Nannygate Repeated? Mulvaney failed to pay $15k in taxes for nanny

[PastTense]

Some of you may remember Nannygate:

“Nannygate” is a popular term for the 1993 revelations that caused two of President Bill Clinton’s choices for United States Attorney General to become derailed.
In January 1993, Clinton’s nomination of corporate lawyer Zoë Baird for the position came under attack after it became known that she and her husband had broken the law by employing two illegal aliens from Peru as a nanny and chauffeur for their young child. They had also failed to pay Social Security taxes for the workers until shortly before the disclosures. While the Clinton administration thought the matter was relatively unimportant, the news elicited a firestorm of public opinion, most of it against Baird. Within eight days, her nomination lost political support in the U.S. Congress and was withdrawn.
The following month, Clinton’s choice of federal judge Kimba Wood for the job was leaked to the press, but within a day it became known that she too had employed an undocumented immigrant to look after her child. Although Wood had done so at a time when this was legal, and had paid Social Security taxes for the worker, the disclosures were enough to cause the immediate withdrawal of Wood from consideration.

Nannygate

Now we find out:

Donald Trump’s choice to lead the Office of Management and Budget made the disclosure ahead of his confirmation hearing.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget, disclosed in congressional documents that he did not pay more than $15,000 in taxes for a household employee.

The South Carolina Republican told the Senate Budget Committee in its official nominee questionnaire that he failed to pay FICA taxes, as well as federal and state unemployment taxes, for a person he employed in his household from 2000 to 2004, according to a copy reviewed by POLITICO. The disclosure was first reported by The New York Times.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/mick-mulvaney-no-taxes-household-staff-233776

But surely this is different because the Clinton appointees were women who are supposed to handle the nanny while Mulvaney is male?

[running_coach]

@PastTense

Some of you may remember Nannygate:

Nannygate - Wikipedia

Now we find out:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/mick-mulvaney-no-taxes-household-staff-233776

But surely this is different because the Clinton appointees were women who are supposed to handle the nanny while Mulvaney is male?

No it’s different because like his boss-to-be, he didn’t pay taxes thus it’s acceptable.
Besides, isn’t that good money management? He kept to his budget, right?
Welcome to A Brave Trump World.

[Ravenman]

The South Carolina Republican told the Senate Budget Committee in its official nominee questionnaire that he failed to pay FICA taxes, as well as federal and state unemployment taxes, for a person he employed in his household from 2000 to 2004, according to a copy reviewed by POLITICO.

That makes him smart.

[foolsguinea]

@PastTense

But surely this is different because the Clinton appointees were women who are supposed to handle the nanny while Mulvaney is male?

No, I don’t think so! Is this ancient Sparta?

If the man is the head of the household, as in Anglo-Saxon culture, then this is on his head.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

The Clinton nominee was a democrat, duh. All you special snowflakes need to just get over it.

[Doctor_Jackson]

How soon we forget Timothy Geithner. Seems he had the exact same issues come up during his vetting for Treasury Secretary. Chuck Schumer, who is leading the charge against Mulvaney, supported Geithner.

So the real story is “The same ‘sin’ that causes some appointees to be rejected does not affect others, mainly based on whether the appointee’s party affiliation matches the party in power at the time”. Color me shocked.

[Falchion]

The tax issue seems like one of the clearest examples of partisan hypocrisy. It’s funny to watch Schumer oppose Mulvaney, after supporting Geithner, but there’s no doubt it would be the same if the parties were reversed.

(Although, as I recall, what undermined Baird and Wood was hiring illegal aliens, not the tax issue. Judge Wood paid her taxes. Also, as I recall, that’s also what did in Linda Chavez and Bernie Kerrick – although Kerrick always seemed genuinely controversial).

[RTFirefly]

@Doctor_Jackson

How soon we forget Timothy Geithner. Seems he had the exact same issues come up during his vetting for Treasury Secretary. Chuck Schumer, who is leading the charge against Mulvaney, supported Geithner.

Looks like a different issue to me; it had to do with the IMF not paying FICA tax for its employees, and had nothing to do with nannies.

Here’s Politifact’s take. Short version: they rate as “mostly true” Obama’s comment at the time that Geithner’s failure to pay self-employment taxes while working for the IMF “is a mistake that is commonly made for people who are working internationally or for international institutions.”

[RTFirefly]

@Falchion

The tax issue seems like one of the clearest examples of partisan hypocrisy. It’s funny to watch Schumer oppose Mulvaney, after supporting Geithner, but there’s no doubt it would be the same if the parties were reversed.

(Although, as I recall, what undermined Baird and Wood was hiring illegal aliens, not the tax issue. Judge Wood paid her taxes. Also, as I recall, that’s also what did in Linda Chavez and Bernie Kerrick – although Kerrick always seemed genuinely controversial).

Kerik claimed a ‘nanny issue’ when he withdrew. At the time, that seemed to be a way of evading an implication of guilt over the much more serious issues raised against his nomination. I’m not sure anyone ever bothered to ascertain whether Kerik ever really had a ‘nannygate’-type problem.

[elucidator]

Bernie Kerrick was a man of convictions.

[Doctor_Jackson]

@RTFirefly

Looks like a different issue to me; it had to do with the IMF not paying FICA tax for its employees, and had nothing to do with nannies.

Here’s Politifact’s take. Short version: they rate as “mostly true” Obama’s comment at the time that Geithner’s failure to pay self-employment taxes while working for the IMF “is a mistake that is commonly made for people who are working internationally or for international institutions.”

Our tax code is so convoluted that I can see how almost anyone could be “caught” not paying everything owed - whether it be self-employment taxes or payroll taxes for nannies. I think the fact stands that the outcome most often depends on whether the appointee’s party is the one in power.

ETA - Perhaps the correct color for me should be ‘cynical’.

[running_coach]

@Doctor_Jackson

Our tax code is so convoluted that I can see how almost anyone could be “caught” not paying everything owed - whether it be self-employment taxes or payroll taxes for nannies. I think the fact stands that the outcome most often depends on whether the appointee’s party is the one in power.

ETA - Perhaps the correct color for me should be ‘cynical’.

Someone in his position could have at least consulted an accountant or hired one to handle his taxes.

[PastTense]

Updating this thread there is now another Nannygate problem:

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Saturday she has withdrawn from consideration as UN ambassador…

Before she joined the State Department, Nauert employed a nanny who was in the United States legally but was not legally allowed to work, a source familiar with the matter and an administration official told CNN. The nanny wasn’t paying taxes while she worked, the sources said. This was not known when Nauert became the State Department spokeswoman, but she did tell officials when she was offered the United Nations ambassadorship, the sources said.
Nauert disclosed the nanny when she filled out the paperwork for the UN position, a source close to Nauert who was helping prepare her for the nomination told CNN’s Kylie Atwood. When it became apparent in the past week that it would be an issue, Nauert decided to step away because “she was not aware of how tough it was going to make it.”

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/16/politics/heather-nauert-withdraws-un-ambassador/index.html

[RTFirefly]

My WAG about Nauert (not knowing any more than what I read [del]in the papers[/del] on Twitter) is that she decided that she didn’t want the UN ambassadorship after all, and is using this as an excuse to back out without having to turn Trump down directly.

My reasoning goes: (1) by the standards of TrumpWorld, this is simply too penny-ante to give anyone heartburn any more, and (2) I just don’t believe she’s pulling a Kerik and covering up major offenses by claiming a fairly trivial one as her reason for backing out. And my WAG above was really the only other reason I could come up with.