First it was Tim Geithner for Treasury Secretary, who was later confirmed. Then it was Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services, who later withdrew his nomination. Now it is Hilda Solis for Labor who, after much delay, will most likely be confirmed. Although it is not her taxes that are in question, but rather her husband's, what is the new standard in the Senate for confirming nominees with a questioned financial past? After one confirmation, one withdrawal, and one pending, there are many decisions to be made about the new standard for those to serve in high executive posts.
- After Geithner's confirmation, and Solis more than likely to be confirmed, did Daschle take his name out of the running too soon?
- If any position should be affected, one would assume it would be for Treasury. However, that was of no consequence. Does this mean that other cabinet posts should not be determined by tax history?
- How could so many nominees, including Bill Richardson (who withdrew his bid to head the Commerce Department due to a state investigation relating to pay-to-play allegations), be allowed to get so far into confirmation hearings? ie: How were these issues not discovered in the vetting process?
1 comment:
I think everybody is offended when federal officials neglect to pay their taxes, and rightfully so. It sometimes seems as though everyone in Washington has tax problems. My question is how many of these tax issues are intentional and how many are merely sloppy accounting (which - given the complexity of the tax code is admittedly easy)?
Post a Comment