« Anchorage Daily News busted on chickensh*t Palin birth coverage | socraticgadfly's Blog | The hackery of Tim Geithner now complete »
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?
Advertisement
I liked this post a lot. I am deeply suspicious of Geithner and disappointed with his choice. He is up to his elbows with the same crap as Paulson, Rubin and the other big Wall Street rollers who have brought us this mess (in fact they both mentored him). He also served an apprenticeship (3 years) with the ethically challenged Kissinger as in Henry Kissinger, supporter of Chilean atrocities and terrorism (friend and defender of Pinochet and every other scumbag in Latin America). Now this doesn't mean Geithner is cut from the same cloth but if someone can point me to one (that's all, just one) progressive or populist impulse from Geithner (who by the way does not seem to have any formal economics training...maybe useful in Treasury...or not) then I would be most grateful.
January 22, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this is Obama's weakest pick. Krugman or Stieglitz would be much better choices. It sets a terrible example for the new administration. Rec this baby up, up, up.
January 22, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Yes, this is Obama's weakest pick."
I strongly agree.
January 22, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was shocked last night when I finally got to hear Geither's "apology" to the committee --- Maybe I've listened to too many witnesses at trial but even at first, when I was in the next room and not sure who was talking about what, the alarm bells rang and I immediately felt certain that whoever it was was lying or at least speaking words robotically, with no genuine emotion attached.
I'm as big a supporter of Obama as anyone, but this fellow gave me a cold chill -- it was straight Bushspeak: "my lips are saying one thing but all the rest of me says something else but you should believe the words coming out of my lips". --- Maybe he knows what he's doing within his area, but trust is a big part of the solution to our financial problems, as I understand it, and if he's going to speak to the American people or Congress in the same hollow manner, they may as well give up the effort right now.
And to be honest Larry Summers doesn't engender a great deal of respectful trust either --- but Geither was simply awful!!! I'd suspect it was just a problem I might have with financial types, but I very much enjoy listening to and instinctively give a great deal of credit to Krugman, Reich, Volker. This fellow was really, seriously off-putting.
January 22, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too, Elizabeth...I don't trust him. "They" keep saying he is the only one that can do the job, but it's pretty obvious he is lying.
January 23, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. TheraP gets almost apoplectic when he sees him on tv. I live with a man who is good judge of character and he was onto Geither from the the get-go.
January 23, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops --- Geithner, not Geither
January 22, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I spelled it correctly before posting my comment above - but checked the title and then followed up with a misspelling!
January 23, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this is a poor choice. He can't get his own taxes right and we expect him to get our economy right. Nothing about this situation gives me any confidence in his abilities or ethics, because, IMHO, if he was the genius he is characterized to be, then he KNEW what he was doing.
BTW, I read an article once that suggested economists are typically sociopaths so for his words to lack emotion is to be expected.
January 23, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have to agree with all above, except for appointing Krugman to anything until he decides to stop crying foul and starting offering actual substantive solutions. Not saying he isn't smart, but his columns have been shite. Personally, I would love to see someone like Robert Kuttner in charge at Treasury. A completely independent thinker who could clean up the mess while instituting new solutions to these age old problems.
January 23, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is over-the-top near-nonsense. All studies in which multiple accountants are assigned the same reasonably-complex individual tax returns to prepare result in as many different tax returns as there are accountants preparing them. Interpreting tax law is not a science but an art. Nor is tax law Geithner's specialty. He did his returns for two years following the model that his accountant had established before that. If his accountant wrongly interpreted the law - well, clearly there's quite a bit of interpretation in any complex tax return, and on close review any return will be liable to require amendment if the reviewer's interpretation leans differently.
The tax code is far too complex, clearly. It results not just in mistakes, but provides questionable loopholes. It's not a bad thing to have someone like Geithner in office who has first-hand knowledge of how unworkably complex the tax code is as it currently stands.
January 23, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Wyt, as Rachel might say, you have talked me down somewhat, & with my complete belief in our new President & all other decisions,I feel a little better.
January 23, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have this right. Anyone who has ever had to deal with the IRS leviathan should know how baroque tax laws are. The tax laws are essentially, "whatever the IRS auditor says they are." Even in a tax court, the judge will side with the auditor damn near every time. Accountants are paid professionals in a deeply fallible field. And FICA withholdings for employees and contractors is one of the most godawful arenas of tax law.
One's experience with individual tax returns has no bearing on one's qualifications as a financial manager. I am uneasy with Geithner's connections to the FRB and their bank-oriented solution model. The banks have suffered from a poor transition. Formerly reliable investment advisors became enamored of and addicted to easy money through trapdoor AAA bonded junk securities. If you weren't peddling the junk, then you were not competitive. Salesmanship and gambling took over sensible finance. If Geithner recognizes the need for a return to sensible finance with strict oversight and a realistic economic model founded on manufacturing instead of speculation, then by all means let him have the reins. Otherwise, Roubini would be my choice because his pessimism is rooted in a realistic appraisal of our economy.
January 23, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tax law is another matter. And should be looked at for sure.
The man used Turbo Tax, as I understand it. And Turbo would catch that.
January 23, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have to agree, a real unease each time I see him. An impatient public, the continuing down turn & the insistent, albeit it necessity, for speed it feels like a ticking timebomb. This being of utmost importance adds to the angst.
January 23, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this is too simplistic, but could it be like hiring the Vegas cheat as a security guru because he knows where all the holes are? Just sayin...
January 23, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It all comes back to character, doesn't it? I'm sure not sure I trust this man's character. Already I'm on the fence about that.
January 23, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. However - I am going to take the risk of sounding like Brittany Spears here- hasn't Obama shown that he is really a pretty good judge of character so far? He can see a used car salesman like person from 100 yards away. (he is from Chicago, so he knows how to spot 'em)
I think we need to cut him a little slack, just like we did when the campaign did things we thought were a mistake. See how well it turned out?
- or I could just be full of rose colored gases (ow) :)
January 23, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why I'm on the fence. That's cutting him slack! :)
With regard to much of what he's done so far, I'm not concerned. And I realize, maybe only thieves and card sharks are left to choose from...
I trust Obama's character. Just not sure about his pick for Treasury. I'll wait and see, knowing that even the experts don't really know what will get us out of this mess.
January 23, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is going to come off as sounding like an "apologist" but I fail to see anyone including Sen. Grassley make substantial arguments against Geithner. The problem as I see is that all these guys and gals who are asking questions have just as many questions about their own character to ask. Is Sen. Grassley sure that all the money his PAC receives or any other donors who donate to his campaign have clean hands? You say well Geithner mistake was his own; he did not pay his FICA taxes while working for the IMF in 2001-2002. I wonder if their are studies about Americans working abroad for foreign corps./institutions who fail to pay their taxes. I have some friends who work abroad and they always brag about how they don't have to pay the same taxes while working outside the United States. Do our Soldiers pay taxes on the hazard pay and their standard pay while abroad? Are their cases where they have failed to pay their taxes? The issue is that he did not pay his taxes, he was caught and paid the fine although the statute of limitations did not require that he do so. I like Krugman, but he has been adamantly against the corporate sector for a long time, demanding drastic changes in monetary policy, health-care policy, tax policy, environmental policy etc. That is what he is good at and I certainly hope he has a voice in this new admin, but I can not imagine that he would not get dinged up during confirmation as well. I also like Mark Thoma, James Galbraith and Paul Volcker but it would seem that these guys would rather be outsiders looking in to advice rather than create policy. Volcker can be vouched for by the GOP as far back as the 70's and many of the more conservative Dem's started to take a liking to him during this election cycle. It is wise to have him as an advisor and he seem to think that Geithner would be solid at Treasury. I am not an expert and therefore I am going to listen to those who are and unfortunately most people seem to be responding to the GOP (Sen. Grassley, Sen. Kyl and others) and the media's coverage of Geithner's faux-paux. He made a mistake, he paid for that mistake, and he has been questioned for those mistakes. I appreciate that many of you are suggesting other names because that is productive but the people in our Congress who are holding hearings are not proposing solutions, they are merely trying to drag his name through the mud (somewhat deservingly) to make him dirty. The GOP is scared of many of Obama's picks in Labor, Treasury and Environment because the industry is in need of a shake-up and they need their players/patrons to be in positions of influence when things come back together. Maybe Geithner isn't a good pick, but if I was Obama, I would make Volcker available to all of those that have concerns and have him explain in detail why he is sold on Geithner. Maybe then we can get some actual details and responsible conversations instead of politics and posturing.
January 23, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still trying to figure out why he's the "best and the brightest".
January 23, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me know whom you think is and why, if you please. I am just simply stating that no one seems to be questioning those economist who have put their backing into the pick of Geithner as Treasury Sec. Come on reporters just ask Mr Volcker for an explination, maybe then we could get some insights. I am not an economist, and neither are most of the commentators on TPM. We all have insights but how important are ours if we are not experst on this issues this gentleman will be taking on? I am not trying to put anyone down, but we need real discourse.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-volcker8-2008dec08,0,108304.story
January 23, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am not trying to put anyone down, but we need real discourse." LOL -- I sure don't feel put down but candidly admit that I don't know enough about high finance to provide any "real" discourse.
Still, this fellow really had my nerve endings jangling. And that's noteworthy, I think, when it comes to assessing him *and* assessing the possible motivations of those who are hesitating to confirm him. ------ It was a shock to me to feel that way about a personal pick of Obama's, because one of the things that first attracted me to him was the solid, authentic feel and demeanor of the people around him. (And the fact that he kept a distance, sometimes inexplicably, from people who seemed to be or turned out to be lacking in the character department.)
Now maybe Obama sees this about Geithner but, as someone above suggested, simply wants to hire the Vegas cheat to be the security guru, because that sort of person is going to accomplish *this* job best. In which case I'd definitely defer to his judgment. But after hearing Geithner's version of "candid confession" I have a lot of sympathy for anyone on the committee who is reluctant to vote to confirm him.
And I would be fascinated to hear someone like Paul Volker or Robert Reich discuss why (if?) they think Geithner is the person to do this job. Went to Reich's web site but couldn't find anything - no mention in the article on Volker.
Interesting that Obama has a formally scheduled meeting with Geithner this afternoon. I'm sure he's in touch with other nominees, but those contacts don't make it onto the official schedule. Also the only thing on the schedule that Biden isn't part of. Just sort of curious.
January 23, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink