Apparently, Chuck Grassley is
very, very concerned with the immigration status of Tim Geithner's former household employees. Because what matters is not the quality of the economists dealing with the biggest financial crisis in 80 years--it's making sure Mexicans don't clean their floors without the right permit.
The funny part is, it isn't even a story:
"Mr. Geithner employed a housekeeper whose immigration papers expired during her tenure with Mr. Geithner, currently president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The woman went on to get a green card to work legally in the country and federal immigration authorities didn't press charges against her, these people said."
Is this the best they can do? Seriously!
I thought everybody in major American cities had an illegal immigrant housekeeper that they pay in cash?
Would it be similarly stupid if, say, Mr. Geithner were a convicted sex offender? After all, that really doesn't say much his economic qualifications.
I fear that as the scrutiny level for various public office rises (not so much from changing morality standards as from increasing technology and quantity of media coverage) we'll cross a threshold where instead of getting a marginally "cleaner" candidate, you start getting the "dirty" candidates who have simply mastered hiding their imperfections.
I think it was largely the fact that Obama’s nominee for Treasury Secretary had to pay about $43,200 in back taxes and interest, most of which was paid right before his nomination was announced, that got the attention of the members of the Senate.
Given that Obama’s original pick for Commerce Secretary had to withdraw because of political scandal, Geithner’s delinquent taxes and other improprieties would seem to be fair game.
Time to bring back Janet Reno!
Staash,
I agree.
If Megan realized that immigrants are the reason for this economic crisis, then Megan would also realize the importance of this matter.
Good luck on that one, Steve. Several of us tried to make points about not only immigration, but rebuilding our own manufacturing base, adjusting the trade imbalance and making certain countries own up to their own currency manipulation and were roundly ignored.
No one cares.
Just as certain bloggers (i.e. the entire financial blogging community) is choosing to conveniently ignore the fact that Citigroup merged Smith Barney into Morgan Stanley's brokerage operations.
A story that was widely predicted and that one might THINK is worthy of at least a two sentence blurb. Deafening silence.
Par for course around here.
I don’t think that hiring an illegal alien or rather hiring a legal alien whose ability to work in the country lapsed while she was working for you is in the same league as being a convicted sex offender. However even if it was an honest mistake, it comes across as one of those “rich people's problems” as most people clean their own homes, raise their own children, and take care of their own lawns rather than having to worry about the immigration status of the people they hire to do it for them. I doubt that Senator Grassley made a bigger deal of it than necessary to enter it into the public record and the news cycle so that it could potentially be used in the future.
John, your comment on MS-Citi is so uninformed I don't know where to begin. That story has been reported for days.
Perhaps you don't read the newspaper.
On the whole I'll agree with the meme that being a convicted sex offender is far worse than hiring an illegal alien. But, since everyone seems to want to split hairs anyway, I'd note with the increasingly stringent regulations on what being a sex offender consists of, I'm not always willing to go along with this.
It's far worse to be Bernard Kerik, given what he knew, than say Genarlow Wilson, who engaged in consenting oral sex with a fifteen year old when he was seventeen and was not only convicted, but actually sent to prison for two years.
So it depends. If we're talking about someone who had sex with a seventeen year old when they were nineteen, as opposed to someone who knowingly and purposefully employed illegal immigrants I'm not sure I can agree with that.
If we're taking the specific case of Geithner I agree it's stupid. But if we're just comparing the two in general, it's far more dependent on the details.
"John, your comment on MS-Citi is so uninformed I don't know where to begin. That story has been reported for days.
Perhaps you don't read the newspaper."
Yawn. And the chorus comes running already.
Also TC if you bothered to actually READ my posts you would have noticed I've been asking for a post on this for DAYS too, not just starting today.
But of course you can't be bothered to actually read.
Also since you enjoy posting snide responses to any comment I make TC, perhaps you'd like to respond to my WHOLE post and Steve's earlier point as opposed to what you just cherry-picked out of it.
At this point John, perhaps I should point out that the earlier message and this one are fake.
You're not very bright, so it would have taken you forever otherwise.
Are you black?
