February 3, 2009
Obama's Pick for Chief Performance Officer Withdraws Because of Nanny Tax Issue
Nancy Killefer, President Obama's selection to be the federal government's inaugural Chief Performance Officer, withdrew her candidacy after press reports surfaced that the D.C. government had slapped a $946.69 lien on her home for nonpayment of $298 of employment taxes (plus $48.49 of interest and $600 in penalties) on her two nannies and personal assistant over an 18-month period.
- Letter From Nancy Killefer to President Obama
- Associated Press
- New York Times
- Wall Street Journal
- Washington Post
Question: Why did the woman fall on her sword over a $298 back tax liability, while Tom Dasachle continues to fight for his nomination despite a $140,000 back tax liability and Timothy Geithner was confirmed despite a $31,000 back tax liability? And, as noted this morning, why haven't Daschle and Geithner paid any penalties for their tax transgressions, as Ms. Killefer has?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama's Pick for Chief Performance Officer Withdraws Because of Nanny Tax Issue:
Is it me or do democrats seemingly hate paying taxes?
Posted by: anon | Feb 3, 2009 1:15:48 PM
Kinda explains why they're gung-ho on raising taxes, huh?
Posted by: BD57 | Feb 3, 2009 2:29:03 PM
Professor can you be so kind as to write a small brief for us the unwashed that we can use as a defense when we 'forget' to pay our taxes? Or are taxes only for Republicans and other 'little' people?
Posted by: cubanbob | Feb 3, 2009 2:37:31 PM
The answer to your question about falling on her sword is most likely that there is a lot more here than has yet surfaced.
Who allows a lien to be placed on their home for a few hundred dollars? Its not as if this is something done in secret.
Posted by: Michael Markowitz | Feb 3, 2009 2:57:58 PM
Daschle apparently has fallen on the sword.
Lets see which clinton retred obama picks next and what tax issues they have...
Posted by: MatrixArchitect | Feb 3, 2009 2:59:58 PM
What I don't understand is, did she fail completely to pay taxes on her household help? Or did she just miss some local filing?
Posted by: y81 | Feb 3, 2009 3:02:14 PM
Maybe she has more integrity than Daschle, who should have stepped down immediately because any idiot knows you have to pay taxes on a gift.
Geithner used the wrong part of the FICA code, that applied to foreign ambassadors, which is a perfectly understandable mistake.
Posted by: Sandy | Feb 3, 2009 3:18:08 PM
I would think that most democrats are probably no better or worse than most anybody else in paying their taxes. It is just that when being nominated to a political posting in the Obama administration (well, any Presidential administration for that matter) the little things start to matter in ways that may be rather out of proportion to their importance (to otherwise ordinary people).
Posted by: Wondering | Feb 3, 2009 3:56:06 PM
I urge the outraged to read this very sensible comment by Eugene Volokh over at the Volokh Conspiracy: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_01-2009_02_07.shtml#1233691174
Posted by: Don Clarke | Feb 3, 2009 4:25:59 PM
And, as noted this morning, why haven't Daschle and Geithner paid any penalties for their tax transgressions, as Ms. Killefer has?
Why would they self-assess penalties?
Posted by: Ugh | Feb 3, 2009 4:40:41 PM
Maybe, but we New Yorkers also remember Bernie Kerik.
Posted by: HMI | Feb 3, 2009 7:34:08 PM
One feels that there has to be more to her tax problems than this Nanny tax issue.
Isn't it enlightening about how all of these individuals' tax problems are brushed aside by the administration and Congress? If it had been a Republican with this problem, he/she would have been crucified by the interviewing committees.....if they had gotten that far in the process.
Posted by: Cheryl | Feb 4, 2009 10:49:51 AM