So, the new ethics of the Obama administration is a fraud. I can’t say I’m surprised. Then, we have the “stimulus” package – another fraud – for which the WH abdicated complete authority, not even submitting its own outline, but simply outsourcing the job to Nancy Pelosi.
This is what happens when you elect somebody who not only has no leadership experience, but can’t make decisions. What the heck, at least we got “change.”
I dunno, Hopper, he got a dishonest Treasury Secretary (taxes) and he just got a dishonest and possibly corrupt Attorney General (pardon for rich guy). Nice team.
This from the [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44/story?id=6795650&page=1 ]ABC news article[/url] on the latest:
[blockquote] Daschle’s withdrawal came just hours after Nancy Killefer, Obama’s nominee to be chief performance officer, withdrew her nomination following the revelation that she had a $946.69 lien on her property in 2005 for failure to pay taxes.
A third Obama Cabinet pick, Tim Geithner, admitted to Congress that he had owed and paid back more than $40,000 before he was confirmed as Treasury secretary last week, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination as Commerce secretary over questions about state contracts. [/blockquote]
Wow.
I just amazed at the lack of prior diligence in vetting these candidates for various appointments. The late disclosure of Gov. Richardson’s pending investigation is the most egregious example, but each of them reflects badly on an Administration that was to have been known for its quiet competence and lack of “drama.”
I am also surprised by the amateurish performance, so far, of the Administration’s press secretary.
hopper, i think the difference is that with the bushies, they didn’t claim to have standards of conduct because it wasn’t required or implied. alberto gonzalez was corrupt and made no apologies for it, just claimed ignorance. at least the media isn’t taking as long to call people on it now. dems are almost as bad as the republicans.
#12 Almost as bad? Let’s see: Mayor of Portland–Lied about sex with a page. Mayor of New Haven–Gang Activity. The above named individuals–all Dems. Being and equal opportunity offender, I agree, the Elephants are not clean and clear either. Any political corruption is bad.
The problem is not parties, the problem is people (human nature) and a political class that is not accountable to the masses, panders to the masses, or ignores the rules they set up for the masses. Power will always corrupt, and those that stay the longest in the halls of power have the most difficult time staying above corruption.
I never believed we would see a “new ethic” (for example: no lobbyists on the payroll of the administration) by the current administration, as the cess-pool on the Potomac will always drag them down.
The only way Washington gets cleaned up is enact term-limits, outlaw lobbyists, enforce the ethics rules, and if the people get outraged enough by the abuses they see to hold the political class to account. But as far as I can see the majority would prefer to watch American Idol and Survivor, and ask the reverse of Kennedy’s great question (What can my country (read government) do for me?), than actually worry about the level of debt and corruption the political class will hand to their children and grandchildren. After all, if you’re not paying the bills who cares?
Actually, I think that no one should be surprised at these events as Obama was weaned on Chicago politics. Do apples grow on thistle plants? Does a good statesman thrive in Chicago?
This is yet more evidence, to me, that the American education system has failed. At least it has failed the 53% of those that voted for thistle-fruit in the last election.
Interesting that the Republicans are criticized for voting for lower taxes for everyone, while these Democrats all vote for higher taxes for everyone, yet decide not to pay their fair share.
It seems to me that a basic standard for this type of service should be – did they pay their taxes?
How anyone would decide that this was a minor slip in a resume is beyond me.
What perplexes me is that the Republicans basically gave the AG and Treasury nominees a pass. They were confirmed with very light opposition. Had it been after the election of 2000 or 2004 and George Bush put up nominees like Barack Obama just did the Dems would have fought tooth and nail and all would have voted nay.
. . . Millions of Americans don’t have either Daschle’s or Geithner’s resources, yet they pay dearly to go to accountants, honestly turn over all their records, and then pay the full amount of taxation in accordance with their understanding of the law, and the advice they receive from professional accountants.
Yet men both much richer and much more informed about the U.S. tax code not only don’t do that, but feel no compunction to rectify mistakes unless they cause embarrassment enough to thwart their careers. Two subtexts as well: there must be many more Daschles and Geithners floating around Washington who don’t show up on the radar unless they want a top political appointment; and, two, the old liberal creed that taxes are good and patriotic and are avoided by greedy, selfish conservative elites seems shattered by these examples.
