Obama's Cabinet and Staff

[BigSqwert]

Judd Gregg, R-NH is now the official nominee for the Commerce department job. This is happening despite the fact that the Democratic governor of NH has promised to place a Republican in that chair, rather than a Democrat. Gregg will be the 3rd Republican in Obama's cabinet, the most members of the opposing party in any President's cabinet since FDR.

 

In response to yet another act of Bipartisanship, the Republicans found a way to change a few of their votes on other bills so that they could say they'd given a negative number of votes to the stimulus package.

Isn't that considered making a deal for a Senate seat?

[lostfan]

Isn't that considered making a deal for a Senate seat?

In the Blagojevich sense? Not even remotely close IMO.

[lostfan]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/oba...chle/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday admitted he made a mistake in handling the nomination of Tom Daschle as his health and human services secretary, saying Daschle's tax problems sent a message that the politically powerful are treated differently from average people.

 

Daschle, the former Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, withdrew earlier Tuesday as news that he failed to pay some taxes in the past continued to stir opposition on Capitol Hill.

 

"I think I screwed up," Obama said in a wide-ranging interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper.

 

"And I take responsibility for it and we're going to make sure we fix it so it doesn't happen again."

 

Daschle had apologized Monday for what he said were honest mistakes, calling them an embarrassment. The series of errors included improperly reporting $15,000 in charitable donations, failing to list $80,000 in lobbying income due to what Daschle said was a paperwork error, and not reporting as income a car and driver loaned to him by a friend and business associate.

Nice to see the president acknowledge his own f***ups quickly for a change.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/oba...chle/index.html

 

Nice to see the president acknowledge his own f***ups quickly for a change.

Yes it is. Obama is stumbling on some things, but overall, he's does seem to be a large improvement. Time will tell more of course.

 

[BigSqwert]

In the Blagojevich sense? Not even remotely close IMO.

Some commentary on the issue.

 

LINK

[lostfan]

Some commentary on the issue.

 

LINK

It's not ideal, but that kind of dealmaking and quid pro quo is standard political practice. Plus the difference here is that when it comes down to it, Gregg really has no authority whatsoever to pick his successor because he's not the governor.

[StrangeSox]

There's a difference between personal financial gain and wanting your party to keep control of the seat. They aren't even remotely close. That commentary doesn't cite any sort of legal opinion, decisions, codes, anything. Just some whining about Democrats not getting the 60th seat out of this.

 

I don't see anything wrong with Gregg making sure that his party isn't politically neutered by his accepting the position. In fact, I would hope that any governor would choose someone from the same party as the person they're replacing.

 

Russ Feingold may have a valid point that states should go with special elections instead of appointments, but that raises its own issues.

Edited February 4, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

I've defended every President when facts come out about cabinet picks that derail a nominee. I hold the person being nominated to a higher standard than the person doing the nominating. Sadly, party loyalists strive to make each of these an indictment on our President. It seems unfair to me to hold the person who is least involved in fact finding, to a higher standard than the person being nominated. Nannygate is a couple decades old, anyone being interviewed should be expected to know if they paid taxes on their domestic help.

[Balta1701]

A former congressional aide to Commerce Secretary-nominee Judd Gregg has been caught up in a long-running investigation into a lobbying scandal.

 

A person familiar with the case confirmed today that "Staffer F" in court documents is Kevin Koonce, who worked as legislative director in Gregg’s Senate office from 2002-04. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is still under investigation.

 

Staffer F was cited in a guilty plea last week by Todd Boulanger, a former deputy to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In federal court, Boulanger admitted he plied the staffer with front-row tickets to a hockey game and other tickets to a baseball game, and in exchange received favors in spending legislation.

 

The biographical detail about Staffer F contained in court documents — his job title at the time in the Senate office — correspond to Koonce’s.

 

Koonce has not been charged with any crime. He now works at a private firm, Sorini Samet & Associates LLP.

 

After several attempts by The Associated Press to reach him, Koonce replied to an e-mail, saying only that he was on personal leave.

 

A spokesman for President Barack Obama, who appointed Gregg on Tuesday to serve as Commerce Secretary, declined to comment.

 

Boulanger, a native of Manchester, N.H., was for years an aide to former GOP Sen. Bob Smith from his home state before working with Abramoff. Boulanger had pleaded guilty to lavishing a number of congressional staffers with similar gifts, including an all-expense paid trip to the World Series.

 

As part of the plea documents, prosecutors said Staffer F tried to help insert spending measures and add other amendments to legislation for Boulanger’s clients. Later, the staffer asked Boulanger if he could "score some hockey tickets," and Boulanger got him front-row seats.

