Bobby Ray Inman deserves the criticism he is getting for waiting until after he was nominated as defense secretary before paying back Social Security taxes for a part-time housekeeper.
But the damage should not be considered serious enough to justify the Senate's rejection of his nomination. Nor does the White House deserve the flak it is getting from women's groups for supposedly embracing a double standard on this score.Inman's excuse - that he knew he owed the back taxes but was waiting while Congress considered watering down the requirement - is pretty lame. Someone with his extensive experience in Washington must know that Congress often toys with such possible changes for years, only to end up doing nothing. But his culpability is mitigated somewhat by the fact that Inman himself voluntarily disclosed this blot on his otherwise impressive record. The fact that this shortcoming will embarrass him for the rest of his life should be punishment enough.
Though women's groups are unhappy because similar problems torpedoed the nominations of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood as attorney general, it's unfair to demand that Inman's nomination be axed in the name of consistency. Such demands ignore the record.
After several months of similar difficulties with a number of nominees, President Clinton and Senate leaders announced earlier this year they would no longer consider such tax problems to be a disqualification as long as nominees voluntarily disclosed the liability and agreed to pay the back taxes.
Nor is the record one of discriminating against women nominees while turning a blind eye to the frailties of male nominees. Before the more relaxed policy was adopted, the Social Security problem snared some male candidates for high posts, particularly Charles F. C. Ruff, a former prosecutor who had been slated to become deputy attorney general. Shirley Chater, Clinton's pick as Social Security commissioner, was confirmed by the Senate despite her failure to pay Social Security taxes on part-time domestic help.
Meanwhile, there are at least two different ways of viewing the Inman case and the various other such episodes leading up to it. One possible view is that far too many affluent people are getting away with petty fudging on their taxes. A more charitable view is that despite the great furor generated by the Baird, Wood and Inman episodes, the requirement involving Social Security for part-time help remains obscure.
The Internal Revenue Service ought to initiate a balanced response by combining greater publicity of the requirement with tougher enforcement. Meanwhile, expect more red faces among future nominees and in the Oval Office.