WWTBAM Bored

Naughty, naughty press shouting.

Simply no need to answer their questions.

WASHINGTON – Nancy Killefer, who failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, withdrew her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government on Tuesday.

Killefer was the second major Obama administration nominee to withdraw and the third to have tax problems complicate nominations after President Barack Obama announced he had chosen them.

In a brief letter to Obama, the 55-year-old executive with consulting giant McKinsey & Co. wrote that she had "come to realize in the current environment that my personal tax issue of D.C. unemployment tax could be used to create exactly the kind of distraction and delay" that must be avoided in responding to urgent economic problems.

She offered no further details of her tax difficulties.

Obama took no questions Tuesday after announcing his choice of Sen. Judd Gregg to be commerce secretary. He left the White House lectern ignoring a shouted question about why so many of his nominees have tax problems.

Is the honeymoon over? So soon?

Or will it be revived?

Perhaps finding and nominating those who'd paid their taxes would be a good first step. If the transition team knew of the issues, what does that say of their judgement? And of His in them?

So far, nobody on this board even has mentioned Tom Daschle, who seems to be the champion tax avoidance strategist to date.



Somebody 'splain this to me again: Why do all of us have to pay all of our taxes?

silvercamaro wrote:So far, nobody on this board even has mentioned Tom Daschle, who seems to be the champion tax avoidance strategist to date.



Somebody 'splain this to me again: Why do all of us have to pay all of our taxes?

Only the little people pay taxes - Leona Helmsley

Richardson's out.

Killefer's out.

Geithner's in, but should be out.

Daschle should be out.

I don't see this is as an Obama problem, I see it as a federal government problem. From where I sit, it looks like once people attain a certain level, they think the rules don't apply to them. Did it start with Nixon? I don't know.

Now I wonder if I'm being too hard on Geithner and Daschle. I wonder if anybody who's qualified has a clean bill.

SportsFan68 wrote:Richardson's out.

Killefer's out.

Geithner's in, but should be out.

Daschle should be out.

I don't see this is as an Obama problem, I see it as a federal government problem. From where I sit, it looks like once people attain a certain level, they think the rules don't apply to them.

I agree, except I don't think it's limited to the federal government.

Daschle's out.

So far, nobody on this board even has mentioned Tom Daschle, who seems to be the champion tax avoidance strategist to date.

I found that interesting, too, Shiny. I will never understand why peeps put themselves into positions like this when they have to KNOW they have 'stuff.'

t.

You can find the IRS form 1040 DEM here. I think Charlie Rangle designed it

SportsFan68 wrote:Richardson's out.

Killefer's out.

Geithner's in, but should be out.

Daschle should be out.

I don't see this is as an Obama problem.

This is an Obama problem because he made it a point that he was coming in to change the "business as usual" way government had been run. In the first week, he issued all those new fangled ethics reforms and lobbying rules and since then has been busy avoiding them with top level picks who run afoul of them.

It's one thing for a new president to get caught up in current events. Kennedy never anticipated the Bay of Pigs when he was running for office. There's even something to be said about having to adjust some of your priorities due to having to deal with Congress (although it was Obama who crowed about how he had some magical expertise at cutting through the red tape and working with both sides to "get things done," although he couldn't point to one single piece of legislation, state or federal, that he actually gotten done).

But one's top level appointments are completely and exclusively within the power of the President. There should not be one single surprise at this level. Not unpaid tax bills. Not problems with lobbying posts held within the last year. None of that. And Obama has been hit with this at least a half dozen times already at the highest level of political appointment.

What does that say about his integrity, his commitment to government reform, and frankly, about his competence as a manager?

We can hope it changes?

silverscreenselect wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:Richardson's out.

Killefer's out.

Geithner's in, but should be out.

Daschle should be out.

I don't see this is as an Obama problem.

This is an Obama problem because he made it a point that he was coming in to change the "business as usual" way government had been run. In the first week, he issued all those new fangled ethics reforms and lobbying rules and since then has been busy avoiding them with top level picks who run afoul of them.

It's one thing for a new president to get caught up in current events. Kennedy never anticipated the Bay of Pigs when he was running for office. There's even something to be said about having to adjust some of your priorities due to having to deal with Congress (although it was Obama who crowed about how he had some magical expertise at cutting through the red tape and working with both sides to "get things done," although he couldn't point to one single piece of legislation, state or federal, that he actually gotten done).

But one's time level appointments are completely and exclusively within the power of the President. There should not be one single surprise at this level. Not unpaid tax bills. Not problems with lobbying posts held within the last year. None of that. And Obama has been hit with this at least a half dozen times already at the highest level of political appointment.

