Seriously, how did Harry Reid get so rich?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Uh, hello...he works for the US government? That alone grants you infinite access to corporate cash. The more they make as a government official pretty much dictates the level at which they've sacrificed their soul for monetary gain in my eyes.
[/quote

This. Not really that complicated, I think.

[BigSkyBob]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/harry-reids-dirty-laundry/

By his own account Reid entered Congress a man of limited assets, drew the modest salary of a Congressman/Senator, paid for 100 semesters of college for his four sons, yet amassed a net worth over $10,000,000. Those are numbers that just don't add up.

[John Dibble]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/harry-reids-dirty-laundry/

By his own account Reid entered Congress a man of limited assets, drew the modest salary of a Congressman/Senator, paid for 100 semesters of college for his four sons, yet amassed a net worth over $10,000,000. Those are numbers that just don't add up.

LULZ. When Reid entered Congress in 1983 the salary of a representative was $69,800 a year, which would be $140,769.89 adjusted for inflation. By what standard is that modest?


Anywho, did some checking because this thread lacks any real analysis, and it's important to note what assets Harry Reid actually has - having assets is not necessarily the same thing as having cash at hand. It should be noted that Reid's assets are not necessarily worth $10,360,000.00 - in fact they could be less. In fact, the same source that the article in the OP mentions, opensecrets.org, specifies that range:

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00009922&year=2010

Assets: 58 totaling $3,402,053 to $10,360,000

The $10 million figure is the high estimate, and isn't likely an accurate figure. It's likely closer to the middle - $6.8 million average according the site. That's still a lot of course.

As mentioned real-estate makes up 80% of his total assets. Real estate values can change drastically in either direction depending on the prevailing conditions, and it can be quite profitable even without insider information if you know what you're doing. On a Congressman's salary it wouldn't be unusual for someone to be able to buy some promising land on the cheap as an investment.

One real estate asset of Reid's particularly stands out - he owns 160 acres of land in Bullhead City, AZ that is valued at $1,000,001 to $5,000,000. That's almost a third of the low total and almost half of the high estimate.

Since this is his largest asset, it's the most worth investigating. I managed to dig up some history in regards to this land:

1. Reid initially purchased the 100 acres of the land somewhere between 1979 and 1982 for $150,000. (somewhere between $356,120.21 and $473,355.37) His friend Clair Haycock bought the other 60 acres in the same period for $90,000. (they actually bought it together as one parcel, and that's just how the numbers work out)

2. In 1987 Haycock turned over his interest in the land to an employee pension fund he was the trustee of.

3. In the early 1990's an investment group bought the land from Reid and Haycock for $1.3 million, but ended up defaulting and the land returned to Reid and Haycock.

4. In 2002 Haycock sold his interest in the land to Reid for a mere $10,000. The Mojave County assessor valued the whole parcel at $339,620, so Haycock's portion would have been worth ~$127,000 at the time. Six months later Reid introduced a bill that would help lubricants dealers that had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. Haycock runs a lubricant distribution business. The bill failed. However, this may be unrelated to the sale as records do indicate that Reid had been pushing for such legislation since the mid 90's. The pension fund was also closed out having met it's obligations, so the land being sold under market value may not have been an issue and Haycock may have just been eager to get it off the books.

5. In 2003 Reid - at the time a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's transportation subcommittee - acted on a request from the town of Laughlin, NV,which borders Bullhead City, and secured $500,000 to do a preliminary study on building a new bridge between the two towns. In 2006 he sponsored an earmark for $18 million to build the bridge. The bridge is actually close to his land, and the bridge would likely make the value go up.

Sources:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Nevada/Harry_Reid/Scandals/Bridge_Earmark/
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/28/nation/na-reid28


So Reid's history with the land isn't entirely spotless, but it isn't definitely damning either. Haycock selling him the land for less than market value could have been greasing his palms for legislation, but given that there are records that Reid was already pushing for that legislation it could be unrelated. The bridge earmark certainly benefits Reid personally, but the bridge apparently does have legitimate support from a Nevada town so his support for it was not necessarily tied to his interest in the land. His ethics in regards to this land isn't entirely clear.

