The Nanny State?

Word now is Carolyn Kennedy withdrew her name from consideration for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat for the same exact reasons Tim Geithner was in hot water -- tax irregularities and something about "a household employee" (probably illegal-alien nannygate).

Is there anyone in our elite class, who can afford those problems, who doesn't have them?  Really, who can begrudge the overtaxed rich their little economies?

Comments

[Danny]

I can't tell if this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek but I wish the whole nanny business would go away. Yes, I understand why hiring an undocumented worker is not "sending the right message" for a public official (and we don't really know if that's one of the issues with Caroline) but whenever someone's nomination is derailed for that reason I always shrug and say "so what?" It just seems like a dumb reason to automatically rule people out.

I was surprised at how disappointed I was when I heard Kennedy pulled out yesterday. I realize my feelings about her becoming a senator have nothing to do with New York and everything to do with Kennedy nostalgia and how much I admire her public persona and how she's the end of the line for that family of four.

Still, I'm guessing that she would have been a good senator, she certainly seems extremely intelligent and civic-minded and able to work well with others but I can understand why more "qualified" candidates were pissed. Has any governor in that situation ever picked a private citizen with no political experience? I think yes--when the spouses of deceased senators finish out the term maybe?

[amba]

The whole business of her being considered for the office has been so strange and awkward. I was kind of surprised by a lot of people's hostility to her. If you're going to suddenly turn on the dynastic impulse in American politics (and show biz), you could pick a more obnoxious representative of the phenomenon. She seems like a kind soul, and myy heart aches for her having lost her father and her brother the ways she did. On the other hand, the skepticism of Caroline was also healthy. She is not qualified simply by dint of being a Kennedy, and she made a rather weak, vague, and low-energy case for herself.

[Donna B.]

Well... since I've paid household help without paying employer taxes, I'm not going to criticize anyone else for doing it.

I knew it was wrong and did it anyway. It's Geithner that ticks me off. If he is stupid enough to think he has W-2 income that is not subject to FICA and Medicare taxes, he's too stupid to hold office.

[Melinda]

Our generation of Kennedy women generally has more on the ball than the men. (i.e., Maria Shriver vs. the guy who killed his neighbor when they were 15.)

I could be way off about this, but I don't think Caroline was serious about running for Senator. I think the publicity about it was just to get herself noticed and go from private to public.

[Janet]

I begrudge Geithner his economies, yes I do. I've heard his statement in his own voice, and somebody who makes that kind of "careless mistake" (which is the most charitable interpretation possible) should not be running the Treasury. Either he's got a very elastic sense of fiscal morality, or he's careless. Either way, who wants him?

[karen]

Still- wouldn't we deserve him if he makes the Administration?

I think it's really funny(in my own way)- a Sect of Treasury that cheats on his taxes, a Sect of State who('s?)husband's Foundation takes millions in donations from Middle Eastern entities and a CIA Director(Ponetta, if this is what his title is...) who knows way much about Rendition(& i have no idea what that is as i never read the link on Anchoress)(oh, hell- Webster's says it's surrender... isn't that just great.)

[amba]

Nope, Karen, I think it means turning over captives and suspects to sleazy foreign governments that will torture them for us.

[karen]

Oh. My bad.

Do we give these prisoners up for good? Also, will that be Obama's way of getting around Gitmo's closure, but still keeping our captured enemies on the hook?