Without question Treasury nominee Timothy Geithner didn't pay some of his taxes. Even though the IMF warned him about them and reimbursed him for them. One can argue whether this was an honest mistake, but it looks a bit dubious. However, give him teh benefit of the doubt. He also didn't go back and pay what was due on previous years after being audited. Certainly this was a conscious decision: the IRS hadn't noticed and/or the statute of limitations had run, so big whup (or whew, that's a relief!) probably was his reaction. Until that wonderful Cabinet nomination came along, at which point he quickly paid.
My friend Timothy Carney over at the Washington Examiner reflects on how the rules have changed:
Did Geithner, a former high-ranking official in the Clinton Treasury Department, really not know he wasn't paying Social Security and Medicare taxes after he moved to a new job at the International Monetary Fund in 2001?
What was he thinking when he signed papers pledging that he would pay those specific taxes? And what was he thinking when he accepted the IMF's customary reimbursement for taxes he had not paid?
Those questions are why we have confirmation hearings. Geithner's problems are serious, and they deserve a complete airing. But there is a bigger issue in the Geithner situation, and it is this: Should an offense that would have sunk a nomination in years past be considered acceptable today?
There's no doubt that Geithner's tax problems, even what we know about them before a full public hearing, would have killed a cabinet nomination in 1993, or 1997, or 2001, or 2005.
The real questions are: have the rules changed only for Democrats, and only during economic emergencies? Only time will tell.
Vladimir Posner| 1.18.09 @ 9:50AM
There are different rules for an apostle of the messiah than for a mere cabinet appointee. This would have blown up if this had been a Clinton nominee. What we are seeing is an epic, Soviet style dive by the Messiah Stream Media.
ConservativeWanderer| 1.18.09 @ 10:23AM
Vladimir, if you think that a Clinton nominee with Geithner's problems would have had a rough time, imagine a Bush appointee with the same problems!
Deborah| 1.18.09 @ 10:36AM
You should read what Accuracy in Media has to say about Geithner in a couple of articles, here: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/why-are-the-media-protecting-geithner and here: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-fiddle-while-america-burns
Interested Consrvative| 1.18.09 @ 11:08AM
Linda Chavez.
History starts over Tuesday. This is B.O., that is A.O.
bluecollarbytes| 1.18.09 @ 12:39PM
"The real questions are: have the rules changed only for Democrats, and only during economic emergencies? "
Democrats have long had different rules than Republicans. They've 'earned' them because they are selfless god-like figures, not like the selfish rich Republicans who wish to destroy the world. And if you believe that it may not be to late to invest with Bernie Madoff.
Lester| 1.18.09 @ 12:45PM
Liberals own fairness. It is their private property. Thus, whatever they do, is fair.
ruth| 1.18.09 @ 2:29PM
Liberals have decided that they own fairness. Who's going to stop them, the objective media?
wholesale shoes| 7.9.09 @ 2:35AM
We are professional cheap kids shoes online store .We provide Nike shoes cheap ,Nike air jordan,cheap kids clothing
cheap womens clothing,Nike shoes online store,Nike shoes cheap,Nike shoes for kids,air jordan sneakers,nike air jordan,air jordans,brand shoe,shoes brand, dropship Nike shoes , brand clothes,brand clothes ,shoes brand,cheap kids clothing for cheap wholesale Air Jordans shoes for kids & women.
NFL jerseys| 9.4.09 @ 11:14PM
It is a wonderful article,I like it!Welcome to read following news: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4,cheap uggs.