I Urge you to call your Senator

[Sir_Galahad]

And urge them NOT to confirm Timothy Geithner's appointment as Treasury Secretary. Do you really want a tax cheat in charge of this country finances and the IRS? By his own admission, had he not be up for the appointment he would not have made restitution for those unpaid taxes! And, wasn't it BHO that told the country that he would be restoring integrity to Washington?? Is this the way to do it? Not only is the guy a tax cheat but he was also the architect of the TARP program. You know this program, don't you? This is program where some $250 Billion (with a B) of your tax dollars has been invested in uh, well you know, in the... let me see, uh... Yeah! Don't we need somebody in this position that we can trust - even while we're not looking? No one is indispensable. Not even this guy.

[Jeemie]

I'm not thrilled with this either- especially since it has come out that Obama and his team KNEW about Geithener's problems, but made the appointment anyway because they wanted the vetting process to bring the details out.

[gotribego26]

Not only is the guy a tax cheat but he was also the architect of the TARP program. You know this program, don't you? This is program where some $250 Billion (with a B) of your tax dollars has been invested in uh, well you know, in the... let me see, uh... Yeah! Don't we need somebody in this position that we can trust - even while we're not looking? No one is indispensable. Not even this guy.

I don't understand the attracction of this guy - but Obama seems to really want/need him. To call him "the architect" of the TARP program is not remotely true. He certainly had input - but TARP was Paulson's baby. And they've hit $350 Billion with it.

[earendel]

And urge them NOT to confirm Timothy Geithner's appointment as Treasury Secretary. Do you really want a tax cheat in charge of this country finances and the IRS? By his own admission, had he not be up for the appointment he would not have made restitution for those unpaid taxes! And, wasn't it BHO that told the country that he would be restoring integrity to Washington?? Is this the way to do it? Not only is the guy a tax cheat but he was also the architect of the TARP program. You know this program, don't you? This is program where some $250 Billion (with a B) of your tax dollars has been invested in uh, well you know, in the... let me see, uh... Yeah! Don't we need somebody in this position that we can trust - even while we're not looking? No one is indispensable. Not even this guy.

Both of my senators are Republicans. Jim Bunning was opposed to the bailout program and I suspect he'll vote against Geithner; as for McConnell, it's hard to say but he's never been known as a "go along" guy so he will probably vote against Geithner also.

[Jeemie]

And he'll get in anyway, for the Dems will vote in lockstep on Obama's appointees, at the very least.

[NellyLunatic1980]

Where's the snoring fern? We haven't seen him/it lately.

[Jeemie]

Where's the snoring fern? We haven't seen him/it lately.

So you think a guy who admitted he wouldn't have paid his back taxes ought to be heading uop the IRS?

[silverscreenselect]

And he'll get in anyway, for the Dems will vote in lockstep on Obama's appointees, at the very least.

Change you can believe in....

[Jeemie]

And he'll get in anyway, for the Dems will vote in lockstep on Obama's appointees, at the very least.

Change you can believe in....

I'm really not trying to rag on the guy, but he's done a lot this week to make it hard to resist.

He says he wants to change the tone in Washington- and appoints guys with ethical problems...just like all the other recent Presidents have.

He says he wants the most transparent administration in history...and so far he has barred reporters from their traditional trip into the Oval Office for the first day of his term (instead sending out photos for press release), brushed off reporters' questions at an impromptu meeting with them, and today, after he ordered a missile strike into Pakistan, his press secretary, at a news briefing, said "I don't want to talk about that".

Three days in, and I have not seen much "change"...and the change I have seen is not promising.

[Ritterskoop]

Three days in, and I have not seen much "change"...and the change I have seen is not promising.

Three days? Are you serious?

[Bob78164]

And urge them NOT to confirm Timothy Geithner's appointment as Treasury Secretary. Do you really want a tax cheat in charge of this country finances and the IRS? By his own admission, had he not be up for the appointment he would not have made restitution for those unpaid taxes!

This is an unfair characterization. Calling Geithner a tax "cheat" implies that he underpaid his taxes deliberately. As far as I can tell, no one thinks that. It's not just the Senate that accepts that he made an honest mistake in the first instance. That's why the IRS didn't assess a penalty, merely interest.

