Democrat Double Standard Watch and Lying About TurboTax?

Tim Geithner's failure to pay income taxes is exactly the kind of thing . Geithner failed to pay the proper taxes for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Though the IRS contacted him in 2006, saying he failed to pay up for 2003 and 2004, Geithner didn't pay up for 2001 and 2002. As the Chicago Sun Times reports, Geithner didn't pay up until Obama decided he wanted to vet him for Treasury Secretary. Call me suspicious, but I suspect that had Geithner not been vetted, those taxes would have remained unpaid.

We've subsequently found out that Geithner had an illegal immigrant employed in his home and that he cheated on his taxes by claiming payments for overnight camp visits counted as part of his child deduction. We also know that his accountant told him not to do that.

I tend to take the view that the burden isn't on the employer, but on the government to enforce its silly immigration laws, but Geithner must have known that he would be caught and yet the Obama administration is trying to sweep all of this under the rug. Expediency is never an excuse for deceit, especially when money is considered.

There's a media double standard here to be sure, which Chuck DeVore, CMC alum and candidate for U.S. Senate, is right to point out the blatant double standard that stopped Linda Chavez from being Labor Secretary in 2001. Ms. Chavez, you'll remember, took in an illegal immigrant who had been the victim of abuse and is now an American citizen. DeVore's lines about it pretty much sum up my view of the situation.

So, Mr. Geithner, soon to be fifth in the line of succession to the President, right behind soon-to-be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gets a pass for not paying taxes and for employing an illegal immigrant while Linda Chavez, in line for Labor Secretary, gets destroyed for giving a woman in danger some humanitarian assistance.

God bless America: land of the free and the home of the double standard.

Chris Good of The Hill wrote an article about TurboTax, which Geithner claims to have used when he filled out his taxes. Mr. Good quoted James D. Taylor of Claremont Mckenna, who is a tax attorney and a CPA. It looks as if Professor Taylor is on to something. Could Geithner have perjured himself?

TurboTax is considered the gold standard of reliability among accountants, according to Professor James D. Taylor of Claremont McKenna College, a tax lawyer and certified public accountant (CPA).

“TurboTax can handle virtually everything,” Taylor told The Hill, adding that nearly everyone in the accounting world uses a computer program such as TurboTax to prepare taxes — including tax accountants handling clients’ taxes at big firms.

“I'm a tax lawyer and CPA, and I wouldn't think of trying to do this by hand without TurboTax or a program like that,” Taylor said.

TurboTax in particular is well-regarded, according to Taylor. The program is available online for $75; a simpler version can be downloaded for free.

Geithner failed to pay over $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes resulting from his work at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). U.S. citizens working at the IMF pay taxes as if they were self-employed, and Geithner’s mistake is common among Americans working at the IMF.

Geithner’s tax discrepancies were not likely caused by the program, Taylor said. The program alerts users to mistakes in their tax forms multiple times and requires users to override its calculations if they disagree with them, Taylor noted.

“From what little I have seen of this [Geithner’s tax lapses],” Taylor said, “if he used TurboTax to prepare his tax returns for the four years in question, I am absolutely confident that TurboTax would have calculated the self-employment tax, assuming he had put in the information correctly.

“It is not TurboTax's mistake; it was the error of the taxpayer,” Taylor said.

Newsweek Gets Kesler's Points Wrong

Ilan's already written well on this, so I won't belabor any of his points.

Here's what Newsweek wrote.

The team at National Review's The Corner had mixed opinions, but they skewed positive. Charles Kesler said ho-hum to the responsibility theme Obama chose, but gave props to his effort to take back patriotism and religion from their seemingly exclusively conservative domain. “President Obama’s speech was interesting, dignified, and unmemorable, like so many inaugural addresses,” he wrote, but gave Obama credit for handling "with grace" his unique place in history.

First and foremost, "Gave props"? You must be joking. Rap slang has little business in a national publication or its website.

More to the point, Professor Charles Kesler didn't credit Obama with trying to "take back patriotism and religion," but instead argued that Obama was part of the same kind of ideology that wants to "remake" America. Kesler was mocking that idea of a "transformed patriotism" and certainly not "giving props" to Obama!