Any more of these stories and we will be on very dangerous ground, since the message is a terrible one to the American people: You pay your full amount, but our elites not only do not, but won’t unless they get caught. . .
Wow, I have had to wait only about two weeks to say this: (I thought it might take as long as 5-6 months!) “Hey. . . don’t complain to me, I didn’t vote for the man.”
Matt, may I just say in response that, yes, “change” is easy when the subject is the people Barry Obama himself chooses to place in key positions. If you want to play the “change is a process” card when it comes to the turkey being written in Congress – a separate branch of the government, with its own ways and culture – that’s fine, but when you try to play it with decisions that are wholly Obama’s, it’s nothing more than hero worship. The decision to eschew “change” in favor of the usual Washington actors – rich, lobbyist tax-evaders – was Barry’s alone.
22. Matt Thompson wrote:
“Daschle isn’t perfect. Obama isn’t perfect. No one
is perfect.”
Then, Matt, why do you have such a problem with our/my particular imperfections?
Actually, it is the blaring character flaws that have been discussed here. I pay my taxes, why is it so vital that I overlook those who do not pay theirs when they are to be held at a higher standard than I?
Matt, I wish President Obama well and recognize that he has taken the helm at a very difficult time. I have to admit that I have been disappointed to see his nominees representing, not change, but the same D.C. crowd. And at a time when people are losing their homes, going bankrupt, watching their “nest eggs” evaporate – it is very unfortunate to see a little parade of people who couldn’t be bothered to pay their taxes yet presume to run our government. Daschle withdrew, but he sure took his time about it. On the other hand, no one is taking time over this pork barrel “stimulus” bill which, at least in the house version, showed almost none of the infrastructure projects the president promised, which *would* stimulate the economy and give people jobs. It is an anxious time and I think we are all looking for some clear messages that everyone is taking that fact seriously. My problems are more with Congress than the president, who, as you say, hasn’t been in office long enough to give any clear indication of what kind of president he will be. But I have been very disappointed with these last few picks.
It depends on what you mean by, “owned up.†Sure, he said, “Did I screw up? Absolutely.†But he also went on to say it was important his administration, “send a message that there aren’t two sets of rules.†Moreover, Robert Gibbs (he almost makes you wish for the professionalism and competence of Scott McLellan, doesn’t he?) offered up the same irrelevancy as did you: “I think the president would say to you that he didn’t believe that we were going to change the way Washington has worked the past three decades in the first two weeks of this administration.â€
So, sure, if “owned up†means admitting that the ways of Washington are so powerful that he wasn’t able to prevent himself from making the decision to appoint ethically-challenged people to key posts, but maybe at some point he’ll be able to bring himself to do that (“hope,” right?), I guess he did. But, he kind of cancelled that out with his dissimulation about “two sets of rules,†since he obviously thought there were two sets of rules – and he said as much in the case of Tim Geithner – until not only he got caught, but the heat got too high.
Speaking of Geithner, your statement is risible. There are several people equally qualified to do the job – starting with Larry Summers, who’s already on the team – unless by “qualified,†you mean, “equally culpable, along with Hank Paulson, for the TARP program and the way in which it’s been administered thus far.†But maybe you see TARP as a ringing success.
Matt, I agree re the other picks – Geither and Daschle are distressing, and I really don’t think Geither should have been approved. In some ways “knowing” the Treasury may not be a good thing.
In general, I don’t see how the money given to education – however needed it may be – is likely to stimulate the economy anytime soon. Items such as public computer centers at community colleges don’t seem likely to do much either – most communities in my experience have public computer access at libraries already (and there are more libraries than there are community colleges), wildland fire management for the forest service may be needed, but how is it going to stimulate the economy? What does reducing the hazard of lead-based paint have to do with economic stimulus? I had hoped that this bill would be focused, quite earnestly, on needed projects that would also create jobs and there would have been a real effort to keep out excesses. Put the money where it will be most effective. I haven’t read the House bill, but what I had read of it doesn’t lead me to think that a great deal of thought and care is going into this. I admit I am very cynical about Congress, no matter which party is in charge.
