Chief Performance Officer goes down for…a little tax problem

Oy vey! President Obama can pick ’em.

As mentioned in the comments, Nancy Killefer has walked away from a cabinet appointment as Chief Performance Officer due to tax problems.

How come the girl backs down and the boys get appointed when it comes to these kinds of mistakes?


  1. Randy in Richmond says:

    At least the President is keeping his promise to have a bipartisan administration. Thus far he has appointed those that pay their taxes and those that don’t.

  2. Randy in Richmond says:

    There’s more to this story than the $900 + taxes she didn’t pay to Washington D.C. I suspect this is another nannygate at the least. The taxes owed to D.C. have been known for some time.

  3. Two nannies and a personal assistant doesn’t sound like chief performance officer material anyway.

  4. I agree. I’d nominate Kyle Prast. 🙂

  5. Second.

  6. Moral Hazard says:

    What else would you expect from this abomination, I mean Obama-nation?

  7. I think this could turn out to be a blessing for all of us. Maybe Obama will just forget the whole idea for this position.

    I was never quite clear how one more bureaucrat (chief or otherwise) was going to improve performance.

  8. Interesting to see how fast this conservative end of the political spectrum creams all over themselves at a vetting process that is working to some extent in that these appointees are not going to be serving. As a progressive I think that is a good thing. I had questions about some of these folks, also.

    Obama being held to the standard of having to achieve absolute perfection in every breath he takes, while the past administration had to issue itself preemptive CRIMINAL PARDONS, might be a more reasonable standard to make some fair performance comparisons to.

  9. There were no preemptive criminal pardons. It’s interesting to see how fast this end of the “progressive” political spectrum moves to perpetuate such lies about George W. Bush.

    Do you have imaginary friends, too?

  10. Randy in Richmond says:

    Your command of the English language is just so…filthy. Perfection, no. Standards Obama himself set in the campaign and since, yes. No, the vetting process is not working or we wouldn’t have had the appointments of Richardson, Geithner, Daschle, or Killefer. It is the court of public opinion that led each of these appointees to withdraw, with the exception of Geithner. Appointing tainted officials is a continuation of Obama’s poor judgement pointed out by many of us during the campaign and overlooked or ignored by many who supported Obama.

  11. Cindy, my mistake, and I apologize. I recall reading a story that Boy George quietly sent several letters requesting them, to the Justice Dept., four days before he departed.

    RiR, Maybe “grasping at straws,” to find a glimmer of conceited self-satisfaction after the election loss, the resounding rejection of the failed policies of the last eight years, would have worked. It just didn’t have the same rightous ring to it as the baser parlance.

    I’ll take Obama’s, “poor,” judgment over the prior President’s total or feigned total ineptitude, any day of the week. The jury is still out on Bush, and his either practiced deception in conducting the destruction of our nation, or being just plain stupid. Your assumption that all Obama supporters believed everything he said in the campaign is just ludicrous. I liked McCain, still do in some ways, just not for top cop. Sorry to smash your stereotype. It hardly required blind admiration to determine who was the superior choice.

  12. Randy in Richmond says:

    You don’t smash my ‘stereotype’. You reinforce exactly what I said.
    Please give me examples of failed policies during the past eight years, excluding policies formulated by Congress.