X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 20 Jul 1992 21:56:52 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: more fun with carl

Can't Jamie tell the difference between me and O'Andy?

>>>Yawn.  Govt personnel get to retain their state of residence while
>>>"posted" elsewhere.  In this, Bush is just like my friend in the Army
>>>who just got back from not spying on the USSR.

>>>It has nothing to do with taxes.  It has something to do with campaign
>>>eligibility, which EVERY congress critter does.  Bush is a resident of
>>>Texas in the same sense that Gore is a resident of Tennessee, and for
>>>exactly the same reasons.

>>Wrong. While I would be the first to admit that Gore is the Insider's
>>Insider, and would be the most eligable for senator should Washington
>>get statehood, Gore, according to the Washington Post, owns something
>>like 80 acres of Tennessee. Bush doesn't even own that much. His place
>>is a hotel room that the State Democratic Party has parties in occasionally.

>"Wrong." suggests that something relevant will follow, but property
>ownership, or even relative property ownership isn't.

You know me: the KING of Irrelevance!   B)

My point is this: Every politician may do stuff like this. I know former
DC Mayor Marion Barry is going for city council with a rented sh*thole
apartment in a slum district. Thing is, if Albert Gore wanted to quit
politics, he could go back to his 80 acres in Tennessee (Him and his wife
are democrats - 80 acres and two mules?  B)  and live quite comfortably.
George Bush would have to rent his residency by the night if he did the
same thing. THAT is the difference I was wishing to point out.

You say EVERY. Gore owns a decent place in small-town Tennessee. Looks like
I blew your EVERY, doesn't it?

I do accept that this is not a matter of what will be allowed legally. It
is a matter of of the facade you wish to show others. The Bush facade, with
permanent address in a no-income-tax state, with no property so he doesn't
have to pay property tax, looks downright crooked. I'm sure it is legal,or
at least I won't say it is illegal until I look up the rules, but it does
look crooked.

>>While it may be legal (I have no doubt- My dad the retired AF officer
>>paid taxes in and had a drivers license in Minnesota when he owned nothing
>>there but the '57 T-bird he had a brother watch for him), it looks crooked
>>and a candidate who runs on "values" should look cleaner than that.

>I don't see it.  I see Bush as another rich guy whose job requires him
>to live in a certain place.  In that circumstance, I might well reduce
>my permanent residence, even if I'm returning, as far as possible
>WHILE maintaining my vacation facilities.  After all, I'm changing the
>former, but not the latter.  (I know people who behave like this.)

The way I see it, you live where you are. From that POV, the whole thing
looks downright crooked.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am in Baltimore, Maryland. I have lived
the last years, barring Christmases, summers and spring breaks, in Brookings,
South Dakota, but I drive under a Nevada drivers license in a car licensed in
Nevada. However, I own no land and neither South Dakota nor Nevada have income
tax.

>-andy

Dave
c/o Other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU