Timothy Geithner, Really?

[Gellis Indigo]

This situation surrounding this guy and his nomination to be Secretary of the Treasury has me very....uncomfortable, at the least.

I'm sure this will stir up a sh&%storm, but here goes.

Why is this bothering me so much? We received notification from the IRS earlier this year that we had made a mistake on our return for 2006 due to some complications surrounding some investments (you could call it an "honest mistake"). We found that both we, and the IRS were in error and appealed. We have paid what we owed after the appeal, as well as interest/penalties. We haven't received any notification that there was a similar mistake in our 2007 return, and yet we have our accountant looking into it and will be filing an amended return for that year to correct that mistake as well. And neither of us are ever considering a career in politics.

This man is up to be the head of the IRS, but has his own tax issues in his past. Yes, I've heard and read that he is "very sorry" and it was just an "honest mistake". But that doesn't change the fact that, even after being made aware of the mistake during an audit in 2006, he only paid the money that he owed for the audited years (and the IRS waived the penalties), he did not pay the money that he owed for the other two years where the same mistake was made.

He didn't correct the mistake for the other two years until then President-elect Obama expressed an interest in nominating him.

And we're supposed to entrust this man with the entire IRS?

Interested in information about Geithner? Check out this question and answer sheet (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/14/ap/cabstatepent/main4722726.shtml?source=search_story) provided by CBS news.

[Gellis Indigo]

Just to give this situation some context, here (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/13/nannygate-nabs-another-nominee/) are some former Cabinet nominees with tax issues and their fate: (stories of both Democrats and Republicans are included, this is NOT a partisan post)

"President Clinton's first two nominees to serve as Attorney General were felled by irregularities with their domestic help. Zoe Baird, the first of the two, had hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny and neglected to pay Social Security taxes on the nanny's salary. Incredibly, after Baird was forced to withdraw, Clinton nominated Kimba Wood, who was found to have nearly the exact same problem. Eight years later, President George W. Bush's nominee to head up the Labor Department, Linda Chavez, withdrew her name when it became known that she had allowed an illegal immigrant to live in her home and had paid her to perform odd jobs. In his second term, Bernard Kerik, President Bush's nominee to be Secretary of Homeland Security, withdrew after his nanny problems became public. Kerik was later found to have more pressing legal concerns, but it was the nanny problems that forced him out.

Geithner's problems are at least as serious as those that ended the nominations of past Cabinet appointees. Geithner employed an immigrant with working papers as a nanny, but those papers expired while she was in Geithner's employ, making her continued stay in the country illegal. There is also some question about whether he paid Social Security and Medicare taxes during her employment. Separately, Geithner admitted to making an unexplained, "common tax mistake," from 2001-2004 while working for the International Monetary Fund. Geithner has since paid all back taxes owed, but he did not admit the error or pay the taxes until after his nomination by President-elect Obama."


So my question remains: Why is Geithner the exception? Why is he getting a pass when so many before him have not?

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

So my question remains: Why is Geithner the exception? Why is he getting a pass when so many before him have not?

Because the economy is in the shitter right now and this guy is allegedly uniquely qualified to help pull it out.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with that statement, that's just my understanding of the situation.

And while I appreciate the inherent irony in having a Treasury Secretary who can't do his own taxes properly, I should point out that Einstein sucked at math.

[Lady Hefron]

I agree with you. He knew that the mistake was there and that there was a possiblity of it being in subsequent returns. I'm not saying he is a bad guy, it just makes me nervous that he will be head of the Treasury.

[The Wizard]

So my question remains: Why is Geithner the exception? Why is he getting a pass when so many before him have not?
The short answer is: "Because he's a Democrat".

A number of years ago there were two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Democrat was in jail for statutory rape and the Republican was accused of talking dirty in the presence of a female. The press made loud noises about the Republican but said nothing whatsoever about the Democrat.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

The short answer is: "Because he's a Democrat".
That can't be right since fully half of the examples of people who didn't get a pass that Gellis cited were also Democrats.


A number of years ago there were two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Democrat was in jail for statutory rape and the Republican was accused of talking dirty in the presence of a female. The press made loud noises about the Republican but said nothing whatsoever about the Democrat.

Yeah, cause, you know, Democrat John Edwards totally got a free pass from the press on his adultery. Democrat Eliot Spitzer too for his whoremongering. (For the sarcasm-impared, they totally didn't).

Meanwhile, fellow whoremonger from across the aisle, David Vitter, Republican from Louisana, is still serving in the Senate (and was one of only two votes against Hillary's Sec Of State confirmation, btw) even after he famously admitted to the whoremongering at a press conference with his wife standing by his side in a leapord-print plunge-V outfit that caused some confusion as to whether she was his wife or one of his, ahem, "contractors".

So, I'm going to go ahead and declare your premise as flawed.

Look, I've got no problem with your wanting to be partisan. Just make sure the facts are on your side first.

