I know that asking you to access the brain cells that remember who Kimba Wood and Zoe Baird are might be a bit of a challenge. Their names haven’t really been in the news for about 15 years. And, heck, sometimes I can’t even find the brain cells to remember where I put the car keys yesterday!
Both of them were nominees for Attorney General of the United States for Bill Clinton, but were taken out of consideration because of nanny documentation and tax problems. Actually, Wood was legally and technically in the clear of any wrongdoing, but because her situation sounded so much like Baird’s problem, the Clinton administration didn’t want to risk it at the confirmation hearing.
Now, it turns out that Barack Obama’s choice to head the Treasury has some similar problems, yet Obama has said he will not withdraw his name because of “innocent mistakes.”
Really? I can actually get past the possibility of not knowing if the nanny’s immigration papers were in order, but the guy who is going to oversee the IRS and is the head of the Federal Reserve Bank, who’s supposed to be an economic phenom, “forgot” he was supposed to pay certain taxes on his income?
Now, I didn’t think Baird and Wood should have been taken out of consideration because of their nanny issues, but if it’s OK to tell women they have to step down because of legal “mistakes,” especially those involving working mothers and child care, then is it acceptable to give a pass to a guy in a similar situation?
Mr. PunditMom said to me last night, “Well if they lose Geithner, then who’s going to have the expertise to take over at Treasury?” I have to believe there is more than one wunderkind who can manage Treasury, even in these desperate times. The larger question for me is whether Barack Obama wants to raise the whole double standard question before he even steps into the White House as POTUS?
Yes, maybe my feminist radar is a bit more on alert these days after so many misogynistic things that happened in the presidential election, but I have to wonder — if Tim Geithner were Tina Geithner would the candidate be getting the same benefit of the doubt on the supposed honesty of these mistakes?
Senators who have to confirm Geithner acknowledge these problems are serious, but say they don’t disqualify him. If that’s so, then Zoe Baird or Kimba Wood should have been Attorney General under Bill Clinton. But somehow their acts did disqualify them. Other than gender, what’s different this time?
Call me crazy. I know there are plenty who will. I’d just like to see the same standards applied to men and women being considered for high posts, whatever we all decide those standards should be.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Brava! Well said! (Giving you a standing ovation for this post)
January 14th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Hell yes!
The tax problem is a huge one, in my book – he should be taken off the list instantly.
The household employee issue does sound like an accidental oversight – apparently she was clear to work, but her permit expired shortly before she left his employ.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
A great thought-provoking post. We've tweeted about this already, but here I'm not restricted to 140 characters!
As you say, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood were factually different, even though they led to the same result of withdrawal as nominees. The reason why they were different is important to keep in mind when looking to draw lessons from them.
In Baird's case, she hired an undocumented worker as a nanny in clear violation of the law. But worse, Baird failed to pay her share, as the employer, of her nanny's Social Security tax, which was also illegal.
If you've read The Nanny Diaries (or seen the movie), you know that nannies can be a highly exploited source of (typically) women's labor, and undocumented nannies are even more vulnerable to accept low pay, 24-7 hours and sparse benefits than "legal" nannies. Baird was making $650K at the time(probably $1M in 2009 dollars, before accounting for her spouse's income), and could have afforded hiring a documented worker and reasonable wages with benefits.
So Baird was hardly a figure of great sympathy as much as someone who was responsible for needlessly and illegally exploiting an undocumented woman. As Soujourner Truth said, "Ain't I a woman, too?"
Kimba Wood's case was truly tragic. She also had hired an undocumented worker, but unlike Baird, had broken no laws. She had hired the nanny before the law prohibited hiring undocumented workers. (She also faced some other controveries). But as you say, the Clinton Administration didn't have the stomach to fight for Wood, so she withdrew. It was completely unfair to Wood, who had done nothing wrong and by all accounts had been a great federal judge in NY (she presided over Michael Milken's conviction in the 80s). It was terrible to see a woman with an excellent reputation have her name tarnished like that (I also noticed on Wikipedia that she got divorced a few years later, and you have to wonder if the whole episode was a factor).
A key point made against Baird was that she was a nominee to be chief law enforcement officer of the US, including all immigration laws, and would lack credibility to enforce them as someone who had clearly broken the law.
After Baird and Wood, the "enforcement credibility" angle has since tripped up three other nominees (two men and one woman). Charles Ruff was the back-up nominee when Wood withdrew, but it turned out he hadn't paid his nanny's SS taxes either, so he withdrew from consideration. More recently, following INS's transfer from DOJ to DHS, Bernie Kerik was nominated to head DHS. As it happens, Kerik had hired an undocumented nanny, and he withdrew his nomination primarily for that reason (there were others as well, but that was the main reason cited by the Bush Administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/politics/12kerik.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1102914000&en=0d3204c719c9e91e&ei=5094&partner=homepage Linda Chavez also withdrew as a Bush nominee for Labor Secretary over having an undocumented domestic worker.
