Comments on: Vexing Questions Raised By Daschle’s HHS Crash And Burn

By: Miande

Miande — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:43:11 +0000

There is a third possibility: that Obama was aware of the tax problems of three of his nominees but thought he somehow could bull them through. His arrogance serves him well at times, but this might the case where it did him in. If so, it was foolish on everyone's part.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:05:13 +0000

I see this as unfortunate, but was against the Daschle pick from the moment his tax records came out. It's unfortunate because I believe he had the ability to do the job well, but yes, it raises the obvious question about the vetting process. The HHS sec position is a critical one, now more than ever I believe, so the replacement choice will need to be a humdinger.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:49:00 +0000

Maybe we should audit everyone in Congress.

It would give a new meaning to "Paygo". You pay up what you owe, or you go.

By: mikeyes

mikeyes — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:02:22 +0000

I was not a fan of Daschle in the first place, but there are only two explanations for his not paying a huge tax bill: either he was crooked or he was incompetent. A $100,000+ tax difference is not an error, even if your income exceeds $5M, it is something else.

This was a bad choice by Obama and it is a good thing that it did not come to pass. Daschle did not lobby for insurance companies or big medicine, but his wife did. How often did he accompany her to various events? Why was he paid gazillions to be a K street "consultant" if his position didn't add value to their efforts? He was for all practical purposes a lobbyist even if he didn't meet the legal definition of one.

Bad Choice.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:10:13 +0000

1. You would think that the Obama inner circle would have learned from the case of Dan Quayle, George W. Bush (admittedly, the GOP was desperate in running a dynastic "brand name label" candidate in 2000; everyone expected Gore to win), and Sarah Palin, even. But no. What was the real extent of the reportedly extensive, thorough background check process for prospective new Obama administration members? Ordinary people wanting a job had to apparently even report if they own or ever have owned a gun (politically incorrect!). But tax evasion? Where are the priorities? Or did Clintonites get something of a pass so Obama could bring aboard trusted (to Washington) insiders?

2. All these people live too well and should be audited. Expect to see a lot more tax evasion if that ever were to happen.

3. What do we see next in a revised stimulus, an Obama "tax credit" for domestic help, and waivers on documentation for foreigners?

4. Does this imply that Obama might also reconsider his waiver on his ban on lobbyists, when bringing lobbyists into his adminstration has been desired?

By: Rambie

Rambie — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:16:44 +0000

Maybe we should audit everyone in Congress. I'm not trying to be snarky or partisan