Tom Daschle, former Senate Majority Leader, withdrew his nomination to head Health and Human Services due to tax issues (in the aftermath of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's IMF/payroll tax problems) and certain health care industry-related possible conflicts of interest.
I was opposed to Daschle on intrinsic grounds, namely his public policy advocacy for universal health care. My fully-articulated position on health care is beyond the scope of this post, but suffice it to say that I would distinguish between catastrophic and routine medical expenses, I believe in self-insurance to cover routine expenses and provide consumers with a natural incentive to use more effective use of products and services, I would provide standardized tax incentives (decoupling health care from employment), I would like to open competition across state lines, and I believe in open, computerized access to medical products and services, prices, status, availability and performance criteria.
I never bought Obama's rather convenient, arbitrary way during the campaign of distinguishing his scapegoat target lobbyists from his own supporters. Because of the way he has used the issue, he should be held to a higher standard. He can talk all he wants about restricting how people leaving his administration are allowed to work for lobbyists, but pay attention to what he does and not what he says: Daschle earned fees from companies that would be impacted by policies at HHS.
I am also struck by Obama's alternative version of cronyism (to Bush's). For example, he has chosen Daschle, Biden, Clinton, Judd, and Salazar, all fellow veterans of the Senate, probably the most notorious of all "good old boy" clubs, not to mention an Illinois Congressman Lahood. I do not believe that one can seriously suggest any of those individuals has a distinctive competency for their nominated post. It seems obvious that these choices were based more for political purposes, i.e., the unlikelihood that the Senate would set aside the confirmation of one of its own. At the very least, it is obvious that these picks were not the result of "turning the page" but seem "more of the same".
Michael Phelps: Above the Law?
After arguably the greatest solo sports performance ever (winning 8 out of 8 gold medals in last year's Olympics), Phelps, who had a previous DWI incident, found himself the subject of a recently published picture allegedly showing Phelps smoking marijuana.
It strikes me that the Phelps' apologies seem to be more oriented towards trying to excuse his indiscretions on his relative youth and issued more for business purposes, i.e., preventing an exodus of his high-paying sponsors.
Personally, whereas I'm disappointed in seeing Phelps' falls from grace, especially given his enormous influence on young people, I don't have unrealistic expectations regarding fallible human beings. I can certainly understand why Phelps would want to blow off some steam after being under pressure and the constant public spotlight. However, all of us set responsible boundaries, and there's a price to pay for crossing boundaries. My one principle: equality under the law, no double standard.
Phelps should be treated just like any other young person caught under similar circumstances, no more, no less. If that means arresting the most storied athlete in Olympic history, what better way to show no one is above the law. Michael, the time for public relations apologies and excuses is over: it may be unfair you're held to greater scrutiny, but in this world of cellphone cameras and lucrative bonuses to people with the right public interest photo, you need to act with common sense restraint in public places.
Double Standard Over Obama's Handling of Winter Storms?
Investor's Business Daily ran a current column comparing FEMA's handling of last week's winter storm, killing some 55 people and leaving hundreds of people without power, to their handling of Hurricane Katrina. IBD wasn't interested in rehashing the issue of the primacy of local and state responsibility (versus federal) in handling of emergency but in pointing out the blatant liberal mass media hypocrisy and double standards.
Obama Trying to Cap Executive Pay at Target Bailout Companies
I am not an executive, and I do not make enough money to qualify for the highest tax bracket, but Obama's politics of envy by trying to micromanage private sector executive pay decisions is just totally unconscionable. I think this is more symbolic than substantive in nature, violates the contract between managers and their companies, and constitutes an undue intrusion by the government. This is not to say I approve of or justify lavish executive compensation, but I think the President should simply use the bully pulpit to argue for an end to cronyism on corporate boards rather than pretend that he has the human resource expertise to know how to evaluate executive compensation than the private sector. I think all you need to do is to turn the spotlight on unjustifiable compensation, and companies will act on their own accord to put a lid on executive compensation.
Stimulus Package or an Early Christmas Present to Democrats?
First of all, Democrats are using "stimulus" to justify any domestic spending increase; the liberal media, as usual, are not paying attention to the fuzzy liberal thinking over what exactly serves as a stimulus. The early Christmas wishlist for Obama includes items like "tax cuts" to people whom don't pay federal taxes and huge increases in education (including campus construction activities)--except, of course, for things like supporting parental educational choice. The Senate GOP needs to declare the House boondoggle bill dead on arrival.
