SAVING THE UR FROM HIS OWN IGNORANCE:

Obama’s Pledge to Reform Ethics Faces an Early Test (PETER BAKER, 2/03/09, NY Times)

During almost two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher in what he would later call in his Inaugural Address a “new era of responsibility.” What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.

The exceptions that went unmentioned now include a pair of cabinet nominees who did not pay all of their taxes. Then there is the lobbyist for a military contractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industry even if not formally registered as lobbyists.

President Obama said Monday that he was “absolutely” standing behind former Senator Tom Daschle, his nominee for health and human services secretary, and Mr. Daschle, who met late in the day with leading senators in an effort to keep his confirmation on track, said he had “no excuse” and wanted to “deeply apologize” for his failure to pay $128,000 in federal taxes.

But the episode has already shown how, when faced with the perennial clash between campaign rhetoric and Washington reality, Mr. Obama has proved willing to compromise.

Obama--Let Daschle Go (Katrina vanden Heuvel, 02/01/2009, The Nation)

It turns out that former Senator Tom Daschle waited nearly a month after being nominated to be Secretary of Health and Human Services before letting President Barack Obama know that he had not paid years of back taxes. The tax problem resonates at a time of deepening economic pain, as joblessness soars and Wall Street executives are rightfully chastised for using bailout money for multi-million dollar bonuses.

But the serious issue here is Daschle's ties to health care firms. In a letter to the HHS ethics office on January 16th (cited in the Washington Post on Sunday) Daschle wrote that he wouldn't participate in any matter over the next year in which "a former client of mine is a party or represents a party." How does one define that? And won't this then mean that Daschle is unable to play a role in passing critical healthcare reform until 2010? After all, the same Washington Post story notes that the Health Industry Distributors Assn., which represents medical product distributors, wrote Daschle "last week" to express concerns about proposed Medicare changes and "reminded him of the $14,000 speech he delivered at its conference last year." Other special interests from which Daschle collected speaking fees ranging from $12,000 to $40,000 included the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and America's Health Insurance Plans, which represents the for-profit health insurance industry. He also gave "policy advice" to United Health, a conglomerate that sells insurance, helps the government administer Medicaid, advises drug companies and physicians and dispenses prescriptions. In fact, when all is tallied up, the former Senator received more than $300,000 in income from health related companies that he might regulate.

Experts who study this gray zone debate whether giving a speech, consulting, and otherwise taking money from special interests in return for services is different from lobbying. Nonetheless, Daschle's activities clearly pose the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The Travails of Tom Daschle (NY Times, 2/03/09)

When President Obama nominated former Senator Tom Daschle to be his secretary of health and human services, it seemed to be a good choice. Mr. Daschle, as the co-author of a book on health care reform, knew a lot about one of the president’s signature issues. As a former Senate majority leader, he also knew a lot about guiding controversial bills through Congress, where he remains liked and respected by former colleagues.

Unfortunately, new facts have come to light — involving his failure to pay substantial taxes that were owed and his sizable income from health-related companies while he worked in the private sector — that call into question his suitability for the job. We believe that Mr. Daschle ought to step aside and let the president choose a less-blemished successor.

The Times is, of course, quite wrong that the Senator was ever a good pick. While it is a bit unfair to compare Mr. Obama's original cabinet to W's, the strongest since Washington's, consider just that Mr. Bush's choice for HHS--the most important seat--was Governor Tommy Thompson, widely-regarded as qualified for the presidency itself. Mr. Daschle, by stark contrast, has none of the executive experience that would qualify him to run the massive government department. In the end, it will be a very fortunate thing for the new president if these scandals force him to replace a likely incompetent with a potentially successful alternative.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 3, 2009 10:06 AM