However, this does show some things that address the question asked in regards to Reid in the opening of this thread:

Reid's single largest asset by far was purchased before he entered Congress in 1983. Costing $356,120.21 and $473,355.37 in today's dollars, it's clear he had a good amount of money before he entered Congress. He also couldn't have gotten insider information from being in Congress when purchasing the land either. Potentially he might have gotten info at the time from being the Nevada Gaming Commission chairman, but anyone would have had access to the knowledge that Laughlin is a casino town and that buying nearby land would be a potentially good investment.


I'm going to err on the side of him probably not having used insider knowledge and that he's largely just a savvy real-estate investor.

[Indy Texas]

My guess would be real estate. If you bought land in Nevada at any point in the 20th century and sold it prior to 2007, you'd probably have a fantastic rate of return (due to a combination of demand for residential housing in the Las Vegas area, and the US government buying and selling land in the rest of the state).

According to Wikipedia, he grew up in a very poor family and began working as a city attorney right out of law school (no high-paying Big Law jobs at any point). So if it wasn't real estate, the only other explanation I can think of is his wife and/or her family.

[BigSkyBob]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/harry-reids-dirty-laundry/

By his own account Reid entered Congress a man of limited assets, drew the modest salary of a Congressman/Senator, paid for 100 semesters of college for his four sons, yet amassed a net worth over $10,000,000. Those are numbers that just don't add up.

LULZ. When Reid entered Congress in 1983 the salary of a representative was $69,800 a year, which would be $140,769.89 adjusted for inflation. By what standard is that modest?


Anywho, did some checking because this thread lacks any real analysis, and it's important to note what assets Harry Reid actually has - having assets is not necessarily the same thing as having cash at hand. It should be noted that Reid's assets are not necessarily worth $10,360,000.00 - in fact they could be less. In fact, the same source that the article in the OP mentions, opensecrets.org, specifies that range:

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00009922&year=2010

Assets: 58 totaling $3,402,053 to $10,360,000

The $10 million figure is the high estimate, and isn't likely an accurate figure. It's likely closer to the middle - $6.8 million average according the site. That's still a lot of course.

As mentioned real-estate makes up 80% of his total assets. Real estate values can change drastically in either direction depending on the prevailing conditions, and it can be quite profitable even without insider information if you know what you're doing. On a Congressman's salary it wouldn't be unusual for someone to be able to buy some promising land on the cheap as an investment.

One real estate asset of Reid's particularly stands out - he owns 160 acres of land in Bullhead City, AZ that is valued at $1,000,001 to $5,000,000. That's almost a third of the low total and almost half of the high estimate.

Since this is his largest asset, it's the most worth investigating. I managed to dig up some history in regards to this land:

1. Reid initially purchased the 100 acres of the land somewhere between 1979 and 1982 for $150,000. (somewhere between $356,120.21 and $473,355.37) His friend Clair Haycock bought the other 60 acres in the same period for $90,000. (they actually bought it together as one parcel, and that's just how the numbers work out)

2. In 1987 Haycock turned over his interest in the land to an employee pension fund he was the trustee of.

3. In the early 1990's an investment group bought the land from Reid and Haycock for $1.3 million, but ended up defaulting and the land returned to Reid and Haycock.

4. In 2002 Haycock sold his interest in the land to Reid for a mere $10,000. The Mojave County assessor valued the whole parcel at $339,620, so Haycock's portion would have been worth ~$127,000 at the time. Six months later Reid introduced a bill that would help lubricants dealers that had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. Haycock runs a lubricant distribution business. The bill failed. However, this may be unrelated to the sale as records do indicate that Reid had been pushing for such legislation since the mid 90's. The pension fund was also closed out having met it's obligations, so the land being sold under market value may not have been an issue and Haycock may have just been eager to get it off the books.

5. In 2003 Reid - at the time a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's transportation subcommittee - acted on a request from the town of Laughlin, NV,which borders Bullhead City, and secured $500,000 to do a preliminary study on building a new bridge between the two towns. In 2006 he sponsored an earmark for $18 million to build the bridge. The bridge is actually close to his land, and the bridge would likely make the value go up.