John,
I'm all for owning up to currency manipulation, but I think the US should probably own up too.
What do you think happens to the value of the dollar when the US consistently lowers interest rates, and keeps them at pretty much 0% levels? What happens when you combine this fact with the Federal government requiring to take out more and more LOANS to pay for the INTEREST on its debt, to say nothing of actually paying down its debt?
Do you not think this type of action is manipulating the value of the dollar, making it low, and thus boosting our exports.
Yes we have a huge export deficit, but we also export a LOT and those exports have risen over time. We just important a bunch and at a faster rate too.
Maybe if we stopped our Ponzi scheme of borrowing money to pay for interest on the loans we borrowed last year we wouldn't have to point fingers at other people...
John writes: "On the whole I'll agree with the meme that being a convicted sex offender is far worse than hiring an illegal alien."
Wow, I really didn't expect my snarky comment to trigger a debate on the merits of convicted sex offenders vs. employers of illegal aliens.
My point was that it's impossible to divorce the way someone conducts his daily life with what informs his decision-making. If Geithner has a blasé attitude about the societal costs of illegal immigration, then it logically follows that he has a blasé attitude about those of us who bear those costs.
Thank you sam for a real answer to my post.
Steve, am I black? No I'm not. Excuse me, what does that have to do with anything?
Are we know racially self-identifying ourselves.
What is the cost that a bitter, lonely, permanently masturbating individual bears?
John,
Just checking. I only talk to black people if I'm ordering food.
Well, gosh Staash, since Megan's intial post was about that don't know what to tell you.
As for snarky and snide responses perhaps you should look at what I'm getting.
Also when someone asks you to self-identify your race instead of responding to you then come tell me about it.
Probably the most important single rule for a decent society is that the rulers should also be subject to the law. Why should O's men be exempt?
"Just checking. I only talk to black people if I'm ordering food.
Posted by Steve Sailer "
I take it THAT comment will roundly be ignored by ALL of you, again, correct?
"What is the cost that a bitter, lonely, permanently masturbating individual bears?"
Priapism, I'm guessing?
"John,
Just checking. I only talk to black people if I'm ordering food."
And I only talk to white people when I'm interested in talking to a group of people who have lost all political power, have run the economy into the drain and are about to become an ethnic minority inside the United States.
Oh I'm just kidding, Steve. Gosh how stupid are you?
Are you white?
John,
I may be stupid, but I've already told you that I'm a fake poster.
You must be black to be that dumb.
I'll have some fried chicken please.
"You must be black to be that dumb.
I'll have some fried chicken please."
Great, Steve. That'll happen as soon as you stop banging your sister and step out of your trailer.
Of course you'll need more than two teeth to eat it though, so good luck with that.
John,
I'm not actually Steve. You're trying to score points against someone who isn't even posting.
How many posts before you work that out?
"You're trying to score points against someone who isn't even posting."
You ARE posting moron. You're acting like we CARE who the real Steve Sailer is.
I care that you're a racist moron. Not that you're not the vaunted Steve Sailer (ooooh! we were really holding out for him.)
So put down the peanut butter, put down your son who's also your nephew, step away from the computer and stop being a racist moron.
John,
I was being a parody of a racist moron, by saying immigration was the reason America is in financial crisis.
You didn't spot the parody, and agreed with me.
I think you may be the racist here. You're certainly the moron.
And I'm not really real. But continue to win the endless war against somebody who is wrong on the internet.
Don't worry, Steve. I will. Because thankfully we live in a country where people aren't actually DUMB enough to fall for racial parodies.
Oh, wait, whoops!
Do you have any original material? Or are you going to keep up with the goodies but oldies.
Let's face it John, it's not the first time you've fallen for obvious parody:
meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/a_modest_proposal.php#comment-1201289
"But continue to win the endless war against somebody who is wrong on the internet."
Don't worry I intend to. What percentage of the country insisted on believing the current President-Elect was Muslim even after he wasn't?
How many people still insist on seeing his birth-certificate?
"meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/a_modest_proposal.php#comment-1201289"
Strange the real Steve Sailer was there. Also how did you get access to Steve's account? One might think he'd be a tad mad.
