The American Spectator

Jeremiah| 1.16.09 @ 10:26AM

Neither Democrats nor Republicans in Washington seem to get it:

Americans more than anything else want clean government. I'd bet my last dollar that the majority of American people would rather have the party they oppose in power if only they'd be honest, than the party they vote for maintain power by corruption and this kind of ignoble sleaziness.

The people who crossed over to vote Democrat this time around weren't so much drifting to the left as they were rejecting the arrogance of power assumed by the party in control.

I heard Democratic senators like Boxer last night attempting to minimize this issue: my sense is that they're going to suffer politically for the sake of this one stupid appointment.

It's crazy. Absolutely nuts.

Deborah| 1.16.09 @ 10:34AM

I'd have to agree with Jeremiah. Normal, tax paying Americans will look at this and think -- now, what would have happened to me if I would have done something like this? There's an arrogance of power in this whole procedure. Especially if you compare it to others, both Democrat and Republican, who were denied appointments for much less serious "oversights" -- such as Linda Chavez for Labor Secretary under Bush and Zoe Baird (and maybe another) under Clinton for failure to pay social security taxes for their (illegal? not sure) immigrant house help.

Bob| 1.16.09 @ 11:49AM

Instead of continuing to be the party of the anti-intellectuals, shouldn't we be getting the facts?

Here are the facts from this article:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17468_Page2.html

"payroll lawyers, accountants and tax professors, who consider Timothy Geithner’s failure to pay four years of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes to be a fairly common mistake"

“This is a very discrete issue,” said Michael Lloyd, an employment tax lawyer at Miller & Chevalier. “If you’re not a payroll tax lawyer, you’re not immersed in this, you are probably not getting it at first blush.”

"Tax experts blame Geithner’s error on the IMF’s atypical tax arrangement. Because it’s an international organization, it’s exempt from withholding employees’ payroll taxes."

"Geithner did his own taxes in 2001 and 2002. An accountant did them in 2003 and 2004"

"In part, say accountants, that’s because the IMF’s tax process is confusing even for professional accountants. The IMF distributes a W-2 form that leaves empty the box for payroll tax obligations, a fact that likely led Geithner to assume he was free from obligation."

"Bill Gruen, an accountant who handles the filings of several United Nations, World Bank and IMF employees, said Geithner was probably confused by tax software that failed to flag the additional payroll taxes."

“It’s not automatic — even on my $4,000 software — that the program would calculate a self-employment tax,” Gruen said.

"Geithner wasn’t the only one at the IMF to botch his returns. In November 2006, the IRS announced a special settlement initiative to help U.S.-based employees and former employees of foreign embassies, foreign consular offices and international organizations resolve outstanding tax issues."

"In 2006, the IRS audited Geithner’s 2003 and 2004 returns and charged him accordingly. But Geithner didn’t pay his 2001 and 2002 back taxes until the Obama transition team that vetted him brought the oversight to his attention."

So, let's get this straight. When the oversight was brought to his attention, he paid immediately. The tax software he was using did not flag this income and neither did the accountant he used for his taxes.

Have you ever made a big salary for a large international company? I have. Your pay stub has your salary and deductions. $35K over two years means this was just $17K per year. If he got paid every two weeks like most people, this is just $650 per paycheck. When I was working, I would not have noticed that there was no withholding on that $650. Furthermore, if it was not on the W-2, I might not have caught it either. I use TurboTax to do my taxes and that would not have caught this. His accountant didn't catch this, and should have if he were any good. Have you ever read the tax code?

Being a tax lawyer or accountant is far different than being an economist and YOU should be smart enough to know that. You don't have to study the tax code to be an economist. Besides, as soon as he was notified of the problem, he paid it PLUS penalties. There was no hint of avoidance by any of his critics.

Again, please stop dumbing down conservatives with this bogus banter. Pay attention to the real issues and stop listening to Rush...

When you look at the facts, it becomes clear why he's getting a bye on this. But then again, you ideologue rubes don't like to look at facts, and the uneducated Limbaugh wouldn't understand in any event.

Wake up guys, the reason Republicans and Conservatives are losing is that they are acting like the dumbest of the dumb and being small minded and vindictive.

Deborah| 1.16.09 @ 12:16PM

This guy will now be in charge of the IRS. Do you think he'll know the laws then? I find that fact very ironic. If the laws are so confusing then he had better do something about them by making some kind of recommendations to Congress to simplify the tax code. If he wants approval and doesn't want to cause an uprising, he'd be wise to voice something such as that. That would get Americans behind him.

Bob| 1.16.09 @ 12:41PM

Deborah, if you've ever taken a look at the tax code, you'd know that no one could totally understand it. It is huge. It needs simplification. I believe in a flat tax that includes social security and medicare so everyone pays the same rate. Most of the tax code deals with "incentives" to goad us into specific behavior. Government is not competent enough to do this -- it should be left up to the market.

The laws in this case are not that confusing. The problem is recognizing the income when it doesn't appear on the W-2. We all assume that all of the income from our employers shows up there. In this case, it didn't because this was an international firm. My guess is that if he knew it was there, he would have paid it.

What the conservative pundits here and elsewhere should have said is exactly what you just did -- that the tax code needs to be revised. That would have been a smart conservative response. Instead, the people here are more interested in pointing partisan fingers rather than making the U.S. a better place to live.

This is why I push so hard on this board to deal with facts, push for smarter people in government, support people who do well in school, and be honest about both the good and bad of Republican efforts. Supply side economics has not worked. The veto power of social conservatives have been a negative to the party -- we need a bigger tent. Now, more than any time in the past, there needs to be NON-IDEOLOGICAL conservative solutions. Stupidity and extreme religion just get in the way.

Deborah| 1.16.09 @ 2:39PM

Simplification was my point, Bob. As far as what I said previously, I was stating what an everyday American sees in Washington: It's okay for the elites to get away with something, but not so much for us out here. I think someone ought to make the point loud and clear, and Geithner would be a perfect candidate, that the tax code is the problem. He should tell the tax bill writers -- Congress, while he's there. He'd have the whole country behind him if he did.

ruth| 1.16.09 @ 2:43PM

Bob doesn't want stupidity and 'extreme religion' to get in the way of corruption.

Bob| 1.16.09 @ 3:51PM

Ruthie, the fact is that Deborah is absolutely right on this one. Secondly, this is not a case of corruption -- and if you took your blinders off you would see it. But then again, you probably suffer from both of the maladies you listed....

ruth| 1.16.09 @ 3:55PM

Bobi, it's just the liberals' hypocrisy that irritates me. If this guy were a republican--he'd be toast. Double standards are unfair, right?

J. Peter Freire| 1.16.09 @ 4:28PM

Phil, I disagree. I don't know what the benefit is to trashing a nominee just because. Geithner is okay. I think it's more important for Republicans to make this point in the hearings, that they're not squabbling the way Democrats have.

Bob| 1.16.09 @ 5:00PM

Ruthie, there is enough hypocrisy to go around on both sides. In this case, however, I don't see much hypocrisy. It would be different if he tried to hide it, didn't pay it immediately when he was told. I thought is was also positive of Obama's transition team to uncover this and make him pay. Bush would have covered it up.

It doesn't matter whether you are talking about Dems or Republicans, you'll find a lot of hypocrisy in Washington.

Peter, it's nice to see someone around here who has the right mindset...

ruth| 1.16.09 @ 7:21PM

Bobi, if you're talking about the amount of corruption, the demos have far more of it in their party and they are given a pass. Do you think that's a good thing?

Bob| 1.17.09 @ 9:16AM

Ruthie, I see just as much corruption on both sides of the isle and both sides are given a pass on almost all of it. On the Republican side we can talk about Halliburton and overcharging, Blackwater, federal prosecutors, wiretapping, etc. I'm sure you know the Dem side.

Here's how the partisan Dems think about Republican corruption:

http://www.republicancorruption.com/

http://senate2008guru.blogspot.com/2007/08/republican-culture-of-corruption-2007.html

The Dems have just as much. Let's be realistic here.

ruth| 1.17.09 @ 1:37PM

Bobi, Hillary's corruption tally alone puts her party way over the top in this regard. Please, I thought you were smart; you've told us so--many times.

Bob| 1.17.09 @ 2:57PM

I see, Ruth, you are one of those that eschew the use of factual data. Again, there is much corruption on both sides.

ruth| 1.17.09 @ 4:03PM

I agree that there is coruption on both sides. The problem is that liberals like Clinton get a pass for their mis-deeds.

Bob| 1.17.09 @ 4:18PM

Ruth, they all get passes for their misdeeds. Clinton got a pass, McCain got a pass, Bush got a pass, Palin got a pass, Obama got a pass, etc. Remember that Bill was impeached. Bush could have gotten impeached. The problem is that partisans don't see the corruption on their own sides or make excuses for the behavior. I just don't see a big difference. If you look deep enough, all politicians are corrupt.

ruth| 1.18.09 @ 9:47PM

Nah, Bob, demos are far more corrupt than repubs beause the lamestream media is so biased in favor of the demos. You compared David Vitter to Hillary. That's crazy. One act of corruption pales before a hundred. But that's what you liberals always do to excuse your bad behavior. Doesn't make it right.

Gene| 1.20.09 @ 1:15AM

Hey Bob, I don't know you from Adam but it is pretty evident you you are a Bush and Rush hater ,, you write about Bill 's impeachment by the house , but his partisan friends over in the senate failed to convict him, PARTISAN?, then you mention impeaching Bush, on what grounds ,I have a pretty good idea, let's say they do,, do you think for a New York minute Pelosie, Reid and Rockafeller want to be called to testify, I sure have my doubts about it, ponder that for a bit, Later..

NFL jerseys| 9.2.09 @ 4:29AM

It is a wonderful article: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4.

sidnee| 12.12.09 @ 11:26AM

jack wills
ugg new arrivals

ed hardy bikini| 2.2.10 @ 6:26AM

i love this article,thank you ,you did great
cheap ed hardy boots
cheap ed hardy t-shirts