Daschle and Further Uneasiness
Eight days ago, I posted my reservations about President Obama's selections of Timothy Geithner for Secretary of the Treasury and William Lynn as Deputy Secretary of Defense.
At that time, much of the response I received could be summarized as, "These are isolated incidents, and we trust Obama's judgment. Don't sweat it."
I had almost begun to let Geithner and Lynn go - even though Geithner's excuse for his tax issue doesn't even begin to pass the smell test, and Lynn is being set up to run afoul of Obama's rules on lobbyists overseeing areas in which they'd previously lobbied.
Now, though, comes news of Tom Daschle's six-figure tax error. There are some very good blogs here that discuss Daschle's situation in detail, so I'll not rehash it here, save for those parts that irritate me most.
To be honest, I don't know which bothers me more - that Daschle waited until weeks after being designated to head Health and Human Services to notify the White House of this issue, or that the Obama Administration's vetting team didn't catch this.
Contributing to my unease is the fact that Daschle accepted a car and driver from a lobbying law firm, and used it at least 80% of the time for personal reasons. And, though I hate to say it about a guy I like and respect, I am not entirely buying his "my accountant ate my homework" excuse. He HAD to know that having a full-time car and driver would be taxable back when he accepted the gift.
The greater risks in the Daschle nomination, as I see them, are as follows.
(1) Congressional Democrats are tiring quickly of having to take incoming fire over vetting issues. The anonymous quotes - a staple of Washington messaging - are already out:
"It's totally shocking," an aide to a Democratic senator said Saturday. "Why do we have to continue to have the same story over and over again with these nominees?"
They'll largely toe the Presidential line, I think - but that may be a bad thing in and of itself. Also, this will cause some strain between Obama and key Dems, who will have to calculate how much personal political capital they are willing to invest in nominees who traditionally would not survive confirmation.
(2) This "tax evasion" story line, when combined with the idea that Obama's "no lobbyists" campaign rhetoric is not squaring with the ex-lobbyists now occupying key positions in the new administration, is going to give Republicans a natural foothold to go after Obama on ethical issues.
Now, as Hillary Clinton correctly stated during the Presidential primary, "Lobbyists are people too." It's also not easy to find qualified, mostly Democratic officials in a town that's been dominated by the GOP for the last eight years without hitting up K Street. And it's true that the Obama nominees are almost universally considered to be exceptionally qualified for the jobs they are to hold.
The problem is not with the nominees themselves. It's with the standard their prospective boss set for his administration.
This is a sensitive issue for POTUS 44, and it's largely one of his own making. You can't say, "[Lobbyists] have not funded my campaign, and they won't be in my White House," then turn around and name ex-lobbyists to top positions and combine them with the tax problems that Geithner and Daschle had uncovered, and not have a political cost.
So...am I allowed to be uneasy yet?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For those scoring at home (or even if you're alone), here's a list of other high-level administration officials or designates with lobbyist ties:
Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.
Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president's assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
I have felt queasy for days...now I may actually vomit. But these dates are a little old...are there to be no lobbyists, or is there a time frame...I forget?
This issue is not a good one for us. I feel dirty...
February 1, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem as I see it is not the dates. It's with the no-loopholes, "read-my-lips" promises on this issue that Obama made repeatedly during his campaign.
For myself, I think a President should hire whomever he wants for his administration. However, when you campaign on an idealistic platform, and also make very specific promises, you set yourself up for this kind of backlash.
And yes, Obama does have a waiver provision that would allow former lobbyists to serve. The question then, however, is this: how many times do you use a waiver before the original rule itself is no longer worth anything?
February 1, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it's an excuse, but we are talking about thousands of positions with very few waivers needed.
I agree that a "Read My Lips" pronouncement followed by back-pedaling is problematic, but I hardly think it is grounds for an indictment of hypocrisy. Campaigns and governing are two different things.
As you mentioned in your blog, kind of hard to shake a stick in Washington without smacking a lobbyist.