Especially given the racist drivel you're posting under his name. Are we going to hear from him any time soon?
Let' not change the subject John, which is how spectacularly easy you are to dupe.
Here's a hint Steve: Think whatever you want to think about me, do whatever parodies you want. But posting racist drivel, then being too cowardly to own up to the fact it's you is about as low as it gets.
"Let' not change the subject John, which is how spectacularly easy you are to dupe."
So are you willing to admit the racist drivel is yours yet Steve?
John,
As much as it amuses us to watch you flail around trying to get anyone to pay attention to you, you are deflecting the course of Megan's otherwise (semi) useful comments.
So I was going to point out WHY nobody is paying attention... but then I thought twice and won't.
Funny, yet you managed to post anyway pat.
This is fun. Anyone else?
Come on, Steve. You done already? Doctorpat any chance you want to post about how you're not going to post again?
And now the Dems find out what Presidential scrutiny is like.
I'm from Illinois, and the sense of entitlement and culture of corruption of those headed to D.C. in Barack's tow right now, in combination with the trillions being spent in "stimulus," is going to create some truly awe-inspiring acts of patronage politics.
Hope Blago is ready for some cellmates.
Nah they'll probably just put him in the cell with George Ryan.
So they can sleep safely at night but shower time could prove uncomfortable for both of them.
Oh, and isn't it funny it took longer to find out about an Obama Cabinet pick's tax problems than those of some guy in Ohio who asked Obama a tough question?
I agree. But some people here don't want to look at Obama.
P.S. Don't bring up the Geithner thing. They get pretty sensitive about that one.
Ahh I have more fun on here than you can imagine.
"John I'm riled up by one of your posts. I would post on it, but I'm not gonna bother. Naaah! I think you're an idiot so I'm going to bother to write 30 entries in response to you. Naah! I'm Steve Sailer."
It's not the permit that bothers me it's the tax evasion. I don't think someone who is charged with enforcing our income tax laws via the IRS can effectively serve if he/she disobeys those same laws. I have a live in nanny and I pay through the nose in payroll taxes for her. I do it because I should even when no one is looking.
The servant's immigration troubles aren't a major issue, but the tax evasion is.
Megan should have better sense. Sure, there's a serious crisis going on -- and guess what, the recovery does not hinge on who the next Treasury Secretary is. Excusing tax evasion on the grounds that we're in a financial crisis and there just isn't time to worry about the law is not terribly helpful.
There are more economists after Geithner, I don't really care whether he make it or not, its immaterial. The next secretary of treasury will be a quality individual. There is no reason to protect or assault Geithner accept to enter into some kind of integrity argument. Which is always an efficient waste of time. Very economic in that goal of wasting energy.
Well, I would not be that troubled if a sex offender advises the secretary.
One of the great economists and an influential adviser to the British government, John Maynard Keynes had a relatively tumultuous sex life. Fortunately for us, he kept (like a good economist) a very detailed diary:
So (as quoted from http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/node/824
"When he had what was apparently a quick, anonymous hook-up, he listed that sex partner generically: "16-year-old under Etna" or "Lift boy of Vauxhall" in 1911, for instance, or "Jew boy" in 1912"
so - according to todays standards - he would face serious jail time!
Brian: I'm not sure if my own experiences paying a legal nanny over the table make me more or less sympathetic. (One year I filed 19 tax returns, for example.) I imagine I made lots of errors, too.
On the other hand, I detest the tax code authors who made that necessary. With a white-hot detestation.
Dan writes:
"Megan should have better sense. Sure, there's a serious crisis going on -- and guess what, the recovery does not hinge on who the next Treasury Secretary is. Excusing tax evasion on the grounds that we're in a financial crisis and there just isn't time to worry about the law is not terribly helpful."
I can only think of three reasons why he failed to pay his takes:
* He didn't know he needed to pay a self-employment tax. Great, so he's an idiot.
* He couldn't pay his taxes at the time. Great, so he has a gambling/drug/prostitute addiction.
* He thought he could get away with it. Great, so he's a thief.
Maybe Megan can posit another explanation that will put our minds at ease, but this doesn't sounds like the type of guy to entrust with the keys to the federal treasury.