And I live in a state where the governor is trying to make up for budget shortfalls by doing away with vital things, like school nurses — but continuing a program to build fish ponds for state parks.
Well, Matt, there are two problems. First, Obama promised a squeaky-clean administration, and delivered instead a series of tax cheats. So, there’s the hypocrisy angle. Second – I guess this is still the hypocrisy angle – Geithner now runs the IRS. If I knew everybody would get the same break he got, maybe that would be OK. They won’t, so it isn’t.
In short, I don’t have the reaction you suggest because I’m holding the President to his own standards. Why don’t you?
In a vacuum, though, I agree with you that Geithner is probably a good appointment. I want to repeat, though, that he’s been in on the government’s efforts from the beginning of the financial markets collapse in September – earlier, actually, since, as President of the NY Fed, the Wall Street malefactors were somewhat in his direct regulatory control – and, I don’t think those efforts have gone so well. Very possibly, no mortal man could have managed that mess, but still, his resume in this current crisis is not one of success.
He ought to step down, but he probably won’t, and so I wish him well, for all of our sakes.
Matt, we just differ in outlook – now is the time to address the short-term needs with everything we can. When things get a little more stable we can turn to long-term needs. But several million for smoking reduction? In an economic stimulus bill?
I think Geithner at Treasury is the worst of the lot – he actually committed fraud by not paying his FICA taxes and then submitting paperwork to the IMF that said he did and receiving reimbursement for those not-paid taxes. So don’t tell me he didn’t know (and that he’s so brilliant and that he’s the only one that can run the Treasury Department)! And he’s now in charge of the IRS. I personally think all in Congress and Cabinet level heads should be audited, and once they’re given the clean okay by the IRS, then I won’t mind paying my taxes. (And maybe throw in the Supreme Court for good measure, so we’ve covered all three branches at their highest levels.)
I doubt Obama is balancing anything, except maybe the ‘favors’ side of politics. You support me, I’ll get you a cushy position in my administration. I’m not saying it’s wrong — every administration does it — but it is NOT putting the best people in the positions. If this was a Republican administration, do you think he would be allowed to get away with these appointments? I highly doubt it.
“What I object to is that you’re making this about Obama’s character”
This illustrates my point quite well. Without character, how can anyone predict what Obama will do? I would far more trust government to someone of good charater with whom I have profound differences of opinion than to trust government to someone who claims to agree with me whom has shown himself to be not trustworthy.
I’m sorry Matt has now gone, but, for the record, I have no problem with, “balancing the need for good people against ideological purity.” As libraryjim says, every administration does it, and that’s fine, but Obama said he would not. I’m not making this about Obama’s character – Obama made it about his character by employing his arrogant “hope” and “change” rhetoric and not delivering. I’m simply an observer.
Phil,
The big difference is Obama is a Democrat. A party that claims no moral stance on any issue, therefore cannot be called on violating a moral stance, no matter how vociferously Obama proclaims transparency and change from ‘business as usual’.
There was a great op-ed in the paper today, by Jonah Goldberg, that said, in part:
[blockquote]As one leading Democrat put it: “Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter.”
That Democrat was then-Sen. Tom Daschle in 1998. The same Tom Daschle, we’ve since learned, who failed to pay more than $100,000 in back taxes for perks he received as one of Washington’s most relentless influence-peddlers — that is, until he realized he might receive a job in the Obama administration spending the money most Americans conscientiously send to Washington. Daschle withdrew his bid for the job on Tuesday, thanks to mounting pressure. …
When moralizing conservatives get caught, say, cheating on their wives or challenging stall mates to robust Greco-Roman wrestling in airport bathrooms, liberals justifiably howl at the hypocrisy of it all. When liberals fail to pay taxes, it’s merely, to borrow an old catchphrase from [Tom] Daschle, “sad and disappointing.” If Democrats are serious about their arguments for raising taxes, shouldn’t they be downright giddy about paying what they already owe? And shouldn’t they loathe tax cheating more than anything? Aren’t they the ones who lament “two Americas”?[/blockquote]
So, the new ethics of the Obama administration is a fraud. I can’t say I’m surprised. Then, we have the “stimulus” package – another fraud – for which the WH abdicated complete authority, not even submitting its own outline, but simply outsourcing the job to Nancy Pelosi.
