Obama Appointees and Tax Questions

[ISiddiqui]

From today's NY Times:

Obama Pick for Oversight Role Pulls Out Over Tax Issue - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nancy Killefer, who failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, has withdrawn her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government, the White House said Tuesday.

Killefer was the second major Obama administration nominee to withdraw and the third to have tax problems complicate their nomination after President Barack Obama announced their selection.


"Nancy Killefer has decided to withdraw her nomination, and we accepted her withdrawal," Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, said Tuesday. The 55-year-old executive with consulting giant McKinsey & Co., was expected to explain her reasons for pulling out later in the day.


When her selection was announced by Obama on Jan. 7, The Associated Press disclosed that in 2005 the District of Columbia government had filed a $946.69 tax lien on her home for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help.

Since then, administration officials refused to answer questions about the tax error, which she resolved five months after the lien was filed. Obama's first choice for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, took his name out of consideration when his confirmation appeared headed toward complications because of a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors.

More recently, Timothy Geithner was confirmed as Treasury secretary despite belatedly paying $34,000 in income taxes, and Tom Daschle is still waiting to see if his late payment of more than $128,000 in income taxes will harm his nomination to be health and human services secretary.

On paper, Killefer brought impressive credentials to the two jobs Obama selected her for: deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, which requires Senate confirmation, and a new White House post, chief performance officer for the entire federal government, which does not require confirmation.

Killefer oversees McKinsey's management consulting for government clients. During 1997-2000 in the Clinton administration, Killefer was assistant Treasury secretary for management. As such she was the chief financial officer and chief operating officer for the Treasury and its 160,000 employees and led a modernization of its largest component, the Internal Revenue Service.

But for nearly a month, the administration had refused to answer how its choice to make government workers more efficient and more responsive had bungled her household payroll taxes.

The AP reported that on March 7, 2005, the D.C. Department of Employment Services slapped a tax lien on her home in the tony Wesley Heights neighborhood. The local government alleged that just three years after she left the high-powered Treasury post she began to fail to pay unemployment compensation tax for a household employee. And she failed to make the required quarterly payments for a year and half, whereupon a lien for $946.69 was placed on her home.

That sum included $298 in unpaid taxes, $48.69 in interest and $600 in penalties. The lien was filed March 7, 2005, but Killefer didn't get the lien extinguished for almost five months, not until July 29.

During that period, Killefer and her husband, an economics professor, had a teenage son and daughter, but she had two nannies and a personal assistant to run her life when she was on the road, she told Harvard business students back then.

Geithner, Daschle, and now Killefer. This is getting absolutely ridiculous.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

No kidding. I have no idea how Geithner gets the Treasury position when he couldn't even pay his own taxes right. But of course, there are rules for the privileged and rules for everyone else.

[albionmoonlight]

Who the hell is doing Obama's due diligance?

If I were a potential Supreme Court nominee, I'd go ahead and splurge for the H&R Block deluxe package--just to make sure.

[Mustang]

Rich people not paying taxes?

Well this country is just going to hell.

[albionmoonlight]

It would be impossible to know, but I'd love to see the tax burden in this country based on what people in various income brackets actually pay (instead of what they are supposed to pay, which is how it is always presented).

I would expect that you would see a fair amount of non-compliance at the top and the bottom, while (as always) the middle class ends up with the short end of the stick.

On an unrelated note, I would love it if somehow this motivated a massive simplification of the tax code.

[JPhillips]

Daschle withdrew. Without knowing all the details it seemed to me that his was quite a bit more egregious than the other two. Glad to see him paying at least a moderate price for his actions.

[SackAttack]

In the case of Daschle, he got audited in 2007 and apparently this didn't come up.

So either the IRS has a double standard for 'important' people (always possible), or Obama's vetting team is doing a better job of finding this tax-related stuff than the IRS is.

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

In the case of Daschle, he got audited in 2007 and apparently this didn't come up.

So either the IRS has a double standard for 'important' people (always possible), or Obama's vetting team is doing a better job of finding this tax-related stuff than the IRS is.

It was also revealed today that he took almost a quarter million from medical companies for speaking engagements and such, which seems like a conflict of interest for a potential HHS head.

/tk

[DaddyTorgo]

we see this with every new administration. sometimes it's taxes, sometimes it's affairs. it's nothing new really.

[Marc Vaughan]

Can I just say a big resounding "Who cares" with regards to their being late with paying taxes or having incorrectly filed.

They've been caught - they'll pay up ... not a big deal imho, I'm sure it happens to people all the time without having quite so much scrutiny - indeed I'd almost guarentee it was accidental and probably done by the person filing on their behalf (accountant or whomever) in nearly all of the cases and imho it shouldn't have affected their hiring.

Its a bit like saying that a hairdresser is rubbish if their haircut isn't perfect ... it might be true, but in most cases they haven't cut their hair themselves

Bah humbug ..

[Noop]

You mean to tell me rich people found ways not to pay taxes and have finally been caught?

[sterlingice]

The "getting caught" part is actually newsworthy

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Can I just say a big resounding "Who cares" with regards to their being late with paying taxes or having incorrectly filed.

They've been caught - they'll pay up ... not a big deal imho, I'm sure it happens to people all the time without having quite so much scrutiny - indeed I'd almost guarentee it was accidental and probably done by the person filing on their behalf (accountant or whomever) in nearly all of the cases and imho it shouldn't have affected their hiring.

Its a bit like saying that a hairdresser is rubbish if their haircut isn't perfect ... it might be true, but in most cases they haven't cut their hair themselves

Bah humbug ..

[Noop]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The "getting caught" part is actually newsworthy

SI

I can't recall an instance where they ever faced real penalties like the poor.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

It was also revealed today that he took almost a quarter million from medical companies for speaking engagements and such, which seems like a conflict of interest for a potential HHS head.

/tk

As said before, who did Obama's vetting? Wasn't Dascle also helping those med companies to lobby as well?

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As said before, who did Obama's vetting? Wasn't Dascle also helping those med companies to lobby as well?

As far as I know, yes, though I admit I'm not too familiar with all the wheelings-and-dealings. Daschle has always seemed like a questionable at best choice for ANYTHING to me.

It does make you wonder why people didn't flag these things before they approved a nomination. For all the talk that if you want to work in the administration you need to share everything with them from your Facebook account, blog names, online usernames/identities to blood type (ok, maybe not that last one), it seems that people made some poor decisions.

/tk

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As said before, who did Obama's vetting? Wasn't Dascle also helping those med companies to lobby as well?

Sort of. His wife is a powerful lobbyist, so officially Daschle is clean, but in reality he's just another influence peddler. Glen Greenwald had a good post on he and his wife yesterday.

[Young Drachma]

What's funny here, is that they swore Obama's vetting was the most invasive of any past President-elect. Clearly it wasn't invasive enough.

The fact that he had to appoint all of these Washington retreads just made it obvious that all of these folks got in line on him because his people promised them stuff if they'd played ball.

Hell, Hillary could've appointed this administration the way it's composed now.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Daschle withdrew. Without knowing all the details it seemed to me that his was quite a bit more egregious than the other two. Glad to see him paying at least a moderate price for his actions.

+1

I have a feeling Barry's people knew this stuff would come out, but decided to put people like Richardson and Daschle up anyway, because at least that way the political score was paid and then they could let the person sink or swim.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

+1

I have a feeling Barry's people knew this stuff would come out, but decided to put people like Richardson and Daschle up anyway, because at least that way the political score was paid and then they could let the person sink or swim.

... wow. You are seriously believing that? Please tell me you are making fun of the Obama fanboys.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Can I just say a big resounding "Who cares" with regards to their being late with paying taxes or having incorrectly filed.

They've been caught - they'll pay up ... not a big deal imho, I'm sure it happens to people all the time without having quite so much scrutiny - indeed I'd almost guarentee it was accidental and probably done by the person filing on their behalf (accountant or whomever) in nearly all of the cases and imho it shouldn't have affected their hiring.

Its a bit like saying that a hairdresser is rubbish if their haircut isn't perfect ... it might be true, but in most cases they haven't cut their hair themselves

Bah humbug ..

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The guy who said this supposedly cares:

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

we see this with every new administration. sometimes it's taxes, sometimes it's affairs. it's nothing new really.

The more things change, the more...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

+1

I have a feeling Barry's people knew this stuff would come out, but decided to put people like Richardson and Daschle up anyway, because at least that way the political score was paid and then they could let the person sink or swim.

Absolutely no way on God's green earth that was what happened.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

... wow. You are seriously believing that? Please tell me you are making fun of the Obama fanboys.

No, I don't actually think that happened. It was just a trial balloon. To me, it's either that and he's the boy genius he people want to believe he is or he's an air balloon of a prop whose coattails they rode to push their agenda. You just wonder how stupid they could be...and yet, not wonder at all.

And what? Did they think their Senate majority would end up giving them what they wanted in the end?!

Pretty dumbo.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The guy who said this supposedly cares:

But surely an innocent mstake most likely by an employee of the person involved (ie. their accountant) isn't something to be taken to town over?

Or is the president going to resign himself should an employee of the goverment be found to be doing something wrong (after all in theory at least he is where the buck stops).

There HAS to be common sense in things surely, for something monumental or showing a real lack of integrity then yeah by all means - if one of them had put a few million in their back pocket or been caught smuggling cocaine then by all means throw em to the wolves .... but the stuff I've heard about so far, its chicken feed and I'm 99% certain accidental.

Heck everyone makes mistakes, sometimes ones which come into public sight - I for one would hope if I ever do so its approached in a reasonable manner using common sense rather than hysteria.

[JPhillips]

But there should be some cost to these mistakes. All Daschle is losing is his ability to be a cabinet secretary in 2008. He'll still be influential in any healthcare revamp, he'll still be very well compensated, he'll still be seen as a sensible voice on Sunday morning talk shows, etc. I don't think a little punishment is out of line here.

[rowech]

All I can say is it's no wonder the Dems don't care about raising taxes...they never pay them.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

No kidding. I have no idea how Geithner gets the Treasury position when he couldn't even pay his own taxes right. But of course, there are rules for the privileged and rules for everyone else.

Yes, republicans would know about that

[ISiddiqui]

I didn't think Ronnie said the Republicans created other rules. Things like that (others do it too, so it's ok) are what makes sure nothing really ever changes.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Oh they're all crooks that let each other get away with it, no doubt. Bringing partisanship into it kind of misses the point.

I just find it ironic that Geithner is going to be Secretary of the Treasury (of which the IRS is a part) when he couldn't be bothered to pay his taxes.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

But surely an innocent mstake most likely by an employee of the person involved (ie. their accountant) isn't something to be taken to town over?

Or is the president going to resign himself should an employee of the goverment be found to be doing something wrong (after all in theory at least he is where the buck stops).

There HAS to be common sense in things surely, for something monumental or showing a real lack of integrity then yeah by all means - if one of them had put a few million in their back pocket or been caught smuggling cocaine then by all means throw em to the wolves .... but the stuff I've heard about so far, its chicken feed and I'm 99% certain accidental.

Heck everyone makes mistakes, sometimes ones which come into public sight - I for one would hope if I ever do so its approached in a reasonable manner using common sense rather than hysteria.

A couple points here:

1. I doubt it was an innocent mistake since he had "over thirty years of public service" ($5 million in recent years is pretty good for public service, BTW) and only now he realizes that from 2005-2007 he might have made an "honest" mistake? Thirty years of experience does not equate to a mistake that is far more money than most Americans make in a year.

2. Regardless of its innocence, it's still a mistake. I thought that this administration was going to reform Washington. Perception is everything and if there's even the hint of impropriety, he shouldn't be considered. Out of all the people in the United States, is he the ONLY qualified person to be the Secretary of HHS?

Geither is a travesty of a different sort. He's akin to putting the kid who skipped school as the hall monitor. Who's he to tell people what they should be doing? He should be above reproach.

