Subscribe to my Feed
« Biden’s apology to Roberts was a good, if gratuitous, move | Home | So, you really can’t manage on half a million? »
Why Daschle’s apology wasn’t enough
By Lauren | February 4, 2009
Pity poor President Obama, who’s had two of his hand-picked nominees withdraw from consideration today over their alleged failure to pay taxes. The big news, of course, is that Tom Daschle, whom everybody thought was a shoo-in for confirmation as Secretary of Health and Human Services, decided to step aside even though he had unequivocally apologized, Democratic Senators were all set to confirm him, and the President had publicly supported him. But it’s worth spending a moment on the second candidate to resign today: Nancy Killefer, the President’s pick for chief White House performance officer. Her withdrawal may not be as big a public spectacle as Daschle’s but the two resignations, taken together, demonstrate an interesting point.
Tax issues have alreadly dogged another Administration nominee, when Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner admitted to having dropped the ball on paying about $34,000 of income tax. Daschle’s error involved a lot more money - he allegedly failed to pay about $140,000 in taxes when they were due. By comparison, though, Killefer’s error was positively minor - she apparently failed to pay less than $1,000. So, why did Geithner survive when Daschle and Killefer didn’t?
There are, of course, lots of factors at play here. The economy is such a mess that Senators looked the other way to get Geithner appointed when they otherwise might not have done so. And, of course, Geithner owed a lot less money than Daschle, though one could certainly argue that it’s more important for the Secretary of the Treasury to understand and comply with the Internal Revenue Code than it is for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. But Killefer allegedly owed relatively little money and was going into a position far less prominent than that of either Cabinet nominee. Why didn’t she survive?
President Obama has made a laudable promise to bring higher ethical standards to Washington and, if he truly intends to be uncompromising on that score, I can only cheer him on. But it’s important not to ignore the “three strikes, you’re out!” rule of apologies. Geithner’s apology was effective in part because it was the first. By the time Daschle apologized, Congress and the public were getting restive. Even though Killefer allegedly made a far less serious mistake and presumably had nothing to do with Geithner and Daschle’s gaffes, by the time her turn came around, no one wanted to hear any more apologies from an Obama nominee about taxes, regardless of how innocent the mistake was or how little money was at stake. As a result, President Obama himself apologized to the American people today for nominating appointees with questionable records. It may not be fair but, when it comes to apologies, that’s how it frequently works.
Topics: Apologies, Social Ethics, ethics |
February 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Lauren,
In addition to your well-point about taking a proactive approach and the importance of providing apologies in a prompt fashion, this sad saga also illustrates the importance of ethics where taxes are concerned.
I don’t know what the situation in America, but in Australia, there are far too many people who feel that the practice of cheating on one’s taxes is acceptable.
It isn’t. Take evasion in my country is nothing less than a criminal offence, and there is nothing more ‘acceptable’ about the practice of cheating on one’s taxes than there is with any other criminal offense.
Moreover, the fact that many people do not see anything wrong with cheating on taxes makes it all the more imperative for politicians to manage their tax affairs in a manner which is beyond reproach.
If politicians treat on their taxes, so will the people.