I really like Daschle on a personal level and think he is genuinely a decent human being. But I've never trusted him politically. Maybe (probably) because he is a democrat from a bright red state and seemed to me to be mostly hedging his bets. Though he's hardly alone in that way. Also, I think he is like a lot of long time Washington insider democrats that are a little stuck in the past concerning their GOP rivals. I get from him a kind of pining for the long past days when repubs were wrong, but civil, and with some honor in their dealings with democrats. Those days are long over, and it is doubtful they will return any time soon, now that the GOP has largely become a southern ideologue party. I think those like Daschle see this, but when in positions of leadership, too often let their guard down long enough at crucial times to give away too much (ie. the pre 2002 election Iraq vote), while expecting a gracious return from wingnuts that never arrives.

Tom Daschle was the model for today's weak-willed, ineffective Democratic Congressional "leadership".

Two things make me glad that he is out of the government and will stay that way. First was the way he spinelessly allowed Republicans to block over 60 of Bill Clinton's judicial nominees. He did nothing to force votes, or eve hearings, for these people and as a result the Republicans have managed to pack the judicial system with anti-consumer, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-civil rights judges.

The second thing Daschle did is throw his support behind bankruptcy "reform" after receiving enough in campaign contributions (bribes) to make him change his mind.

With Daschle in charge, there would have been no hope for meaningful health care reform.

i appreciate this post very much. it helps me to feel better about what seems to be too much willingness on the president's part to grant republicans far too much power in the current debate.

obama has been president for only two weeks, so i do realize it's unfair to bitch, but after waiting for so many years for republicans to get their just reward, it's tough to continue to feel that democrats are being told to remain in the back seat -- by a democratic president no less.

as for daschle, i'm glad he stepped aside. his sense of entitlement is clearly out of whack, whatever the reason.

who do you think will be nominated, who would you like to be nominated?

I just have one question. If the tax issue made Daschle persona non grata, why didn't it sink Geithner's nomination?

Now he can dump the lobbyist.

And maybe stand up for the Constitution and dump warrantless wiretapping. And tell Lieberman to go Cheney himself.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle asked:
I just have one question. If the tax issue made Daschle persona non grata, why didn't it sink Geithner's nomination?

Somehow, everyone has been convinced that only Geithner can save the sinking economy.

Also, I suspect that all the people who have been forced to become "independent contractors" instead of employees can sympathize with someone who get their taxes messed up.

In this reading of his actions, he wasn't self-consciously chasing dollars; his wife was using him to unself-consciously chase dollars.

Just curious. How is it that this tax information comes out? Aren't taxes confidential? I can see where someone has a nanny and you ask them if they are being properly compensated. How does one look at someone's four year old tax filing and figure out that it was done in error? I wouldn't know if my four year old taxes are perfectly done unless I was audited. I believe they are correct but who knows? Daschle was probably a different case, but, in general, how does this happen?

Hi Hilzoy. I enjoy your posts and generally find them insightful, but I disagree with you strongly about this one. I've been depressed all day about Daschle's withdrawal precisely because I think that, although flawed, he was irreplaceable, in the sense that there is not another individual who has the combination of expertise, political experience and connections in Congress, and closeness to Obama, to do as much as Daschle would have done to GET UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE NOW. How many other figures close to Obama have held high office anywhere near Daschle's league, and also written a book about health care reform (or demonstrated a similar degree of expertise in some other way)?

I appreciate that it sends a good signal about ethics for Daschle to drop out. But it's just that: a signal. A symbol. Meanwhile, people are dying in this country because we don't have universal health care. This is a crisis. Too many people are uninsured and going without necessary medical treatments for me to take seriously one guy's failure to be an ethical person and pay his personal income taxes. I'm sorry, but the cause of health care reform is just MUCH more important right now, and I don't buy that Daschle can be readily replaced. (If I did, then I'd agree with you.)

