The American Spectator

Deborah| 1.14.09 @ 5:46AM

I like your take on this whole thing, Mr. Bandow. My first thought was: Charlie Rangel on stilts -- "tax laws are for thee (you little people out there who don't rule the world), not me." I'd much rather have the Geithner you perceived. He could be an ally.

Interloper| 1.14.09 @ 11:12AM

Actually, Geithner's major problem is rare. He did not lie about his income to reduce the taxes owed. He reported accurate income, but failed to put some of it in the proper category for taxation. When a person works for some international organizations, he is considered to be self-employed for tax purposes. However, most people would perceive someone in that role as being employed by the organization. Geithner's accountants did not treat that part of his income as self-employment income.

The housekeeper apparently failed to renew her employment status documentation or visa for three months. I guess a very diligent employer would check his employees' status from time to time, but I don't think three months is that long a period for a lapse.

I would fault Geithner for a lack of being extra careful, but neither problem is evidence of tax evasion, which requires an intent to not pay taxes or reduce the amount of taxes owed.

Irv Smith| 1.14.09 @ 11:22AM

Maybe G should fire his tax accountant and switch to TurboTax to cover future mistakes.

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 12:58PM

Tax evader heads IRS. Another Obama cabinet joke.

Sean| 1.14.09 @ 1:09PM

I guess it would be too much to ask that the future Treasury Secretary be familiar with the IRS code. I think the confirmation process should include a few pop quizzes to see if these people have read the code.

Interloper| 1.14.09 @ 1:15PM

Sean, you obviously have no idea of the complexity of our tax laws. But, Ruth has no ideas at all.

Marlene| 1.14.09 @ 1:19PM

Isn't he a little sloppy to head the treasury dept?
Can we now be just as sloppy with our tax payments? This puts a whole new meaning on
the word "Leadership".

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 1:31PM

The guy is a finance wonk and he forgot to pay his taxes, twice? Sure, wink, wink. More endemic democrat corruption on display. Now Interloper is going to call me a racist, kluxer,bigot, homophobe--oops, they don't apply? Give it a go anyway, Interloper, you're a one-trick pony and it's all you've got.

Sean| 1.14.09 @ 3:29PM

Interloper, yes I do. I love the irony. Those that push big bloated government and laws now claiming complexity as a defense. See where that defense gets the average American in court. Kind of like those that pushed sexual harassment laws defending Bill Clinton when he drops his pants in front of an employee.

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 4:17PM

Juanita Broaddrick claimed Slick Willie did a lot more than just drop his pants with her.

Genna| 1.14.09 @ 5:03PM

Sorry, but I'm also a consultant, and know full well that if you are self-employed, you have to pay both the ER & EE portion FICA, Medicare, taxes etc. This is not some rare, misunderstood tax code; as a matter of fact, it's quite common. He should know this. By the way, who found out, how did they find out?

ruth| 1.14.09 @ 5:13PM

This smells. I've read that he was repeatedly warned by his employer (IMF) that he was responsible for these taxes. Ugh.

Wes| 1.14.09 @ 6:05PM

Per MSNBC: "It was the unpaid taxes, though, that were proving more damaging. Obama's team says his mistake was a common one for people hired by international organizations and foreign embassies that don't pay the employer share of Social Security taxes. The IRS estimated in 2006 that as many as half those employees had made tax-filing mistakes, and offered a group settlement to let them correct the errors." The article also states that the oprganization warned Geithner that he was responsible for paying employer taxes.

Obama might consider hiring one of the guys who filed properly and paid their taxes.

limitedgovernment| 1.15.09 @ 9:32AM

Geithner clearly should have known enough to have paid his taxes, but instead of opposing his appointment, the loyal opposition should turn this to our advantage.

Let's make Geithner the poster boy for major tax reform. If someone with Geithner's credentials can make a mistake in paying his taxes, then the system is clearly broken. How can anyone be expected to know everything contained in the 67,000 pages of the code? Let's abolish the IRS and replace it with something that will not allow something like this to happen in the future.

There is a double standard and media bias. What I am suggesting is that instead of taking a stand against the nominee or complaining about the media double standard, that conservatives, libertarians, etc., should make a case for something. In this case, that something is tax reform. Most of the public is not paying attention to the confirmation process or if they are, they are likely to tune out the typical political response.

What would be President elect Obama's response to the Republican charge that his nominee is proof of the need for major tax reform? The media is reporting that this is an "honest mistake" and a "common mistake." The Republicans should take those comments and champion Geithner and the American people. They should express how complicated and contrived the 67,000 page tax code is. They should express their concern for the American people and their desire to make sure that no other American will make the same mistake that Geithner made.

Genna| 1.15.09 @ 4:28PM

limitedgovernment: I agree, but this code is well known...not exactly one of those rare "gotchas" that only a learned and professional tax accountant would know. I understand that he received a notice from the organization he worked for as a consultant, and also signed one of their written notices stating that he would pay the employer portion of taxes that any self-employed consultant or individual must pay. I also understand that he has experience with these types of taxes. I sincerely hope he has a good explanation for what happened.

limitedgovernment| 1.15.09 @ 11:17PM

Genna: I agree that this part of the code is well known, and he really has no excuse. That being the case, if the Republicans were successful in opposing his appointment, what would be gained? Who would Obama nominate in his place? On the other hand, if the Republicans were to accept the "honest mistake" argument, they could use the situation to advance the case for tax reform.

If reason and logic were all that was need to win elections and advance agendas, then conservatives and libertarians would routinely beat "liberals" and progressives. What is needed is a change in the approach and the message.

Here are some other examples of how conservatives need to change the conversation and use language that "liberals" typically embrace:

Choice - An expansive federal government limits choice and personal freedom. Limiting the scope and budget of the federal government and leaving more decisions to the people and local and state governments increases personal freedom and choice.

Diversity - Giving people more freedom and leaving more decisions to the state and local levels increases the diversity of ideas and solutions that can be implemented, tested, and improved.

Unity - Having an expansive federal government causes division between those in and out of power and those who agree and disagree with what the federal government is doing. Limiting the power and scope of the federal government limits division and increases unity.

Genna| 1.16.09 @ 7:00PM

Limitedgovernment: Very interesting comments. But what concerns me is just how this would work. I truly believe that the Republican Party needs to get their act together. I used to be a Repub, but switched to Independent recently because of the fractured state this Party is in. I was very disappointed with what I witnessed on the campaign trail with the McCain/Palin ticket and the tactics they employed to appeal to the "base." I am perhaps a "moderate" by definition, although I shun labels as I find they are too limiting. Let's say that I probably ascribe to Colin Powell's philosophies and opinions. The Republican Party will have to be VERY clear as to what this smaller government will entail. And large scale deregulation terrifies me, as we have all witnessed, time and again, the after effects of a lack of government oversight.

limitedgovernment| 1.17.09 @ 8:59PM

Genna:
Here are a couple of interesting columns:
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/01/14/congress_financial_mess
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2009/01/14/a_false_sense_of_security

Do you really trust federal government with the oversight? Look at what they have done with the bailout. They cannot even say where the money has been spent. Look at Social Security, Medicare, the IRS, education, etc. What do you think the federal government does well? Reform for Fannie and Freddie was discussed in 2004, but nothing was passed. The public was assured that they were sound.

NFL jerseys| 9.7.09 @ 11:23PM

It is a wonderful article,I like it!Welcome to read following news: NFL jersey,ghd Hair Straightener,NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,Adobe Photoshop CS4,cheap uggs.