TPMDC Morning Roundup
Daschle "Deeply Embarrassed" By Tax Problems
Tom Daschle has sent a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, declaring himself "deeply embarrassed and disappointed by the errors that required me to amend my tax returns." Daschle also told the committee reviewing his nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services: "I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them."
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama is meeting at 11 a.m. with Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican who has been advocating for passage of the stimulus bill. At 1:50 p.m. he and Vice President Biden will be meeting with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and at 4:45 p.m. ET Obama and Biden will be meeting with Congressional leaders to work on the stimulus bill.
The Minnesota Election Trial: Week Two
Today begins the second week of the Minnesota election trial, with Al Franken's legal team set to cross-examine Ramsey County (St. Paul) election director Joe Mansky. Norm Coleman's legal team secured an expert opinion from Mansky on Friday that it was highly likely that some absentee ballots were double-counted -- a glitch that would have unfairly favored Franken, because of his edge among absentees overall -- so expect Franken's team to explore both alternative explanations and the difficulty in calculating such a problem.
Obama Predicts GOP Support For Stimulus
In an interview with Matt Lauer aired last night, President Obama predicted that a good number of Republicans will vote for the final stimulus bill when all is said and done. "I am confident that by the time we actually have the final package on the floor that we are going to see substantial support," said Obama.
Gregg Appointment Could Come Soon
President Obama could potentially name Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) as his Secretary of Commerce as early as today. It looks like Gregg's appointment would not affect the Senate balance of power, as Gregg appears to have arranged for his state's Democratic governor to appoint a fellow Republican. Speculation at this point has centered on former Gregg chief of staff Bonnie Newman.
Parties Pick Candidates For Gillibrand's Seat
Democrats have selected venture capitalist Scott Murphy to run for Kirsten Gillibrand's former House seat, giving the Dems a candidate capable of spending a lot of money on the race. Republicans have already picked state Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco to run for this Upstate seat, which has historically been a GOP stronghold but has also moved to the Democrats in recent years.
DCCC Targeting House GOP's Opposition To Stimulus
The DCCC has announced a new round of radio ads against 28 House Republicans, targeting them for their votes against the economic stimulus package. "Did you know Congressman Eric Cantor voted to bail out big banks, but opposed tax breaks for 95 percent of American workers?" the announcer says in one example ad.
| TOPICS: Barack Obama, Eric Cantor, MN-SEN, NH-SEN, Stimulus, Tom Daschle
Josh
Matt
Eric
GOP Stuck In Its Own 'Groundhog Day'
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=5902
February 2, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish they would also run some ads against the Blue Dogs and shake those assfats up!
February 2, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Run ads against members of your own party who are in republican-leaning districts so that they might lose to republicans who will then vote with the republicans on everything?
Yes, that's the ticket!
February 2, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. Also, I would add lose control of the house as well, which would be a disaster.
February 2, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You guys clearly don't live in Blue Dog districts. Might as well have a Repub holding the seat for all the good it does me. At least if the seat had an "R" attached to the name in it Demos would have a fighting chance at running a real Democrat for the seat and getting a new member in the house.
February 2, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely DO live in a Blue Dog district. Until two months ago, Robin Hayes (8th District of NC) was my Congressman (I just threw up in my mouth even writing that).
Hayes is the one who said "liberals hate real americans who love God and try to achieve" at a Palin event. Hayes also opposed stem cell research; he was anti-choice, vehemently anti-labor.
Larry Kissel was just elected. I'm not sure if Kissel will join the Blue Dogs officially but he's rather conservative. But he does support SCHIP, choice and labor. And he won't ever interfere on the choice issue. So, please don't tell me there's no difference. I know better.
February 2, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, there is NO way a liberal could ever carry my district or the district Heath Shuler represents. We either take a moderate/conservative Democrat or we have a Republican. Get enough Republicans and they have the majority. Then see where you are.
February 2, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Shuler's district and he is gunning for Burr's Senate seat in 2010 and his votes in this term of Congress will be slanted towards that end! Shuler is a true Blue Dog and we need to replace him and one of the ways to get rid of him is with a progressive and expose his positions. This sdistrict was fooled by Shuler in 2006 and he ran against an idiot in 2008. I want him gone in 2010 and kissing his ass is not in the democratic party's interest!
February 2, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roy Cooper will be the Democratic nominee to challenge Burr. Shuler doesn't have a chance. He's a bore and not very bright. Roy Cooper is a great politician and very popular.