As for the 2001 and 2002 taxes, they were beyond the statute of limitations when the error was discovered so he had no obligation at all to pay the inadvertent underpayment. Instead, he repaid the amounts with interest.

Let me try to make this a little more concrete. Suppose you discovered this year as the result of an audit that for the last five years, you've been inadvertently underpaying your taxes. Let's say you discovered that you were subject to AMT. The IRS would then assess your underpayment for the last three years, and require you to pay that amount plus interest. Would you voluntarily pay the extra money for the fourth and fifth years? If not, why are you holding Geithner to a higher standard? --Bob

[tlynn78]

a few observations:

Pretty ure he is not the best/only choice.
Pretty sure it doesn't matter what I think.
If things were different and it was a (R) President who chose him, posts in this thread would be mighty different.

t.

[silvercamaro]

This is an unfair characterization. Calling Geithner a tax "cheat" implies that he underpaid his taxes deliberately. As far as I can tell, no one thinks that. It's not just the Senate that accepts that he made an honest mistake in the first instance.

No one? I beg to differ. He was provided with documents that specified he was responsible for paying the employer's portion of the social security tax, and he signed those documents. He was given extra compensation to cover the amount of those payments. He also was audited, with the result that some of his deductions were disallowed, including his deduction of his children's summer camp as "child care." I have never before heard of anyone who "misunderstood" the meaning of child care, as defined by the IRS, to include sending older children to expensive residential camps for weeks. Geithner paid additional amounts plus penalties and interest for those years.

[W]hy are you holding Geithner to a higher standard? --Bob

Because he earned a master's degree in accounting, which should give him a better understanding of tax law than the average citizen, so either he was poorly educated or chose to flout the tax regulations. More importantly, because he will be over the Internal Revenue Service. IMO, his recent personal history makes him unqualified at the very least for that distinction within the job description of Secretary of the Treasury.

[SportsFan68]

Richardson's out, this guy should be out.

[Bob78164]

Richardson's out, this guy should be out.

Richardson is under investigation for deliberate (and criminal) misconduct. I understand that he may well be exonerated, but the reality in this day and age is that an investigation alone is enough to disqualify you until and unless it's over.

As far as I know, no one on the Senate Finance Committee now and no one within the IRS at the time of the audit has so much as suggested that Geithner's underpayment was anything other than a stupid, avoidable, but inadvertent mistake. I'm willing to forgive that in government officials, and apparently so is approximately half of the Senate Republican Caucus. --Bob

[Bob78164]

[W]hy are you holding Geithner to a higher standard?

Because he earned a master's degree in accounting, which should give him a better understanding of tax law than the average citizen, so either he was poorly educated or chose to flout the tax regulations. More importantly, because he will be over the Internal Revenue Service. IMO, his recent personal history makes him unqualified at the very least for that distinction within the job description of Secretary of the Treasury.

You're missing this part of my point. Sirge made a big deal about the fact that Geithner didn't go back and correct the underpayments that were already beyond the statute of limitations. My guess is that in similar circumstances (mistaken but good faith returns lasting five years, the earliest two already beyond the statute of limitations), few if any of the members of this Bored would correct an underpayment. I know that I almost certainly would not. And if that's the case, it's not fair to criticize Geithner for making the same moral choice that any of us would have made. --Bob

[Jeemie]

Three days in, and I have not seen much "change"...and the change I have seen is not promising.

Three days? Are you serious?

When a person makes bold promises, I expect at least some evidence of intent to keep those promises on the first day.

I'm not expecting him to have turned the economy around yet, but when he makes promises of higher ethics and greater transparency, and then on the first day nominates an ethically-challenged Cabinet member and isolates himself from the press, that's not a good start.

[silverscreenselect]

Three days in, and I have not seen much "change"...and the change I have seen is not promising.

Three days? Are you serious?

When a person makes bold promises, I expect at least some evidence of intent to keep those promises on the first day.

I'm not expecting him to have turned the economy around yet, but when he makes promises of higher ethics and greater transparency, and then on the first day nominates an ethically-challenged Cabinet member and isolates himself from the press, that's not a good start.

Banning the use of torture and reversing the ban on abortion information overseas. Neither of them surprising (Clinton did the exact same thing about the abortion ban and John McCain came out against the use of torture), but I do give him credit for them.