If you think he is replaceable, then I think you have to make some suggestion for who -- either out of the people currently being talked about for the post, or someone else entirely -- is supposed to be a decent replacement for him. Right now, I don't see it. And one indication of that is that his job may be split in two now, with one person taking the reins at HHS and a separate person taking on the reform czar role. We'll see. Bottom line: I hope you're right that Daschle can be replaced but I see no evidence of that (and you offer none). If your argument on this point is based on something other than intuition/hope, then tell us what!

I agree with Hilzoy on this. I'm puzzled, though, when it seems that *every* political figure has done something like this. The NYT editorial said something like "it isn't hard to find good people". True enough, but scrupulously honest good people?

I wish Daschle could be in the cabinet, but there can't be a double standard. I have - as have many others reading this - had to pay estimated taxes and I *know* I wouldn't have gotten away with underpayments of even $1000. But "they" have better lawyers and accountants.

Obama is trying to take a different tack, but the universe of highly talented, politically savvy, honest people (further limited by things like being a citizen, and an adult, and literate, and so forth) looks pretty thin right now. And how did these people get through the famous 63 question vetting form in the first place?

"That's why I said that I thought Daschle had to go: because he put all of this at risk."

Actually, I believe the more important part is that we are at a defining moment in reassessing and re-making health care and if it's done wrong it could take another half century to fix the mess. Daschle may have good connections, but there's a reason he does. I don't trust him to even imagine, let alone fashion, a health care system that won't continue to line the pockets of the insurance and pharma industries while leaving most people worse off than ever. Yes, the insurance companies are lobbying hard for "universal coverage", but on their terms, not ours. Daschle has heard their voices.

A POTUS who can admit he made a mistake? What a novel, and refreshing concept!!!

Bush was asked several times, during his mercifully infrequent press conferences, what he thought his mistakes were and could never think of any mistakes.

So, I guess there are two ways of looking at this "I screwed up" thing. Either Obama is even more inept than 43 (because he made a mistake in his first week in office and 43 never made a mistake), or 43 was just so lacking in the self awareness that we expect of a 2 year-old, that he was unable to see that he could possibly have "screwed up".

I vote for #2.

Anyway, I'm beginning to feel more audacious.

If you want to show that it's possible to expect more of politicians

Obama also campaigned on the idea that it is possible to expect a greater understanding from the electorate. "The American people get it." And yet, we are failing him in this respect.

1) It is very frequently the case in life that two strong principles conflict. In this case it is the desire for the strongest advisor available vs conflict of interest (lobbying). How far down the list should Obama go to find a virgin? And who are we, the public, to say who is right for the job? It's easy to pick out a few strengths or weaknesses, but Obama has a team who has dedicated far more time to studying these candidates than we.

2) It is precisely because of Obama's vetting process that we know about Daschle's and Geithner's tax problems. I would be willing to bet that Geithner was fighting the IRS about the 2001-2 payroll taxes based on some loophole. But when Obama was ready to nominate him, he would have been told you can't be Sec Treas and have an ongoing dispute with the IRS you are in charge of. Drop the challenge. Pay the bill, even if you don't think it is right. And don't challenge the wisdom of the IRS during the confirmation process. As for Daschle, without the vetting process, there is little likelihood that anyone would have revisited his old taxes, unless at some point the IRS did.

3) The idea that either Geithner or Daschle are greedy tax thieves is stupid beyond belief. In both cases they are taking a large pay cut to take these new positions. Yet, if it had been a long term goal to achieve the prestige these positions offered, both would have undoubtedly declared anything that might even remotely be challengeable. No CPA in America would use that standard.

Finally, I'm not disappointed that Obama admitted to "screwing up", because it was the politically smart thing to do. But I do think it's a shame we the people don't balance the ideals a bit more with the complexities of life.

Hillzoy, I hope you're right. I fear that Obama's move will look disloyal to the insiders, and weak to the outsiders. Unlike you, I have very, very little faith in the efficacy of decency.

I fear that Obama will now have to nominate the Pope to avoid a similar debacle. If he avoids candidates with tax problems, he may have to apologize again to a gleeful press for a doctor who took amphetamines in medical school or killed a patient by mistake; an unknown business exeutive who once went on a sex junket to Thailand; a female professor whose husband bought an exotic animal from a black-market smuggler; a hospital adminitrator caught on videotape using an ethnic slur about the illegal immigrant non-union roofing contractor who went back to El Salvador without finishing a remodeling job--Pillgate, Malpracticegate, Thaigate, Beastgate; and Greasergate.

Everyone's done something, and if every man gets what he deserves, none will escape whipping.

A bit below the post about Daschle is a report on Richardson from TPM. TPM also reports on Daschle's paying off his supplier of cars and drivers.

This is not about finding good people. Daschle was a good person. He fell into power. And Lord Acton remains right. The solution is in the process not in people. But how to remove influence peddling from politics is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. I fear that the best we can do is to remain cynical and vigilant.

Geithner's tax issue strikes me as very different from Daschle's. His mistake really involved a complicated issue that would trip up a lot of people: First of all, that he was technically self-employed even though he was working for a large international organization. Second of all, that under the circumstances he needed to make both the employer contribution and the employee contribution for payroll taxes. Third of all, that he had paid the relevant taxes in 2006 when he'd been audited, and an accountant had advised him that he had no further liability. All of these seem much more like a problem I might have (well, except that I can't afford an accountant) than "I was used to a limo and it never occurred to me that it was taxable." We don't want to set up a double standard, and we do want to hold government officials to a higher standard than everyone else; but we don't want to set up a standard where everyone who's ever owed back taxes because of a technical issue is disqualified for a government job. That would practically guarantee disappointment, I think.

The GOP pretend to care so deeply about the stimulus, when it is patently obvious and a derelict of their duty to the public, that the GOP are working furiously for the next elections and not the peoples' economic crisis looming so large at this time. Some Republican Pundits charged with this task, call the Stimulus a stinking corpse, before it is even born, instead of what it is -- a valuable work in progress for this country. Like any creation, in the early stages, it is chaos and not fully formed, such as a fetus, a painting, any work of art, and yet the artist ploughs on knowing the beauty to be eventually created. Why in the world, would some Pundits criticize the early form instead of giving support, is beyond the pale, especially when they know to publically criticize it is to get the ball rolling to derail it. May be they do not love this country more than their party affiliation! These pundits sit in their high-paying jobs, so lofty, and pick apart every little thing someone says or does, Wears...., with nothing good to say, like their word is God or gold -- as they no longer report the news but give their Opinions about the news. There was a time when we were taught as Americans, if you have nothing good to say about anyone, say nothing at all. We have lost that. These Pundits are a part of the problem and not the solution.

At this critical stage in our rapidly-crumbling economy, it would seem that the Republican Senators would do everything they can to do something, to tell the American people, I am on your side, and not always to quickly say no to the middle class and the little people; no to schools, education, infra structure, green jobs, all of which have too long been denied and neglected and Yet, always yes to the Special Interest Groups, to wars, to big oil and their tax breaks.

It is a sad fact that for average American citizens, the GOP is becoming the party of NO! We can not depend on the GOP to help us, they never have. In 2010, we will know what to do.

"In 2010, we will know what to do"

Yes, as we did in '06 and '08. How many of us voted for bi-partitanship with the RepuGs? I would venture that there were mostly anti-RepuG votes in those elections. So, why this incessant rant about the need to work with those thieves?

The assumption behind all of this is that the reason the government doesn't do things that improve the lot of ordinary people is because of the lifestyle of the people who live and work near the top of the Federal government. Cars and Drivers corrupt people and that is why federal policy tilts toward the rich. Therefore these mini-scandals can always be brought against reformers. The right is more immune from this because they politically favor the rich anyway.

Like any creation, in the early stages, it is chaos and not fully formed...

As with the Daschle fiasco, this is on Obama. There is absolutely no reason for the stimulus plan to have started out as "chaos and not fully formed." A popular, newly elected leader should have had a well-designed, highly specific, and fully justified stimulus bill when he/she took office. He/she would have given marching orders to dems in Congress: no changes. Yes, he/she would have given the opposition an opportunity to "improve" it within its basic structure -- but not fundamentally alter it.

The Daschle debacle is symbolic of a tentative, unleader-like approach to a crisis that flies in the face of republican behavior over the last eight years.

We are bordering on disaster. Holding a party for McCain? Give me a fucking break. He is now supporting a rival stimulus with half the price tag -- that is, one that can't and won't work.

Wake the fuck up, BO!

Somehow, everyone has been convinced that only Geithner can save the sinking economy.

Except that he is going to destroy it. At Yves has pointed out, Obama is getting disastrous advice from Geithner and Summers. The Bad Bank idea will destroy the US economy, and they are opposed to nationalizing the banks (wiping out shareholders/bondholders).

The stimulus is a great idea (even though the execution may not be so great). But the Bad Bank must be stopped.

Process matters. Ethics matter. It is more important to get health care reform right than to get it immediately because of superior schmoozing abilities!A "czar" whose prediliction is to base the system on for-profit, private health care insurers was never a good idea.The only rational solution is medicare-for-all type leagislation that lowers administrative costs and cost-shifting.

The Bad Bank idea will destroy the US economy, and they are opposed to nationalizing the banks (wiping out shareholders/bondholders).

I'm for a nationalization, clean-up followed by privatization of shaky banks; but I do worry, if we wipe out the bondholders of a bank, which may be other banks, are we setting off a chain reaction?

Hope, by contrast, is risky. But it's absolutely necessary if we want to do anything great: if you don't believe that it's possible to achieve great things, if you never risk disappointment, you cannot do much that's worth doing.

Cynicism that leads to paralysis is bad. The other kind is OK.

Super post, Hilzoy. You're one of the greats.

There should not be two sets of rules, one for people who have to pay their taxes and one for people who don't. Nor should there be two sets of rules, one for people who have to take responsibility for their mistakes and one for people who don't.

Of course, there ARE two sets of rules when it comes to lawbreaking, and Obama's not doing anything about that. If he doesn't fix that, his administration is a failure.

The idea that either Geithner or Daschle are greedy tax thieves is stupid beyond belief. In both cases they are taking a large pay cut to take these new positions. -Danp

Oh, come on. Daschle was given personal limo service for three years and never thought to claim it? Bull hooey. How freakin' naive do we have to be not to call people on this? And frankly, that undoubtedly deliberate tax dodge was just the period on the sentence 'Tom Daschle is irrevocably tied to the profiteers in the health care industry.'

Daschle viewed 'public service' as a bullet point on a resume intended to make him very, very rich. Claiming that there was anything noble about taking a 'pay cut' to serve in the administration is naive to the extreme. His service would have been nothing more than leverage for his post administration unregistered lobbying career.

It's a pathetic shame how so many of you are so far up this guy's ass. I wonder what you'd say if he were a Republican. I guess for some of you, it's okay if they're a Democrat. Sick.

Obama gets 2/3 of a kudo for fessing up on Daschle and Killifer. He loses a full 1/3 of a kudo for not talking about Geithner.

Econobuzz gets a kudo for picking up on the competence issue w/Obama, ie, the vetting, the naivete for thinking ppl like Daschle could still be sent up to the Senate, etc.

Doubtful gets a definite kudo at 10?20 for getting the bottom line right.

That's ppl like YOU, DanP, we're talking about. Put DOWN the Kool-Aid, take off the rose-colored glasses, etc. Also, you Obamiacs, stop boo-hooing, then turning snively-snippy, when ppl point out stuff like this.

Hilzoy gets a full kudo for getting plenty of Obamiac ass-kissing over this post, riffing back to Doubtful's comments.

This is what really pissed me off the other day about Dick Armey's remarks on Hardball. He was laughing at Joan because she wanted politicians to be held to account for what they say and do. Dick said that politicians are clowns and shouldn't ever be taken seriously.

Absolutely amazing. This is one theme of the Republican party: discredit government and those who serve the public.