February 2, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see the list in the blog? The waivers needed are for Deputy positions on up. These are the most powerful people in the Administration.
Campaigns are really different that governing? Holy smokes. I had no idea. Thank you for the education.
Oh...and, though I may not be completely facile with the language, I may just barely know enough to be able to "give the lie direct," if need be. I didn't call Obama a hypocrite in this blog.
February 2, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to call someone a hypocrite to accuse them of hypocrisy, which was the word I used.
I am not disagreeing with your blog and am troubled by the same things, but I am still of a mind to see what the actual results are from all of this. We have a system that will require a decade or more to reform it into something resembling a representative Republic.
Until that time, we are at the mercy of a bunch of people who don't have much track record of doing what's right. While we keep an eye on them, perhaps we should start working for Plan B at the grassroots and begin recruiting new leaders we can get through the primary elections of both parties.
We are long past time for a nice, long voter-induced enema in Washington.
February 2, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the corp/gov money trough and how can I get a couple of drinks--of pure economic success?
February 1, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I forgot. Good post Boyd.
February 1, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gracias.
February 1, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMHO the issue is whether Obama should be sucked in to ignoring the fact that a close advisor to his campaign (Daschle) betrayed Obama's trust by failing to disclose a problem (the income tax issues) immediately to Obama when Obama proposed to nominate him to a cabinet post. The issues related to Daschle's reported income from Health Industry Groups also indicate that he comes to the insurance reform fight as a broken reed - he is already hopelessly compromised.
Add to those problems the facts (1) that Daschle's book, Critical, says virtually nothing about any measure for Health Care Reform that is not already Conventional Wisdom throughout most provider groups in the health care industry, and (2) that his book also reflects no concrete thinking whatsoever about how to take steps to transition from the existing system to "incremental reform," and it seems clear to me that Daschle brings no pluses to the table to balance the serious ethical minuses.
Frankly, I think Rahm Emanuel - or maybe even Michelle O - should grab BHO by the short & curlies and not let go until Obama has realized that Daschle's betrayal in this shows two serious problems with making him even "health czar" in the White House: (1) Daschle will risk undermining Obama's program for his own personal gain, as he has done in both the tax issue and in the delayed disclosure of income sources, and (2) Daschle brings no worthwhile PLAN for reform with him, only his supposed ability as an operator to achieve a political compromise that enacts extension of health coverage in an uncertain form and to an uncertain extent.
At this point in time, Daschle's credentials as an operator appear to be highly exaggerated. I think that the only operation he has put over since being defeated in his re-election bid in the U.S. Senate is to ingratiate himself with the Center for American Progress and then with Obama and Obama's policy team.
Surely Obama can do better! The President should cut his losses on this choice and look for a strong single-payer advocate to substitute for Daschle - in both positions for which Daschle was proposed. Larry Summers in the White House is already a disaster; to add Tom Daschle would risk creating a cascade of poor advice about both policies and strategies to get policies adopted!
February 1, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say - you make a persuasive argument against Daschle...
I used to tell myself Obama maybe "owed" the position to Daschle, but it seems less and less of a vaguely tenuous excuse. My back-up justification was that a good support team would help, but I am going to chalk that up to a pipe dream. Figure heads did serve Louis XIV in France as he kept the noble close to home to keep them in line. Obama seems to grasp power and the various tools of power quite well.
February 2, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is an argument going around that Geithner is the ONLY man for his job, and I don't know enough about him to know if that is true or not, but I don't think the same can be said about Daschle. Imho I think they need to cut him loose.
February 2, 2009 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't either of those clowns qualify for "only man" status. I think the only one that could possibly fall into that category is Obama himself, though I am sure there are other political thinkers out there who are cut from the same cloth.
February 2, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Image vs. substance.
I'm not saying that image should be ignored entirely, only that it's important to distinguish which is important in which way in a given situation.
February 2, 2009 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you take Geithner, Lynn or Daschle by themselves, there is no issue. However, this is not an isolated situation, as is clearly demonstrated in the blog.
The simple fact is that most Cabinet-level nominees and top deputy nominees who have Geithner's or Daschle's tax issues do not get the jobs they're looking for. This is simply because a blatant failure to pay taxes is not a good reflection on the honesty and character of the individual in question.
Adding to the problem is that Obama ran a campaign that focused on ethics in Washington. That's great, and the campaign went rather well. However, the practice is not matching up with the campaign rhetoric in this particular case.
Moreover, even this problem could be handled - or at least lessened - by someone in the Administration saying, "We had some issues with vetting; we're trying to hit the ground running, etc." Pabulum? Sure. But at least it acknowledges the issue (and when both Maddow and Shuster hit Obama for the same thing, you know it's not a partisan problem).
Instead, it comes out that the Obama vetting team knew about Geithner and Daschle before they ever hit the Hill for confirmation - and said nothing. So, the questions I'm asking are fair.
February 2, 2009 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Daschle's lobbying ties are more a problem than his limo tax issue.
Obama's formal stand is not "no lobbyists" it's no recent/current lobbyists in areas of their job duties.
Do you think Obama is doing a 10%, 40%, 60%, 90%, or better job on the effort to clean up DC, at this point? If you're noting his track record at 95% while reminding us not to ignore the 5%, that's still an A grade. If you are thinking it's more like 60% then I could understand your concern even if I don't share it.
February 2, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, he's still most likely going to run afoul of his policy with both William Lynn and Tom Daschle. It's hard to believe that they could go run the day-to-day at the DoD and the whole of HHS, respectively, and NOT directly influence their former lobbying areas.
Second, Obama's campaign promise - repeated ad infinitum on the trail, was that lobbyists would not be in his White House. That is a point-blank, "read-my-lips" commitment. It doesn't get parsed, because there's nothing TO parse. It's something he ran on aggressively. Asking what happened to it, therefore, is justified.
Third, I'll be happy to "grade" him on substance, once some substance begins to accumulate. In the meantime, I can say he's losing points at the moment for the way he's handling some pretty key nominations. Those points, of course, can be earned back - with interest - if these same people turn out to be positives for advancing the agenda Obama promised, and for which I voted.
February 2, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Losing points? Well, how many on image so far? Is he at 60, 90, 95, or what, in your view?
About how long (time/decisions) would you allow for making an initial judgment on substance?
February 2, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
*shrug* I define progress in each administration as being a lot like how Potter Stewart defined pornography: I know it when I see it.
I can't give him a grade right now, because he hasn't implemented any major portions of his agenda, or been stifled in the same. I just don't think of it that way.
What I can say is that I'm willing to give him as long as 3-4 years to see progress on things like the economy, and I'd even give him 3 years on being out of Iraq - as long as progress on that front starts *soon*.
I haven't lost faith in him. However, I think that we *should* - and, in fact - MUST push as hard as we can to keep the heat on him about his more ambitious programs and promises. He cannot be a truly great President by himself. We have to help with that.
February 2, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're questioning his actions so far. Why question if you won't also judge at least tentatively? Just how good a job on image and substance is he doing, when it comes to the issue at hand (lobbyists etc)?
February 2, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no illogic in not passing judgment on someone's overall performance while constructively criticizing certain parts of it.
February 3, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the CBS Morning Show, Bill Plante covered the Daschle tax story and at the end offered the opinion that if Daschle hadn't been a Majority Leader in the past, "he'd be toast" at the confirmation hearing.
I had no idea of Daschle's involvement with Health Industry Groups...now that I do know, to me, it just taints the whole idea of him becoming the head of HHS.
Political favors aside, this is just too damn important to be so cavalier about...too many regular folks are directly affected by these health care/insurance issues. There has got to be somebody that isn't dirty that can do the job.
February 2, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This quote, to me, says so much more than just the prima facie reading.
Because I *don't* think Daschle is "dirty". I *do* think he'd serve effectively at HHS. I *do* think he'd work to implement President Obama's proposed initiatives.