[Gellis Indigo]

Because the economy is in the shitter right now and this guy is allegedly uniquely qualified to help pull it out.

I keep hearing that too, but haven't really seen or heard why his qualifications are unique and there aren't other candidates out there that are just as qualified, that haven't had tax issues.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with that statement, that's just my understanding of the situation.

And while I appreciate the inherent irony in having a Treasury Secretary who can't do his own taxes properly, I should point out that Einstein sucked at math.

Yes, but Einstein wasn't appointed by our nations leaders to work on the theory of relativity or any other governmental position of power either. (at least not that I know of)

It goes back to the checks and balances that our government is supposed to have in place, that seems to fail so often anymore.

Oh, and also that pesky personal responsibility thing. If the guy had taken the personal responsibility to correct his tax errors when he was originally made aware of them, this wouldn't be as big of a concern to me. But he didn't. Makes me question his character and also wonder what other responsibilities he may let lapse in a similar fashion.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Yes, but Einstein wasn't appointed by our nations leaders to work on the theory of relativity or any other governmental position of power either. (at least not that I know of)

Well, there was the Manhattan Project. That was kinda important. ;-)

[Gellis Indigo]

Well, there was the Manhattan Project. That was kinda important. ;-)

What, that little thing? Pshaw! ;-)

[Ysobelle]

Personally? I don't care. He has some problems in his past? So does almost every other politician out there. Will he do his job and do it well? That's all I care about. And it seems he has the qualifications to do so. If there were some terrible, major scandal, I'd be concerned, but there isn't, and I'm not.

Two other things, as well: One, I trust Obama and his appointees. I never trusted Bush. Two, I have other things I'm very excited about, like stem cell research and the end of the global gag rule.

I'm sorry this isn't the spirited debate you wanted, but when there's something we're truly concerned about, we'll bring it up, I'm sure.

[Gellis Indigo]

Personally? I don't care. He has some problems in his past? So does almost every other politician out there. Will he do his job and do it well? That's all I care about. And it seems he has the qualifications to do so. If there were some terrible, major scandal, I'd be concerned, but there isn't, and I'm not.

Two other things, as well: One, I trust Obama and his appointees. I never trusted Bush. Two, I have other things I'm very excited about, like stem cell research and the end of the global gag rule.

I'm sorry this isn't the spirited debate you wanted, but when there's something we're truly concerned about, we'll bring it up, I'm sure.

What I'm asking is....why, if the same issue has been a big deal and a major scandal in the past, why isn't it now? I'm not looking for a spirited debate, just thoughts.

[Jezebel]

I'm with you, Gellis. I don't want a guy who doesn't understand the tax laws any better than I do in charge of the IRS - that's why we hire experts to handle these things in the first place. :unamused: If, on the other hand, he did understand the self-employment tax thing, then he willfully cheated on his taxes and I don't want a criminal in charge of the IRS, either. The IRS has taken enough of my hard-earned dollars legally; I can only imagine how much we can get screwed if an individual of questionable ethics is put in charge. Either way, we have reason for concern and we should watch this guy VERY CLOSELY. Generally speaking, I support the Obama administration wholeheartedly, but I have reservations about this choice.

[Margaret]

While it is true enough that everybody has some sort of 'problems' in their past - Geithner's 'problem' relates directly to the Cabinet post he is being considered for.

I'd say that is a pretty valid reason to voice opinions on why it should concern us and why it should be discussed.

Just because the majority is happy does not mean there are not opposing and no less valid opinions out there.

[moiradochartaigh]

OK, let me get this straight:

This person, who cheated on his taxes, is now going to be in control of the IRS -- and some of us aren't concerned about this? Because he was appointed by Obama?

Isn't it a little like putting a child molester in charge of your kid's daycare? "Sure, he's fondled a kid or two - but he comes highly recommended!" I know it's an extreme comparison, but still......

[Phoenix McHeit]

This person, who cheated on his taxes, is now going to be in control of the IRS -- and some of us aren't concerned about this? Because he was appointed by Obama?


I personally refuse to get drawn into this specifically because it's from the person who said this, regarding Warren's appointment:
But this is the man that President -Elect Barack Obama, the man that the vast majority of you that are complaining were pulling for during the entire election, chose to deliver the Inaugural Invocation.

Or are you starting to question his decision making before he even takes office?
and this:


I've been told, as a conservative, that I should withhold judgements on his decision making until he takes office....just thought his supporters might want to follow the things they are asking those that didn't support him to do.

It smells of baiting, to me. 'You voted for him, you can't disagree with him' turns into now 'Well? Who's going to disagree with him?' :pokepoke:

Talk about your *damned if you do, damned if you don't* philosophy. :roll:

I'm tired of trying to figure out what the criteria is.

[Gellis Indigo]

I personally refuse to get drawn into this specifically because it's from the person who said this, regarding Warren's appointment:

and this:


It smells of baiting, to me. 'You voted for him, you can't disagree with him' turns into now 'Well? Who's going to disagree with him?' :pokepoke:

Talk about your *damned if you do, damned if you don't* philosophy. :roll:

I'm tired of trying to figure out what the criteria is.

I'm not surprised by what you smell.

But the fact remains, I came here with non-biased links and historical information and asked for thoughts. If my intent was to "bait", then I would have come on with snark from the start.

I didn't get into a pissing match with Bob when he posted his thoughts, as that was never my intention. I actually quite enjoyed his point about Einstein and it gave me food for thought.

And I didn't argue with Yso's statement that she's more excited by other things that have been accomplished already. That's how she views this matter, which answers question.

It's unfortunate that those that bring up or express opposing viewpoints to the vast majority here, and try to discuss them, are accused of baiting, or pot-stirring, or trolling. I'm sure it has stifled quite a few from voicing their thoughts on many a political matter, that could perhaps have led to thought provoking discussions.

[Isabelle Warwicke]

It's unfortunate that those that bring up or express opposing viewpoints to the vast majority here, and try to discuss them, are accused of baiting, or pot-stirring, or trolling. I'm sure it has stifled quite a few from voicing their thoughts on many a political matter, that could perhaps have led to thought provoking discussions.

I have taught myself to stay very quiet and not enter into "spirited" political debate on this board. I agree, you didn't bait. However, you are debating on behalf of the Minority on this board. Please notice that most Consevatives here fly low on the radar. For myself, it's a personal choice. During this past election, it was too exhausting getting shouted down all the time. The new Presidency has my full support, for now, as each and every President should.

That being stated; I think that what Jezebel said:

I don't want a guy who doesn't understand the tax laws any better than I do in charge of the IRS - that's why we hire experts to handle these things in the first place. :unamused: If, on the other hand, he did understand the self-employment tax thing, then he willfully cheated on his taxes and I don't want a criminal in charge of the IRS, either.

What Moira said:

This person, who cheated on his taxes, is now going to be in control of the IRS -- and some of us aren't concerned about this? Because he was appointed by Obama?

And what Margaret said:

While it is true enough that everybody has some sort of 'problems' in their past - Geithner's 'problem' relates directly to the Cabinet post he is being considered for....Just because the majority is happy does not mean there are not opposing and no less valid opinions out there.

all hold validity. I'm actually please with what President Obama has done in his first few days. As a conservative, I am watching his first 100 quite carefully. Do I have questions? yes. Do I want to see Geithner looked into more closely? Yes. If they go through with this person, will I watch the tax system like a hawk? You betcha. There should be questions as it's a functional part of democracy.

[Phoenix McHeit]

It's unfortunate that those that bring up or express opposing viewpoints to the vast majority here, and try to discuss them, are accused of baiting, or pot-stirring, or trolling. I'm sure it has stifled quite a few from voicing their thoughts on many a political matter, that could perhaps have led to thought provoking discussions.

Expressing viewpoints is fine, as it should be.

Contradicting yourself in such a short amount of time touched a nerve, so I said so. I simply pointed out the inconsistencies in this post and previous ones from you. If one allows that to 'stifle' them, its hardly my fault.

Its unfortunate that those who *call it like they see it* are accused of stifling. Aren't all viewpoints valid on here? And its also unfortunate that opposing thoughts would be enough to 'stifle' others, anyway. Actually that's rather sad.

As it is, I had missed the Geithner issues, and your original post brought it to my attention. I was busy doing my *own* research on it, rather than blindly follow the herd, so to speak.

Silence on a topic doesn't automatically mean acceptance of it - even if it is the 'majority opinion'.

[Gellis Indigo]

Expressing viewpoints is fine, as it should be.

Contradicting yourself in such a short amount of time touched a nerve, so I said so. I simply pointed out the inconsistencies in this post and previous ones from you. If one allows that to 'stifle' them, its hardly my fault

Its unfortunate that those who *call it like they see it* are accused of stifling. Aren't all viewpoints valid on here? And its also unfortunate that opposing thoughts would be enough to 'stifle' others, anyway. Actually that's rather sad.

Where you see contradiction, I see a different tone and mood in writing style. We'll have to agree to disagree there.
And people on both sides of an issue should be able to "call it like they see it" without feeling like they are being shouted down or dismissed.

As for the people that may have been stifled or afraid to express their opinions, I didn't say the fault lies solely with you. It's just a matter of the atmosphere of this forum. As Isabelle pointed out, she has learned to stay quiet because she gets tired of being shouted down. I happen to believe that it is unfortunate that someone as intelligent and knowledgeable as Isabelle and some others that I have heard from privately feel as they do.

As it is, I had missed the Geithner issues, and your original post brought it to my attention. I was busy doing my *own* research on it, rather than blindly follow the herd, so to speak.

Silence on a topic doesn't automatically mean acceptance of it - even if it is the 'majority opinion'.

I'm glad my post encouraged you to look into Geithner. I'd love to know what info you found that I perhaps haven't seen, if you're willing to share.