It's nice knowing that failure to register for the selective service (a legitimate oversight for a lot of 18 year olds from lousy socioeconomic backgrounds) bars one from federal employment for life, but you still cheat on your taxes and be tapped for one of the most powerful positions in the country.
America has been cursed with a ruling class that, by and large, things the laws shouldn't have to apply to them. This is especially true among Democrats (who are happy to impose hideous regulations on businesses, but want to give government and Unions a pass).
I don't care what qualifications Tim Geithner has. If he can't be bothered to follow the law, then he has no business enforcing it on the rest of us (the IRS is part of the Treasury Department. No?).
You want to show us where he's publicly opposed the laws he's run afoul of? Great, we'll talk. But if he thinks we little people have to follow those rules, then he damn well should have followed them, too.
Would anybody give a shit about the housekeeper's status if she were from Romania or someplace like that?
Would anybody give a shit about the housekeeper's status if she were from Romania or someplace like that?
I don't think anyone gives a shit about it now.
Most serious commentators, left and right, are focusing on the tax issue.
The green card problem is small potatoes. Of course, to people who favor open borders, even asking questions about that sort of thing undermines any other questions you might want to ask.
Interesting that Megan would focus on the housekeeper and ignore the fact that Geithner failed to pay his taxes in 4 separate years.
If any normal person "forgot" to pay $34,000 in taxes they would most likely be financially ruined and unlikely to get hired for any job that requires a credit check. But since he is one of the smart people, I guess us peons should just keep our mouths shut.
How long until Megan responds by saying that of course she knew about the tax issue, but it isn't a big deal anyway?
(Standard Libertarian Disclaimer: I don't think anyone should have to pay taxes. However I doubt that Geithner feels the same way, so fuck him.)
Good points.
But nope, like so many things on here it's been branded beyond stupid. So we can't talk about it.
I think the tax evasion issue is really more important than the immigration issue, if only because owing the government $42,000+ in back taxes is more serious to me than the immigration violation of someone else. I'm not excusing either one, but the irony of the Treasury Department not paying taxes to the treasury is just too hypocritical for comfort. Surely there is a solid and competent economist out there who DOES pay taxes?
Steve Sailer would like to know if you're white or black. Then he can render judgement on the relevance of any points you might have.
Going back to the tax issue, one of the Obama administration’s goals is to increase not only the level of taxation but also the level of enforcement. One would think that a nominee for Secretary of the Treasury Department, which includes the IRS, who is delinquent on his taxes would be one of those scandals so laced with irony that would be getting 24-hour news coverage and ridiculed mercilessly on late-night talk shows.
Geithner's nomination should be withdrawn on the tax issue alone. It is abundantly clear that he never intended to pay the taxes until he was going to be chosen as Treasury Secretary. If his nomination is not withdrawn, then I think that should put to rest any real belief in Obama's being a more ethical administration.
Megan,
Your smug certitude never fails to annoy.
$43,000 in back taxes? My wife did contracted work in 2008 and guess what? We're reporting it and paying taxes on it. It's not hard. Being honest is a priority for us.
As for the employee, I'm less concerned about that. It could easily be an honest mistake. But, is it really so hard to be aware of an employee's status? Especially if you're an ambitious politico? Or, did he just think he was exempt?
Nero had nothing on these guys. We are so screwed.
The problem with Geithner is he's a Pigman. The men who brought us to this point.
I suppose they were just playing their historic role. Fate found the people play their part. Grassly too, way way back in the chorus.
I will agree that this is no big deal as long as every liberal democrat now nodding in agreement signs a pledge not to bring up said issues for Republicans when they are in similar straits.
But we know what happens then. "That rich fat-cat, unpatriotic, tax-avoiding, illegal alien hiring oppressor must be stopped at all costs!!!!!"
Seriously, Romney was attacked because his lawn service guys hired illegals. and yet, Obama's men are to be treated leniently.
Let's not even discuss the tax issues.
The "you can't work or live here if you're not born here even if you find a willing employer and will pay taxes" laws are stupid to begin with. If a foreigner doesn't obey them to find work or a citizen hires a foreigner looking for work, that should be fine with all of us. It should be a free country after all.
Nelson writes: "If a foreigner doesn't obey them to find work or a citizen hires a foreigner looking for work, that should be fine with all of us. It should be a free country after all."
Excellent attempt at sarcasm.
"Because what matters is not the quality of the economists dealing with the biggest financial crisis in 80 years--it's making sure Mexicans don't clean their floors without the right permit."
Quality of the economist???...he prepped his own taxes and he botched it for a few years. This money genius failed to pay portions of his taxes. Who cares about Mexicans.
I don't see any sarcasm in what I said Staash.
Reducing the restrictions on foreigners living and working here is a good idea for many reasons.
If the person is well educated, like a Scientist or Engineer, he or she will add to our economy far more than they ever take from it. Scientists and Engineers are the types of people who "make the pie bigger" and advance civilization in ways no one has thought of yet. Many jobs would be created in this instance.
From the other end of the scale, the mostly uneducated immigrant who barely speaks English will encourage our own citizens to stay in school or take night courses and get their GEDs. Because, frankly, if you can't compete with someone who dropped out of school and barely understands the language and culture, you're not living up to your potential. This adds to our economy indirectly because a better educated citizenship will make us stronger as a nation over the long term.
It is important for ever scandal to have something relatively non-scandalous or ordinary about it so the media can bring it to the forefront and ignore the more important parts of the scandal.
So Clinton was about nothing more than a bj, and this guy did nothing more than pay a maid in cash. Never bother to question the other more important issues at work, just blow up the irrelevant points of the scandal to make the accusers to look like fools.
Many, many people in large metro areas like New York have nannies or "cleaning ladies". It is not just super-rich people. In the NY area where I live, there are plenty of dual income families where the working hours are too long or too irregular not to have a nanny to pick the kids up from school, or watch pre-schoolers, or whatever. Think what you want about these families, I'm just telling you that this situation is extremely common in Manhattan and the suburbs of NYC. Cleaning ladies are even more common. The IRS and everyone else knows full well that the vast majority of these nannies and cleaning ladies work "off the books". That's just the way it is. Now, you can all call all those employers law-breaking scumbags who should be banned from all forms of public service, but basically the infraction is about on par with speeding in the seriousness with which the offense is viewed, the degree to which it is prosecuted (NEVER), and the frequence of its occurence among those who employ such people. Furthermore, many of the employees in these situations request or even demand to be paid off the books.
I am not saying any of this is right, or that it was ok for Geithner not to pay his taxes. I am just saying that you need to consider how much higher a standard you want to put on people who aspire to government service. Should we rule out anyone who has ever had a speeding ticket? Ridiculous, right? Well, given the fact that our society and the government itself makes even less effort to enforce the nanny tax than it does to control speeding, perhaps we ought to think twice before selectively prosecuting people who want to serve that very government and society.
If you are mad that nannies are working off the books, write to your congressman and demand better enforcement of the household employer rules.
What's really galling about the tax issue is that he:
- was given a booklet at the time he was hired by the IMF that explained that they weren't required to withold social security and medicare taxes, were not going to withhold them or pay the employer's half, and he was required to pay self-employment tax
- applied for and got a bump in the salary he was paid to make up for having to pay self-employment tax
So, he was told he had to pay the tax, was given extra money to do so, and didn't until the Obama people vetted him, DESPITE the fact that IRS audited him for two years, found he owed it for two of the four years he was at the IMF. From CNN:
The housekeeper issue is unremarkable and was his housekeeper's problem, not his. But this tax issue is troubling.
Megan,
I am curious as to why you mentioned the questions raised about the immigration status of Mr. Geithner's nanny but not his tax issue. From the reports that I have read, everyone agrees that the nanny's immigration status does not affect Mr. Geithner's nomination for Treasury Secretary, but the fact that he did not pay back taxes for two of his years with IMF until the day before his nomination may. Yet from just reading your post, I would never know that.