But now, because of this tax crap, and how it's linked to his lobbying work, he's utterly compromised.
Plante, BTW, is totally correct. Daschle would've withdrawn by now were he not so well connected in the Senate chamber.
February 2, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would be agreeable to substituting 'lightly soiled' for 'dirty'. Or maybe even a 'little bit smelly'. The whole thing, meaning the Geithner-Lynn-Daschle trio, has cast such a shadow over the new administration I feel the need to step back and take a fresh look.
I'm scared that it's going to be the same ole same ole when I expected change.
There is a part of me that wants to believe that Daschle will do the job Obama has entrusted him with, simply because now that he has been compromised, he has no choice but to make a success of his appointment. He's going to be double checking everything that crosses his desk....which he should do anyway and should have done before he signed his tax returns.
If he is confirmed, as predicted, he's gonna have to make some elegant moves to convince me he was the right choice.
Time will tell the tale. I always hope for happy endings.
February 2, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Cadillac & the driver now seem to be a dead give-away as to why the communications towers in Rock Creek Park rose up out of the early morning darkness.
February 2, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What matters to me is his ability to promote healthcare. I'm concerned with his work with healthcare insurance companies. I think Obama made a mistake here.
February 2, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
No mater what the subject, you can't promote anything if every move you make is viewed with suspicion.
I am not sure I can even be so charitable as to call this a "mistake". This is the second nominee that the Obama team KNEW had this particular issue BEFORE confirmation hearings, and said NOTHING.
I mean, really. Did they NOT think the Republicans would find out? Why not get out in front of it and talk about it up front, rather than letting the loyal opposition pull the grenade pin?
February 2, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure all these tax problems aren't orchestrated to lay the foundation for a simpler tax code, based on a progressive rate of taxation? Something like, "If a senator can't figure out his taxes, how can anyone else?"
I'm such a Pollyanna sometimes.
February 2, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intriguing theory...
February 2, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem isn't Tom Daschle's tax error, although that makes him look ridiculous, it's the fact that he was being chauffeured around town on the Medical Insurance industry dime.
I say dump him and hire someone with some ethics.
February 2, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strikes me as the real problem here too. This one company, Achip, I think? Aren't the one of one of the ones pushing the anti-universal health care propaganda?
Not cool.
February 2, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tax issues are a problem, but I agree. The major issue is the relationship with the health care industry.
He's neutered by this.
February 2, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did you think of Daschle's book?
February 2, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read it.
But it certainly got positive reviews from people who know far more about the state of health care than I do.
February 2, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the point is if Daschle is in the pocket of the health insurance industry why would he write a book, saying they are part of the problem.
February 2, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your position. The place we are in is silly and childish. OMG! DAschle once had lunch with someone who was a lobbyist for the health care industry and now he's going to be Secretary of HHS??? (Granted, it's a bit more serious than that..)
It's ludicrous. But that's where we are.
And my concern is over the potential weakening effect his "relationships" may have on his ability to enact real reform. It seems as if the Administration is handing some ammunition over to people who are going to go all out to block health care reform. Is this appointment worth it? Is the goal to change the tone of Washington or to accomplish real change?
The choice isn't that black and white, granted.
February 2, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote:
"To be honest, I don't know which bothers me more - that Daschle waited until weeks after being designated to head Health and Human Services to notify the White House of this issue, or that the Obama Administration's vetting team didn't catch this."
While I understand your concern completely, what worries me even more is what if the story about Obama's team not knowing is a lie? It would be a big blow to the President and would make him look terrible if it turns out Daschle and the Obama camp are lying about this. It wouldn't be the first such lie ever told. We're talking about a serious tax evasion here committed by a guy who damn well knew better. Is it really believable that he would have kept this information from Obama's people and/or is it believable that they didn't find it long before they are saying they did? Daschle could and should have taken care of this long before the election let alone after being tapped for HHS.