Shuler won because he was conservative. If you live in Asheville, you probably think that everybody thinks like you think. Mistake. If you think those mountain hillbillies will elect a liberal democrat, please pass the bong!
February 2, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those who insist that we get rid of the Blue Dogs and the DLC are (what's the word) . . . STUPID!
In fact, they are just as stupid as the repugs who insisted that moderate republicans weren't true republicans so they drove them out with their nutcase hard-right ideology and now the republicans are a regional party. And the minority party.
That means there's supposed to be room in the Democratic party for both Bob Casey and Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders and Mark Pryor.
If we insist on these ridiculous purity tests, we will become a coastal party and the republicans will be in control of congress. Then you won't have to worry about how the Blue Dogs vote on things like SCHIP and pay equity because those issues will NEVER get to the floor!
February 2, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree.
We call it the House of Representatives because it is made up of folks who represent their constituency. You can't cram liberal ideas down the throats of a moderate/conservative constituency, and you shouldn't try.
Attacking a moderate Dem from the left just helps the Republicans win that seat.
February 2, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not just let a Republican have the seat if that is the constituency wants, then?
February 2, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said the constituency wanted a conservative? He said they wanted a moderate, middle-of-the road representative. It's better to have that person be a Democrat since it helps Dems have the majority which means liberals like Frank and Pelosi can push for progressive policies. They wouldn't have a chance to do that if they're in the minority.
It's stunning how that little fact gets ignored, as if we've forgotten what it was like when Tom Delay was in charge.
February 2, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, FR, you might want to re-check Bernie Sanders's party affiliation...
February 2, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Cantor will say "I voted against it because I wanted more tax cuts for folks and less spending".
No use trying to score cheap political points now, wait until it works and then hammer all house GOP who voted against it for saying it wouldn't work.
February 2, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beg to differ. The political points aren't cheap, they're honest & they should be pointed out. In fact, I'll be calling the DCCC today and volunteering to start collecting money in NY 23 if they are willing to go after John McHugh.
February 2, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Learning more about Daschle's ties to the medical insurance/for-profit sector, I don't think he's the person to bring real healthcare reform.
The tax issue isn't disqualifying, but the lobbying(or "consulting") is.
February 2, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, because when one does work for a particular industry, they routinely implant mind control chips into your brain that renders you incapable of acting contrary to the narrow interests of that business. We must have people who are absolutely pure. Which makes it kind of a shame that you have to be dead to be a saint.
February 2, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
And it's kind of a shame you have to resort to strawman arguments like a typical wingnut.
Asking that someone not be in bed with the industry that you want to reform is not a demand for purity. In fact, it's only holding him to the standard that the president himself has set for members of his administration.
February 2, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here is where the dilemma lies. For someone to reform an industry, they have to know something about the industry. But for someone to know about an industry, they had to work in or with that industry. So there you go.
I used to work for an energy lab on an environmental project, which was partly funded by the DOE and partly funded by energy companies. By some's standards, I have no basis to ever do anything in energy or environmental work, either for or against, ever again.
February 2, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two reasons I'm not worried about that:
Daschle has written THE book on reforming healthcare. Read it.
Ted Kennedy wants Daschle. Reforming healthcare has been Kennedy's 30 year struggle. He wouldn't support Daschle if he didn't think he could do it and do it right.
February 2, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The United States spends $515B on defense spending yearly (the spending that is on the books). Next in line at #2 is France at $61B.
#1.United States - $515B
#2.France - $61B
#3.UK - $61B
#4.China - $61B
#5.Russia - $50B
Pakistan - $7.8B
Iran - $6.3B
North Korea - $5.5B
Combined EU - $311B
Cut defense spending by 15% and the US still spends $437B on it's Military/Defense and could spend that spare $78B elsewhere yearly. Never happen, but that's the power of the M-I-C for you. They needed a war to clear out inventory I guess - Afghanistan was too easy.
February 2, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately it won't play politically, but the US could afford to cut defense by 40% and still have the strongest and most feared military in the world. That 200 billion could be used for the economy, because that is what builds strength and world dominance, not the military. By way of example, see Japan.
Unfortunately, Eisenhower was totally right in the 50's. We wasted trillions of dollars over the last 50 years on defense, for what? Nothing. It really makes me ill. I traveled extensively in the Soviet Union prior to its collapse and it was a freaking sick joke. All one had to do was take a couple of steps outside moscow and it was patently obvious that the former soviet union was absolutely no threat to anyone, but their own people. All the trillions wasted for nothing. Disgusting.