What does that say about his integrity, his commitment to government reform, and frankly, about his competence as a manager?

Where to begin...

First, the problem is with a tax code that might as well be written in Linear A. Even the IRS can't get it straight, according to media reports and other studies, and if they can't, how can a CPA be expected to do so?

Second, the team that I presume Obama has selected to vet his appointees may not be getting the straight story from the appointee, so unless he or the team hires private detectives they may just take the appointee at his/her word - until someone finds the dirt (and someone always does).

earendel wrote:
Where to begin...

First, the problem is with a tax code that might as well be written in Linear A. Even the IRS can't get it straight, according to media reports and other studies, and if they can't, how can a CPA be expected to do so?

Second, the team that I presume Obama has selected to vet his appointees may not be getting the straight story from the appointee, so unless he or the team hires private detectives they may just take the appointee at his/her word - until someone finds the dirt (and someone always does).

Agree with the tax code, however, most of us 'little people' figure it out every year. And if I made $200,000, I'm pretty sure I'd remember that I had to pay taxes on it. Forget the limo and driver.

As for Gaithner, the IMF puts out via e-mail, hard copy, and staff meetings, the procedures to follow for paying taxes for the US employees. Seems the vast majority of those employees manage to get it right.

Regarding Obama's vetting team, so you are saying that either they didn't do a good job or the prospective nominee lied?

In either case, what does that say for Obama's judgement? One mistake, I can get. Two, ok, but you are pushing it. So far it's been Richardson's antics under investigation in NM, Gaithner, Daschle, and the latest one, Killefer.

At what point does it become Obama's fault and/or responsibility?

earendel wrote: Second, the team that I presume Obama has selected to vet his appointees may not be getting the straight story from the appointee, so unless he or the team hires private detectives they may just take the appointee at his/her word - until someone finds the dirt (and someone always does).

Harry Truman: The buck stops here.

Barack Obama: You can't expect me to vet my appointees; plus, you can't expect them to understand the tax code.

tlynn78 wrote:

So far, nobody on this board even has mentioned Tom Daschle, who seems to be the champion tax avoidance strategist to date.

I found that interesting, too, Shiny. I will never understand why peeps put themselves into positions like this when they have to KNOW they have 'stuff.'

t.

A lot of the tax issues that have arisen for these people are just more (very obvious) examples of my rule that a person's mistakes will tell you where their biases lie: all of these people are claiming that they made 'mistakes,' but it's interesting that NONE of them made the mistake of OVERpaying taxes.

But with respect to how these people could let themselves be appointed to highly visible positions, where this stuff would obviously come out... I think that a lot of the people who reach really high levels of power and influence, whether it is in business, or the military, or government, wherever it might be, have filters that tell them that 'stuff' just does not apply to them, because they are somehow too special to be bothered by it. I do not mean this in the sense that they think, consciously, that they can break rules and get away with it, but rather, that they think that whatever they do is OK, because they are the ones doing it. And of course sometimes they do get away with it-- after all, we now have a tax-dodging Treasury Secretary whose responsibilities including enforcing the tax laws against other people-- but I think that it usually comes as a huge surprise to these people that, in fact, these things DO apply to them. It's kind of an arrogance thing, and it might actually be part and parcel of whatever it is that drives them/enables them to reach the levels that they do reach, a feeling that 'I am special and everything that I do is special,' which for many them ends up turning off the common sense filter that most of us have, that tells us 'oops, I screwed up, and that's going to be a problem.'

This is how the Wall Street moguls, at Merrill Lynch and elsewhere, could justify paying themselves BILLIONS in performance bonuses for their work in 2008, even though the companies that they led are bankrupt, or would be bankrupt but for bailouts or acquisitions-- I would bet dollars to donuts that most of them are shocked, SHOCKED, that normal people think that there is something wrong with those bonus payouts (I specify 'normal' people, to exclude the non-normal people who think that what they did is OK, like the moguls themselves, and folks like Rush Limbaugh who have actually defended it); indeed, many of them would probably tell you that they actually DID perform outstandingly, and that things would have been even worse, but for their great efforts.

SportsFan68 wrote:Richardson's out.

Killefer's out.

Geithner's in, but should be out.

Daschle should be out.

I don't see this is as an Obama problem, I see it as a federal government problem. From where I sit, it looks like once people attain a certain level, they think the rules don't apply to them. Did it start with Nixon? I don't know.

