" The big problem here is Imus himself. No one will ever accuse him of being "humble." Gratuitous insults and tricky multilevel commentary are his trademarks.
"Looking at the ranch as a business, I am willing to bet he is right--a majority of the alleged expenses is a result of accrual based depreciation. It would be best if he summarized a cash income statement, a cash flow statement and an assets determination.
"All he has to do to correct this matter is when there are no children at the ranch, pay some nominal sum for his own stay at the ranch.
"In the meantime, the money is privately obtained, it is a charity and who the hell cares?
"Finally, Imus may lack humility but no one ever accused a newspaper reporter as lacking in "envy" when it came to debunking real or imagined celebrities.
This imbroglio was about nothing. As I suspected, the problem was the Government requiring the Imus Ranch to do their financial report on an accrual basis with depreciation. Like most charities with real estate holdings this results in a false sense of expenses since the actual charity is usually ran on a cash basis--that is, money in and money out for the year.
The WSJ reporter was operating on "class envy" and assuming wrong doing when none was there. The WSJ should apologize and Imus should apologize for being such a suck up to the liberal esthetes who listen to him.
I agree and I was surprised that the "class envy" showed up on the front page of a premier business newspaper.
I'm even more surprised at the "class envy" showing up on this conservative forum.