February 2, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or at the very least scale military spending so that as the economy and tax revenue go down, so does the amount allocated to the military. With a set number, the percentage of our GDP going to the military is going up as we have less money at home, which doesn't sit well.
February 2, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I know that it actually is a percentage--it's just that I've never heard of absolute numbers given to the military going down during a recession.
February 2, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not rich, but I'm in a business where I routinely see rich people's tax returns. It doesn't really make me cry my eyes out in sympathy for their difficult plight, but I do have to admit that once your income rises above a certain level, it seemingly becomes impossible to not make a mistake on your taxes. Your returns get to be a h half an inch to an inch thick, you're getting income, and stuff that is treated as income from so many sources that its easy to lose track of it and the IRS is fully capable of taking multiple positions on whether a particular element is includable and how it should be reported.
What does bug me is that here's yet another appointee who didn't 'fess up to the vetters. That would piss me off mightily if I were them.
February 2, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
True on the taxes. That's why when your income is over a certain level, it should just be a percentage of gross. It would cut out all the possibilities of "mistakes" and would be fairer. Also, it would make the tax filing process a heck of alot easier.
February 2, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what I can tell in this situation, Mr. Daschle didn't get information from the group that provided the free services. It's not just that high-income returns are complex, it's that they get a lot of paperwork from all their sources of income. High income tax payers get dozens of 1099 forms and partnership K-1s and one is easy to overlook. However, I would bet that Daschle didn't get a 1099 for the free services, and it didn't occur to him to report it as income.
February 2, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does bug me is that here's yet another appointee who didn't 'fess up to the vetters.
Yes. For two reasons: it's causing problems for Daschle, who is probably an excellent choice for this position, and now it's raising "suspicions" (MSNBC this AM) about how competent Obama's vetting team is.
Thanks, Tim and Tom, for providing a talking point to bobbleheads on the cable news.
February 2, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure everyone would have been as forgiving if Hillary Clinton had issues on her tax returns. If Bill was lobbying for defense companies and Hillary had been directly taking money from speacial interests? Or if this was a Bush nominee as opposed to an Obama one? At some point isn't there an objective right and wrong regardless of whether the person is your former colleague and a member of your party?
If Obama continues to push D-Ass-Schill through the nomination process despite his ethical lapses, it's just an example that his actions have not matched his rhetoric in changing the way things are done in Washington. Daschle should do the honoroable thing and withdraw from contention. And before folks say I am just saying this because I'm a Clinton girl, Howard Deam would be an excellent Sec of HHS and I still hate him from the primary.
February 2, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
People tried to make a big deal out of Bill's foreign earnings and smoozings, saying it would be bad for Hillary as SOS. I thought that was BS just like I think this is BS.
Any Dem who still hates another Dem from the primary really should get a life.
I know you won't take that advice because you've convinced yourself that Howard Dean or sexism or little kittens from outer space are responsible for Hillary's primary loss. It had NOTHING to do with the fact that she had a dysfunctional campaign and never even contested the caucus states. Nope. None of it was her fault.
February 2, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate Howie, not Daschle and I still think Daschle should withdraw and Dean should be HHS Sec. I think that says I am over the primary bitterness.
February 2, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You say you hate Dean from the primary but claim you're over the primary bitterness? Now, that's clear as mud!
FYI, Daschle's taxes were never audited. He (or his accountant) found the error himself in June and reported it to the IRS . . . HIMSELF. That's something very few people would do.
So, although I'm upset that he didn't tell this to Obama, I think his actions demonstrates he wasn't tryint to cheat on his taxes.
February 2, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
He reported it because he was going through the confirmation process, not out of the goodness of his heart. I'm in HR and know about imputed income and fringe benefits - no one gets a freaking car and driver for free. It is illogical. If you're a salesperson you have to track your mileage on your company car and track personal v bisoness use. They get audited ALL THE TIME.
Daschle never reported the car service to his accountant. What would make him say to his accountant in June, getting ready to go through vetting, you know I forgot to mention I've gotten $300K worth of car and driver services for 3 consecutive years. You think that might be taxable? DUH. I don't think Daschle is that stupid and if he is, he has no business being head of the HHS. You make 2.1 million from one board and you can't bother to pay your taxes?! It this was Alberto Gonzales, you guys would be all over his ass.
His excuse is bull and the only way he makes it through is if his former colleagues do Washington business as usual and turn a blind eye to it. That is not the change Obama promised. Period.
February 2, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>He reported it because he was going through the confirmation process, not out of the goodness of his heart>>
Excuse me. What vetting process was Daschle going through in June? NONE.
You're making shit up. Read the entire story of what happened.
(1) The car and driver were loaned to him by his good friend--a rich Democrat. It wasn't a typical car service perk. It's totally conceivable that one wouldn't know to report that as income. If my rich friend gave me a car and driver, I wouldn't think it's income.
(2) The unreported income happened because the company that paid him gave him an erroneous 1099 that did not include $83K.
Stop trying to make this a "defending Daschle because he's a democrat" issue. There are plenty of people here and on HuffPo who think Daschle should not drop out. I'm not one of them.
February 2, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
PLEASE. If your friend decided to give you a car and driver, you'd be fine (and really lucky). But Daschle was on the board and a consultant of that "friend's" company. My boss could decide to be a "friend" and increase my compensation by buying me a car worth 50K(and not have to pay any payroll or employment taxes on that gift). That's imputed income to the IRS. Period. It's not a close question at all.
And if Daschle really thought it wasn't an issue, why did he all of a sudden raise it to his accountant as a "question" when he was going through vetting for a potential VP slot in June, but apparently didn't share with his possible concerns with the VP search team (which I assume would have been passed on to the cabinet vetting team)? Daschle's actions have been shady and folks don't do that unless they have something to hide. That Obama is standing behind him says little about his dedication to cleaning up Washington.
February 2, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daschle was never vetted for veep so your entire story falls apart right there. He never wanted to be veep and he made that clear from the beginning.
I know you're wetting yourself over a chance to say "I told you so" about Obama and dream about him being a spectacular failure. However, as an avid Clinton supporter, you really need to find something better than these "shady dealings" of associates to be outraged about. Whitewater? Cattle Futures? Norman Hsu? Vince Foster?
Still waiting for you to explain how you've gotten over your bitterness from the primaries while admitting that you still "hate Dean from the primaries."
February 2, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate Howard Dean for what he did in the primary and putting his thumb on the scale for Obama, but I don't want him punished or exiled for it. I just don't like him PERSONALLY. Professionaly he's an asset to the democratic party I'd like to see utilized. That's how you can separate personal hate vs. political goals. If I was still bitter even if I thought he was the best person, I wouldn't want it to go with him out of vengeance. Not my style.
I don't hate Obama or wish him to fail. It's really a spectacularly stupid accusation to make considering I want him to dump Dascle so he can UPHOLD the pledges of ethics and avoiding lobbyists and special interest influence in his administration. And when the GOP starts runnign in 2010 talking about how Obama pledged bipartisanship and ethics and didn't dleiver on his rhetoric, at least we will have an answer that Obama upheld his ideals even when it was hard. It's stupid to use political capital for Daschle. Use it for healthcare, use it for the stimulus bill, not some semi-lobbyist tax cheat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/politics/02daschle.html?hp
February 2, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like just one of you Hillary supporters to explain how Dean "put his thumb on the scale for Obama." Please.
Dean was annoyingly neutral during the primaries. He insisted on following the rules that were established before the primaries were started. He said there would be no delegates for FL & Michigan--a position Hillary sanctioned and supported . . . until she started losing.
I'm serious about wanting to know how you think Dean aided Obama. I've heard this from a bunch of PUMAs but those folks are crazy and don't make a lick of sense. I don't get the feeling that you're that way so I'm sincere in wanting to know exactly what you folks think he did to hurt Hillary.
Nobody needed to put a thumb on the scale. Hillary screwed the pooch when she did not even contest the caucus states and when she didn't think there was any need to plan for post-Super Tuesday.
February 2, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does Howard Dean have to do with this conversation other than I still actively dislike him and think he deserves a place in Obama's administration? I think he placed his thumbs on the scale, you disagree. I think he botched the ball on MI and FL from the very beginning - before those states became critical for Hillary, you think 2 states should be disenfranchised. Whatevs - it's history. How I feel about Howard Dean personally has no relevance to what I think of him politically. You want to argue about Dean because Daschle's a loser and Obama looks bad for defending him. Grow up.
February 2, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know Dean PERSONALLY? Seriously, have you spent one on one time with this guy? To personally dislike someone means you have known them....personally. Whatever attacks Clinton received during the primaries, they were aimed at Clinton not you. And if Hillary Clinton had won the election and was going through this with Daschle, you would be defending her also.