Sources:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Nevada/Harry_Reid/Scandals/Bridge_Earmark/
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/28/nation/na-reid28


So Reid's history with the land isn't entirely spotless, but it isn't definitely damning either. Haycock selling him the land for less than market value could have been greasing his palms for legislation, but given that there are records that Reid was already pushing for that legislation it could be unrelated. The bridge earmark certainly benefits Reid personally, but the bridge apparently does have legitimate support from a Nevada town so his support for it was not necessarily tied to his interest in the land. His ethics in regards to this land isn't entirely clear.

However, this does show some things that address the question asked in regards to Reid in the opening of this thread:

Reid's single largest asset by far was purchased before he entered Congress in 1983. Costing $356,120.21 and $473,355.37 in today's dollars, it's clear he had a good amount of money before he entered Congress. He also couldn't have gotten insider information from being in Congress when purchasing the land either. Potentially he might have gotten info at the time from being the Nevada Gaming Commission chairman, but anyone would have had access to the knowledge that Laughlin is a casino town and that buying nearby land would be a potentially good investment.


I'm going to err on the side of him probably not having used insider knowledge and that he's largely just a savvy real-estate investor.

Your analysis has the following problem: in the early 90's the parcel had a market value [willing buyer meet willing seller] of $1.3 million dollars. Currently, it is valued somewhere in the 1-5 million range. The middle of that would be $3 million. It stretches all credulity to claim a 37.5% share of the property had a fair market value of $127,000 in 2002. More likely, the assessed values in Arizona don't track market values dollar-for-dollar, or Reid simply wasn't paying the level of property tax he ought to have paid.

In any case, the debate is between whether Reid accepted what amounts to a personal gift of either $117,000 or $400,000+ from a person whom had business before the Senate. That stinks to high heaven!

[John Dibble]

Your analysis has the following problem: in the early 90's the parcel had a market value [willing buyer meet willing seller] of $1.3 million dollars. Currently, it is valued somewhere in the 1-5 million range. The middle of that would be $3 million. It stretches all credulity to claim a 37.5% share of the property had a fair market value of $127,000 in 2002. More likely, the assessed values in Arizona don't track market values dollar-for-dollar, or Reid simply wasn't paying the level of property tax he ought to have paid.

I fail to see why that is a problem. Assessed values don't necessarily match market values anywhere, and that is beyond Reid's control. Also, as previously mentioned in the analysis, property values change depending on the prevailing conditions.

For example, homes in my neighborhood sold for about $230,000 back in 2007 when they were built. Today three of those homes are for sale at an average asking price of $150,000, a 35% decline in value in just five years. This is for townhomes that sit on less than acre of land each. Land values get even more complicated when you involve undeveloped land, because it's much harder to assess something that doesn't have a determined utility and doesn't have something comparable to assess against.

This article shows some more history of the assessed value of the property, and explains why the assessment jumped significantly in 2010. Also, according to this article the land value is now back into the $250,000 to $500,000 range, significantly decreasing his net worth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was mentioned in the analysis, as well as the fact that he had already been pushing for the legislation in question long before the sale.

[BigSkyBob]

Your analysis has the following problem: in the early 90's the parcel had a market value [willing buyer meet willing seller] of $1.3 million dollars. Currently, it is valued somewhere in the 1-5 million range. The middle of that would be $3 million. It stretches all credulity to claim a 37.5% share of the property had a fair market value of $127,000 in 2002. More likely, the assessed values in Arizona don't track market values dollar-for-dollar, or Reid simply wasn't paying the level of property tax he ought to have paid.

I fail to see why that is a problem. Assessed values don't necessarily match market values anywhere, and that is beyond Reid's control. Also, as previously mentioned in the analysis, property values change depending on the prevailing conditions.

I would remind you that you wrote, "The Mojave County assessor valued the whole parcel at $339,620, so Haycock's portion would have been worth ~$127,000 at the time." You seem to be recanting your own position.

In case you forgot, 2002 was a during the upswing in real estate prices. The par assumption would be that the lot was worth more in 2002 than it was in the early 90's, and, about the same as it is currently valued after the further boom and crash post 2002. That would place the value of the personal gift Reid received from a person with business before the Senate at around a million dollars. Generally, signing over a $1,000,000 position for a single penny on the dollar isn't the type of transaction a person who wants to clean up his books would do. It stinks to high heaven.

[John Dibble]

Your analysis has the following problem: in the early 90's the parcel had a market value [willing buyer meet willing seller] of $1.3 million dollars. Currently, it is valued somewhere in the 1-5 million range. The middle of that would be $3 million. It stretches all credulity to claim a 37.5% share of the property had a fair market value of $127,000 in 2002. More likely, the assessed values in Arizona don't track market values dollar-for-dollar, or Reid simply wasn't paying the level of property tax he ought to have paid.

I fail to see why that is a problem. Assessed values don't necessarily match market values anywhere, and that is beyond Reid's control. Also, as previously mentioned in the analysis, property values change depending on the prevailing conditions.

I would remind you that you wrote, "The Mojave County assessor valued the whole parcel at $339,620, so Haycock's portion would have been worth ~$127,000 at the time." You seem to be recanting your own position.

Excuse me, what position would it be that I'm recanting? I noted the assessed value at the time and that Haycock sold it to Reid for significantly less than the assessed value. These are simple matters of fact demonstrated by the sources I linked to - why exactly is that a problem in the analysis? How does that constitute a 'position'? Are you trying to say that the Mojave County assessor didn't actually assess the whole parcel at $339,620?

[BigSkyBob]

Your analysis has the following problem: in the early 90's the parcel had a market value [willing buyer meet willing seller] of $1.3 million dollars. Currently, it is valued somewhere in the 1-5 million range. The middle of that would be $3 million. It stretches all credulity to claim a 37.5% share of the property had a fair market value of $127,000 in 2002. More likely, the assessed values in Arizona don't track market values dollar-for-dollar, or Reid simply wasn't paying the level of property tax he ought to have paid.

I fail to see why that is a problem. Assessed values don't necessarily match market values anywhere, and that is beyond Reid's control. Also, as previously mentioned in the analysis, property values change depending on the prevailing conditions.

I would remind you that you wrote, "The Mojave County assessor valued the whole parcel at $339,620, so Haycock's portion would have been worth ~$127,000 at the time." You seem to be recanting your own position.

Excuse me, what position would it be that I'm recanting? I noted the assessed value at the time and that Haycock sold it to Reid for significantly less than the assessed value. These are simple matters of fact demonstrated by the sources I linked to - why exactly is that a problem in the analysis? How does that constitute a 'position'? Are you trying to say that the Mojave County assessor didn't actually assess the whole parcel at $339,620?

Again, my problem is with your statement, "so Haycock's portion would have been worth [approximately] $127,000." You equated assessed value with market value. Again, the property was valued by the market at $1,300,000 in the early 90's, and about $2,500,000 at the peak of the property bubble. In 2002, its value ought to have between those two figures. Selling a 37.5% stake in the land for $10,000 looks to be about a penny or two on the dollar. The rest was a massive personal gift to Reid. The man giving the money had business before the Senate.

[John Dibble]

Your analysis has the following problem: in the early 90's the parcel had a market value [willing buyer meet willing seller] of $1.3 million dollars. Currently, it is valued somewhere in the 1-5 million range. The middle of that would be $3 million. It stretches all credulity to claim a 37.5% share of the property had a fair market value of $127,000 in 2002. More likely, the assessed values in Arizona don't track market values dollar-for-dollar, or Reid simply wasn't paying the level of property tax he ought to have paid.

I fail to see why that is a problem. Assessed values don't necessarily match market values anywhere, and that is beyond Reid's control. Also, as previously mentioned in the analysis, property values change depending on the prevailing conditions.

I would remind you that you wrote, "The Mojave County assessor valued the whole parcel at $339,620, so Haycock's portion would have been worth ~$127,000 at the time." You seem to be recanting your own position.

Excuse me, what position would it be that I'm recanting? I noted the assessed value at the time and that Haycock sold it to Reid for significantly less than the assessed value. These are simple matters of fact demonstrated by the sources I linked to - why exactly is that a problem in the analysis? How does that constitute a 'position'? Are you trying to say that the Mojave County assessor didn't actually assess the whole parcel at $339,620?

Again, my problem is with your statement, "so Haycock's portion would have been worth [approximately] $127,000." You equated assessed value with market value.

I did something called math you f[Inks]ing moron. I didn't equate crap, I just noted the assessed value of that portion of the land and the major discrepancy with the selling price. That should have been f[Inks]ing obvious, but no, you have to invent a strawman about equating to market value.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Mojave County assessor assessed it for $339,620 and would have had more information on the property at the time than you or I do now. That you think it should have assessed for more is completely irrelevant, and frankly pointless as you don't have any concrete information to determine what the market value at the time actually was. If you have a problem with using data points that actually exist, then by all means just make something up.

[BigSkyBob]

Your analysis has the following problem: in the early 90's the parcel had a market value [willing buyer meet willing seller] of $1.3 million dollars. Currently, it is valued somewhere in the 1-5 million range. The middle of that would be $3 million. It stretches all credulity to claim a 37.5% share of the property had a fair market value of $127,000 in 2002. More likely, the assessed values in Arizona don't track market values dollar-for-dollar, or Reid simply wasn't paying the level of property tax he ought to have paid.

I fail to see why that is a problem. Assessed values don't necessarily match market values anywhere, and that is beyond Reid's control. Also, as previously mentioned in the analysis, property values change depending on the prevailing conditions.

I would remind you that you wrote, "The Mojave County assessor valued the whole parcel at $339,620, so Haycock's portion would have been worth ~$127,000 at the time." You seem to be recanting your own position.

Excuse me, what position would it be that I'm recanting? I noted the assessed value at the time and that Haycock sold it to Reid for significantly less than the assessed value. These are simple matters of fact demonstrated by the sources I linked to - why exactly is that a problem in the analysis? How does that constitute a 'position'? Are you trying to say that the Mojave County assessor didn't actually assess the whole parcel at $339,620?

Again, my problem is with your statement, "so Haycock's portion would have been worth [approximately] $127,000." You equated assessed value with market value.

I did something called math you f[Inks]ing moron.

Again, calculating 37.5% of the "assessed value" is math. Claiming "Hycock's portion would have been worth [approximately] $127,000" is equating the "assessed value" with the underlying "worth" of the property.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Mojave County assessor assessed it for $339,620 and would have had more information on the property at the time than you or I do now. That you think it should have assessed for more is completely irrelevant, and frankly pointless as you don't have any concrete information to determine what the market value at the time actually was. If you have a problem with using data points that actually exist, then by all means just make something up.
[/quote]

That is utter bullsh**t. We have a known datapoint that a willing seller and willing buyer meet at $1,300,000 in the early 90's. That's a concrete real world fact. Everything else is an estimate. Adding the fact that the general trend was towards higher prices for such vacant lots during the bubble years, the reasonable assumption is that the fair market value of the lot was in excess of $1,300,000 in 2002.

I will point out that the very articles you link claim the algorithm for "assessed value" is based on sales several years old. Thus, Reid challenged the 2011 assessment on the basis that it reflected the sale prices during the peak bubble years near 2007, and not the current market conditions. At best "assessed value" is a lagging indicator of price. During bubble years such lags created a gap between the underlying value of the properties and the "assessed value."

[MaxQue]

How can empty, desertic land be worth so much money?

[John Dibble]

Again, calculating 37.5% of the "assessed value" is math. Claiming "Hycock's portion would have been worth [approximately] $127,000" is equating the "assessed value" with the underlying "worth" of the property.

Again, you are taking my statement too literally. Why is that not clear to you after I've explained that a bazillion times?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is utter bullsh**t. We have a known datapoint that a willing seller and willing buyer meet at $1,300,000 in the early 90's. That's a concrete real world fact.[/quote]

It's also a concrete fact that he hasn't been able to sell it since. Has it ever occured to you that maybe the folks that agreed paid that price overpaid? They ended up defaulting, so they may not have been the smartest bunch of investors. This article, which I linked earlier, explains that assessments are done in Arizona based on the last 2 1/2 years of sales in the area. It also explains that the land apparently has problems that make developing it difficult if not impossible and that there's still no road to it. Apparently Reid even tried to give it away at one point - if the land is in actuality a cash drain it's no wonder Haycock was willing to sell it for a steal.

How can empty, desertic land be worth so much money?

For the same reason that empty land near Las Vegas is worth money - Laughlin, NV is a casino town. The casino workers for Laughlin mostly live in the neighboring Bullhead City, AZ where the land is located.

[BigSkyBob]

Again, calculating 37.5% of the "assessed value" is math. Claiming "Hycock's portion would have been worth [approximately] $127,000" is equating the "assessed value" with the underlying "worth" of the property.

Again, you are taking my statement too literally. Why is that not clear to you after I've explained that a bazillion times?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is utter bullsh**t. We have a known datapoint that a willing seller and willing buyer meet at $1,300,000 in the early 90's. That's a concrete real world fact.

It's also a concrete fact that he hasn't been able to sell it since. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the folks that agreed paid that price overpaid?  [/quote]

1) It is the height of hypocrisy for a man whom categorically denies that the assessed value of a property could be woefully inadequate to assert that the price at which a willing buyer and a willing seller meet was grossly inflated. To claim that the opinion of valuations made by bureaucrats are more accurate than the value placed by market participants is even more egregious.

2)   Large tracts designed for development are a speciality market. The value of such lots are based on what the property is worth to a developer intent on developing the tract. That sets the market price. $8,125/acre wasn't an unreasonable price. Currently, there isn't widespread demand for developing new tracts. Owning such lots in an exercise in patience waiting for someone with the desire and resources to step forward. I don't doubt the fair market value of the lot took a hit after the real estate bubble burst.

3) It did occur to me that the buyer of the lot might in fact have been funneling money to Reid. I just don't happen to believe that is what occurred. Perhaps, that angle ought to be further investigated.

4) I find Reid's protestations that the lot is worthless to be particularly egregious. There might very well be a wash on the property, but, Reid had a duty to disclose that fact to the previous buyer. They determined that they could develop the land outside of the wash profitably after paying $1,300,000 for that land.

Reid is the person whom chose to invest in property that was only "liquid" in times of large-scale development. In 2002 when Reid received a sweatheart deal from Hycock, the rate of development indicated that Reid would have an opportunity to sell the lot at a good price. He didn't. Now, his lot is a tad bit "illiquid" because of the real estate bust, and resulting reduction in housing starts. He must now continue to pay the property tax until housing development resumes in that area. That is simply the nature of the investment that Reid made and ought to have known about before buying the parcel in the first place.

I think Reid has caught taking a large personal gift from a person with business before the Senate, and, is attempting to revise history, and pervert economics, to whitewash that fact away.

[BigSkyBob]

How can empty, desertic land be worth so much money?

Peroidically, it is worth money to developers whom have the resources to build housing, and housing infrastructure on the land.

[Link]

To all my right leaning friends lets be very clear.  Romney has lied about his taxes before.  This is a fact.  He asked us to trust him.  We of course didn't and once he finally released his taxes we found out he lied.  Not a good track record.

The second thing is Harry Reid is NOT a major party's nominee for president of the United States.  Please stop with the false equivalency.  Explain why your guy is behaving in this manner.  Don't go to down ticket politicians and start applying novel standards to them.  Just explain why your guy who has already been caught lying doesn't want to show us his taxes.  Is he lying again?

And of course the third thing is Romney's $100 million IRA.  Let's be clear.  NEVER in the history of this country has anyone had a $100 million IRA.  Romney is nowhere near the richest person in the US.  He is a small fish compared to even Mark Zuckerburg.  What separates Romney from the megawealthy is none of them have a $100 million IRA.  The amount of ink righties are spilling about Harry Reid's TOTAL of $10 million in assets is comical when the $100 million IRA elephant is sitting in the the room.  I've seen $10 million net worths from pretty mundane people lots of times.  My parents aren't senators, well connected, financiers nor industrialists and they've got a few million.  They don't have a 100 million IRA though.

I have yet to hear anyone, not a Koch brother, not a Foster Friess, not a Sheldon Anderson come out and say "yeah 100 million in an IRA is normal."  Frankly quite the opposite.  So let's take a break from going through Reid's relatively paltry 10 million and ask some questions about $100 million IRA guy who lies about his taxes.