Some of you may have noticed me lighting the fuse on the Tim Geithner discussion and then falling silent once we had a few comments. I was all set to respond but then realized that I had quite a bit to say and decided to make it a separate blog post instead.
For the uninitiated, I will attempt to summarize the Geithner situation using just the known facts. Geithner is Obama's nominee for Treasury Secretary. Normally, this post gets minimal coverage but with the financial crisis front and center and the fact that his predecessor (Hank Paulson) became something of an overnight celebrity there is a great deal more scrutiny than there has been in the past. In any case, it has recently come to light that when Mr. Geithner was head of the IMF he failed to pay necessary self-employment taxes to the IRS from 2001-2004. In 2006, he was audited for his 2003 and 2004 returns and ended up paying ~$15,000 in back taxes. It's reasonable to assume that he knew at that time that he had made the same error on his 2001 and 2002 returns as well, but he failed to file an amended return. It was only during the current vetting process that he paid the back taxes on those returns.
This is another of those "scandals" where I just don't see where the issue is. He owed back taxes and he is now current. To me, that's the end of the story. I suspect that it's seen as a bigger deal because as Treasury Secretary he will be the head of the IRS and it's something of an embarassment to still be owing money to the organization he will be overseeing. Fair enough but it still doesn't, and shouldn't, preclude him from the nomination.
There's also been a lot of remarks about him using TurboTax to file his returns, like that's somehow a negative. I'm a CPA and I have used and will continue to use a TurboTax-type program (TaxAct) for my returns as well. Why? Because it's easier, and there's less chance for error. I will also continue to use calculators and spreadsheets even though I am capable of arithmetic and I will continue to use Word and this blog even though I am fully capable of writing things out by hand.
By the way, pay particular attention to the fact that I said "less chance" and not "no chance" for error. Using TaxAct did not stop me from making an error on our 2006 return.
So on the specifics of this case, I don't think there's anything here that warrants a withdrawal or even a holdup of his confirmation. But in a larger sense, this represents something I am growing increasingly tired of in politics, and that's the over-scrutiny and demands for perfection in the private lives of our public officials. Pardon me, but from a privacy standpoint how is someone's minor tax issues anyone else's business? And it's not me calling these issues minor, it's the IRS. They never even so much as assessed Geithner a penalty for any of his errors (and even we got penalized when I messed up our returns). Before anyone jumps on me for partisanship, you may recall that it was on this blog just a few short months ago that I said that all the talk on Palin's family (whether or not the baby was hers, how long she waited to go to the hospital during labor, etc) should have been out of bounds. And in that case we were talking about an elected official. Here we are merely talking about an employee (albeit a very powerful employee). The debate should have nothing to do with whether or not you personally want Geithner in the position, it should have everything to do with whether or not there are grounds to bar him from it. In my opinion, it's not even close. I believe that the proper analogy is saying that someone can't be made Chief of police because you find out that they have a couple unpaid parking tickets.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
What this comes down to, for me, is intent.
Did he intend to defraud the IRS?
The IRS says 'No.'
He will be in charge of the finances of the nation, so is this an issue that speaks to his general financial knowledge, or his capacity to do the job?
Again, the IRS says 'No.' They even go on to say (in one of the articles I read on this that I'm not going to look up again unless someone wants the direct quote) about 50% of employees in the situation Geithner was in, make the same mistake.
I would make the comparison: would you trust a Mechanic who sometimes doesn't get his oil changed until 3,500 miles?
And that, John, is why I think the situation isn't comparable to the Palin situation. I think that if someone in public office is going to talk about issues, it is valid to look at their own life and how they dealt with those issues. I'm not saying people have to perfectly practice what they preach, but at some point "do as I say, not as I do" becomes hypocrisy.
Well, I didn't really want to drudge up the whole Palin thing again. I was really just trying to illustrate that I feel my position here is consistent with views I have stated in the past, and that I'm not simply rubber-stamping this because it's something Obama did.
