Bye, bye Daschle?

If Obama sticks with Daschle, it will cost him some of that “political capital” that Bush used to crow about “spending.” Geitner’s might not have been sleazy, but it still reflected badly on him, and by extension, on Obama.Not surprisingly, arrogance is not party specific.

I realize the Washington vetting process involves a lot of nitpicking, but is there anyone down there who can pass up a sweetheart deal or a free lunch?In particular, though, I’ve never had a good feeling about Daschle, even when I agreed with him (sort of the opposite of how I feel when I hear Ted Kennedy advocating a policy I favor – and I’m certainly not saying Kennedy is a saint.)Not that this particular offense is an egregious one on Daschle’s part, but wouldn’t it be great to find someone to captain The President’s healthcare plan who has unquestionable integrity and the political savvy to swim his (or her) way through Congress’ ocean of sharks? A mythical creature I suppose.

I now understand why tax reform is not a hot issue with Liberal Democrats –its because they don't pay taxes unless they are offered a cabinet position. Bob & Mona

To me, Geithner’s tax problems did not come across as boneheaded — I thought he took a gamble, taken, or thought to be taken, by many, and lost. Of course, it sounds (from a NY Times column — maybe Ron Lieber?) as if to comply with the household employee tax laws, you practically have to hire a company that specializes in such compliance. I agree that Daschle’s conflict of interest problems look more troubling than his tax problems. Maybe someone could explain the substantive difference between a strategic adviser and a lobbyist, and why it’s a difference that makes a difference in terms of potential bias in making decisions that are supposed to be in the public interest. I am also left wondering whether accountants need better regulation (or should I say accountability?) over their tax advice.

Dan, I don’t want you to get in trouble with Fish over possibly anglicizing Geithner’s name (I think it has an ‘h’).

In my former job, I had occasion to meet with Daschle, which is more a statement on the lack of population in South Dakota (and thus his accessibility) than on the importance of my former job. He’s not someone who would bowl you over intellectually.

Daschle will be confirmed; sleaziness is a Democrat resume enhancement. Just ask Harry Reid.

He should not be nominated, but that doesn’t mean he won’t be. He has known of these tax circumstances since at least last June and maybe deliberately caused them, but was not even fair to the President about revealing it until after filing an amended return and being chosen. That is bad enough that he most certainly needs to take the same direction as Richardson. And regardless of how these tax situatons occured, if he is smart enough for a big job he has to be smart enough to prepare and file a tax return of his own activities. It is that simple.

you practically have to hire a company that specializes in such compliance.Mr. Ani – they are called accounting firms. They help some of us with taxes as April rolls around.And don’t be too inside-the-box on this. Literally millions of self-employed people (disclosure – myself included) have to write out actual checks to pay taxes, as there is no comfortable nickel-and-diming for us on W-2’s. We are all WAAAY more upset with the new Treasury Sec., esp. since HE will be overseeing our lost-check, dog-ate-my-homework nemesis, the IRS. And we ALL know what would happen to us all if we missed five quarters, let alone five years.Conflict of interest? Meh. Corrupt tax evading? Says a lot about Obama to a lot of us.

All of Dick Cheney’s wrongs have nothing to do with how much we should allow with Geithner. Geithner paid the taxes due within the statute of limitations, but for those where the statute had expired, the tax remained unpaid. That was wrong, and Dick Cheney is still wrong – forever, just like Geithner.

Newshound, I was responding to Mrs. Peter’s inane supposition that “millions of self-employed people [are] all WAAAY more upset with the new Treasury Sec.”Mrs. Peter would be hard pressed to find millions of people who even know there’s a new Treasury Secretary, let alone that he botched his taxes. And the amount at stake was obviously trivial, especially compared to the billions and billions handed out like air under the Cheney administration. It’s hypocrisy to the nth degree.

And now I will get up on one of my favorite soapboxes and point out that we are inconsistent in the standards we expect people to meet, and this inconsistency (think of what happens when you’re inconsistent with setting rules with children) results in further problems. We, as a society, reward people who accumulate wealth, who push the envelope, who beat the system — we reward them with at least some kind of social approbation and attention and envy. And then when we put them under a spotlight and decide to judge them according to the rules of ethics we’d like to think we stand for, we apply a different standard and decry the very same behavior. It’s kind of like being stuck in a predictable soap opera with all its cycles of characters being by turns heroes and villains — we all know the roles and how it will play out.

Ani – To me, putting a tax cheat in charge of the IRS is particularly egregious. That really OUGHT to be a consistant standard. Would you allow a person with a domestic violence conviction to head HHS?The fact the Mike has had to resort to his personal Voldemort, Vice President Cheney (booga-booga!), instead of discussing the question at hand is evidence that there is no mitigating circumstances for the new Sec. What WILL he do in 18 months? Blame Judd Gregg?Perhaps he pays no taxes; the appointment is an affront to those of us who do.

I think the people who would make good cabinet secretaries and who have at least tried to pay their taxes accurately are less visible. I suspect that the people who rise to leadership positions, and are more visible, tend to be more aggressive, including on their taxes.

As I suspected, Daschle publicly would have been asked to stay, and privately asked to leave.

Ani – what does ‘aggression’ have to do with honesty? With discharging your civic obligations? With behaving in a manner consistant with public responsibility?I’m agressive, and pay my taxes. Marzilli was gentle as a lamb in his demeanour, and…oh, well.

PP: Exploiting loopholes in the tax code can be seen as being aggressive, and yes, at some point the degree of doing that shades into dishonesty, but my impression is that tax lawyers, etc. can make a lot of money coming up with creative interpretations of tax rules that comes just shy of what the IRS disallows.NewsHound: I don’t disagree at all, I just guess that such people don’t come to the attention of people filling high-level positions as easily as “go-getters” do, and I think “go-getting” shades more easily into questionable behavior.