It has been my experience that people like this lie so much about matters like this they come to think they will never be caught and that it is routine to do so. The members of this sort of club don't consider this sort of violation of the tax code to be a real big deal. Of course, he failed to pay more in taxes than the average family of four makes in two years but the rich don't live in our world. Despite his mea culpa, this Daschle situation just smells bad from start to finish and perhaps worse exposes what a corporate whore Daschle became the moment he could cash in.
February 2, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with just about everything here. Two points.
(1) I purposely didn't deal with the administration possibly lying about their prior knowledge of the Daschle situation. If it comes out later that they weren't forthcoming about it, the consequences are as bad as they are obvious.
(2) Becoming a well-kept corporate whore is not such a bad thing. :-) Seriously, though, I think most people would take the opportunity to cash in on their experience the way Daschle did. (At least, I sure would.) It just steams me that a guy who could do so much good turns out to have a good deal of (self-inflicted) taint on him.
Does anyone have Howard Dean's celly?
February 2, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now there's an idea! Howard Dean at HHS!
Of course, that means' we would get socialized medicine and every man, woman, and child in America would not have to worry about going to the doctor ever again! Unfortunately, Obama is opposed to that and favors subsidies for insurance companies instead of health care for all. That is Daschle's stated mission for Obama: creating the illusion of a better health care system by shoving billions into the pockets of the insurance industry and requiring them to cover a few more people in return. Thinking this through, why is it that anyone cares whether Daschle's nomination goes through?
As for cashing in, I am of mixed mind. It's okay to cash in as long as that doesn't mean you use all your pull and contacts to promote policies and businesses, etc... that you wouldn't support when you were in government. Whether it's 20 pieces of silver or 20 million, it's still dirty money for the most part and permanently taints the recipient. There's just no way around it.
February 2, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh geez. Thanks for that cheery interpretation.
February 2, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like it or not, Obama is obviously not willing to back down on this, he wants him:
Obama and Key Democrat Voice Support for Daschle
By DAVID STOUT 3 minutes ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/politics/03daschle.html
This article from earlier today has more background on the Daschle story:
In Daschle’s Tax Woes, a Peek Into Washington
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/politics/02daschle.html?hp
February 2, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't expect Obama to back down. Daschle, despite all this, is still very popular with the Senate, and I would expect to see him confirmed. As ~flowerchild~ mentioned upthread, though, Daschle would be dead in the water if he were anyone else.
February 2, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the reasons I didn't support Obama during primary season was because he talked a good game about being different - not using lobbyists, etc. - but I knew when it came down to it, he'd be just like everyone else in that area.
He's no worse than Hillary would've been in this regard, but he's no better either.
February 2, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't specifically support him because of the "no-lobbyists" thing. I fully expected him to use ex-lobbyists - he couldn't staff his top jobs without them, I don't believe.
What I didn't expect is the drama surrounding some of these picks. I expected fights over Solis, Browner and Holder - in large part because the GOP needs *something* to fight over, just to appear like they aren't being doormats.
But this whole "gang-that-couldn't-file-straight" thing is annoying - and I'm really bothered that Obama's basically letting Pelosi & Co. take the hit in the press from the GOP. I suspect Madam Speaker won't let her people get blasted too much longer without raising serious objections - and then this becomes a sideshow that we don't need.
February 2, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. He needs Nancy and Harry and he'd better remember that. He's spending a lot of time kissing up to the Republicans. The Dems are going to start feeling a little neglected.
February 2, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The selection that bothers me more than any other, to this point, is that of William Lynn.
In my opinion, war profiteering was the fuel behind our incursion into Iraq. Not only did no-bid contracts go unexamined, but there was virtually no transparency in the handling of defense contracts.
So, considering that, how can President Obama possibly suggest that a lobbyist for Raytheon is the best we can do for deputy defense secretary?
It is ludicrous, and puts a very bad taste in the mouth of this progressive.
I was one of those who blogged tirelessly for our new president through the campaign. I really expected change. Yet, since the election, it has appeared to me that Republicans have a better shot of landing a position in the Obama Administration than true progressives.
I cannot fathom why.
February 2, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink