The AP's John Solomon, the go-to guy at the Associated Press
for any anti-Democratic efforts, and this piece is absolute
crap. The crux of the claim:


Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million
windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't
personally owned the property for three years, property
deeds show.


Actually, he did own that land. It just so happened that
three years ago, he transferred the property from his own
personal name to that of an LLC.

It'd be kind of like me selling Daily Kos, and someone
claiming I reaped a windfall from it because I "sold it
three years ago". I didn't. Daily Kos became an LLC. As did
Reid's piece of land.

And btw, this was all disclosed to the ethics committee. The
place were things got sloppy is that Reid continued to
disclose ownership of the land as a personal asset rather
than ownership in the LLC which owned the land. But that's
it. Fact is, the LLC had no other assets other than this
piece of land, and Reid disclosed ownership of the piece of
land.

Solomon is either being dishonest or an idiot. But watch the
wingers and GOP try to gain traction off this story to
divert from their coddling of a sexual predator.

Update: Note that there is no charge or evidence or anything
that would suggest that Reid used his position of authority
to boost the value of the land. That would be troublesome.
As it is in NC-11 where Rep. Charles Taylor (R) used
earmarks to line his pockets:


New Report Shows Taylor's Earmarks Benefit Land he Owns.
According to a new report by the Wall Street Journal,
Charles Taylor, a wealthy businessman and banker, was able
to get millions of dollars in earmarks for his district to
improve land where Taylor owns thousands of acres and where
he has even developed. The report shows that Taylor owns at
least 14,000 acres of prime land in his district, some of
which is near the main highway in Maggie Valley which, last
year, received $11.4 million in federal dollars. Taylor's
companies own thousands of acres near the highway and had
already developed a subdivision called Maggie Valley Leisure
Estates. Another earmark last year sent $4.8 million to
widen a highway through timber tracts that Taylor's
companies own. He also got millions for a loan for long-time
contributors and millions more for improvements to a park
that sits directly in front of his flagship bank in the
district.


Or, let's shoot even higher:


House Speaker Dennis Hastert denied Thursday that he pushed
for federal funding for a proposed highway in northeastern
Illinois so he and his wife could reap about $1.8 million
from land deals near their home in Kendall County.

The Sunlight Foundation, a newly created group whose
declared aim is to inform the public about what members of
Congress do, has accused Hastert of not divulging
connections between the $207 million earmark he won for a
highway, the Prairie Parkway, and an investment he and his
wife made in nearby land.


There are others -- Reps. Jerry Lewis, Richard Pombo, and
Gary Miller for starters. This isn't a case of "everyone
does it". It's a case of projection -- accusing Reid of
doing something Republicans have made a habit of doing.

That they got the gullible or ideologically compromised
Solomon to bite on the non-story was a nice touch, but has
no bearing on the reality of the matter.

Update II: To refresh your memories, Solomon is this guy:


Associated Press writer John Solomon reported that Senate
Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) had attended three Las
Vegas boxing matches as the guest of the Nevada Athletic
Commission while the agency "was trying to influence him on
federal regulation of boxing." But Solomon failed to inform
readers that, rather than taking any actions favorable to
the NAC, Reid allowed the specific legislation that the
agency had opposed to pass.*


Subsequent info made Solomon's story even more ridiculous:


The Las Vegas Journal-Review and TPM Muckraker reported
several facts that appear to undermine the thrust of John
Solomon's Associated Press article suggesting that Senate
Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) acted improperly by
accepting free tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission
to, as Solomon claimed, three boxing matches at a time when
the agency "was trying to influence him on federal
regulation of boxing."


Some of those facts? The fact that state law prohibited Reid
from reimbursing the commission for those fight tickets.

And that's not all. There's much more.

Update III: A tax lawyer reader writes:


FYI, I am a tax attorney. A single member LLC (i.e. an LLC
owned 100% by a single person) is treated by the IRS as
non-existent for tax purposes. The LLC owner continues to
treat himself as the direct owner of the property for tax
purposes as if the property were never transferred to the
LLC. That could explain why someone might continue to
consider himself the owner of property which he has
transferred to a single member LLC.

A multiple member LLC is treated as a partnership for tax
purposes. Again, if an existing partnership transfers
property to an LLC owned by the same partners in the same
percentages, the LLC will usually be treated as the same
entity as the orignal partnership, and again an individual
might reasonably believe that no transfer has taken place.


The latter paragraph is relevant to this discussion. Reid
owned a 75 percent interest in two plots of land, his
partner 25 percent. They created the LLC in the same exact
percentages.

Ultimately, there might be a technical violation of Senate
rules -- Reid has asked for clarification from the ethics
committee. But bottom line is that Reid followed the spirit
of the law. He disclosed his ownership of the land -- down
to the exact plots -- which would allow for watchdogs to
monitor any potential conflicts of interest. That is better
than disclosing ownership in a shadowy private LLC, with no
public access to its assets. (Which is, btw, essentially
what Hastert did.)"

-Johnny (Weezy, your ignorance is a mile wide and your
intellect an inch deep.)

P.S. You know, Weasel, it might help if you carefully read
the entire article you quote a snippet from and do your
homework before you rush to judgment. Oh, I forgot, you
only see what meets your agenda and everything is
mysteriously whited out in your world. Or maybe you want to
argue tax law with that tax lawyer.

David Goldberg <david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote in news:452D9C12.76536EB3
@yahoo.com:

Boy - way to selectively cite. First off, I don't like Harry Reid. I think
he's a weak leader and he does have serious ethical issues. I think he
should resign before something really serious does come to light. But this
isn't it. He made a transfer of ownership of the land for a stake in the
company that then retained the ownership rights of the land. This is really
no different from George Bush buying 1% of the Texas Rangers but being
given 12% of the sale proceeds. Reid should have fully disclosed all the
details of this deal and not relied on "handshakes and understandings." He
screwed up but my bet is you think that this is equal to Randy Cunningham
and completely exculpates Mark Foley.

--
If I were a cactus, I wouldn't need so much water

Johnny <apterix@cox.net> wrote in news:yghXg.36554$nm1.33254@fed1read04:

In and of itself that's true. But it a symptom of deeper problems that I
suspect will come to light eventually. Plus Reid is a weak leader.


--
If I were a cactus, I wouldn't need so much water

> This is much ado about nothing. From the dailykos:

You mean Goldboogie is a shithead again!!?

In article <Xns985A4DBEABEE6dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@130.133.1.4>,
theBZA <dewey3kNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:



I believe it is very different.

My understanding is that Reid put the property into a limited
liability company (LLC), and that the LLC owned nothing but the land.