WWTBAM Bored

Evidently Tom Daschle called the President this morning to inform him of his withdrawal of his nomination to be Secretary of HHS.
Details are breaking.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28994296/

WASHINGTON - Former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle on Tuesday withdrew his nomination to oversee the Health and Human Services Department, just a few hours after another Obama nominee also withdrew.

Both had controversies with taxes and cited distractions over that as their reasons for withdrawing.

In a White House statement, President Barack Obama said he accepted Daschle's withdrawal "with sadness and regret."

Daschle has been battling for his nomination since it was disclosed he failed to pay more than $120,000 in taxes.

Daschle, in his statement, said he's withdrawing because he's not a leader who has the full faith of Congress and will be a distraction.

Earlier Tuesday, Nancy Killefer withdrew as nominee to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government.

The White House later released her letter to the president, which in part stated: "I recognize that your agenda and the duties facing your Chief Performance Officer are urgent. I have also come to realize in the current environment that my personal tax issue of D.C. unemployment tax could be used to create exactly the kind of distraction and delay those duties must avoid. Because of this I must reluctantly ask you to withdraw my name from consideration."

Killefer, a 55-year-old executive with consulting giant McKinsey & Co., was the second major Obama administration nominee to withdraw and the third to have tax problems complicate their nomination after President Barack Obama announced their selection.

When her nomination was announced by Obama on Jan. 7, The Associated Press disclosed that in 2005 the District of Columbia government had placed a lien on her home in the upscale Wesley Heights neighborhood. The local government alleged that she had started missing payments on unemployment compensation tax for a household employee. And she failed to make the required quarterly payments for a year and half, whereupon a lien for $946.69 was placed on her home.

Administration officials had refused to answer questions about the lien, which she resolved five months after it was filed.

During that period, Killefer and her husband, an economics professor, had a teenage son and daughter, but she had two nannies and a personal assistant to run her life when she was on the road, she told Harvard business students back then.

Impressive credentials
On paper, Killefer brought impressive credentials to the two jobs Obama selected her for: deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, which requires Senate confirmation, and a new White House post, chief performance officer for the entire federal government, which does not require confirmation.

Killefer was to work with economic officials to increase efficiencies and eliminate waste in government spending.

Obama repeatedly promised that his administration would go "line by line" over its budgets with a focus on fiscal responsibility even as he seeks huge amounts of money to stimulate the U.S. economy.

Killefer oversees McKinsey's management consulting for government clients. During 1997-2000 in the Clinton administration, Killefer was assistant Treasury secretary for management. As such she was the chief financial officer and chief operating officer for the Treasury and its 160,000 employees and led a modernization of its largest component, the Internal Revenue Service.

Other nominee problems
The Obama administration has had several other nomination problems.

Timothy Geithner was sworn in as Treasury secretary in January, after winning confirmation despite personal tax lapses that turned more than a third of the Senate against him.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Obama's initial selection for commerce secretary, withdrew his name amid a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors.

Obama took no questions Tuesday after announcing his choice of Sen. Judd Gregg to be commerce secretary. He left the White House lectern ignoring a shouted question about why so many of his nominees have tax problems.

Ignoring payroll taxes on household help has sunk nominees before. Failure to pay Social Security taxes for a nanny and chauffeur kept corporate lawyer Zoe Baird from becoming President Bill Clinton's attorney general in 1993. Similar problems either blocked or bedeviled other nominees. Still others overcame them, including Shirley S. Chater, the university president who was confirmed to head the Social Security Administration under Clinton despite failing to pay Social Security taxes for a part-time baby sitter.

good

bazodee wrote:Evidently Tom Daschle called the President this morning to inform him of his withdrawal of his nomination to be Secretary of HHS.
Details are breaking.

Apparentely, he told Andrea Mitchell of NBC News that the New York Times editorial convinced him to withdraw. I guess newspapers aren't dead yet. --Bob

This is all so dumb. Pay your taxes, people. And for Caroline Kennedy, report your employee's salary so they can pay their taxes. Or whatever. And for everybody who's ever hired cheap help off the books, or not reported their income; certainly everybody in the running, or nomination, for high, high offices; why did you think no one would find out? In this day & age?

Bob78164 wrote:

bazodee wrote:Evidently Tom Daschle called the President this morning to inform him of his withdrawal of his nomination to be Secretary of HHS.
Details are breaking.

Apparentely, he told Andrea Mitchell of NBC News that the New York Times editorial convinced him to withdraw. I guess newspapers aren't dead yet. --Bob

He sure wasn't going to tell her the truth -- that he was told by Obama's staff that he was out, and that it was his idea.

Clearly, Daschle was not nearly as indispensable at HHS as Geithner was at Treasury.

Appa23 wrote:He sure wasn't going to tell her the truth -- that he was told by Obama's staff that he was out, and that it was his idea.

I'm not so sure. Every public indication I've seen is that the Senate was prepared to confirm him notwithstanding the controversy. Baucus came out just yesterday in support of the nomination, and I haven't read of any Democrats who planned to oppose it. Moreover, he's also giving up the health czar post, which didn't require Senate confirmation.

This may be one of those rare instances in politics where what you see really is what you get. --Bob

Substitute "Gingrich" (or the Republican of your choice) for "Daschle."

Would you still post that?

Bob78164 wrote:

Appa23 wrote:He sure wasn't going to tell her the truth -- that he was told by Obama's staff that he was out, and that it was his idea.

I'm not so sure. Every public indication I've seen is that the Senate was prepared to confirm him notwithstanding the controversy. Baucus came out just yesterday in support of the nomination, and I haven't read of any Democrats who planned to oppose it. Moreover, he's also giving up the health czar post, which didn't require Senate confirmation.

This may be one of those rare instances in politics where what you see really is what you get. --Bob

See this: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/03/daschle.fallout/

I wonder how many of the people who have rallied to the defense of Daschle, Geithner and their boss were absolutely furious to find out that Joe the Plumber had a $1000 tax lien on his house?

And well they should be. Obviously, no one can be permitted to have an interest in our country's economy and well being unless he or she owes far more in taxes than most Americans make during the course of a year.

New rule: All future cabinet and judicial nominees must immediately reveal if they've paid all of their taxes before they even put their names into consideration.

But I do find it a little hypocritical that Republican senators and conservative newsmodels have been pissing their pants about Geithner and Daschle not paying their taxes. For years, American corporations with a drop-box in the Cayman Islands or a headquarters in Dubai have dodged paying millions and millions of dollars in taxes and I haven't heard peep one from any of them about it.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:New rule: All future cabinet and judicial nominees must immediately reveal if they've paid all of their taxes before they even put their names into consideration.

But I do find it a little hypocritical that Republican senators and conservative newsmodels have been pissing their pants about Geithner and Daschle not paying their taxes. For years, American corporations with a drop-box in the Cayman Islands or a headquarters in Dubai have dodged paying millions and millions of dollars in taxes and I haven't heard peep one from any of them about it.

Let's not stop there, Nelly.

And, how about potential cabinet members whose spouse (or themselves) pulls in millions of dollars in campaign contributions from Muslim countries they will be talking to on an almost-daily basis. Does this not seem like a conflict of interest?

Now that Daschle has withdrawn, I think it is time for Geithner to step down and for Charles Rangel to do the same. And, how come it has, thus far, taken Chris Dodd to find his mortgage papers so that he can refute the sweetheart deal he supposedly did not receive? I can find mine in 30 seconds! With few exceptions, I think the American people should really get a clue and vote all members of Congress out of office. Let's have a fresh start, shall we? Or, I would be happy with a new Constitutional amendment imposing a 2-term limit on all members of Congress. No more lifetime memberships. Make these guys do the work they are supposed to do. Start working for you and me. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

To say something nice about the President, he said, paraphrasing, "My bad on the nominations."

He didn't throw the nominees under the bus which is more typical.

So, I respect him for owning up to the blunders.

Sir_Galahad wrote:With few exceptions, I think the American people should really get a clue and vote all members of Congress out of office. Let's have a fresh start, shall we? Or, I would be happy with a new Constitutional amendment imposing a 2-term limit on all members of Congress. No more lifetime memberships. Make these guys do the work they are supposed to do. Start working for you and me. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Unfortunately the operation of government has become too complex for "citizen-legislators". As much as sometimes it seems like "throw the bums out" would be the solution, it could end up causing more problems than it would solve.

