Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer have followed Bill Richardson's example and withdrawn their names as appointees to high positions in the Obama administration because they did not pay their taxes. Timothy Geithner did not pay his taxes eithre but refused to withdraw and was confirmed as Secreatry of the Treasury. As such he will head the IRS and make sure that you pay your taxes. Al Franken did not pay his taxes but may nevertheless be elected (sort of) to the Senate, and Charley Rangel still serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that writes tax law, even though he didn't pay his taxes either.
Yes, yes. Republicans can be corrupt, too, but here's the point. If these were Republican congressmen or appointees of a Republican president, would there not be serious questions raised, not only about the appointees, but also about that president's competence or his integrity? When is the media going to start to wonder out loud about the connection between these very flawed nominees and the man who is selecting them? Or do the President and his appointees, as well as the tax evading pols, get a pass because they're all liberal Democrats?
Up till now the media has been critical of the appointments, to be sure, and they've even criticized the vetting process which failed to catch the troublesome behavior, but they've been reluctant to take the final step, a step they would've eagerly taken were the President George Bush.
If the media and others are going to overlook the implications of so many ethically challenged selections, if they're going to ignore the fact that the people who will be crafting and voting on legislation that determines how much we have to pay in taxes have themselves dodged paying their own taxes, then how seriously can we take them when they claim to criticize Republicans on the basis of principles and standards that only seem to apply to Republicans?
RLC
