When someone earns more per week than the U.S. median yearly household income, we naively assume that person has more sophistication about money than the rest of us. But maybe the IRS, in an effort to find scofflaws, should have every American nominated to a Cabinet post, given the salutary effect it seems to have on one's memory of taxes unpaid -- witness the taxable-income confession of our new Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner.
So write Emily Yoffe of Slate in a Washington Post op ed entitled Taxes? Too Busy, Busy, Busy!. The article explores Daschle's earnings since leaving the Senate, such as the $2.1 million from law firm Alston and Bird( he is not a lawyer). Beyond taxes nd the paid speeches given to an industry he is now supposed to oversee, Yoffe's article should raise real concerns about Daschle's suitability.
Let me offer some more.
It only takes a few minutes to read the Yoffe piece, in which she resorts to some tongue in cheek. She begins
Like many Americans whose steady, reliable job has suddenly disappeared, Thomas Daschle cobbled together a bunch of gigs when he was laid off in 2004 by the people of South Dakota after more than two decades of representing them in Congress.
She then goes through a number of those gigs - not only the law firm, but corporate directorships as well as the speeches, then notes
So busy must Daschle have been dashing from one job to another -- understandable to anyone who has to moonlight after the day shift ends -- it must have merely seemed like a sensible efficiency to say yes when the founder of InterMedia put a Cadillac and a driver at his disposal.
She relates a tale about Daschle and his wife Linda (herself a very highly paid corporate lobbyist) where Linda supposedly reminded him that when they got in a car after he left the Senate, if the car was going to move he was going to have to drive it. That gently points out something most people do not realize: as a leader in the Senate, he did not, for security reasons, drive himself, but instead was driven by Capitol Police. It is one of the prks of Congressional leadership, and in that place is NOT considered a taxable benefit. It is just possible that such previous experience might have influenced Daschle's lack of reflection on the taxable nature of the car and driver he did have.
The quote with which I began is what follows that section. It reminds us that perhaps we give too much credit to those in positions of authority, in government or in business (pace John Thaine of Merrill Lynch with his million dollar office and accelerated bonuses): perhaps they are really not such geniuses, except in learning how to feather their own nests.
Is Daschle suitable? Will he get approved because he was a member of "the world's most exclusive club" which has only failed to approve one former member for a cabinet position, John Tower? Will he be able to ride this out because, as Yoffe quotes a former aide (now herself a lobbyist)
He's the gold standard for integrity in government
Really? Let's go back to the opening quote. In a discussion with an acquaintance who is a fairly influential lobbyist I mentioned reading that Tom Daschle was the runner-up choice to Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. My friend's response was to ask if I really thought Emanuel could clear a Senate confirmation with problems as bad as if not worse than Geithner and Daschle. That brought me up. I have heard tales about the possible ethical "difficulties" of Emanuel, although I lack specifics. I wonder how many more people in positions not requiring Senate confirmation have similar issues? Is it possible that Obama's own experience with Tony Rezko leads him to be a bit more generous to close associates with similar difficulties?
Yoffe closes her piece as follows:
Even if we don't know what Daschle did to earn all his money, we do know that when you monetize the job of Senate majority leader, as Daschle's financial disclosure forms reveal, you come up with almost $5.3 million in two years. Gold standard, indeed.
We have former presidents of both parties who trade on their name and former position to enrich themselves - think of Ford, the first Bush and Clinton. There are lobbyists on the Hill who are former members and senators, or their key staff people. Or one can go from overseeing a portion of the economy as a committee chair to being head of the trade organization for that or another portion of the economy - officially you are not a lobbyist even though it is transparent that you are hired for that position because of your Congressional experience and the implication of the ability to influence those members who continue. Here think of people like Billy Tauzin and Dan Glickman.
I am not sure what I think of Daschle. In one sense, that he apparently did not fully inform the people vetting him of this issue even though he had paid the back taxes seems in itself something that should disqualify him. That he is able to remain under serious consideration - ?and probable confirmation? - for the dual positions of Cabinet member and health care czar (a position which by itself would have avoided the public exposure of his tax problems) seems to undercut the assertions by Obama of a different way of doing business. That in itself is disappointing.
Living as I have in Washington now for two and half decades, and having been fairly active politically, I have come to know a number of people holding Congressional office, and even more who are staffers for them either in their congressional roles or their campaigns. There are many people who are very good about even the appearance of a problem. I think of one current House chair who will not even let someone purchase for that chair a coke. And it is true that while Daschle was in the Senate he had a strong reputation for personal integrity (although there were some questions about his wife's work as a lobbyist, just as there have been for John Dingell's wife).
Still, it bothers me that we allow those already privileged by wealth and power and influence to escape from the kinds of consequences that would be imposed upon those of lesser positions and fame and power and fortune. As a teacher I have to wonder if it will contribute to the cynicism of many of my students that those "in the loop" of the right circles do not have to play by the rules applied to the rest of us.
I suspect Daschle will still be confirmed. I wonder if the price of Daschle and Geithner might be that Solis gets filibustered? Or that having given Obama a pass on a number of controversial appointments, Republicans - and some Democrats - will decide that now they can be more forceful in opposing Obama on policy?
These are the mental meanderings of someone who is bothered by what he is seeing, who is disappointed in the cognitive dissonance I now experience when applying the standards Obama advocated to the actions I perceive in his continued support of people with ethical problems. If we accept the argument that certain people - Geithner for the economy, Daschle for health care reform - are so unique and irreplaceable that we are willing to excuse serious lapses in ethical judgment, how then can we insist on appropriate standards for others, merely because we decide they are less important? What does that say about equality before the law, for example? How will the administration have the moral authority to force the banks and Wall Street firms to recapture the obscene bonuses when they did not break a law when we are excusing and confirming to high position those who have broken the law? Or will we say that the Geithners and Daschles have paid a sufficient penalty and should not be further punished because of the good they can do, when we still will be harsh in application of penalties for transgression of drug laws on students and maintain a pattern of harshness towards certain sexual transgressions, permanently branding people as sex offenders?
Emerson warned that a foolish consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds. I do not think in raising questions about our lack of consistency in situations like this we are being foolish. Unless you want to argue that we consistently excuse the peccadilloes (and worse) of those we favor, the willingness to confirm Geithner and Daschle should raise questions about how serious we really are about ethics.
Maybe Daschle WAS the gold standard on ethics in government. And perhaps it is true as his supporters now argue that he paid a larger fine than necessary, one that presumed he used the car and driver on a fulltime basis, when his actual taxable use was far less. Still, the way he profited from his former position of power is an additional set of what I see as exemplars of poor ethical judgment. And if he can rationalize that, why cannot the barons of the banks rationalize what they do, from million dollar bathrooms to buying corporate jets to giving themselves bonuses? After all, if the Daschles and Geithners get to be different from you and me, where do we draw the line?
Just a few thoughts on a rainy Tuesday morning. Today is the 200th birthday of the composer Felix Mendelssohn, who renewed interest in Bach by the first performance in more thqn half a century of the Matthew Passion, who did the first performance of Schubert's great C Major Symphony, who did so much more. As a musician, perhaps I would have been better off writing about him. When I read Yoffe's piece, I decided it was more important to offer my reactions, however disorganized they might be.
These thoughts may be of little matter. So be it. I am one voice. I am a school teacher. I do not know the perquisites of power and the pressures of office, although I would argue the future of the young people who pass through my care is worth as much as ensuring the comfort of banking barons or excusing the errors of judgment of powerful men. What I write will probably be ignored.
But if I am so bothered, what about the other people? How much damage is Obama doing to his administration by insisting on men who are so flawed? I wonder. . .
Peace.