Mr. Geithner's creditials for the position appear pretty solid, but he should have known at the time the IRS audit his returns for two of the years that he worked at the IMF that he owed additional back taxes for that portion of his IMF tenure that the IRS had not investigated. Nevertheless, Mr. Geithner chose not to amend his returns and pay the back taxes for those other years until he knew that others would be examining his background. I find this very troubling, especially since the Treasury Secretary is charged with enforcing the nation's tax laws.
"From the other end of the scale, the mostly uneducated immigrant who barely speaks English will encourage our own citizens to stay in school or take night courses and get their GEDs."
You are a master of satire, my friend.
"I am just saying that you need to consider how much higher a standard you want to put on people who aspire to government service"
Not being a tax evader is a pretty low bar for someone working in the Treasury department, much less leading it.
Megan, for you to leave out the tax issue in your post just shows what a clueless dunce you are.
It is somewhat more concerning that Obama's nominee for Mr. Smart Economist Treasury Secretary is apparently unable to read and understand the IRS documentation.
Even I managed to figure out that I had to pay SECA tax on my foreign-source income. The IRS docs are confusing, but they're not _that_ bad. But apparently it never occurred to an allegedly smart economist (who of all people should have some understanding of taxation) that he was being given extra money to cover taxes that he wasn't paying, and that he was mysteriously paying lower taxes on his employment than anyone else, and that just possibly he had made a mistake.
At best, this is incompetent stupidity, and raises a serious question about his suitability for the job. At worst, it's deliberate tax fraud.
Remember when character mattered?
When Bob Packwood hitting on an intern was enough to get him drummed out of office? When Gary Hart lost his entire career to one photo of him with a pretty blonde on his lap? When accepting a large signing bonus was enough of a taint of corruption to force the Speaker of the House to resign? And again with another Speaker?
But then the most popular President since Ike gets caught up in a series of scandals, including allegations of extra-marital misbehavior, sexual harassment, obstruction of justice, rape, real-estate swindles, futures-market manipulation, unethical firings, harassing private citizens via the IRS, using state-employed security to set up his affairs... and that's only the start.
Now, "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." Any indication that a person is a total sleaze is irrelevant to whether they are qualified to hold high office, either as elected officials or bureaucrats.
Are we better off with this, "as long as I like his politics" attitude?
Maybe. Gary Hart probably would have been a better President than Carter (a straight-shooter if there ever was one) turned out to be.
But sometimes I wonder.
My understanding is that the IRS (which is part of the Treasury Department) takes a rather negative view over employees or prospective employees who are delinquent in their taxes, let alone for four years, and it may even disqualify someone from being hired there. I don’t see anything wrong with saying that the prospective head of the Department should be held to at least as stringent of a standard as the lower level employees. Some might even say that the top person should be held to a higher standard.
Also I seem to recall from an earlier post of Megan’s that she thought (paraphrase) that if someone in government is in charge of enforcing a law, that we should have a zero tolerance policy for when they break it. Considering also that Obama campaigned in part on increasing enforcement by the IRS in part so that wealthier people would have to pay more of the taxes that they “owe,” I think it’s fair game to go after his nominee for Treasury Secretary for not paying his “fair share” for four years.
Time to vote Steve Sailer off the island.
Good lord, can't believe I am going to defend Geithner here, but my understanding is that his taxes were rather complicated because he had worked for the IMF. I think it's probably quite easy to be delinquent on your taxes (without even the IRS knowing it!) if your taxes are anything but a single W-2 job, standard deduction, under $100K. I'm usually on your side, Thorley, but have to disagree here.
Oh, one more point actually. I think this should be hailed as a victory for libertarians, if Geithner becomes Treasury chief. Maybe given his experiences, the IRS will become less evil and will stop going after the children of Holocaust survivors who inherited Swiss bank accounts?
I concur 100% with the general opinion that the immigration issue is beyond stupid, but the tax issue is not. The only bright spot there for me is that I believe he thought he could get away with tax fraud, not that he just didn't understand the forms. (Though I believe that many genuine geniuses cannot, in fact, understand those forms- *FLATTAX* cough cough.) That is perfectly rational, given the IRS's audit rates. Though it is also beyond stupid not to have figured out that Treas. Sec. nomination = audit.
