The Real Daschle Problem

If Daschle "thought" it was being taken care of by his accountant, wouldn't it have been prudent to pick up the phone and ask his accountant "Did you take care of it"? It seems like this is more than just a disconnect from the realities the rest of us face. His head wasn't just stuck in the sand, it was stuck up in a place where the sun never shines. Before you assume the responsibilities in a position for the nation at large, you have to assume some responsibility for yourself. Tom might be embarrassed, but this sort of thing doesn't go down very well with people who take care of everything on their own.

I think Obama's very public, very scornful (and very justified) finger-wagging at bonus-taking executives is problematic with respect to Daschle's nomination. I fully understand the underlying differences, but heaping public scorn on one millionaire who games the system leaves very little room to forgive another. It bothers me.

"more damaging, I think, than the initial reports.:"
.
How so? As far as confirmation? Or reputation? Or ammunition for the republicans who would rather discuss this than address health care?

Thanks for the reply. You have the expertise and that's why I was curious if this would actually damage his chance at the job.
I wonder how many senators who vote against him because of this are in glass houses. Even an empty suit one term senator like Norm Coleman has money issues, to put it delicately.

If you want to be a schmuck that's one thing. But you are giving ammunition to the other side to fire at President Obama!

While I agree in general with the premise that Daschle should have looked into the details sooner, I agree with him that the sum is "jawdropping." If he owed $128,000 in taxes, the service was deemed to be worth somewhere around $350,000, right? How could he have guessed that? He said he thought a friend was doing him a favor, and why not? That's actually a lot more like what the rest of us think than it seems you or shepherdwong are seeing.
.
So if our car breaks down and a friend lends us a car, do we report that as income at the rate it would have cost to rent a car? Writ large, that's what Daschle had to do. Have none of us ever traded favors and not reported that as income? Every "housewife" understands that the tasks of keeping a home would cost any family a fortune if they were being paid for. So if you babysit for a friend and she in turn hangs your wallpaper are you claiming as income what you saved in paying a paper hanger? Various cities have tried to set up barter systems to save people money, and they tend to fail because the IRS treats barter as income, even though the rest of us don't.
.
Put another way, it's unlikely Daschle would have been using his friend's car and driver if he'd realized it was income. I wonder how many of the senators sitting in judgment on this are thinking "aagh, what have I done that I need to count as income?" This seems a more defensible situation that Geithner's, actually.

Maybe he can be in the cabinet of wherever Wesley Snipes is hiding.

Isn't this something of a problem with the tax code, though? Does every little thing need to be subject to some sort of tax? A guy lets Daschle use his car and driver. Presumably, the guy paying the car and driver is paying his share if FICA taxes for the driver and the driver is paying taxes on his income. Why does Daschle need to be taxed on that?

If the driver is shuttling his employer around, the employer doesn't pay any other taxes on it. The employer simply hired a driver. But does anyone else who gets a lift from this guys driver have to pay taxes? It's absurd to me.

kathy: Daschle wasn't involved in a friendly one time barter deal. He was provided with transportation and a driver for a very extended period of time. What did he give in exchange? The car was provided and the driver was being paid to take Daschle where he wanted to go when he wanted to go. I don't see how this could possibly be regarded as anything other than goods and services rendered.

I have very little sympathy for the ignorance excuse. Transportation is one of the huge buckets you look at in tax preparation. Every single taxpayer knows they can get a deduction for work-related mileage and watches it like a hawk. It's one of the first things you think about in terms of taxation. It's laughable to claim that having your transportation expenses gifted wouldn't come up in terms of taxation.

sacredh: And if daschle wasn't doing anything in return, if there was no pro quid pro, (no barter) then how is it income? On the other hand, if it was a gift it violated the senate's gift rules, which is what I'd rather see him held accountable for.
.
And "one time" doesn't really enter into it, does it? I'm suggesting that we all excuse such things on the basis that they're one time, or only occasional, but I don't think the IRS sees it that way.

pourme - but how is the mileage deduction related to this?
.
If you carpool to work, with someone else driving, should you be counting that as income? Except for the quality of the ride and the fact that the owner of the car wasn't going in the same direction, I don't see what the difference is. If another senator was picking up Daschle in his chauffered car would Daschle have to count that as income?

