
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, December 30, 1993                   TAG: 9402250344
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

TAX CHEATS

WHATEVER ONE thinks of the nomination of Bobby Inman as secretary of defense (we, for one, are hesitant to join the chorus of cheerleaders), it at least seems finally to have moved the country beyond the Zoe Baird hurdle to high office.

Baird's nomination for attorney general was withdrawn, you'll recall, after it was disclosed that she had failed to pay Social Security taxes for household help. Apparently, this sin is no longer an appointment-killer. And this is a welcome development - even though Baird is now more obviously the victim of a double standard.

A fair reckoning would hold Inman more culpable and less principled in this matter than Baird was. For most of 1993, the former intelligence official knowingly used his housekeeper two or three times a week without paying into a Social Security fund for her retirement. Not until he was offered the defense post this month did he pay what he owed - long after the Baird fiasco last February had informed Washingtonians and most of the country that taxes are supposed to be paid on any employee earning more than $50 quarterly.

Talk about a double standard: Millions of angry Americans jammed Washington phone lines to derail Baird's nomination. Inman does the same thing, and few people seem to care.

Granted, xenophobia contributed to Baird's difficulties. She hired immigrants without their work papers; Inman's help is Made in the USA. And she was nominated to become chief law enforcer, including overseer of immigration law enforcement. Still, Baird is a she, Inman a he. Why did she need a housekeeper, anyway?

Inman claims he delayed paying back taxes because he was waiting for Congress to change the law. At least Baird didn't use that excuse. She paid her back taxes and fines, too, but was still rejected.

The most significant difference between the two cases, though, may be simply that Baird came first. Since Nannygate shut out her appointment and that of a would-be deputy attorney general and Supreme Court justice, a new standard has evolved: Pay and pass. Twenty-eight others - including Commerce Secretary Ronald Brown and several female appointees - have won posts after paying back taxes.

The new standard conforms with common sense, in the main, because the tax law in question is ridiculous. Incredibly complex forms must be filed and taxes paid on anyone earning more than $50 in a three-month period? That's a law begging for non-compliance. Indeed, when the $50 threshold was enacted during Eisenhower's presidency, the minimum wage was 75 cents an hour. Today it's $4.25 an hour. Simply adjusting the reporting requirement to conform with the minimum-wage increase would up the standard from $50 to $600 per quarter.

Bills are pending in Congress that would raise to $1,750 a year the income above which Social Security contributions would be required. That would help avoid many cases in which not just the Bobby Inmans but millions of Americans become tax cheats just by hiring babysitters and lawn-mowers.

If updating the law improves compliance, that might also help with larger problem underlying this issue: inadequate pensions for low-income employees. It's quite clear that, across the country, child-care and household workers aren't granted the respect or retirement security they deserve and need. Most of them are women - another reminder that Zoe Baird isn't the only victim of a double standard.

by CNB