Am i clear on this fact?

[Elvado]

The man nominated to run the Treasury Department was delinquent on taxes and illegally employed a nanny?

I guess if anyone would have insight into how Treasury works it wopuld be a tax cheat...

[EasyEd]

Sorry, Elvado, these things would only be important if they were Republicans.

[SoCalHoya]

Still need to read up on this myself (the bleeding heart liberal), but in the absence of any color on the situation, if the accusations are true I think they are relevant and should be a big factor in allowing him to run the Treasury.

[JohnJacquesLayup]

Linda Chavez - nominated, Secretary of Labor - withdrew her nomination in January 2001 amidst revelations that an illegal immigrant lived in her home and worked for her in the early 1990s. Chavez blamed what she said were the "search-and-destroy" politics of Washington.

Timothy Flanigan - nominated, Deputy Attorney General (also Alberto Gonzales’ top deputy at the White House) - withdrew his nomination in October 2005 amidst revelations that he'd worked closely with lobbyist Jack Abramoff when he was General Counsel for Corporate and International Law at Tyco, which was a client of Abramoff's.

Bernard Kerik - nominated, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security - withdrew his nomination amidst a host of corruption allegations. Eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor relating to improper gifts totaling tens of thousands of dollars while he was a New York City official in the late 1990's. Subsequently, on November 8, 2007, Kerik was indicted on sixteen counts for bribery, tax fraud, and false statements with a maximum sentence of 142 years and more than $5 million in fines.

Claude Allen - Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

Brian Doyle - Deputy Press Secretary, Department of Homeland Security - Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Doyle was arrested on April 4th, 2006 and pleaded no contest on September 19, 2006 to seven counts of use of a computer to seduce a child and sixteen counts of transmitting harmful material to a minor. On November 17th, 2006 Brian Doyle was sentenced to five years in state prison and ten years of probation. He will also need to register as a sex offender.

Scooter Libby - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff - resigned after being indicted for lying to a grand jury and investigators in connection with the investigation stemming from the leak of Valerie Wilson’s covert CIA operative's identity. Convicted on four of five counts, making him the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-contra scandal. Sentenced to thirty months imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. On July 2nd, after a judge decided that Libby would remain in prison during the appeals process, President Bush commuted Libby's sentence by removing the thirty months in prison.

Alberto Gonzales - former Attorney General - resigned without explanation amidst investigations of the firings of U.S. Attorneys, the politicization of the Justice Department, warrantless surveillance, and the torture and mistreatment of detainees.

[Elvado]

Thank you for that walk down the Republican Halls of Shame. Now tell me why Geithner should be allowed to run Treasury if he can't even pay his own taxes properly and abide employment laws.

It is more than a bit disturbing that he did not pay up until after the nomination. Who is vetting these people?

[JohnJacquesLayup]

That's not the argument I'm making, and I'm not defending Geithner. I'd just like to see the Elvado / easyed tag team get as worked up about the much more questionable characters from G.W.'s administration.

[SSHoya]

Wasn't Zoe Baird Clinton's first Attorney General?

Oh, gee, I am mistaken. She had to withdraw because of some problem with paying her social security taxes for her nanny and chaffeur. Guess she was a Republican.

[badgerhoya]

Jan 15, 2009 14:10:15 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Thank you for that walk down the Republican Halls of Shame. Now tell me why Geithner should be allowed to run Treasury if he can't even pay his own taxes properly and abide employment laws.

It is more than a bit disturbing that he did not pay up until after the nomination. Who is vetting these people?

The only thing I would add to this is that, per experience, working at the IMF or World Bank as a US citizen is a very unusual and complicated endeavor w/r/t taxes. It's not as simple as having your employer withhold taxes and then you make up/receive the difference at tax time. It's also not as simple as him willingly knowing that he owed $x and just not paying.

Truth be told, I'm not surprised that he had to work w/the IRS to figure out how much he had to pay.

The housekeeper, OTOH, is a bit more surprising... especially given the witchhunt in yrs past on this subject.

[Elvado]

JJ Layup:

It seems that each of those mentioned in your post had to suffer the consequences of their actions. Those cases are, by and large, closed.

Mr. Geithner's matter is very much open. Thus my "getting worked up".

Mr. Obama promised a new type of government and change we can believe in.

Did he mean it?

His actions on Geithner will be telling.

[AustinHoya03]

FWIW, the "liberal media" appears to side with Elvado on this subject:

www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opinion/15thu1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[Boz]

Jan 15, 2009 14:39:33 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

Wasn't Zoe Baird Clinton's first Attorney General?