Yeah but guys -- isn't a little absurd that somebody would have to pay so much money in taxes in exchange for a favor that can't be monetized at all? Remember, the driver is already paying taxes, as is the driver's employer. For the amount of money the IRS took from Daschle on this, Daschle could have taken a helicopter everywhere. The tax code is just absurd on this issue.

Wait a damn minute now. There is quite a bit of pooh poohing going on here that borders on hypocritical. This wasn't Daschles homeboy lending him a car. He got a car and driver as a consequence of his job. Something that I would bet was included in any contract he signed for said job. And say he didn't know the difference between when he was in Congress with a driver and car and in private business with a driver and car doesn't speak well of his mental abilities. This guy phucked up plain and simple and there aint a chance in hell that if he had an R behind his name that the people trying dismiss this would be trying to make it seem like its no big deal. Primarily because it IS a big deal. At least with the Geitner situation the whole way he was paid was convoluted. But Tom Daschle in addition to having had to file taxes while he was in Congress also had to file financial disclosure forms every year and so its not like this guy didn't have a clue about stuff like this. I am sorry but I refuse to turn into the bizzarro form of wingnut that excuses everything Democrats do while demonizing what Republican do. I think Daschle is the perfect guy for the job as far as his background but personally i believe his tax issues are a big issue and might just be enough to disqualify him.

kathy, that carpool question is really apt.

destor, those are very good questions.

The (tax) law is wrong so I don't have to obey it? I used to know that as a typical Republican response.

This isn't a debate over the fairness of the tax. It is what it is. This isn't a debate over whether he owes the tax. He does. The mileage deduction is related because it illustrates the point: everyone -- from the Secretary of HHS to you and me -- knows that transportation expense is a key element of tax calculation. You don't typically get to theorize about clarity and fairness as abstracts when you get caught. At least, most people don't.

kathy: It's the same principal that got Ted Stevens convicted in Alaska. Contractors worked on his home and charged him far less than "fair market value" for their services. It is viewed as income because the IRS sees it as what would it have cost Daschle if he had hired the car and driver himself. Since he didn't pay anything out of his pocket, it has to be counted as income. Every politician in Washington knows the rules and Daschle's assertion that it suddenly dawned on him that it might be viewed as income is jaw dropping in itself. I'm a diehard democrat and tend to give them the benefit of a doubt, but even I find his explanation indefensible.

I'm glad their parents haven't woken hula and textee up yet. Without their histrionics interfering, this is an excellent discussion. Please keep it going.

OT, but since K-Tum is playing in the swamp, I would love to see her address (dead tree and blog) a point Steven Benen made a few minutes ago:
.
Perhaps the political world has been looking at this debate the wrong way. All week long, we've heard quite a bit about what's incumbent upon Obama to satisfy Republicans' demands, despite the GOP's horrific failures at governing, and despite voters having thrown the minority party out on their asses. Maybe now would be a good time to turn the question around: what are Republicans going to do to play a productive role in the process? When will they move beyond Bush's failed economic agenda and get serious about the crisis? Obama was prepared to make all kinds of compromises; what concessions are Republicans prepared to make? GOP leaders have acknowledged they can't just be "the party of 'no.'" So when might we see them start to say "yes"?
.
It seems the burden of proof is all out of whack here. It's not the president's responsibility to make the rejected (and dejected) minority party happy. It's not Obama's job to find out what unhinged, far-right Republicans want to be happy, and then deliver.

I'm sympathetic to the "rules are rules" argument, but I think this is a case where we might want to ask whether or not the rules should be as they are. I'm not so sure they should be.

KAREN'S ON CNN right now