This is what happens when you elect somebody who not only has no leadership experience, but can’t make decisions. What the heck, at least we got “change.”
Excellent. Geithner should resign. His confirmation was a slap in the face to all those of us who do pay our taxes.
Darn, and here I was so eager to see Mr. Daschle do for American healthcare what Joe Stalin did for Soviet agriculture.
WOW – talk about blunders early on …
I dunno, Hopper, he got a dishonest Treasury Secretary (taxes) and he just got a dishonest and possibly corrupt Attorney General (pardon for rich guy). Nice team.
who’s next?
This from the [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44/story?id=6795650&page=1 ]ABC news article[/url] on the latest:
[blockquote] Daschle’s withdrawal came just hours after Nancy Killefer, Obama’s nominee to be chief performance officer, withdrew her nomination following the revelation that she had a $946.69 lien on her property in 2005 for failure to pay taxes.
A third Obama Cabinet pick, Tim Geithner, admitted to Congress that he had owed and paid back more than $40,000 before he was confirmed as Treasury secretary last week, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination as Commerce secretary over questions about state contracts. [/blockquote]
Wow.
Paying taxes is optional? Who knew?
INS FORM 1040DEM: complete, ignore, discard.
I just amazed at the lack of prior diligence in vetting these candidates for various appointments. The late disclosure of Gov. Richardson’s pending investigation is the most egregious example, but each of them reflects badly on an Administration that was to have been known for its quiet competence and lack of “drama.”
I am also surprised by the amateurish performance, so far, of the Administration’s press secretary.
hopper, i think the difference is that with the bushies, they didn’t claim to have standards of conduct because it wasn’t required or implied. alberto gonzalez was corrupt and made no apologies for it, just claimed ignorance. at least the media isn’t taking as long to call people on it now. dems are almost as bad as the republicans.
#12 Almost as bad? Let’s see: Mayor of Portland–Lied about sex with a page. Mayor of New Haven–Gang Activity. The above named individuals–all Dems. Being and equal opportunity offender, I agree, the Elephants are not clean and clear either. Any political corruption is bad.
The problem is not parties, the problem is people (human nature) and a political class that is not accountable to the masses, panders to the masses, or ignores the rules they set up for the masses. Power will always corrupt, and those that stay the longest in the halls of power have the most difficult time staying above corruption.
I never believed we would see a “new ethic” (for example: no lobbyists on the payroll of the administration) by the current administration, as the cess-pool on the Potomac will always drag them down.
The only way Washington gets cleaned up is enact term-limits, outlaw lobbyists, enforce the ethics rules, and if the people get outraged enough by the abuses they see to hold the political class to account. But as far as I can see the majority would prefer to watch American Idol and Survivor, and ask the reverse of Kennedy’s great question (What can my country (read government) do for me?), than actually worry about the level of debt and corruption the political class will hand to their children and grandchildren. After all, if you’re not paying the bills who cares?
Sorry…should read: “Being an equal opportunity offender…
Well, we wanted “change”.
Is “hope” the next to go?
Actually, I think that no one should be surprised at these events as Obama was weaned on Chicago politics. Do apples grow on thistle plants? Does a good statesman thrive in Chicago?
This is yet more evidence, to me, that the American education system has failed. At least it has failed the 53% of those that voted for thistle-fruit in the last election.
Don
Interesting that the Republicans are criticized for voting for lower taxes for everyone, while these Democrats all vote for higher taxes for everyone, yet decide not to pay their fair share.
It seems to me that a basic standard for this type of service should be – did they pay their taxes?
How anyone would decide that this was a minor slip in a resume is beyond me.
[i]i think the difference is that with the bushies, they didn’t claim to have standards of conduct because it wasn’t required or implied.[/i]
Is that a joke? You’re kidding, right?
What perplexes me is that the Republicans basically gave the AG and Treasury nominees a pass. They were confirmed with very light opposition. Had it been after the election of 2000 or 2004 and George Bush put up nominees like Barack Obama just did the Dems would have fought tooth and nail and all would have voted nay.
Excellent comment by Victor Davis Hanson at NR’s The Corner. In part:
Wow, I have had to wait only about two weeks to say this: (I thought it might take as long as 5-6 months!) “Hey. . . don’t complain to me, I didn’t vote for the man.”
I guess according to Joe Biden this makes Dashle unpatriotic.
Matt, may I just say in response that, yes, “change” is easy when the subject is the people Barry Obama himself chooses to place in key positions. If you want to play the “change is a process” card when it comes to the turkey being written in Congress – a separate branch of the government, with its own ways and culture – that’s fine, but when you try to play it with decisions that are wholly Obama’s, it’s nothing more than hero worship. The decision to eschew “change” in favor of the usual Washington actors – rich, lobbyist tax-evaders – was Barry’s alone.
22. Matt Thompson wrote:
“Daschle isn’t perfect. Obama isn’t perfect. No one
is perfect.”
Then, Matt, why do you have such a problem with our/my particular imperfections?
Actually, it is the blaring character flaws that have been discussed here. I pay my taxes, why is it so vital that I overlook those who do not pay theirs when they are to be held at a higher standard than I?
Don
Matt, I wish President Obama well and recognize that he has taken the helm at a very difficult time. I have to admit that I have been disappointed to see his nominees representing, not change, but the same D.C. crowd. And at a time when people are losing their homes, going bankrupt, watching their “nest eggs” evaporate – it is very unfortunate to see a little parade of people who couldn’t be bothered to pay their taxes yet presume to run our government. Daschle withdrew, but he sure took his time about it. On the other hand, no one is taking time over this pork barrel “stimulus” bill which, at least in the house version, showed almost none of the infrastructure projects the president promised, which *would* stimulate the economy and give people jobs. It is an anxious time and I think we are all looking for some clear messages that everyone is taking that fact seriously. My problems are more with Congress than the president, who, as you say, hasn’t been in office long enough to give any clear indication of what kind of president he will be. But I have been very disappointed with these last few picks.
Matt,
It depends on what you mean by, “owned up.†Sure, he said, “Did I screw up? Absolutely.†But he also went on to say it was important his administration, “send a message that there aren’t two sets of rules.†Moreover, Robert Gibbs (he almost makes you wish for the professionalism and competence of Scott McLellan, doesn’t he?) offered up the same irrelevancy as did you: “I think the president would say to you that he didn’t believe that we were going to change the way Washington has worked the past three decades in the first two weeks of this administration.â€
So, sure, if “owned up†means admitting that the ways of Washington are so powerful that he wasn’t able to prevent himself from making the decision to appoint ethically-challenged people to key posts, but maybe at some point he’ll be able to bring himself to do that (“hope,” right?), I guess he did. But, he kind of cancelled that out with his dissimulation about “two sets of rules,†since he obviously thought there were two sets of rules – and he said as much in the case of Tim Geithner – until not only he got caught, but the heat got too high.
Speaking of Geithner, your statement is risible. There are several people equally qualified to do the job – starting with Larry Summers, who’s already on the team – unless by “qualified,†you mean, “equally culpable, along with Hank Paulson, for the TARP program and the way in which it’s been administered thus far.†But maybe you see TARP as a ringing success.
Matt, I agree re the other picks – Geither and Daschle are distressing, and I really don’t think Geither should have been approved. In some ways “knowing” the Treasury may not be a good thing.
In general, I don’t see how the money given to education – however needed it may be – is likely to stimulate the economy anytime soon. Items such as public computer centers at community colleges don’t seem likely to do much either – most communities in my experience have public computer access at libraries already (and there are more libraries than there are community colleges), wildland fire management for the forest service may be needed, but how is it going to stimulate the economy? What does reducing the hazard of lead-based paint have to do with economic stimulus? I had hoped that this bill would be focused, quite earnestly, on needed projects that would also create jobs and there would have been a real effort to keep out excesses. Put the money where it will be most effective. I haven’t read the House bill, but what I had read of it doesn’t lead me to think that a great deal of thought and care is going into this. I admit I am very cynical about Congress, no matter which party is in charge.