Now I wonder if I'm being too hard on Geithner and Daschle. I wonder if anybody who's qualified has a clean bill.

I see it as Obama's problem because of what he has been saying since he started running for President and his words right after he became President.

Another opinion I have is that we put way too much blame and way too much expectation on just one person--the President.

Flybrick wrote:Agree with the tax code, however, most of us 'little people' figure it out every year. And if I made $200,000, I'm pretty sure I'd remember that I had to pay taxes on it. Forget the limo and driver.

As for Gaithner, the IMF puts out via e-mail, hard copy, and staff meetings, the procedures to follow for paying taxes for the US employees. Seems the vast majority of those employees manage to get it right.

Regarding Obama's vetting team, so you are saying that either they didn't do a good job or the prospective nominee lied?

In either case, what does that say for Obama's judgement? One mistake, I can get. Two, ok, but you are pushing it. So far it's been Richardson's antics under investigation in NM, Gaithner, Daschle, and the latest one, Killefer.

At what point does it become Obama's fault and/or responsibility?

I agree with much of this, though I don't consider Richardson an error, more like a case of the investigation being too much distraction from the Cabinet job (I maintain the option of rescinding that opinion as the investigation progresses.). Obama and his team definitely should have been better at vetting and choosing their candidates.

One difference is that the "vast majority" of us don't have the same type of specialized income as these folks. Even some IMF people still screw things up. That said, the people in the higher echelons should be more aware of the issues involved and err on the side of caution.

I suspect that if you audited every current and former, still living member of Congress and the same for Cabinet secretary and undersecretary, you would find a disproportionate number of "tax cheats", on both sides of the aisle. There is something about those positions that attracts money and the willingness to hide it.

wintergreen48 wrote: Indeed, many of them would probably tell you that they actually DID perform outstandingly, and that things would have been even worse, but for their great efforts.

The captain of the Titanic would have been due a bonus when they got into port due to the excellent time the ship was making.

Flybrick wrote:

earendel wrote:
Where to begin...

First, the problem is with a tax code that might as well be written in Linear A. Even the IRS can't get it straight, according to media reports and other studies, and if they can't, how can a CPA be expected to do so?

Second, the team that I presume Obama has selected to vet his appointees may not be getting the straight story from the appointee, so unless he or the team hires private detectives they may just take the appointee at his/her word - until someone finds the dirt (and someone always does).

Agree with the tax code, however, most of us 'little people' figure it out every year. And if I made $200,000, I'm pretty sure I'd remember that I had to pay taxes on it. Forget the limo and driver.

Are you sure? What if a CPA told you that you didn't have to pay taxes - would you override his or her judgment?

Flybrick wrote:As for Gaithner, the IMF puts out via e-mail, hard copy, and staff meetings, the procedures to follow for paying taxes for the US employees. Seems the vast majority of those employees manage to get it right.

As far as we know - but they haven't been investigated the way that Gaithner has, so there's no way to know.

Flybrick wrote:Regarding Obama's vetting team, so you are saying that either they didn't do a good job or the prospective nominee lied?

I'm saying that the vetting team did their job. They went as thoroughly as they thought they needed to go. As for the appointee, "lied" might be too strong a term - again, if that person relied on advice, why should he or she be held accountable?

Flybrick wrote:In either case, what does that say for Obama's judgement? One mistake, I can get. Two, ok, but you are pushing it. So far it's been Richardson's antics under investigation in NM, Gaithner, Daschle, and the latest one, Killefer.

At what point does it become Obama's fault and/or responsibility?

Given the complexity of the tax code, I suspect that almost anyone could be found to have violated it to some extent or another, if someone else were to dig deeply enough. In that sense, I suppose, it's Obama's "fault" for wanting to have high standards. Perhaps they are too high.

We have a tax accountant (a very good one) who has done our taxes for years. It is our job to tell him stuff so he can do our taxes accordingly. If he doesn't ask the right questions, we sometimes forget to tell him stuff. Our discoveries after the fact have all shown that we've overpaid and had to file amended returns....but i can see how this could happen when someone who is way more busy and wealthy than we are entrusting their returns to someone who doesn't know every little detail about their lives.....

I do not excuse it, but I can see how it can happen.....

silverscreenselect wrote:

earendel wrote: Second, the team that I presume Obama has selected to vet his appointees may not be getting the straight story from the appointee, so unless he or the team hires private detectives they may just take the appointee at his/her word - until someone finds the dirt (and someone always does).

Harry Truman: The buck stops here.

Barack Obama: You can't expect me to vet my appointees; plus, you can't expect them to understand the tax code.

