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.