And I live in a state where the governor is trying to make up for budget shortfalls by doing away with vital things, like school nurses — but continuing a program to build fish ponds for state parks.
Well, Matt, there are two problems. First, Obama promised a squeaky-clean administration, and delivered instead a series of tax cheats. So, there’s the hypocrisy angle. Second – I guess this is still the hypocrisy angle – Geithner now runs the IRS. If I knew everybody would get the same break he got, maybe that would be OK. They won’t, so it isn’t.
In short, I don’t have the reaction you suggest because I’m holding the President to his own standards. Why don’t you?
In a vacuum, though, I agree with you that Geithner is probably a good appointment. I want to repeat, though, that he’s been in on the government’s efforts from the beginning of the financial markets collapse in September – earlier, actually, since, as President of the NY Fed, the Wall Street malefactors were somewhat in his direct regulatory control – and, I don’t think those efforts have gone so well. Very possibly, no mortal man could have managed that mess, but still, his resume in this current crisis is not one of success.
He ought to step down, but he probably won’t, and so I wish him well, for all of our sakes.
Matt, we just differ in outlook – now is the time to address the short-term needs with everything we can. When things get a little more stable we can turn to long-term needs. But several million for smoking reduction? In an economic stimulus bill?
I think Geithner at Treasury is the worst of the lot – he actually committed fraud by not paying his FICA taxes and then submitting paperwork to the IMF that said he did and receiving reimbursement for those not-paid taxes. So don’t tell me he didn’t know (and that he’s so brilliant and that he’s the only one that can run the Treasury Department)! And he’s now in charge of the IRS. I personally think all in Congress and Cabinet level heads should be audited, and once they’re given the clean okay by the IRS, then I won’t mind paying my taxes. (And maybe throw in the Supreme Court for good measure, so we’ve covered all three branches at their highest levels.)
Matt:
“Dissent is Patriotic” — Sen. Hillary Clinton
I doubt Obama is balancing anything, except maybe the ‘favors’ side of politics. You support me, I’ll get you a cushy position in my administration. I’m not saying it’s wrong — every administration does it — but it is NOT putting the best people in the positions. If this was a Republican administration, do you think he would be allowed to get away with these appointments? I highly doubt it.
“What I object to is that you’re making this about Obama’s character”
This illustrates my point quite well. Without character, how can anyone predict what Obama will do? I would far more trust government to someone of good charater with whom I have profound differences of opinion than to trust government to someone who claims to agree with me whom has shown himself to be not trustworthy.
Don
I’m sorry Matt has now gone, but, for the record, I have no problem with, “balancing the need for good people against ideological purity.” As libraryjim says, every administration does it, and that’s fine, but Obama said he would not. I’m not making this about Obama’s character – Obama made it about his character by employing his arrogant “hope” and “change” rhetoric and not delivering. I’m simply an observer.
Phil,
The big difference is Obama is a Democrat. A party that claims no moral stance on any issue, therefore cannot be called on violating a moral stance, no matter how vociferously Obama proclaims transparency and change from ‘business as usual’.
There was a great op-ed in the paper today, by Jonah Goldberg, that said, in part:
[blockquote]As one leading Democrat put it: “Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter.”
That Democrat was then-Sen. Tom Daschle in 1998. The same Tom Daschle, we’ve since learned, who failed to pay more than $100,000 in back taxes for perks he received as one of Washington’s most relentless influence-peddlers — that is, until he realized he might receive a job in the Obama administration spending the money most Americans conscientiously send to Washington. Daschle withdrew his bid for the job on Tuesday, thanks to mounting pressure. …
When moralizing conservatives get caught, say, cheating on their wives or challenging stall mates to robust Greco-Roman wrestling in airport bathrooms, liberals justifiably howl at the hypocrisy of it all. When liberals fail to pay taxes, it’s merely, to borrow an old catchphrase from [Tom] Daschle, “sad and disappointing.” If Democrats are serious about their arguments for raising taxes, shouldn’t they be downright giddy about paying what they already owe? And shouldn’t they loathe tax cheating more than anything? Aren’t they the ones who lament “two Americas”?[/blockquote]