These are not mutually exclusive, sss. I doubt that Truman vetted all of his appointees (if he made any rather than just keep FDR's people in place).

Flybrick wrote:As for Gaithner, the IMF puts out via e-mail, hard copy, and staff meetings, the procedures to follow for paying taxes for the US employees. Seems the vast majority of those employees manage to get it right.

That's simply not accurate. According to the IRS, approximately half of employees in this position (typically employed by either the IMF or an embassy) screw up this issue. Most people who get what looks like a W-2 reasonably assume that they are employees and therefore do not need to worry about the employer portion of FICA taxes. Thanks to the Bretton Woods Treaty, in the case of the IMF, that reasonable assumption is incorrect. It was particularly reasonable in Geithner's case because he hired professional help in 2003 and 2004 and his tax guy got it wrong (in writing). That's almost certainly why the IRS did not assess penalties. --Bob

wintergreen48 wrote:A lot of the tax issues that have arisen for these people are just more (very obvious) examples of my rule that a person's mistakes will tell you where their biases lie: all of these people are claiming that they made 'mistakes,' but it's interesting that NONE of them made the mistake of OVERpaying taxes.

I suspect there's some reporting bias here. If any of Obama's nominees did overpay their taxes, do you think it would become a public issue? Do you think the vetting team would even find the issue? I suspect not.

As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, I think the slam on Geithner is unjustified, particularly since he obtained and followed written advice from a tax professional (who got it wrong) with respect to the IMF self-employment tax issue. --Bob

earendel wrote:
In that sense, I suppose, it's Obama's "fault" for wanting to have high standards. Perhaps they are too high.

Full credit for keeping the faith.

Wow...


False analogy comparing Truman's vetting and Obama's. Back then, pretty much unless the nominee - for either executive or judicial - had to have a dead girl or a live boy in the closet for the nomination to be in jeopardy.

It would be nice to return to those times. I am a believer in that the person who won the race should get the team he/she wants. Elections have consequences.

for Bob numbers: Oh, ok, the guy who heads the Treasury and is touted as the saviour of the economy shouldn't have to be able to figure out a little thing like self-employment taxes.

What was I thinking?

Flybrick wrote:

earendel wrote:
In that sense, I suppose, it's Obama's "fault" for wanting to have high standards. Perhaps they are too high.

Full credit for keeping the faith.

Wow...


False analogy comparing Truman's vetting and Obama's.

The issue isn't how well or poorly Obama and/or Truman vetted their appointments. It's about accepting responsibility. Truman did. Obama hasn't. What's worse, Obama's people have been in overdrive for well over a year playing the WORM (What Obama Really Meant) game, whenever he says or does anything. The press has played along with the WORM game so far as have a majority of the voing public, mainly because they were sick and tired of Bush, and nothing that Obama said or did (or failed to do) was going to make things any worse for them.

It's different now and Obama's consequences will have actions and his apologists, some of them in residence on this Bored, will have to face up to that.

Sure the tax code is complicated, and the Republicans are out for blood, but that's politics. And when you make a big show out of how you're going to change the way politics is run, you can't come out there with the same old stuff and expect anything different.

I don't know how you can claim that Obama "wants higher standards." It's another case of apologizing and explaining your way through his missteps in order to come up with some convoluted line of reasoning that allows you to keep your preconceived notions about him.

Here's a more likely explanation. Obama doesn't care one bit about higher standards except possibly in a highly theoretical sense. He only cares about saying and doing what is needed to get elected and then doing whatever he feels he wants or needs to do in order to run things his way. If what he actually does happens to run afoul of those "higher standards," either ignoring the fact or counting on his supporters and the media to invent an explanation that keeps the Obama aura intact.

Bob78164 wrote:

Flybrick wrote:As for Gaithner, the IMF puts out via e-mail, hard copy, and staff meetings, the procedures to follow for paying taxes for the US employees. Seems the vast majority of those employees manage to get it right.

That's simply not accurate. According to the IRS, approximately half of employees in this position (typically employed by either the IMF or an embassy) screw up this issue. Most people who get what looks like a W-2 reasonably assume that they are employees and therefore do not need to worry about the employer portion of FICA taxes. Thanks to the Bretton Woods Treaty, in the case of the IMF, that reasonable assumption is incorrect. It was particularly reasonable in Geithner's case because he hired professional help in 2003 and 2004 and his tax guy got it wrong (in writing). That's almost certainly why the IRS did not assess penalties. --Bob

I curious as to what those W-2's looked like. Did Box 4 and 6 have Zeros in them?