So I would say Kimba Wood's case was a great injustice and Baird's withdrawal was appropriate. I would put Ruff, Kerik and Chavez's cases in the Baird category because they did break the law and there is something to the enforcement credibility issue. I wouldn't want an SEC chair nominee who had previously violated securities law for the same reason.
Geithner has not broken any laws. He hired a fully legal, documented nanny. She was also married to a U.S. citizen. At one point, she allowed her documentation to expire, but apparently it was considered immaterial by INS because she was granted a green card shortly afterwards. In this sense, his facts are very similar to Wood's, and very different from Baird's.
His personal tax situation is also more complicated than the MSM headliness suggest. He worked at the IMF, which like the World Bank, has special status under a treaty that exempts its employees' compensation from certain personal taxes. The complexity of the exemptions were acknowledged by the IRS when it issued clarifying guidance during the Bush years (after he left). The clarification meant he owed a small amount in back taxes, which he paid with interest. The IRS found no wrongdoing and charged no penalty. There's nothing to suggest he was negligent, incompetent or deceitful — apparently it truly was an "innocent mistake". Again, this seems much more like Wood's case than Baird's.
I guess the question is if you were advising Obama, what would you suggest he do differently here? Would you tell him to ask Geithner to withdraw?
President Clinton got a lot of criticism for failing to defend Baird and Wood sufficiently. This criticism was compounded when he quickly dropped Lani Guinier as his nominee to run DOJ's Civil Rights Division when right wing GOP senators maligned her character and misrepresented her academic writings. His failure to zealously defend and fight for these nominees was not good for his administration, the party, for women or people of color.
Obama is standing behind Geithner. I think that is a good thing. I fail to see what good would come out of quickly folding to some GOP senators' attacks. If Obama did drop his support for Geithner, it's not like that would "vindicate" Wood. Rather, it would just be a repeat of the same wrong done to Wood. And as we tell our kids, two wrongs don't make a right.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I hear what you are saying, RKR — yes each situation is different. But, as someone who is so steeped in the world of economics and a supposed whiz kid, how am I supposed to feel about him taking over out economy if he can’t figure out his taxes?
As for the nanny stuff, I have to say if you hire a nanny post-Baird/Wood, you’re on notice to be aware of these things. As I said, I think it should not have been an issue for anyone, since it is VERY difficult to ascertain whether someone is documented or not, at least it was 15 years ago.
I still say this is a situation where women were treated one way and things were considered a big deal, and now similar things come up for a man being appointed to the cabinet and now they’re not supposed to be a big deal?
Yes, every situation is different, but you can’t tell me there isn’t an underlying similarity and a disparity in how these issues are being viewed.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Some things that are different:
1 – 16 years.
2 – They’re all terrified about the economic mess, and want someone who has been “in the system” and who (IIRC) started blowing whistles about the upcoming real estate/SIV/CDO/bank/economy meltdown earlier.
I think if this had been Tina Geithner and she had the same resume as Tim Geithner, in the same economic circumstances, she’d be getting a pass, too.
For what it’s worth.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I haven’t heard enough about the tax problem, I’ve been avoiding the news for a couple of weeks just to recoup. But I do know he’s supposed to be a financial guru. And he “forgot” he was required to pay self-employment tax?
I remember watching the video when you first posted it and was absolutely appalled at the behavior of the news media It just chilled me to the soul. Men should be subjected to the same scrutiny as women no matter what the position.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
The thing is…if some regular citizen “forgot” to pay their taxes they would be eligible for jail or wage garnishment, not an appointment to the US Treasury. If there are some kind of extenuating circumstances to Geithner’s case, I think they need to be widely publicized so people don’t begin to lose faith in this administration before it even begins.
January 15th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Just learned this morning that Geithner also supposedly deducted kids’ summer camp costs as child care on taxes after told he couldn’t. Even I knew you couldn’t do that, even though it doesn’t seem fair.
January 17th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I would humbly suggest that you’ve got a false equivalency here, since Barack Obama did not make those nominations, and Bill Clinton isn’t nominating Geithner.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
It’s not just that Geithner forgot to pay his taxes. The IRS audited him for 2003 and 2004 and told him that he had not paid the self-employment taxes for those years. So he did. But he did not pay them for the two prior years, 2001 and 2002. He only paid those taxes in November, just before he was nominated. So he wilfully neglected to pay back taxes and fix the problem even though he was told the problem existed.
By the way, Linda Chavez did not hire an illegal alien, she just gave her shelter and money. Sounds like she should get a gold star for that, not disqualification from Labor Secretary.
Just goes to show that Congress has one standard for women, another for men.
January 25th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
write your concerns to:www.usgov.com you guys are right on. I just submited my comment to the government
sent from: fav.or.it
March 9th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
If I last recall, the problem with Kimba wasn’t the legality of the matter nor the timing per se — it was the fact that she didn’t willfully disclose the undoc nanny to Administration officials at a time when nanny issues were squarely on the radar.
When it did come out — after the fact and without forewarning — it made the Admin look pretty inept. Clinton was extraordinarily pissed off about it and released a pretty terse and somewhat snotty press statement accepting her withdrawal.