February 2, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, Hillary HAD no tax issues because she's not a tax cheat nor was she or Bill lobbying on behalf of industries. And Obama and his supoporters were still demanding to know WHAT'S IN HER TAX RETURNS! WHO'S GIVING MONEY TO FUND AIDS RELIEF THROUGH THE CLINTON FOUNDATION? They couldn't do the bare minimum homework on Obama friends like Richardson and Daschle? It's embarrassing.
February 2, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well despite your preference for Dean and distaste for Daschle, Tom's better for the job because it will entail advocating for and ramming thru congress the huge changes to our healthcare system Obama wants and we need. Daschle is much better qualified for that task than Dean. And I say that as a much bigger fan of Dean than I am of Daschle.
February 2, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as for Daschle's VP vetting status from mid-August affirming he submitted documentation a long time ago (June as I stated above):
February 2, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Daschle said repeatedly before Obama even got the nomination that he didn't want to be veep.
2. Submitting documents does not equal "vetting." Dodd and several others submitted documents but he was never vetted.
3. Since when does "a long time ago" mean last month?
4. Obama has done more to limit the influence of lobbyist than any previous president. He has already implemented an unprecedented level of transparency. I'm not worried that the repuglicans will "out clean" him in 2010.
February 2, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently Daschle disagrees with you.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1833807,00.html
If he wasn't interested in VP, he wouldn't have submitted the vetting info. If I'm not interested in a job, why would I submit my resume? He didn't say he was fully out of consideration until 8/18. So he did provide tax info to the VP committee right around the same time as a lightbulb went off in his head about his free car and driver. He raised the question to his accountant, but not to the screening folks? Until after he paid the back taxes? He should have come clean.
And everything Obama says and does to clean up lobbysit influence is negated when he puts a tax dodging semi lobbyist who received money from the health care industry to head up healthcare reform. Or a lobbyist for defense companies to head up procurement from the defense companies. What's the use of these grand policies if he just does "waivers" for the folks he likes?
February 2, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>That is not the change Obama promised. Period.>>
That should make you happy since you were adamantly opposed to Obama and his promises. What do you care if he doesn't keep them?
That line is so lame and the final thing you nutters say when disparaging Obama: "this isn't change." YAWN.
February 2, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said I was adamantly opposed to Obama's promises. I liked the promises about cleanign up Washington and reducing lobbyist interests. I said talk is one thing, action is another. I doubted it was anything more than rhetoric. He's failing to live up to the talk in this instance. Disappointing absolutely, but what I expected. You believed he was for real and are giving him a pass for failing to live up to his own promises. That's real nutter-dom. :)
February 2, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must have missed the part when Obama promised to not have any cabinet secretaries who didn't pay all their taxes on time. Refresh my memory on that.
I didn't vote for Obama because he promised to clean up Washington. I supported him in the primary because (a) he had opposed the war from the beginning and (b) didn't act like he was entitled to the nomination, unlike Hillary.
I supported him in the general because he'd be a friend of the pro-choice community, said he would close Gitmo, bring the troops home from Iraq, push for healthcare, sign pay equity, end torture. In less than two weeks, he's either done all of that or put it in motion.
I don't concern myself with the minutiae of who's his chief of staff or whether his cabinet secretaries paid their taxes on time. If we get healthcare, he could appoint my Golden Retriever as HHS secretary. If we end torture, the moldly potato in my fridge would do as SOD.
Call me silly but I care about the results. And so far, I don't have a damn thing to be angry about. Your mileage may vary.
February 2, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey TPM, there is some type of problem with your site concerning the adserver. It keeps locking up my computer.
When it does, my computer flashes track.pubmatic.com/adserver . . . .
February 2, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim Tedisco doesn't even live in the NY-20 District. The Repubs nominated him for his name recognition, but he's going to have to move into the district and the Dems can still pound him for being a carpetbagger.
February 2, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this should be a pretty easy save for Dems. I live one district north, in the 23rd, and things are changing even here. Sure would like to see the DCCC mount a serious campaign against John McHugh (R-Fort Drum), who has kept his seat mostly because he has been able to bring military dollars to the southern part of the district. Then northern half of the district went heavily for Obama in the last election. Or maybe we can just redistrict him out.
February 2, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And we all know how devastating those carpet bagger charges are against New York office seekers. Destoryed Bobby Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. No. Wait . . . Never mind.
February 2, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink