A lot of you seem to think that something changed when Obie took office--it didn't. As a friend once said to me, "Europeans like to be lied to. That's why we loved Clinton and hated Bush. Clinton lied to us like our own politicians always have, and Bush didn't pull any punches." The "stimulus package" is nothing more than another status quo spending bill promoting ever larger gov't and an ever-increasing total tax burden. In other words: The Status Quo is dead, long live the Status Quo

From the Wall Street Journal
January 28, 2009

A 40-Year Wish List
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."



Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

boring, taxes are bad only if they are not used to help citizens life

boring, taxes are bad only if they are not used to help citizens life

Such as the government waste found in this bill? Plus it is money we do not even have.

$4.2 bn for SSI, Must be a one time amount, As SSI already spends about $1.9 bn a month now on just the Disabled. My local representatives office doesn't know any details yet and said I'd have to call back on Friday and talk to a guy name Lew. :D

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

If you want status quo, look at the stimulus bill:

"The new kind of politics of hope. Eight hours of debate in the House of Representatives to pass a bill spending $820 billion -- or roughly $102 billion per hour of debate. Only 10 percent of the 'stimulus' [is] to be spent on 2009. Close to half goes to entities that sponsor or employ (or both) members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions or other Democrat-controlled unions. This bill is sent to Congress after President Obama has been in office for seven days. It is 680 pages long. According to my calculations, not one member of Congress read the entire bill before this vote. Obviously, it would have been impossible, given his schedule, for the president to have read the whole thing. For the amount spent, we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000. We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000. There has been pork-barrel politics since there has been politics, but the scale of this pork is beyond what had ever been imagined before -- and no one can be sure it will actually do much stimulation. ... This is more than pork-barrel -- this is a coup for the constituencies of the party in power and against the idea of a responsible government itself. A bleak day. Unfortunately, it is only the latest in a long series of such days stretching across decades of rule by both parties, to the point where truly responsible government is only a distant echo of our forgotten ancestors." --writer, actor, economist and lawyer Ben Stein

---

Please note the source of RUSH's info and then take your grain of salt with it.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Please note the source of RUSH's info and then take your grain of salt with it.

Yeah, the Wall Street Journal.

You, of course, could look at the text of the bill and point out where the Wall Street Journal dropped the ball.

You could say, no there isn't $1 billion for Amtrak, nor $2 billion for child-care, nor $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, nor $400 million for global-warming research, nor $2.4 billion for carbon-capture, nor $650 million for digital TV conversion coupons.

You could say, no, they're wrong, spending for such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) doesn't have a low or negative return on investment and DOES create jobs and stimulus.

You could say, no, Congress doesn't want to spend another $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars even though it Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Or, no, Congress doesn't want to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and no, Congress doesn't want to give The Smithsonian $150 million.

But no, you didn't make these points at all. Why? Because you can't. They are in the bill. And they are not job creation programs, they are not stimulus programs, not that the gov't can do either of those things. It's like an allergic man has been stung by a bee, and in order to save him, you draw blood from his leg in order to inject it into his arm and thus "stimulate his immune system." That's what the gov't is doing, and it's just more idiocy.

You may not like the WSJ, and that's fine, but you have to show that they're wrong, not just note that you think there should be a grain of salt.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Please note the source of RUSH's info and then take your grain of salt with it.

Yeah, the Wall Street Journal.

You, of course, could look at the text of the bill and point out where the Wall Street Journal dropped the ball.

You could say, no there isn't $1 billion for Amtrak, nor $2 billion for child-care, nor $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, nor $400 million for global-warming research, nor $2.4 billion for carbon-capture, nor $650 million for digital TV conversion coupons.

You could say, no, they're wrong, spending for such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) doesn't have a low or negative return on investment and DOES create jobs and stimulus.

You could say, no, Congress doesn't want to spend another $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars even though it Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Or, no, Congress doesn't want to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and no, Congress doesn't want to give The Smithsonian $150 million.

But no, you didn't make these points at all. Why? Because you can't. They are in the bill. And they are not job creation programs, they are not stimulus programs, not that the gov't can do either of those things. It's like an allergic man has been stung by a bee, and in order to save him, you draw blood from his leg in order to inject it into his arm and thus "stimulate his immune system." That's what the gov't is doing, and it's just more idiocy.

You may not like the WSJ, and that's fine, but you have to show that they're wrong, not just note that you think there should be a grain of salt.

Source: House and Senate Budget Commitee Minority.

Its always good to read what you post. Regardless its pretty clear the so called conservatives in Washingon have an ax to grind.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Source: House and Senate Budget Commitee Minority.

Its always good to read what you post.

Ummmm, I don't understand you. Here, I'll try again:

Source: the Wall Street Journal AND the House and Senate Budget Committee Minority.

You, of course, could look at the text of the bill and point out where the Wall Street Journal dropped the ball.

You could say, no there isn't $1 billion for Amtrak, nor $2 billion for child-care, nor $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, nor $400 million for global-warming research, nor $2.4 billion for carbon-capture, nor $650 million for digital TV conversion coupons.

You could say, no, they're wrong, spending for such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) doesn't have a low or negative return on investment and DOES create jobs and stimulus.

You could say, no, Congress doesn't want to spend another $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars even though it Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Or, no, Congress doesn't want to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and no, Congress doesn't want to give The Smithsonian $150 million.

But no, you didn't make these points at all. Why? Because you can't. They are in the bill. And they are not job creation programs, they are not stimulus programs, not that the gov't can do either of those things. It's like an allergic man has been stung by a bee, and in order to save him, you draw blood from his leg in order to inject it into his arm and thus "stimulate his immune system." That's what the gov't is doing, and it's just more idiocy.

You may not like the WSJ, and that's fine, but you have to show that they're wrong, not just note that you think there should be a grain of salt.

Regardless its pretty clear the so called conservatives in Washingon have an ax to grind.

That really has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of the article. Those things ARE in the bill. Those things are NOT job creation miracle workers. You cannot stimulate an allergic man's immune system by taking blood from his leg and injecting into his arm, which is EXACTLY what the gov't is doing.

The gov't cannot tax and regulate the country into prosperity. It never could.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Source: House and Senate Budget Commitee Minority.

Its always good to read what you post.

Ummmm, I don't understand you. Here, I'll try again:

Source: the Wall Street Journal AND the House and Senate Budget Committee Minority.

You, of course, could look at the text of the bill and point out where the Wall Street Journal dropped the ball.

You could say, no there isn't $1 billion for Amtrak, nor $2 billion for child-care, nor $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, nor $400 million for global-warming research, nor $2.4 billion for carbon-capture, nor $650 million for digital TV conversion coupons.

You could say, no, they're wrong, spending for such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) doesn't have a low or negative return on investment and DOES create jobs and stimulus.

You could say, no, Congress doesn't want to spend another $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars even though it Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Or, no, Congress doesn't want to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and no, Congress doesn't want to give The Smithsonian $150 million.

But no, you didn't make these points at all. Why? Because you can't. They are in the bill. And they are not job creation programs, they are not stimulus programs, not that the gov't can do either of those things. It's like an allergic man has been stung by a bee, and in order to save him, you draw blood from his leg in order to inject it into his arm and thus "stimulate his immune system." That's what the gov't is doing, and it's just more idiocy.

You may not like the WSJ, and that's fine, but you have to show that they're wrong, not just note that you think there should be a grain of salt.

Regardless its pretty clear the so called conservatives in Washingon have an ax to grind.

That really has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of the article. Those things ARE in the bill. Those things are NOT job creation miracle workers. You cannot stimulate an allergic man's immune system by taking blood from his leg and injecting into his arm, which is EXACTLY what the gov't is doing.

The gov't cannot tax and regulate the country into prosperity. It never could.

look at the bottom of the addendum you attached to your original post. The only people responsible for the list are the republicans in Congress

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The only people responsible for the list are the republicans in Congress

And guess who are the only people responsible for all of the pork barrel, wastefull and useless spending in the stimulus bill? Republicans? Guess again... We need a stimulus bill, but not the one floating around congress. Even Obama stated that some of the spending should be cut from the bill. We'll see if that actually happens.

Do you defend the spending found in this bill? Besides the tax cuts?

The only people responsible for the list are the republicans in Congress

And guess who are the only people responsible for all of the pork barrel, wastefull and useless spending in the stimulus bill? Republicans? Guess again... We need a stimulus bill, but not the one floating around congress. Even Obama stated that some of the spending should be cut from the bill. We'll see if that actually happens.

Do you defend the spending found in this bill? Besides the tax cuts?

OK you want pork lets look at the last 3 republican Presidents and their spending. We are currently in a recession. What was W's excuse for handing out $600 check when we needed to pay down the national debt? It was our money? well we owed over $5 trillion you'd think We'd benefit from paying down our own debt that way we could fight 2 wars and spend and another $6 trillion on crap and buy oout fanny and freddie for another $11 trillion. lets not forget bailing out Finacial institutions without any oversite. or those corporations handing out big fat bonuses as they fail. Seems that an $800 billion stimulus package is minor in comparison. This isnt a bail out its stimulus. Guess what happens when people work? THey pay taxes. So the reality of this package is is that the Fed and states are only paying out about 65-70% of the money if not more is coming back to it in taxes. This is pretty much what Roosevelt did. He knew that the money was well spent and that at least part of it would come directly back to the gov't.

The worst thing that could happen is we spent another $800 billion. The hope is to get people working and paying taxes as well as businesses to start hiring.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Regardless its pretty clear the so called conservatives in Washingon have an ax to grind.

That really has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of the article. Those things ARE in the bill. Those things are NOT job creation miracle workers. You cannot stimulate an allergic man's immune system by taking blood from his leg and injecting into his arm, which is EXACTLY what the gov't is doing.

The gov't cannot tax and regulate the country into prosperity. It never could.

look at the bottom of the addendum you attached to your original post. The only people responsible for the list are the republicans in Congress

Ummmm, are you making the claim that those things, as reported by the WSJ are not in the bill?

Seriously??

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

OK you want pork lets look at the last 3 republican Presidents and their spending.

I have to admit, I did laugh out loud at this post.

If you want pork, let's look at every single President and their spending. They all do it. They all lie to you. They always have. Which brings us back to the title of this thread and the bill in question: the Status Quo is alive and well. Obie is just another Washington insider that will do whatever the hell he pleases, lie to you about it, and you'll eat it up and ask for more.

We are currently in a recession. What was W's excuse for handing out $600 check when we needed to pay down the national debt? It was our money? well we owed over $5 trillion you'd think We'd benefit from paying down our own debt that way we could fight 2 wars and spend and another $6 trillion on crap and buy oout fanny and freddie for another $11 trillion. lets not forget bailing out Finacial institutions without any oversite. or those corporations handing out big fat bonuses as they fail. Seems that an $800 billion stimulus package is minor in comparison.

This is what gov't does. Create a massive mess and then creates even more mess in trying to fix the mess it created. Which eventually creates another massive mess and the cycle continues.

This isnt a bail out its stimulus. Guess what happens when people work? THey pay taxes. So the reality of this package is is that the Fed and states are only paying out about 65-70% of the money if not more is coming back to it in taxes. This is pretty much what Roosevelt did. He knew that the money was well spent and that at least part of it would come directly back to the gov't.

Except, well, it ISN'T stimulus. Like I said, these are not job creation programs, these are not stimulus programs, and the gov't can't do either of those things. It's like an allergic man has been stung by a bee, and in order to save him, you draw blood from his leg in order to inject it into his arm and thus "stimulate his immune system." That's what the gov't is doing, and it's just more idiocy.

The worst thing that could happen is we spent another $800 billion. The hope is to get people working and paying taxes as well as businesses to start hiring.

