Tim Geither, serial tax liar
Will his lies, arrogance, sense of entitlement, undercut the sense that Obama's stimulus efforts aren't just for the insiders?
What else are you going to say about Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner's laughable claim that TurboTax software errors caused him to miss paying more than $30,000 in FICA taxes he should have?
First, TurboTax is a simple program, and very much GIGO driven. If Geithner input garbage, whose fault is that?
And, the lie is so transparent, to boot. For 'winger blogs, this baby was far easier to check than claims that Bush National Guard documents aired by Dan Rather were possibly typed on a computer rather than a typewriter or early word processor. And, they've blown it out of the water.
So, too, did TurboTax maker Intuit.
Besides, the "Turbo Tax ate my tax preparation" excuse ignores the two years Geithner had a preparer due his taxes. The only way Geithner got those years wrong was if he lied to his preparer about being considered self-employed, despite the IMF telling him he was considered self-employed for tax purposes.
Beyond that level of bald-faced transparency in a lie, to me, there's often a grain or two of arrogance. It's as if Geithner is nonverbally telling Congress, "Yeah, I lied. But, I'm the indispensable man, so, what are you going to do about it?"
The country's top financial man, including being the ultimate boss of the IRS, skipped paying part of his taxes for years. That's bad enough. Now, he's lying about why he did it.
Let's let San Francisco Chronicle columnist Kathleen Pender have a few words on the importance of this all:
1. Obama knew all this a month ago or more; he could have nominated somebody else;
2. If you accept that argument, you're accepting Geithner's "indispensible man" arrogance;
3. We can't afford to do WITH Tim Geithner running the Treasury;
4. Obama's "common man" popularity runs SERIOUS risk of early trouble, re the stimulus plan, more TARP bailout, etc., if a "one set of laws for me, another for you" guy is running the show.
5. Obama's appearance of fallibility grows the longer he stays with Geithner.
That said, as I noted, nobody forced Obama to stay with Geithner after Obama's vetting team first became aware of the problem.
Instead, unless he changes his mind, President Obama is determined to inflict a serial liar upon the United States as chief point man for as much as $1 trillion of economic stimulus work. Unfortunately, at least one "yes" vote on the Senate Finance Committee bought into the "indispensable man" argument.
And, given the new report that Caroline Kennedy withdrew her Senate seat seeking because of her own tax and housekeeper problem, this is not a mild matter.
Updated, per a TPM post, and first commenters here:
If Obama REALLY wanted change at the Treasury, he would have excluded anybody with any of the following taints:
1. Worked for Goldman Sachs.
2. Works for Citigroup.
3. Worked for Larry Summers.
4. Worked for Robert Rubin.
5. Worked for the NY Fed.
6. Worked for The Fed.
7. Taught econ at either Chicago or Stanford.
That's just for starters.
Meanwhile, TPM reporter Elana Schor, whether on her own or "carrying water," is trying to compare a relatively minor donor misfiling by the political action committee of Sen. Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and the attempt is almost as laughable as Geithner's own laughable lies, but not surprising.
Here's why it's laughable:
1. Apples and oranges, comparing this with Geithner.
2. The fact that Schor, or the webmaster or whomever, said "go look for it yourself" rather than posting the actual PDF, indicates its small taters what Grassley's PAC did.
3. It was Grassley's PAC; we don't know if he knew anything about it.
4. It was, apparently, a one-off deal, not four years of malfeasance.
I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you that this is somehow supposed to make Geithner look better, or not so bad. I'm sure this will be a MSLB talking point; Steve Benen has already linked it at Washington Monthly.
And, if Ms. Schor wants to report on something related to this issue, why didn't she contact Intuit, for starters? Or a CPA? And do some reporting on Geithner's claims?
And, there's more YET to think about.
Cabinet nominees are coached and prepped for their confirmation hearings. Don't tell me the "TurboTax defense" came out of nowhere. Why doesn't Ms. Schor start asking around about that, too?
What else are you going to say about Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner's laughable claim that TurboTax software errors caused him to miss paying more than $30,000 in FICA taxes he should have?
First, TurboTax is a simple program, and very much GIGO driven. If Geithner input garbage, whose fault is that?
And, the lie is so transparent, to boot. For 'winger blogs, this baby was far easier to check than claims that Bush National Guard documents aired by Dan Rather were possibly typed on a computer rather than a typewriter or early word processor. And, they've blown it out of the water.
So, too, did TurboTax maker Intuit.
Besides, the "Turbo Tax ate my tax preparation" excuse ignores the two years Geithner had a preparer due his taxes. The only way Geithner got those years wrong was if he lied to his preparer about being considered self-employed, despite the IMF telling him he was considered self-employed for tax purposes.
Beyond that level of bald-faced transparency in a lie, to me, there's often a grain or two of arrogance. It's as if Geithner is nonverbally telling Congress, "Yeah, I lied. But, I'm the indispensable man, so, what are you going to do about it?"
The country's top financial man, including being the ultimate boss of the IRS, skipped paying part of his taxes for years. That's bad enough. Now, he's lying about why he did it.
Let's let San Francisco Chronicle columnist Kathleen Pender have a few words on the importance of this all:
I believe that hiring a man who failed to do his taxes right will set a terrible example. Our tax system is built on the premise of pay when due, not pay when caught.As for people who say we can't afford to do without a Treasury Secretary right now, I counter:
1. Obama knew all this a month ago or more; he could have nominated somebody else;
2. If you accept that argument, you're accepting Geithner's "indispensible man" arrogance;
3. We can't afford to do WITH Tim Geithner running the Treasury;
4. Obama's "common man" popularity runs SERIOUS risk of early trouble, re the stimulus plan, more TARP bailout, etc., if a "one set of laws for me, another for you" guy is running the show.
5. Obama's appearance of fallibility grows the longer he stays with Geithner.
That said, as I noted, nobody forced Obama to stay with Geithner after Obama's vetting team first became aware of the problem.
Instead, unless he changes his mind, President Obama is determined to inflict a serial liar upon the United States as chief point man for as much as $1 trillion of economic stimulus work. Unfortunately, at least one "yes" vote on the Senate Finance Committee bought into the "indispensable man" argument.
And, given the new report that Caroline Kennedy withdrew her Senate seat seeking because of her own tax and housekeeper problem, this is not a mild matter.
Updated, per a TPM post, and first commenters here:
If Obama REALLY wanted change at the Treasury, he would have excluded anybody with any of the following taints:
1. Worked for Goldman Sachs.
2. Works for Citigroup.
3. Worked for Larry Summers.
4. Worked for Robert Rubin.
5. Worked for the NY Fed.
6. Worked for The Fed.
7. Taught econ at either Chicago or Stanford.
That's just for starters.
Meanwhile, TPM reporter Elana Schor, whether on her own or "carrying water," is trying to compare a relatively minor donor misfiling by the political action committee of Sen. Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and the attempt is almost as laughable as Geithner's own laughable lies, but not surprising.
Here's why it's laughable:
1. Apples and oranges, comparing this with Geithner.
2. The fact that Schor, or the webmaster or whomever, said "go look for it yourself" rather than posting the actual PDF, indicates its small taters what Grassley's PAC did.
3. It was Grassley's PAC; we don't know if he knew anything about it.
4. It was, apparently, a one-off deal, not four years of malfeasance.
I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you that this is somehow supposed to make Geithner look better, or not so bad. I'm sure this will be a MSLB talking point; Steve Benen has already linked it at Washington Monthly.
And, if Ms. Schor wants to report on something related to this issue, why didn't she contact Intuit, for starters? Or a CPA? And do some reporting on Geithner's claims?
And, there's more YET to think about.
Cabinet nominees are coached and prepped for their confirmation hearings. Don't tell me the "TurboTax defense" came out of nowhere. Why doesn't Ms. Schor start asking around about that, too?