 

Boulanger later got the staffer box tickets to see the Baltimore Orioles, but he wanted more.

 

"Could you make sure there’s beer this time," he wrote in an e-mail. I "mean, the red sox, crab cakes, and fillet mignon’s were nice but ... haha."

 

Link

[StrangeSox]

Another Obama nominee has tax issues (well, her husband):

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/0...ml?hpid=topnews

Solis Senate Session Postponed in Wake of Husband's Tax Lien Revelations

 

Updated 3:30 p.m.

By Michael A. Fletcher

A Senate committee today abruptly canceled a session to consider President Obama's nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis to be labor secretary in the wake of a report saying that her husband yesterday paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his business -- including liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years.

 

The report, by USA Today, came just before the Senate's Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee was slated to meet to consider Solis's nomination, which had been delayed by questions over her role on the board of the pro-labor organization American Rights at Work. A source said that committee members did not learn about the tax issue until today.

 

"Today's executive session was postponed to allow members additional time to review the documentation submitted in support of Representative Solis's nomination to serve in the important position of Labor Secretary," read a joint statement issued by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the panel's chairman, and Mike Enzi (Wyoming), the committee's ranking Republican. "There are no holds on her nomination and members on both sides of the aisle remain committed to giving her nomination the fair and thorough consideration that she deserves. We will continue to work together to move this nomination forward as soon as possible."

 

No new date has been set for the hearing. The disclosure about Solis's husband comes after tax problems caused trouble for three of Obama's top appointees, leading two of them -- HHS-nominee Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer, who was to be chief performance officer -- to withdraw.

 

Asked about the USA Today report at the White House daily briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs emphasized that the nominee's tax returns are in order.

 

"Well, I read the story in USA Today, and it quotes somebody that works here, so obviously we've -- we know about this story. I'll say this. We reviewed her tax returns, and her tax returns are in order," said Gibbs.

 

"The story denotes that her husband had some issues with paying a business tax, and obviously that tax is -- should be paid. He's -- she's not a partner in that business, Gibbs continued. "So we're not going to penalize her for her husband's business mistakes. Obviously, her husband, I think, has and should pay any taxes that he owes. "

[NorthSideSox72]

So, when does this go beyond just how bad the Obama vetting is (which it has been), and start worrying people that maybe there is just a large percentage of people out there who are avoiding taxes?

 

[Texsox]

So, when does this go beyond just how bad the Obama vetting is (which it has been), and start worrying people that maybe there is just a large percentage of people out there who are avoiding taxes?

 

I'm wondering what, if any, restrictions on personal privacy come into play when people are being vetted. It would seem like none. I believe they they could, and should, give investigators free access to everything.

 

Taxes are a touchy issue. Like I've said before, I've had my share of struggles with the IRS and truly, you talk to three people at the IRS and you will get three different opinions. I understand that some people do cheat, and they should be punished. But when you have returns with may more than just W2s, life gets complicated.

 

I've always been in favor of not considering spouses, kids, close friends, legal and tax issues when discussing someone.

[jasonxctf]

I've defended every President when facts come out about cabinet picks that derail a nominee. I hold the person being nominated to a higher standard than the person doing the nominating. Sadly, party loyalists strive to make each of these an indictment on our President. It seems unfair to me to hold the person who is least involved in fact finding, to a higher standard than the person being nominated. Nannygate is a couple decades old, anyone being interviewed should be expected to know if they paid taxes on their domestic help.

 

 

the moment you hold politicians, actors, athletes, etc to a higher standard than the normal person is the moment you get dissapointed.

[Texsox]

the moment you hold politicians, actors, athletes, etc to a higher standard than the normal person is the moment you get dissapointed.

 

Phrased a different way. I hold the person being vetted to a higher standard than the investigator that has to prove what are lies and what are not. The nominee knows the truth. We should expect them to be truthful. That should be easier to expect than expect someone else to spot all the lies.

[mr_genius]

So, when does this go beyond just how bad the Obama vetting is (which it has been), and start worrying people that maybe there is just a large percentage of people out there who are avoiding taxes?

 

This is not normal for appointments or people in general from what I can tell. Obama just didn't vet anyone, and think back to all the ramblings about how McCain didn't vet Palin (teehee). Wealthy Democrats love to raises everyone elses taxes, but they feel they are the 'enlightened elite' therefore the rules do not apply to them.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is not normal for appointments or people in general from what I can tell. Obama just didn't vet anyone, and think back to all the ramblings about how McCain didn't vet Palin (teehee). Wealthy Democrats love to raises everyone elses taxes, but they feel they are the 'enlightened elite' therefore the rules do not apply to them.

Your last sentence is more accurately replied to "wealthy PEOPLE".

 

I think Obama's team vetted, but I think someone decided that these "little" issues would not be a big deal. They were very clearly wrong. And that falls on Obama's lap - he put his name on these nominations. He screwed up.

 

 

[Texsox]

This is not normal for appointments or people in general from what I can tell. Obama just didn't vet anyone, and think back to all the ramblings about how McCain didn't vet Palin (teehee). Wealthy Democrats love to raises everyone elses taxes, but they feel they are the 'enlightened elite' therefore the rules do not apply to them.

 

Yep. Democrats want to actually pay for what services the government provides. Republicans want to borrow the money today in hopes that down the road we will pay back the deficit (and the interest).

[lostfan]

Yep. Democrats want to actually pay for what services the government provides. Republicans want to borrow the money today in hopes that down the road we will pay back the deficit (and the interest).

Socialist!

[southsider2k5]

Yep. Democrats want to actually pay for what services the government provides. Republicans want to borrow the money today in hopes that down the road we will pay back the deficit (and the interest).

 

I got $900 billion that saids that isn't true.

[Texsox]

I got $900 billion that saids that isn't true.

 

I have thirty years of GOP backed tax cuts while running deficits. They want to cut income, but never cut expenses. The Dems answer is always increase income (taxes). I'm waiting for someone that will cut taxes and spending. But that ain't going to happen.

[NorthSideSox72]

I got $900 billion that saids that isn't true.

That $900B should tell you, just like TARP did, that neither party wants to hold the title of fiscal responsibility. Even the rejecting GOP folks against this stimulus aren't talking about no stimulus - they just want tax cuts instead of spending. Either one puts us in a bigger hole.

 

[lostfan]

I got $900 billion that saids that isn't true.

That's the exception though, not the norm. I'm not a fan of big federal budgets and higher taxes, but I prefer that over a deficit and I think it's pretty clear the Democrats are more mindful of the deficit than the Republicans are (no matter how much lip service they pay to it, Republican actions are consistent and well-documented).

[southsider2k5]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/02/the-...y-on-lobbyists/

 

The world has noticed the Obama hypocrisy on lobbyists

posted at 1:15 pm on February 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

 

Too bad the American media hasn’t kept as close an eye on Barack Obama and his promises to clean up government as the Times of India has. Noting that Obama has already issues 17 exceptions to his no-lobbyist rules in the first two weeks of his inauguration, they wonder how it could worse:

 

It is easy to project yourself as a clean politician after making your debut in South Side Chicago with buddies like Rahm Emanuel. US president Obama has appointed more than 17 lobbyists after talking big on anti-lobbyist Governance and rooting corruption out of the American Government.

 

Dreams are dreams. Facts are facts. President Obama is surrounded by corrupt lobbyists ready to sell America cheap. …

 

Take the example of the newest exposure of doubletalk from Obama! After calling for clean Governance, he appoints a Treasury Secretary who “forgot” to pay for his ‘business tax’ for years! Tom Daschle, a top lobbyist in Washington, who has amended his U.S. tax forms to pay back taxes with interest, is now Obama’s best choice for America’s chief health official. …

 

Would you believe, Obama had to issue 17 waivers on his own rule in less than two weeks for allowing lobbyist enter his Administration and control Governance of America!

 

Well, that’s Hope and ChangeTM, isn’t it? When anyone has to issue more than a waiver a day on any standard, it ceases being a standard and becomes a joke. The no-lobbyist rule has become just that — an ironic joke on all of the saps who fell for Obama’s populist pap over the last two years.

 

Why do we have to go to the Times of India to hear how many exceptions to this rule Obama has invoked? If the Bush administration had publicly imposed such a restriction on itself and then quietly ignored it, we’d hear endless editorials about Bush’s hypocrisy and the influence of the rich and powerful on his administration. We heard exactly that when Dick Cheney assembled a group of advisors, without government positions or enforcement authority, to help him build an energy policy during the first term. Some watchdog groups went to court to force Cheney to reveal their names so that they could make that exact point.

 

But Obama appointing lobbyist after lobbyist to government positions, with enforcement power, despite his promise not to do that at all? Crickets chirp among the American media. I guess they’ve outsourced their Truth-to-Power divisions to India.

[bmags]

I love when people act like the american media isn't covering something just because 24 hours news channels aren't covering something. They think the f***ing times of india broke this story. God, I hate people.

[bmags]

Jesus, the more I read of that, it looks like something Cubano would write. Get us more gems, please, ss2k5.