Why Dems don't mind raising taxes...

Obama appointee Killefer withdraws over unpaid taxes

By Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The White House press office confirmed that Nancy Killefer, who was to be chief performance officer, a newly created federal post, has withdrawn her candidacy because of tax problems.

She becomes the third Obama pick for a high visibility post to have tax problems revealed. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed anyhow; HHS pick and former Sen. Tom Daschle appears to have enough support to be confirmed despite his.

source

...a cabinet secretary “ought to set the example, ought to be able to enforce all of the laws." Tom Daschle

Armon Ayers wrote:they don't pay them. Until they are forced to--and then they get permission from fellow Democrats to pay them. Republicans go to jail.

sodbuster wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:they don't pay them. Until they are forced to--and then they get permission from fellow Democrats to pay them. Republicans go to jail.

Well Armon, I dont know for sure but I figure Daschle paid a lot more than you or I paid.

"The opposition party's interest is often not so much eliciting the truth as making trouble -- or, at least, creating a record with which trouble can be made."

(Isnt that just a fancy way of saying they are just being obstructionists?)

This is a familiar drill. The nominee's goal is to ruffle as few feathers as possible. The opposition party's interest is often not so much eliciting the truth as making trouble -- or, at least, creating a record with which trouble can be made.

Some amount of evasive maneuvering at these sessions is unavoidable. Confirmation hearings aren't let-it-all-hang-out moments. There are policy positions on which a new administration in particular may be genuinely undecided. Fair enough.

But Solis was not a judicial nominee inappropriately pressed to discuss a case that might come before her. How can senators consent if they have no clue what policies they might be consenting to? Perhaps her hearing was an anomaly; the latest blizzard of hearings -- for Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Arne Duncan as education secretary, Steven Chu as energy secretary -- seemed more illuminating.

Still, it's important to point out: Democrats had little tolerance for nonanswers when Republican nominees were doing the bobbing and weaving. It is an imperfect comparison, but recall their consternation -- and ensuing "no" votes -- when Michael Mukasey, in his confirmation hearing to be attorney general, said he did not have enough information about the precise technique involved to say that waterboarding was torture.

Presidents are entitled to significant deference in choosing executive branch officials. Mere policy disagreements are insufficient grounds for rejection. But the flip side of that permissive standard is that the Senate deserves a modicum of frankness.

In fact, that might even be in the interest of the new administration. After all, unlike a judicial nomination, a Cabinet secretary's hearing is not a one-time deal but the start of a relationship. The Solis method may not be the best way to begin a beautiful friendship with your committee of jurisdiction -- or to launch a new era of bipartisanship.

A wise senator once put it this way: "While the initiative for selection originates with the president, we have [a] solemn responsibility to get a sense of the person the president has selected." Too often, he said, "We have made a grave error in failing to press nominees on their policy positions only to find out later that their positions are anathema once they are in office."

That was Vice President-elect Joe Biden, at the 1981 confirmation hearing for Ronald Reagan's attorney general William French Smith. The new administration might benefit from taking a good look at that dusty old transcript -- and taking Biden's words to heart.

But Solis was not a judicial nominee inappropriately pressed to discuss a case that might come before her. How can senators consent if they have no clue what policies they might be consenting to?

Aaron wrote:Then why have a cabinet position that is answerable to Congress?