Oh, gee, I am mistaken. She had to withdraw because of some problem with paying her social security taxes for her nanny and chaffeur. Guess she was a Republican.

I think it was Clinton's first TWO A.G. nominees, actually, but I can't remember the other one's name. I think Baird was the second though, which made it extra embarrassing.

Republicans have no one to blame but themselves if this is a non-issue, because most of them seem determined to make it a non-issue. Why? Because they have re-elections and there's money a-comin' their way with Geithner in charge.

Republicans seem more determined to make Holder an issue, but in either case, it's not going to matter. Whoever Obama wants, Obama's gonna' get. Right now, he is the only one who could sink a nomination for one of his appointees. But I'd prefer to see a little more spine in the dorsal area of the Senate Republicans.

Still in all, if I may get one partisan snark in, I have to agree that this is not exactly "change we can believe in."

I think it might be liberals who are more disappointed, though, when it comes to Obama's foreign policy. I hear a lot of talk, but when it comes down to it, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of "change" on that front.

[Elvado]

The first was Kimba Wood. Speaking of AG's I'm glad to know Eric Holder thinks he'll be a better AG by having learned from the sale of the Marc Rich pardon. Change I can believe in to be sure.

[EasyEd]

I think the NY Times stated it pretty well on the tax issue. I do not think he should be approved. As for the illegal employment of a nanny, what I have read is the immigrant initially was legal but the term of her legality expired while she was employed by him. I think I can excuse this one since I don't think someone can be expected to ask an employee every day if he/she is still legal.

[Bando]

Jan 15, 2009 17:20:59 GMT -5 Boz said:

I think it might be liberals who are more disappointed, though, when it comes to Obama's foreign policy. I hear a lot of talk, but when it comes down to it, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of "change" on that front.

I'm certainly not disappointed. It's not Obama's fault that Bush came instituted a 16 month withdrawal deadline for Iraq before Obama had a chance to get into office. Additionally, Panetta and Holder's comments on torture during their Senate hearings are directly in line with what the campaign promised.

Furthermore, the entire intellectual alignment of the US foreign policy corps has completely changed. This administration is being intellectually guided by the likes of Susan Rice, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Samantha Power, all liberal internationalists. Bob Gates is a Bush retread, but he's not a neo-conservative.

What exactly do you think liberals should be upset about, foreign policy-wise? Is it just personnel (say, Hillary Clinton)? What actual policy shifts have taken place?

[Boz]

Well I have to keep this relatively short because I have to pack to get out of here before all you lunatics wreak havok on my adopted home town.
;D

There are no policy shifts at the moment because there's little policy at the moment. What I am doing is making a prediction (I know, not something I do very often).

Start with Gitmo. I will eat my hat if Gitmo actually closes according to when the left wants it to close. Because there is a realization that there is nowhere to put some of these people. And God forbid he releases some of them and they participate in an attack, any attack, on Americans or innocents from other nations. He can kiss re-election goodbye if that happens.

Iraq and Afghanistan? Obama is going to do whatever David Petreus says needs to be done. I guarantee it. You can have all of the Susan Rice's you want. The general's voice is going to be the loudest one in the room. And Bob Gates will be the second loudest.

I'm also willing to bet that he does not eliminate many of the counter-terrorism practices that we are currently employing, at least not in his first term. And he's got the economy for cover on that.

Is he going to elevate talks with Iran? I doubt it.

Basically, what I am predicting is that while there will be much different rhetoric in the Obama administration when it comes to foreign policy, I do not see a whole lot of changes in practice on the horizon.

Then again, I could be wrong. But I think Obama knows that if he focuses on the economy and keeps a lot of current foreign policy positions in place, he has a good chance at re-election. If he gambles on re-inventing US foreign policy, re-election is a much bigger risk if there are unforeseen consequences.

A simplistic overview, I admit, but, as I said, got to run tonight.

[TC]

boz1 said:

Start with Gitmo. I will eat my hat if Gitmo actually closes according to when the left wants it to close. Because there is a realization that there is nowhere to put some of these people. And God forbid he releases some of them and they participate in an attack, any attack, on Americans or innocents from other nations. He can kiss re-election goodbye if that happens.

I think you can bank on Gitmo closing in the next four years. The realization that there's nowhere to put some of these people has always been there, they'll figure something out.

My prediction : the biggest contrast between the Bush and Obama administrations will be the changes in energy policies.