And the idea that an IRS lead by a guy who didn't pay his own taxes might have the affrontery to audit me? Well, to paraphrase BPC's standard libertarian disclaimer, they can eat me.
I can only imagine the liberal screaming and howling if Sarah Palin had not paid her taxes OR her housekeeper's taxes for three years!!! Why should Geithner, who has been lauded as a financial genius, get a pass for not paying his taxes?????
I can understand that, however if what other posters have said is true, namely that he was told while he worked for the IMF that he was responsible for his own Social Security and Medicare withholding (the WaPo reports that on his tax returns he acknowledged that he was responsible for this) and that part of what he was paid by the IMF was to cover those withholdings, then it’s a little hard to see this as an “honest mistake” as the incoming administration has claimed.
Also there’s the matter of his decision not to pay the amounts owed for 2001 and 2002 until three days before his nomination was announced. Granted he might argue that the statute of limitations has run out for those years and he is no longer obligated to pay anything but it’s a little difficult to believe that when he was audited in 2006, he didn’t realize that he would owe for all four of the years he worked at the IMF and didn’t pay his withholdings. This suggests that rather than merely making an “honest mistake” and promptly correcting it, he knew he did something wrong and tried to get away with it until he accepted the nomination and realized it would become public information.
Finally, I don’t think that allowing the people in charge of enforcing a set of laws to get away with breaking them will lead to reforming the laws for the rest of us. Usually it just leads to one set of rules for the elites and another for the rest of us. Our political system is filled with drug warriors who tried pot or coke in their youth, gun grabbers who used their political connections to get concealed carry permits, global warming alarmists who fly around on private jets, NEA members who enroll their own kids in private schools, Naderites who exploit their workers, etc. I suspect that if Geithner is confirmed, he won’t think twice about carrying out his boss’ agenda for expanding enforcement of the IRS on the rest of us.
No media bias here,
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/66248/
A plumber owed $1,000 in taxes that he didn’t even know about… …and it was headline news!
my understanding is that his taxes were rather complicated because he had worked for the IMF. I think it's probably quite easy to be delinquent on your taxes (without even the IRS knowing it!) if your taxes are anything but a single W-2 job, standard deduction, under $100K.
It isn't that complicated. If any of the following were true, he would have known to pay the taxes:
- He hired someone to prepare them
- He read the information the IMF provided him that warned him to pay the taxes
- He used TurboTax or one of the other cheat tax preparation packages, which automatically warn you
- He ever heard any of his coworkers complain about having to pay the tax
- He knew anything about tax law
The only way this could be an honest mistake is if he was wholly ignorant of tax law, never discussed the issue with anybody, and did his taxes by hand without bothering to read anything about them, even after being specifically told he was in a special situation. And even that doesn't explain why he didn't bother paying up for the two years the IRS didn't audit him for -- until just before he was nominated, that is.
The man's either a flake or a crook. There's no third explanation. Tax law is complicated, but the self-employment tax is depressingly simple.
You know what? What you people who want to Bork Geithner over this will get is that no one who is qualified will ever want to be in public service. Linda Chavez got Borked for this (and I agree that her case was at least as unfair as what is being done to Geithner here), Kimba Wood, Zoe Baird, etc. This is ludicrous. All you'll get is tools like John Kerry who their entire life will be "planning to serve" and dot every i, cross every t starting at age 12.
The idea that there exist some people who can guide us through this financial mess is wishful thinking.
Economics is not a science. It is largely a throw the darts at the board and pray field.
People are still debating whether the New Deal worked or prolonged the Depression. Go ahead and laugh at the Laffer Curve and you will find economists that would argue in favor of it.
We are in rough waters and there are numerous experts telling us what course to take. It is anyone's guess which one is the right course.
I have to disagree for several reasons:
First, unless “borking” is redefined so broadly as it includes any objection to a nominee including based on wrong actions that’s directly related to the job they’re applying for, I don’t think this qualifies. If someone leaks his Netflix subscription or browser history from his home computer in an attempt to destroy him politically, I’ll be the first to object.
Second, based on past history, there is no reason to think that Democrats would refrain from doing the same to a Republican nominee. They didn’t in the past and giving them a pass now won’t prevent them from doing it in the future as Bush found out after he tried to mend fences by renominating some of Clinton’s judicial nominees during his first term.
Third, I have always said that Senate Republicans should show the same degree of deference to President Obama’s nominees that candidate and Senator Obama showed President Bush’s. If the supposed lack of “empathy with what it is like to be a single mother” is enough reason to vote against a Supreme Court nominee, failure to pay withholding on your taxes for four years is certainly a legitimate reason to justify voting against a nominee for Secretary of the Treasury.
Finally, as stated in my previous post, he knew or should have known that he owed back taxes for 2001 and 2002 when he was audited in 2006. The fact that he didn’t pay them until he was nominated for the Secretary of the Treasury and realized it would likely come up in his confirmation hearings suggests that he is every bit as calculating as a John Kerry.
The evidence that Geithner deliberately underpaid his tax bill is conclusive. Remember, he was audited by the IRS for two tax years he worked for the IMF and was forced to amend those returns and pay up. It is inconceivable that he forgot that he worked for the IMF another two years that were not audited. He knew he owed more than the IRS had discovered, and did not proffer payment until the moment he realized it was going to be uncovered.
He should withdraw or be withdrawn from consideration.
Thorley beat me to it. That is why you should at least scan the rest of the comments before writing one yourself.
I'm all for beating up the Republican crooks that have come down the highway these past eight years. There have been so many, with so many varied transgressions, that if this guy was just another Republican nominee, I would say give him a pass, just from fatigue.
But he's going to be in charge of the tax guys and there is no excuse for him not knowing how the payments at the IMF work. I know how they work and I never worked there. Of course he probably knew the IRS was only interested in investigating abuses of the earned income credit and didn't care about what rich tax payers were doing. So he knew he could keep the cash without worry. After all he knew he was worth it.
He should withdraw his name from consideration.
Megan,
I find it odd that you have not followed up on your original post since the post contains no mention of Geithner's tax issues. I would really appreciate your insight on this issue since no one seems to care anything about the nanny issue.
Bru
P.S. Thanks for the update on the Mini.
First we have the chairman of the committee responsible for writing our tax law tell us that he didn't know rental income was reportable if it was being used solely to pay down the mortgage. Now we have the would-be Treasury Secretary telling us that not paying his self-employment taxes was merely an oversight, just, when you think about it considering who it is, one of those goofy screw-ups, could happen to anyone (after all, he did his own taxes, the big silly). And we're expected to believe that both these men are that clueless. Because, I suppose, it's better than thinking they're cheats and crooks. Fabulous.
Byron York (click on my name for the article) has more on Timothy Geithner’s failure to pay self-employment taxes:
If true, then this confirms that (a) Greithner was told when he worked for the IMF that he would have to pay the withholding, (b) he received a manual explaining to him that he would have to pay the withholding, (c) he received documents that calculated what his withholding would be (which he apparently used to pay his State and federal income taxes), (d) he was paid an allowance in the form of a “gross up” that were supposed to be used for his withholding and (e) certified on multiple occasions that he knew of the allowances system, his responsibilities under it and that he would comply with it.
But he didn’t.
Until three days before his nomination was announced.
Grassley is correct and Megan is wrong.
Megan supports the appointment of lawbreakers to positions of power in the federal government.
Oddly, Megan still has not commented on Geithner's tax issue even though an IMF official has now stated that the Fund regularly informs its U.S. employees of their tax obligations and has had very few employees who have had problems complying with those obligations.
Byron York has another piece (click on my name for the link) with some new information that challenges the transition team’s defense of Geithner’s “honest mistake.” Regarding the claim that this type of “mistake” is common in IMF employees and as many of half them make mistakes on their tax returns:
Regarding the accountant who supposedly checked Geithner’s tax return and didn’t find the mistake:
Finally regarding Geithner’s claim that he was told in writing that he was exempt from self-employment taxes by another accountant:
I hope Megan posts an update or better still a fresh post since there seem to be a number of posters interested in the topic and it’s not going away like the non-issue of the maid did.