03 February 2009

Editors Turn Against Daschle

The New York Times is only one among a plethora of voices critiquing Tom Daschle's nomination as health and human services secretary. Justifiably so. Between the unpaid taxes and the lobbying (sorry--former Senator Daschle was not a registered lobbyist. He simply earned money "advising clients seeking influence with the government, including some in the health industry" (NYT).

I'm afraid that I concur with these editors. I like Tom Daschle, and I thought he was a pretty good pick for H & HS secretary, but I'm having trouble resolving President Obama's promises about ethics--and lobbysists--and his nominees' tax-deferring/lobbying pasts (e.g., Timothy Geithner, William Lynn, William Corr, Nancy Killefer--Daschle is the unfortunate straw here). Seriously--what happened to President Obama's much discussed "extensive vetting" of potential appointees?


Update: Daschle has withdrawn--as has Killefer. Very gracious of them both, but, even so, there remain lingering questions over the president's vetting process.


Craig said...

I am happy Daschle is out....the insurance companies are parasitic and can not be the solution to basic health coverage which truly should be basic and catastrophic care shared by all citizens...private care and special care are the only place for Insurance companies....as long as it is referred to as universal health insurance rather than universal health care the problems will not be solved. Also, PBS should add a PMN ....The Public Medical Network.

mpandgs said...

Hi Craig.
Yes, ultimately, it's a good thing. I feel badly for the man largely because of how he was demonized in his last election, but he's only himself to blame now. And despite his affability and know-how,who really knows how deeply he remains ties to the insurance companies...
Thanks for coming by, and thanks for commenting.