Right. You take $1.3 trillion or so from people, out of their lives, their homes, their labor, their mouths, their business, out of their hides. Then, you waste a bunch on bureaucracy, regulation, enforcement, ineptitude and $500 dollar hammers. Then you give them $800 billion of their own money back, and tell them that that's a stimulus. That doesn't get people working and paying taxes or businesses to start hiring.

It's just a waste of time, effort, and money, and the net result is that the economy ends up being worse than it was.

Smart plan.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

The only people responsible for the list are the republicans in Congress

And guess who are the only people responsible for all of the pork barrel, wastefull and useless spending in the stimulus bill? Republicans? Guess again... We need a stimulus bill, but not the one floating around congress. Even Obama stated that some of the spending should be cut from the bill. We'll see if that actually happens.

Do you defend the spending found in this bill? Besides the tax cuts?

OK you want pork lets look at the last 3 republican Presidents and their spending.

Just because Republicans made mistakes does not mean we need to continue to make those same mistakes. Besides, giving the american people a tax break is much better than spending money on useless government programs that do nothing to create wealth or jobs. Growing government is not a solution to our problems.

Rush, I have to ask because now I am curious:

Is there any place on this planet where you think you can live and be happy with the system that works there? Or do you have to go somewhere outside the planet to find a place, where you can live by your own rules and be happy with that? Wouldn't there be pretty lonely for you to live, that place where only your rules apply, because others would not want to be there with you, living under only your terms and rules? Has it occured to you that what makes you happy is not what makes others happy? Or is it so that you are quite happy living where you do so you have a reason to rant about it, that it's the ranting that makes your life worth living?

I'm just curious.

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Rush, I have to ask because now I am curious:

Is there any place on this planet where you think you can live and be happy with the system that works there?

Hong Kong comes to mind, or any number of the various tax havens. They come closer than most.

Or do you have to go somewhere outside the planet to find a place, where you can live by your own rules and be happy with that? Wouldn't there be pretty lonely for you to live, that place where only your rules apply, because others would not want to be there with you, living under only your terms and rules?

They don't have to live under my terms and rules. They can do as they wish, whenever they wish, with whoever they wish to. They can live as communists if they wish. They can live as socialists if they wish. They can form unions if they wish. They simply cannot initiate any type of force or fraud against other people.

Has it occured to you that what makes you happy is not what makes others happy?

Sure, that's why I would never, ever, use force to make them live as I think they should. They can live as happily as they wish without any regard to what I or anyone else thinks.

Or is it so that you are quite happy living where you do so you have a reason to rant about it, that it's the ranting that makes your life worth living?

This is just stupidity.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

We "The People", need government.

One man's democracy, is another man's "Tyranny".

See, this is a perfect example of "why, 'cuz you sez so," because he made unfounded conclusions of fact without any reasoning to back it up. It's just his statement of conclusion about the world around him.

Conversely, had he said, "I think we the people need gov't," and you called him out on it, "cuz he sez so," is perfectly OK because he is referring to what he thinks. Since he is the sole and final arbiter of what he thinks and feels, cuz he sez so is sufficient.

This stuff really isn't that hard, I don't see why some of you struggle so much with it.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

[quote]Rush, I have to ask because now I am curious:

Is there any place on this planet where you think you can live and be happy with the system that works there?

Hong Kong comes to mind, or any number of the various tax havens. They come closer than most.

do not move there, they live quite happily there, why spoil everything.

What!!?? Obie filled the people's heads with empty rhetoric?? Say it isn't so!!

Long live the status quo, surprise, surprise, surprise.

From the NYT:

February 3, 2009
Obama’s Pledge to Reform Ethics Faces an Early Test
By PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — During almost two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher in what he would later call in his Inaugural Address a “new era of responsibility.” What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.

The exceptions that went unmentioned now include a pair of cabinet nominees who did not pay all of their taxes. Then there is the lobbyist for a military contractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industry even if not formally registered as lobbyists.