But now his big stimulus plan is already in big trouble in Congress. Even a well intentioned ideologue can get into trouble if he has no idea how to deal with the legislature. That was Clinton's great strength. Obama talked a good game about how everyone would work with him and fall in line, but he's about to get his big test. And having Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as your point persons in Congress is not the strongest team to be working with.

[Jeemie]

Banning the use of torture and reversing the ban on abortion information overseas. Neither of them surprising (Clinton did the exact same thing about the abortion ban and John McCain came out against the use of torture), but I do give him credit for them.

But those were easy things, politically, for him to do.

[silverscreenselect]

Banning the use of torture and reversing the ban on abortion information overseas. Neither of them surprising (Clinton did the exact same thing about the abortion ban and John McCain came out against the use of torture), but I do give him credit for them.

But those were easy things, politically, for him to do.

It's not surprising that Obama would do these, and they were pretty easy for a Democrat to do. And frankly I expected a few highly publicized bits of "progress" out of his administration. I don't expect much out of Obama and I'll take whatever little crumbs I can get. Those are two things Bush couldn't and didn't do, one of which McCain wouldn't have done.

[SportsFan68]

Here's what SSS said on Jan. 21 he would do:

I will give him credit if and when credit is due for accomplishing something progressive.

And here's what he did:

. . .

Banning the use of torture and reversing the ban on abortion information overseas. Neither of them surprising (Clinton did the exact same thing about the abortion ban and John McCain came out against the use of torture), but I do give him credit for them.

[nitrah55]

I don't get the problem with Tim G.

Everybody wants taxes reduced. Here's a guy who actually reduced his own taxes.

[Appa23]

Sure, this guy "inadvertantly" forgot to pay taxes, just like a pickpocket "inadvertantly" forgets that he is grabbing someone else's wallet.

[Bob78164]

Sure, this guy "inadvertantly" forgot to pay taxes, just like a pickpocket "inadvertantly" forgets that he is grabbing someone else's wallet.

He didn't "forg[e]t to pay taxes." He failed to realize that even though he was receiving W-2s, because he was employed by the IMF he was responsible for the employer's portion of FICA taxes, as well as the employee's portion (which he did pay). That's probably why no one on the Committee (Republican or Democrat) has claimed that he was trying to cheat the government. Even the five (out of ten) Committee Republicans who oppose the nomination appear to accept this -- they've simply taken the position that it's too big an error to forgive for this position, or that he should have volunteered earlier to repay the additional taxes that had fallen outside the statute of limitations before it came up in vetting.

Show of hands, please -- how many people here with private employers realized before this story broke that their employers actually pay FICA taxes on their behalf? I'm not talking about the FICA withholding that shows up on your pay stub. I'm talking about the other half, which the taxpayer normally is only responsible for if self-employed.

To me, this is reminiscent of Zoe Baird (who, by the way, is a distant cousin of mine), with one crucial difference. I think it was Orrin Hatch who, during her confirmation hearings, said that if she had gotten bad advice on the immigration issue or for some reason honestly failed to realize that use of household help was out of compliance with federal law, he would have been ticked but he could still have supported her confirmation. Instead, though, her position was that she knew there was a compliance problem but ignored it because everyone else did.

Geithner did not know there was a problem in 2001 and 2002. Admittedly, in light of the reams of paperwork he received, he should have, but everyone on the Committee seems to accept that he honestly did not. (By the way, I, for one, have never read my Firm's employee manual cover-to-cover, so I can understand where he's coming from.) And when he learned there was a problem, he did everything the law required him to do, and in my view, everything that almost anyone on this Bored (present company included) would have done in a similar position. When under consideration for a position in the Administration, he went above and beyond the requirements of the law. If this guy isn't eligible, then we've reached the point where an honest mistake permanently disqualifies someone for high government office. And if that's true, I can't understand how George W. "I thought there were WMDs" Bush got re-elected. --Bob

[silvercamaro]

Show of hands, please -- how many people here with private employers realized before this story broke that their employers actually pay FICA taxes on their behalf? I'm not talking about the FICA withholding that shows up on your pay stub. I'm talking about the other half, which the taxpayer normally is only responsible for if self-employed.

This quote explains a lot to me -- about you, not social security. If you truly believe that reasonably intelligent people don't understand how social security taxes work and who pays them, you underestimate a great many people, including most of the folks on this board.