From the Desk of Chuck DeVore

From the Desk of Chuck DeVore January 21, 2009 Help beat Boxer - Contribute to Chuck's campaign

IN THIS ISSUE: Chuck DeVore featured on NOVA's The Big Energy Gamble

Last night one of America's longest running television shows, PBS's NOVA, detailed California's landmark 2006 law, AB 32, and its aggressive mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in 11 years.

Regardless of your opinion about global warming, the fact is that California embarked on a risky course of action in 2006, betting that massive government intervention into the energy markets can reduce greenhouse gas emissions without harming the economy. President Obama is committed to following California's lead.

The NOVA episode, appropriately named, "California's Big Energy Gamble," prominently features California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010 against Barbara Boxer. DeVore says that modern nuclear power is the only way we can produce enough low-emission, reliable, and affordable power to meet our massive greenhouse gas reduction goals. NOVA also shows new Energy Secretary Nobel Prize winning Dr. Steven Chu in full agreement with DeVore regarding the need for modern nuclear power.

Unfortunately, Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to throw up roadblocks to America's use of this safe, clean and effective domestic energy source. Chuck DeVore agrees with America's new Energy Secretary: we need modern nuclear power if we are to power our nation into the future.

Thoughts on Inauguration

Professor Kesler wrote some of his thoughts on the inauguration on National Review's blog. I think the most interesting, which echoes my own feelings, is this:

His demeanor and delivery elevated it above the rather ordinary level of its political tropes and themes. A new era of responsibility? George W. Bush already called for that in 2001, as did Bill Clinton before him. Put the stale ideological debates of the past behind us? Ditto Bush, Clinton (remember the Third Way?), and even Michael Dukakis (“competence, not ideology”), though not, thank goodness, in an actual inaugural speech.

Indeed, when I watched the inaugural address, I thought at least half of it could have been said by a President George W. Bush (less eloquently, of course). He said we would not apologize for our way of life (though perhaps they're still trying to pick up the pieces from the now-First Lady's earlier patriotism gaffe). He also said that those leaders who blame America for their problems should remember that their people will judge them on what they build, not whom they blame. He also highlighted the importance of fighting terrorism and the dangers we still face.

Though the address itself was nothing special (his delivery was, of course, outstanding), I think there is some reason for optimism. Republicans will have to give Obama credit where credit is due. We tanked in 1998 precisely because we demanded every pound of flesh from Clinton we could get our hands on, even though he was quite a moderate president -- he was with us on Welfare Reform, Free Trade, and trimming down government spending. Granted that's not too much, but compare that to Bush's expansion of the federal government, his few (and admittedly early) protectionist tendencies, and compassionate conservatism.

For all Republicans out there who hated the liberals' visceral dislike Bush , or for their visceral dislike of Nixon (even though he signed into law the EPA, the Endangered Species Act, Affirmative Action, and wage and price controls), just remember: do not attack Obama for everything and anything. Openly support him where his policies make sense, and loyally oppose him when they do not.

Why the Claremont Conservative and the Claremont Independent Must Merge

We're entering a whole new world where blogging will be one of the many channels by which readers aggregate information. How might we become the voice on campus that frames the very important issues before us? 

In the model of the publication that birthed us all, the National Review, the Claremont Independent bills itself as an august publication and my time as editor will be in keeping with that tradition. Its slogan is "upholding truth and excellence." It's not only a fit principle for a newspaper, it's a fit aphorism by which to run one's own life.

...And yet I hope this blog will serve the same function that the Corner does for National Review. The immediacy of our current world demands nothing less than constant attention to things as they happen. 

The blog won't become the Claremont Independent and the Independent won't become the blog. They will inform one another.

My first act as editor will be to democratize this blog still further. Effective my first meeting as editor on January 20th, anyone on the Claremont Independent's staff who wants to blog here, will receive an account. We only ask that they follow the same guidelines that we have all followed: 

• That they think of what it means to be a "Claremont Conservative"  
  
• And that they blog on the Claremont connection.

I hope that our readers will be as generous and kind to the new crop of writers as they were to me when I started.