President Obama said Monday that he was “absolutely” standing behind former Senator Tom Daschle, his nominee for health and human services secretary, and Mr. Daschle, who met late in the day with leading senators in an effort to keep his confirmation on track, said he had “no excuse” and wanted to “deeply apologize” for his failure to pay $128,000 in federal taxes.

But the episode has already shown how, when faced with the perennial clash between campaign rhetoric and Washington reality, Mr. Obama has proved willing to compromise.

Every four or eight years a new president arrives in town, declares his determination to cleanse a dirty process and invariably winds up trying to reconcile the clear ideals of electioneering with the muddy business of governing. Mr. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.

“This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual.”

And so in these opening days of the administration, the Obama team finds itself being criticized by bloggers on the left and the right, mocked by television comics and questioned by reporters about whether Mr. Obama is really changing the way Washington works or just changing which political party works it.

Some Republicans saw a double standard. “What would it be like if Hank Paulson had come in without paying his taxes, or any other member of the cabinet?” asked Terry Nelson, a political strategist who worked for President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, referring to Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary. “It would be roundly attacked and roundly criticized.”

Several Democrats, including some who have advised Mr. Obama, said privately that he had only himself to blame for delivering such an uncompromising message as a candidate without recognizing how it would complicate his ability to assemble an administration.

In the campaign, Mr. Obama assailed Washington’s “entire culture” in which “our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.” He vowed to “close the revolving door” and “clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue” with “the most sweeping ethics reform in history.”

The language, however, was always more sweeping than the specifics. He spoke of refusing campaign money from lobbyists but took it from the people who hired them. The ethics plan he outlined, and eventually imposed on his administration, did not ban all lobbyists outright but set conditions for their employment and did not cover many who were lobbyists in everything but name.

Mr. Daschle, for instance, is not a registered lobbyist, but he made a handsome living advising clients seeking influence with the government, including some in the health industry. Mr. Obama also gave himself the right to grant waivers in cases he deemed exceptional, most prominently to William J. Lynn III, an ex-Raytheon lobbyist he nominated as deputy defense secretary. Others were lobbyists more than two years ago, and therefore not covered by the Obama rules.

Some who worked as lobbyists have found places in the administration, including Mark Patterson, who represented Goldman Sachs and is now chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. William V. Corr, who lobbied for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, has been selected as deputy health and human services secretary.

Obama advisers said that the exceptions were minimal given the thousands to be hired and that appointees would be barred from work on issues they lobbied on in the last two years. The exceptions, they said, were needed for particular skills and experience.

Some advocates said the rules were still more significant than any previously imposed. “This is a direct attack on the culture of Washington and in an extremely powerful way,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an advocacy group.

As for Mr. Daschle and Mr. Geithner, who also failed to pay some taxes, White House officials said the errors should not obscure their records. Mr. Obama “believes that both Secretary Geithner and Secretary-Designate Daschle are the right people for very important jobs,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, “and he does not believe that that will undercut their ability to move forward on an agenda that makes sense for the American people.”

That argument has drawn sharp criticism from left and right. “Is this really the message he wants to convey to voters in just his first month in office, a message that it’s O.K. to break or skirt the law just as long as you’re a good guy with a special skill set?” asked Andy Ostroy, a blogger writing on The Huffington Post, a liberal Web site.

Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, a liberal magazine, said Mr. Obama should withdraw Mr. Daschle’s nomination to “revive the change brand he campaigned and won on.”

Mr. Obama is running into crosscurrents that bedeviled his predecessors. Jimmy Carter promised a new day in Washington after Watergate but still found top associates caught up in scandal. Bill Clinton promised “the most ethical administration in history” and then endured the most independent counsel investigations in history. Mr. Bush vowed a new era of responsibility only to be accused of selling out to energy and military industries.

Jody Powell, who was Mr. Carter’s press secretary and later founded a prominent lobbying firm, said it was better to establish lofty goals that might not be met than to not have any at all.

“If you set standards, you’re going to fall short on occasion and you’re going to have to compromise on occasion,” Mr. Powell said. “But you’re probably also going to get more done.”

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...