Sir_Galahad wrote:Or, I would be happy with a new Constitutional amendment imposing a 2-term limit on all members of Congress. No more lifetime memberships. Make these guys do the work they are supposed to do. Start working for you and me. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

If I recall, one of the planks of the Contract on America (the second slickest political marketing ploy ever palmed off on the public trailing only the Obama coronation) that Newt Gingrich palmed off on the public in 1994 was a pledge to limit the terms the "new breed" of candidates would serve. Obviously, that went by the boards when they actually came to the "limit" of their terms.

The voters are fully capable of removing Congressmen and Senators from office. They did so in 1994 and they did so again in 2006 and 2008. Limiting terms legally will only lead to an increase in corruption as people realize they have less time in which to get in on the gravy train.

earendel wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:With few exceptions, I think the American people should really get a clue and vote all members of Congress out of office. Let's have a fresh start, shall we? Or, I would be happy with a new Constitutional amendment imposing a 2-term limit on all members of Congress. No more lifetime memberships. Make these guys do the work they are supposed to do. Start working for you and me. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Unfortunately the operation of government has become too complex for "citizen-legislators." As much as sometimes it seems like "throw the bums out" would be the solution, it could end up causing more problems than it would solve.

Colorado has seen the law of unintended consequences kick in plenty of times over more than a decade. After recoiling in horror over some of the worst cases, voters have willingly de-term limited many small agencies, such as water and weed control districts, and some city councils. Any de-term limiting effort from about County Commissioner on up is doomed because voters insist that they do not want career politicians in office. And yet, they return popular legislators like the Salazars (well, not Ken anymore) to office with clockwork regularity. In the meantime, very capable people, Dems, Reps, and Unaffiliateds, are turned out of office in non-federal jobs with the same clockwork regularity.

Ear's right -- "citizen legislators" aren't what they used to be. During campaigns, they are expected to expound and take positions on complicated issues requiring extensive study and research. The other unfortunate thing that's happened here in Colorado is that since lobbyists aren't term limited, nor are key staffers, they gain undue influence over legislators just because of their extensive knowledge base and expertise. Some former legislators turned lobbyists report themselves to be even more effective than they were in office, not to mention their lovely new six-figure salaries.

SportsFan68 wrote:Ear's right -- "citizen legislators" aren't what they used to be. During campaigns, they are expected to expound and take positions on complicated issues requiring extensive study and research. The other unfortunate thing that's happened here in Colorado is that since lobbyists aren't term limited, nor are key staffers, they gain undue influence over legislators just because of their extensive knowledge base and expertise. Some former legislators turned lobbyists report themselves to be even more effective than they were in office, not to mention their lovely new six-figure salaries.

This is one of the areas where Sprots and I agree. We do NOT want a government that becomes run by the non term-limited Civil Service.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:Ear's right -- "citizen legislators" aren't what they used to be. During campaigns, they are expected to expound and take positions on complicated issues requiring extensive study and research. The other unfortunate thing that's happened here in Colorado is that since lobbyists aren't term limited, nor are key staffers, they gain undue influence over legislators just because of their extensive knowledge base and expertise. Some former legislators turned lobbyists report themselves to be even more effective than they were in office, not to mention their lovely new six-figure salaries.

This is one of the areas where Sprots and I agree. We do NOT want a government that becomes run by the non term-limited Civil Service.

Hey!

SportsFan68 wrote:Ear's right -- "citizen legislators" aren't what they used to be. During campaigns, they are expected to expound and take positions on complicated issues requiring extensive study and research. The other unfortunate thing that's happened here in Colorado is that since lobbyists aren't term limited, nor are key staffers, they gain undue influence over legislators just because of their extensive knowledge base and expertise. Some former legislators turned lobbyists report themselves to be even more effective than they were in office, not to mention their lovely new six-figure salaries.

That's exactly what happened here in California as well when term limits kicked in. In my view, it's contributed (along with the asinine two-thirds requirement for passing a state budget or raising taxes) to making the state virtually ungovernable. --Bob (whose state's bonds are now rated 50th, below even Louisiana's)