Friday, September 29, 2006

Why Won't Chuck Release ALL Of His Tax Information?

Chuck has revealed most of his tax information. But the question that is on most people's minds is why has he not revealed everything?

Almost a week and a half ago, after Chuck Reed faced scrutiny for allegedly voting for an ordinance that financially benefitted a client, Cindy Chavez asked Chuck to make public his financial information. Chuck primarily refused to do so based on "larger policy considerations". This past week, Chuck's financial history was hurled into the public spotlight for the $38,000 he was reimbursed by the city for attending political and charitable events. To his credit, Chuck has divulged much of his financial records.

However, what many are still wondering, why won't he divulge his deductions? The concern is that Chuck donated quite a large chunk of city money to charity in his own name. If Chuck was later reimbursed for these donations and wrote them off as tax deductions, then his conduct is not only ethically reprehensible - it's illegal. Chuck has not answered these questions and we believe he should.

Nobody wants to drag non-profit organizations through the mud. Nobody wants to deter people from donating to these groups. But people do want accountability.

So, Chuck... why won't you release the rest of your tax information?


At 3:21 PM, Anonymous concerned dem said...

is that called a schedule c?

At 3:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is that evne supposed to mean? Figure out osmething cohernet to say or don't say anything at all concerned dem!

At 3:53 PM, Anonymous Ben Watson said...

Anonymous, great to hear from you again. What spin do you have to put on the debates? Why is Chuck paying back the city if he claims that he did nothing wrong? Why is he waiting to after the election to release his tax returns, maybe it's because he's writing off all of his "charitable" donations that come out of our pockets? The debates have shown us one thing for certain anonymous, Cindy is the only candidate with the leadership and maturity to run San Jose.

At 3:56 PM, Anonymous Ben watson is an idiot said...

There's one thing you and your little chavez cronies can't deny benny boy, the factsis that cindy chavez cost the city of san jose 11.25 million dollars on her new city hall. you cant deny the facts ben, chucks small exopenses ar enothing compared to the millions cindy spent on city hall!

At 4:02 PM, Anonymous Mike Hawk said...

I don't even know where to begin. The $11.25 million had nothing to do with the renovations done to City Hall. The $11.25 million was part of the Norcal contract which the council voted on. And Grand Jury testimony reveals that Chuck Reed knew about the Norcal contract prior to Cindy and the rest of the council.

At 5:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cindy was brilliant last night... and Chuck was unconvincing and unapologetic in claiming he made a mistake.... he demanded Terry Gregory's resignation for errors in judgment, regardless of criminal liability. Chuck said that it was unethical and, that alone, was enough to demand Gregory to resign. Chuck, show us your tax deductions so that we do not assume you double-dipped. It will put this whole issue to rest. If you don't, then you are being hypocritical. You are lucky you haven't been treated the same way you treated Gregory... yet.

At 5:24 PM, Anonymous jessica1 said...

Mike Hawk, eh? Very funny. I think it sets a dangerous precedent to ask candidates for tax info. Privacy will be eroded. I think Chuck screwed up bad but I don't think releasing private info will fix anything.

At 5:33 PM, Anonymous Mike Hawk said...

I agree with you Jessica, it could possibly create a dangerous precedent. However, Chuck Reed is trying to play himself up as the ethical candidate and there is serious evidence that suggests that he is everything but ethical. If Chuck Reed does not release his tax returns the only plausible explanation is that he is trying to hide something. Chuck Reed would not be so concerned with the dangerous precedent if revealing his tax returns would exonerate himself. Chuck knows that he'll be screwed if he releases his tax returns, that's why he isn't revealing things.

At 5:44 PM, Blogger SanJoseLady said...


While I understand exactly what you are saying, in this instance Reed has no choice. If he claimed any of the expenses he was reimbursed for as tax deductions, it is a crime.

His whole campaign is about how ethical and honest he is, and slowly that campaign is just melting away.

He has to show his return, and he can't just ammend his return to "fix" this issue.

The only way he can come "clean" is to show all of his deductions, my guess would be that he did not deduct those things.

At 11:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do any of you actually work in a Council office and know what Councilmember's spend their money on??? It's amazing that EVERYONE on the Council spent the money the way Reed did but that's not getting any press.

And, maybe you should read the grand jury transcripts. Reed knew nothing about the backroom deal. He knew Norcal wanted more money but wasn't sure how they were going to get it. That doesn't qualify as "knowing everything" to me. Funny how Chavez had trouble remembering anything during her testimony. Very convenient.

At 8:06 PM, Anonymous concerned dem said...

hey anonymous - do you actually work in a city council member's office?

At 6:30 AM, Blogger SanJoseLady said...

Hey Anonymous,

Who else on the city council gave away dollar bills at at a Tet festival at taxpayer expense?

Who else wrote personal checks for Tsunami relief and then was reimbursed by they city?

Who else did these things to the tune of $38,000?


Post a Comment

<< Home