Discussion: (0 comments)
There are no comments available.
View related content: Legislature
Norman J. Ornstein
When Barack Obama talked about dramatic
changes in the way Washington, D.C., does business, and then proposed
sweeping changes in ethics and lobbying restrictions for his
appointees, it was clear that he would end up taking some serious flak.
First, his goal of changing the culture would inevitably conflict at
times with his goal of creating the best team of people, mixing new
blood and experience, to implement his policies and run his
administration. There would be top-flight people who shared his policy
goals and vision and who knew how to make government. But many of them
had served as lobbyists or at least had worked to influence government
on behalf of major interests, or had worked intimately with interests
that would be affected or harmed by the Obama policies; to exclude them
all from key positions would be at best counterproductive.
I have known Daschle since the
That is why I encouraged and then applauded a waiver provision in
special cases, even though I knew it would itself be a target for
journalists, some reformers and Obama’s political adversaries. And it
is why I focused far more on the tough exit provisions limiting
post-employment lobbying as the best way to change a culture where too
many people come into government seeing it as a springboard to future
Second, Obama’s pledge to transcend the culture of corruption that
had plagued Washington for a long time (not to mention Springfield,
Ill.) would have its own glitches, as inevitably nominees going through
the ultra-strenuous and thorough vetting process would uncover
problems–tax issues, nanny issues, personal issues–that would
conflict with the high standards set by the president. In most cases,
given the quality of people chosen by Obama from a huge pool of
high-quality people willing to serve, those problems would be minor in
the larger context–careless preparation of tax returns, ignorance
about tax liabilities, which only show up with a full scrubbing.
But these would be bigger in the context of confirmation hearings in
a highly charged political environment and with reporters eager to jump
at any hint of hypocrisy. And bigger still at a time of economic
turmoil when most Americans are hurting, when tales of people making
millions but having to explain “mistakes” in taxes that amount to more
than most families earn when they are working raise populist ire.
So perhaps it is inevitable there would be casualties, now including
Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer, nominated to be chief performance
officer, and of course Tom Daschle. The first draft of this column,
written Monday night, was a vigorous defense of Daschle. I have known
Daschle since the 1970s, when he was a staffer for South Dakota Sen.
Jim Abourezk (D). He is a truly nice guy, sensitive, honest, with high
moral character, self effacement and decency.
I thought none of the tax issues rose to the level of malevolence,
or an attempt to evade taxes or avoid the rules. I thought, given that
nearly all Senators who have known him agree with my assessment of his
character, and that most believe that he has a unique combination of
qualities to put together a major reform of our troubled health care
system, that he would be confirmed.
I am stunned and saddened at his withdrawal. I hope it does not lead
to a feeding frenzy that discourages other good and experienced people
from going through the meat grinder to serve. And I hope even more that
somehow Obama can find a person half as prepared in knowledge of our
political process, understanding of the health care system,
relationships with other key figures in the administration and
Congress, and with the full confidence of the president, to run the
behemoth Department of Health and Human Services and to manage through
the necessary reforms.
Now let me write about another Senator who gets and deserves the
respect and admiration of his colleagues and others: Dick Lugar
(R-Ind.). Last week, Lugar wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post
advocating a serious and meaningful gas tax hike–a position that is
viewed by most of his colleagues (and by the White House) as anathema,
not because it is wrongheaded but because it is politically unpopular.
Bill Clinton and Al Gore got battered when they proposed a significant
gas tax hike as part of their economic recovery plan in 1993. It has
been off limits ever since.
It is in fact a compelling idea, the best and simplest way by far to
reduce the amount of money we send to despots like Hugo Chávez,
Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that they recycle to undermine
our values and interests, and to reduce our addiction to fossil fuels
and encourage even more use of alternatives. We know it works: When
prices get higher than $3.75 a gallon, behavior changes significantly
in terms of car and truck purchases and driver behavior. When the price
comes down, we revert to unfortunate form.
Producing more oil is great, but it is only through changes on the
demand side that we achieve the true positive balance of policy
objectives. While Lugar’s article made reference to Charles
Krauthammer’s support for the idea, it is still relatively rare for a
conservative Republican to give vocal backing to the concept–in major
part because conservative Republicans hate to use the word “tax”
without the modifier “cut.”
To be sure, Lugar does not advocate a stand-alone gas tax hike; he
supports the concept of a revenue-neutral gas tax, perhaps using
Krauthammer’s formula of a dollar-for-dollar substitute of gas tax hike
with payroll tax reduction, or via another compensating tax cut, along
with some formula to make the burden of a gas tax fair for those who
have to travel great distances by car.
Good for Dick Lugar. Here is a suggestion: Next year, when the Bush
tax cuts are set to expire, is the perfect time to consider a truly
sweeping review of our tax system. Let’s set a reasonable revenue
level, given the commitments we have made as a society through
government, to prevent a deficit/debt disaster from engulfing our
children and grandchildren, and construct a tax system that provides
the most sensible route to get that revenue. Substituting a gas tax for
a solid slice of the payroll tax or for a good share of the income tax
would be a great place to start.
Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.
There are no comments available.
1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
© 2016 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research