Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
AUDIT OR VET?
The Politico has a good piece on Mary Baker, the Senate Finance Committee tax analyst who has spearheaded the vetting process that's doomed so many of the administration's nominees. One expert in the article makes an interesting point: What Baker and her team is doing looks less like traditional vetting and more like auditing. And most audits do find errors. The question, in theory, should then be whether the errors are germane to service. But that's not really what's happened. Rather, the errors have proven germane to political embarrassment, and that's basically been enough.
COMMENTS (3)
I would suggest that in times like these, the public impression that these folks are profiting after have defrauded the government would indeed very seriously hamper their service.
I know you don't get this, but we're sick and tired of the wealthy getting to live by special rules. no matter how common it is, this isn't a time that lends itself to turning a blind eye.
Posted by: soullite | March 9, 2009 1:45 PM
"The committee staff asked [Ron] Kirk[the US Trade Representative appointee] to prove that the tickets “were ordinary and necessary business expenses used to entertain clients,” according to its report, which says he was able to corroborate only $9,900 worth of the tickets. As a result, Kirk told the committee he would pay an extra $2,600 in taxes.
Requiring proof of travel and entertainment expenses “is a standard thing that IRS auditors ask about when they do an audit, but I’ve never seen it with a political appointee,” the expert said."
At some point, Soullite, people start to say, "I'm not interested in having the green eyeshades pore through my tax returns for last 20 years in order to have the privilege of taking an 80% cut in pay, moving to a new city, and working 80 hours a week." This isn't just an audit;; it's an audit in public. The IRS never had any problem with his taxes, but Ron Kirk, a perfectly sound politician and government servant, now has a wikipedia page calling him a tax cheat. Unless he accomplishes something truly spectacular as trade representative, the net result of his taking this job will be to sully his reputation. Who needs it?
Posted by: Bloix | March 9, 2009 2:59 PM
Thank you, Bloix, for injecting some sense into this. These are not people who simplty didn't pay/file taxes. For the most part, they are old situations and not clear-cut instances of simply evading taxes.
I am finding these tax issues suspicious. We've had 2 terms of Bush (not the cleanest of politicians) and 2 of Clinton, and I've never seen so many tax problems.
This is just another sign of the establishment trying to handicapp Obama's Administration. This is not conspiracy theorist stuff anymore, the evidence of systemic bias and forces against Obama is being revealed.
It's very disconcerting.
Posted by: V | March 9, 2009 4:27 PM