2.04.2009

Good Ol' Days: Here to Stay?

I complained the other day. But President Obama just got even more awesome by making Daschle leave town. I almost think he nominated him just so he could embarrass him publically -- as if to make it completely, utterly clear to baby boomers that their number is up. Despite the fact that some news sources are calling this a "heavy blow" for the new administration, it earns Obama & Co. a get-out-of-doghouse free card with me. Feel free to remind me about that next time I get all nasty-critical.

4 comments:

fenhopper said...

so you're liking that he said "i screwed up"?

i think it's ok. and it's good that even a $900 gap in back taxes can disqualify a nominee.

but i'm wary of getting all giddy about statements and appearances. let's see that the eventual appointments actually do some good.

EnthyAlias said...

Not to get nasty critical or split hairs, but what about appointing a tax-evader as Secretary of the Treasury?

Sure Geithner didn't owe back taxes of the scale that Daschle does, but still. I'm more troubled by a Treasury Secretary who "made a mistake" about his taxes than I am about Daschle's free rides, especially given the economic climate.

I gues just I'm dismayed that three of Obama's nominees (don't forget Nancy Killefer) have histories of problems paying their taxes, if only because it doesn't speak highly of his cabinet's vetting system.

FYI: Check this out on Daschle, courtesy of The Daily Show.

Casey said...

Fen--I have a lot less hope about "doing some good" than you do, I think. I'm just pleased to see my gov't doing less evil. It would be interesting to define, sort of quantitatively, what you mean by "do some good." That is: what are you requiring of this administration?

Enth--I was trying not to think about Geithner. That's a horrible choice, but I feel like I have to be very forgiving or else people will accuse me of being "conservative"--as if my haircut alone doesn't give it away.

But honestly: I'd rather see Snoop Dogg appointed Treasury Secretary than Geithner. Seriously. I. Would. Rather. See. Snoop.

fenhopper said...

well i think you read too much faith into my comment. when i see 'let's see' i really mean that i will hold it against this administration if it's slick but weak.

will warrantless wiretapping continue? will don't-ask-don't-tell really be thrown out? will diplomacy become human again?

measuring the good done is pretty easy because i'm not talking about some platonically defined goodness of policy or behaviour. i'm not talking about an administration whose goodness i would argue is provable. i simply mean an administration that i like.

and even if my evangelical aunt thinks they have done evil (and uses a valid interpretation of the bible to prove it) and even if my nationalist colleague thinks it has foolishly weakened the borders (and uses immigration and crime statistics to prove it) i will consider it good if i like the philosophies i see in action. gay marriage. habeas corpus. anti-trust enforcement. charter schools. planned parenthood funding. immigration amnesty. head-start programs. these would all be indications of that shared philosophy. of course not proof tho.

re: geithner. i'm not troubled by his appointment because it's a fair claim that the tax code he misunderstood regarding overseas claims and deductions was changed in a way that eluded him. it confused a lot of people. plenty of CPAs signed off on tax forms that interpreted the code differently from how it was intended.