[Buccaneer]

It was an interesting day, one that could've knocked Obama's credibility way down among those that are not sheep. There were several complaints from more left-leaning columnists about the Asst. Sec of Defense appointee, now we had Obama sticking by Daschle despite obviously being contradictory to his "policy". What made it worse were the powerful Democratic Senators saying "it was taken care of" as if Daschle's ties with Big Medicine suddenly went away? And then we heard this from Obama, "If you're not registered to lobby, you can't be a lobbyist," That's the kind of BS political double-speak we've heard from the Bush Administration. But in the end, Obama owned up to his mistake of appointing him and pushing for him despite pressure from many places, including the NY Times. Daschle did provide the lead to save face but it should have happened much sooner and not have gotten this far.

[Young Drachma]

I don't think the tax cheats are really the disappointment. I'm surprised at the lack of rancor among the kool-aid drinkers at the team he's brought in. I mean, it's a cast of political retreads with some Clinton pixie dust sprinkled in. If I were a card carrying member of the liberal media elite, I would be pissed at some of the yahoos that we're supposed to believe are gonna bring 'change' to Washington.

[Buccaneer]

DC, I think it has been obvious for a while that the "change" everyone was wanting was to get the opposition out. Obama does bring a great deal of charisma, and that's refreshing, but he and his administration are still part of the Washington system. It's just that 2/3 of the people wanted something new and that kind of change is good enough.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

DC, I think it has been obvious for a while that the "change" everyone was wanting was to get the opposition out. Obama does bring a great deal of charisma, and that's refreshing, but he and his administration are still part of the Washington system. It's just that 2/3 of the people wanted something new and that kind of change is good enough.

I know we knew that, but I'm just wondering why the Daily Kos/netroots folks are defending his poor decisions thus far. I mean, I know why they're doing it...just seems funny, since those folks consider themselves smarter and whatever.

[larrymcg421]

Meh. The people appointed to cabinet positions are not a good indicator of the position the administration will take. For example, Colin Powell and Christie Todd Whitman were hardly representative of the foreign policy and environmental policy we later got with the Bush administration.

I'm fine with him picking whoever he wants if he thinks they can effectively implement the policies he wants to put in place. I certainly didn't think he would bring in a bunch of first timers. That would have been disastrous.

[Buccaneer]

larrymcg, that's true, he's not making the disastrous picks that Clinton made. But I think the point was the Obama specifically said that he wasn't going to pick certain type of candidates and then turned around and picked three (asst Sec Def, Treasury and HHS) that violated his own standards.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Meh. The people appointed to cabinet positions are not a good indicator of the position the administration will take. For example, Colin Powell and Christie Todd Whitman were hardly representative of the foreign policy and environmental policy we later got with the Bush administration.

I'm fine with him picking whoever he wants if he thinks they can effectively implement the policies he wants to put in place. I certainly didn't think he would bring in a bunch of first timers. That would have been disastrous.

I don't think it'll be anymore disastrous than what we're seeing now. A bunch of retreads carrying out their long-lost dreams of big government spending to solve everyone's problems.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I don't think it'll be anymore disastrous than what we're seeing now. A bunch of retreads carrying out their long-lost dreams of big government spending to solve everyone's problems.

Agree with that. I'm not sure Obama could have drawn up a worse first 15 days to his administration. It's only up from here.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

larrymcg, that's true, he's not making the disastrous picks that Clinton made. But I think the point was the Obama specifically said that he wasn't going to pick certain type of candidates and then turned around and picked three (asst Sec Def, Treasury and HHS) that violated his own standards.

Right, but what are his standards exactly? He stood by Daschle (had to to be consistent with Geithner) two days ago and then the next day admits he made a mistake.

Originally Posted by Robert Gibbs

I think they both recognized that you can't set an example of responsibility, but accept a different standard in who serves.

So by the White House's Press Secretary's own words, what does that say about Geithner?

The bottom line is that there is no way Obama is consistent with his campaign promises. This early in his term he's contradicted himself numerous times. Hopefully things will get straightened out in the long-term, but it's not a very auspicious beginning.

Edit--Further down in the transcript from yesterday:

Q Robert, back on Daschle, you said a moment ago that both Daschle and Killefer realized there was a new standard of responsibility. How do you explain, then, sticking with Tim Geithner, who had some $34,000 in back taxes and standing behind him for Treasury Secretary -- because Ms. Killefer had much less money in taxes that she owed.

MR. GIBBS: Well, Mr. Geithner has gone through a process, Ed, that -- he's gone through finance committee, he's gone through the full Senate with bipartisan support and serves --

Q Serves in principle -- not just process, but shouldn't principle guide it or --

MR. GIBBS: Well, the process has guided Mr. Geithner to be the Secretary of Treasury of the United States of America, a position that he was approved for by the Senate with bipartisan support and serves in today.

Q What happened to the -- there was sort of -- everyone was holding it up, especially in the media, as a vaunted vetting process. It seems to have hit some bumps. How do you explain what happened to the vetting process? And are you making changes to it because of what's happened, and asking people more questions about taxes, for example?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the President has confidence in the system. The President has confidence in the nominees that serve his administration. We're always looking for members and people that want to serve to advance an agenda that provides more affordable health care, that gets our economy moving again. Obviously, as it relates to the positions that withdrew their nominations today, we look for good people with records of distinction that can serve in those --

Q Then what happened to the vetting process?

MR. GIBBS: The President has confidence in the process.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Geez, now we're really screwed. First we find out from Obama that we have 57 states. Now, we find out from the leader of the house that 500 million jobs are being lost in the U.S. each month. What is that, like a 250% unemployment rate in one month?

YouTube - Nancy Pelosi: Dumber than Soap

[Sgran]

He did say he'd bomb Pakistan, so he's got that one checked off.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rowech

All I can say is it's no wonder the Dems don't care about raising taxes...they never pay them.

Good point!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Geez, now we're really screwed. First we find out from Obama that we have 57 states. Now, we find out from the leader of the house that 500 million jobs are being lost in the U.S. each month. What is that, like a 250% unemployment rate in one month?

YouTube - Nancy Pelosi: Dumber than Soap

Yes, mistakenly saying million instead of thousand is a critical issue.

[Vegas Vic]

As Joe Biden said, it's our patriotic duty to pay more taxes. When you're on the redistribution of wealth side, it becomes problematic from a "practice what you preach" standpoint when your proposed appointees have tax evasion problems.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yes, mistakenly saying million instead of thousand is a critical issue.

You're right. Similar statements by George Bush never got blown out of proportion.

I think we'll look back at the departure of George Bush from the Oval Office as the point where people realize there's a lot of stupid politicians in Washinton D.C. The only reason we didn't figure that out sooner was becuse Dubya was laying down 'stupidity cover fire' so the rest of the idiots weren't properly recognized for their ignorance.

[Autumn]

In Dubya's case, saying things mistakenly a million times instead of a thousand was the issue.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're right. Similar statements by George Bush never got blown out of proportion.

I think we'll look back at the departure of George Bush from the Oval Office as the point where people realize there's a lot of stupid politicians in Washinton D.C. The only reason we didn't figure that out sooner was becuse Dubya was laying down 'stupidity cover fire' so the rest of the idiots weren't properly recognized for their ignorance.

Regardless of whether you're right or not about Bush's statements being blown out of proportion, a mistake in speech is hardly an indication of how intelligent someone is. It probably would've been more appropriate to state how the Senate Dems want the "Buy American" clause put into the stimulus bill, which would indicate their stupidity far more than a slip in speech.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Regardless of whether you're right or not about Bush's statements being blown out of proportion, a mistake in speech is hardly an indication of how intelligent someone is.

You're absolutely right. If only the left would have held to that statement with Dubya. Dubya tried to walk through a locked door and got fried for it. The Messiah tried to walk through a window and we barely heard a peep.

The stark contrast in coverage even through the first two weeks of this adminstration is blatently obvious.

[Autumn]

In the public and media's defense, I don't think Bush got Bush-type treatment from the very beginning. He wrote himself that part and then the media and public rode it hard. Obama will get a story at some point and that's all we'll hear about, just like Dubya's gaffes and Clinton's dalliances.