While I certainly want integrity and accountability in my public officials, I feel like there is this tendency amongst sensationalized media stories and the pundits to hold up people to these ludicrously high standards and then act like someone is Hitler for even the slightest infraction. It's dangerous because when you act outraged at relatively minor things, the message is dulled when there truly is something appalling happen. Unlike Spinal Tap, we can't "go to 11" when we need to. Even though they are both wrong, Elliot Spitzer having sex with prostitutes should not be seen as the same as Blagoyevich selling a Senate seat. One is a serious but personal moral failing, the other is a direct violation of civic duty and an abuse of power.
BTW, Blago's antics over the last week have almost single-handedly made me reconsider my position on a recall election.
I disagree that it's bad, unfair, or unrealistic to expect more from our politicians and public servants than we do of ourselves. It may be hypocritical to do so, but I think right now the pendulum is so far to the felonious side of the arc that we need to start looking for those that are beyond good. The best of the best, and the most ethical of the ethical are whom we should be courting to have such power over our day to day lives. And my wish is that the most honest and "untouchable" of those be put in charge of the bank vault.
It's not a partisan issue for me. Honestly, I don't see Obama making any choice that is going to politically pass muster for me. For me, I truly believe that Geithner is not the best choice for the job. And yes, I have a problem with the fact that he was one of the 50% that couldn't figure out how to do his taxes. I don't think this is a silly little issue. If 50% could get it right the first time, how 'bout we pick one of THEM.
I don't think John is saying that we shouldn't aspire to elect/hire the superior, but that the problem comes in when we expect perfection.
Life if a candidate is perfect, qualified, and experienced, but as a child he stole a pack of gum from a drug store, he should be raked across the coals.
As for specifically this job, there are maybe 20-30 people (if that) in the country who can do/are qualified for this job. Lets go ahead and get the best guy for the job, even if he has a small blemish on his record.
Joe Biden is VP with allegations of plagiarism in his past.
Bill Clinton was President and admitted to smoking pot.
Obama admitted to using cocaine.
Hillary Clinton is Sec. State and had all of her Whitewater stuff as well as an adulterous husband.
George Bush was a drunk and also a former cocaine user (iirc.)
Dick Chaney shot a dude in the face.
Ronald Reagan was basically bat-shit crazy by the end of his second term.
etc..etc..etc...
I think we can look for the superior without looking for perfection. And I think that is what John is trying to say.
I also think that Mike is trying to say that this blemish is indicative of other traits he doesn't want in a treasury secretary. And that is a perfectly valid opinion and the crux of the disagreement here.
We're not hiring Geithner to be a tax auditor. Overseeing the IRS is one very small part of a Treasury Secretary's duties. One of our Sr. VPs at Blue Cross just said in a speech the other day that he has absolutely no idea what the details of his own health coverage are. You know what? That's perfectly fine. That's not his job. I don't expect a neurosurgeon to answer my general health questions, and I don't expect a general practitioner to be able to perform brain surgery. Even though it's all under the heading of "medicine", that's a big tent and that's why we have specialists.
I would absolutely NOT want someone that knows the tax law backwards and forwards to be my Treasury Secretary. Nor do I want my President to have every single federal law memorized. There's only so much information the human mind can hold, and if you cram it full with minutae it will come at the expense of the big picture. That's what you have an entire staff and assistants for.
Not saying that we shouldn't hold public officials to a higher standard, just saying that we shouldn't hold everyone up to Christ-like levels. And, again, this is not somebody we're electing. This is somebody who's been offered a job. Is it right for a prospective company to tell you, "sorry, we can't hire you because you've had to pay back taxes."? If it's not right for a company to do that why is it right for our government?
"Honestly, I don't see Obama making any choice that is going to politically pass muster for me."
I believe that is the very definition of the word "biased" and I all I can say is that it's going to be a very long 4-8 years for you.
Did I not cop to being biased?
Geez... Didn't think I'd have to do this, but okay, here it is.
I'm biased.
I'm biased.
I'm biased.
There. I've said it three times.
Now, can we move on to the concept that MAYBE I have some other issue with the choice other than Obama made it. Or is this forever going to be a "mike's wrong because he's biased against Obama" situation. If that's the case, then I'll bow out now.
Some context please?
"...For me, I truly believe that Geithner is not the best choice for the job."
dont let us chase you away. it is pretty obvious that whatever we talk about, we're all biased some way or another.
Post a Comment