Death (of two nominations) and taxes

LIKE MOST Americans, the only time we've ridden in a chauffeured limousine was at a funeral. So we might not fully understand how easy it was for Tom Daschle to overlook the need to pay $128,000 in taxes on a car and driver supplied to him by a wealthy patron.

But we very clearly understand why, once the "oversight" became a "distraction," Daschle had to withdraw from his nomination to be secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as the White House point person on health-care reform.

What we can't fathom is why, given President Obama's stern call to an era of shared responsibility, Daschle wasn't pressured to get out as soon as he revealed his problem to the White House transition team - many weeks after his nomination. Or why he didn't bow out when Obama's nominee for Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, turned out to have stiffed the country for $48,000 in taxes, stirring up an unpleasant controversy.

Even then, we suspect that the Senate "club," of which ex-Sen. Daschle is an honored alumnus, would have pushed through his nomination anyway. But then a third nominee, Nancy Killefer - proposed by Obama to be the first-ever performance officer for the federal government - withdrew yesterday because of the "distraction" to the president's "urgent agenda" posed by a $946.69 tax lien imposed by the D.C. government for failure to pay unemployment tax for a household employee. So the embarrassing headlines may provide what a liberal pundit suggested could be a "teachable moment." The lesson: If President Obama truly wants to inspire Americans to join in a "common purpose," then he can't nominate people who see a failure to report income and pay taxes as just a "distraction." One essential qualification for high public office is, or ought to be, following the same rules as the "common man" - or woman.

As for Daschle, his tax problem highlighted a graver concern: How he happened to be the recipient of a car and driver, part of $5.2 million in income, from firms that advise businesses with high stakes in government-policy decisions, including health care.

And, again, like most Americans, we haven't gotten tons of money for advising an industry that we might have to regulate, so we might not fully understand how the new administration could believe it would be easy for Daschle to avoid conflicts of interest. Or why it was OK for Daschle to do the same kind of work as a lobbyist as long as he didn't call himself one. That would've disqualified him from working in the administration - unless, of course, he got a waiver like a defense lobbyist got to work at the Pentagon. Now, though, it's time to "move forward," as President Obama said yesterday. We hope that means that he now understands how this and other apparent lapses in the rigorous ethical standards he promised are becoming - yes - a "distraction" from his urgent agenda. *