Exeunt Daschle

The Senator has removed his name from consideration for Secretary of HHS.

I find this a little surprising, in that Daschle is far better connected than Geithner, and overlooking an "imputed income" item like a car and driver is more understandable to than signing a document saying "these funds are for my payroll tax" and then not paying the tax. But the argument for the urgency of a Treasury Secretary, and Geithner's unique familiarity with the present crisis, wasn't there for Daschle at HHS. And the Times was displeased with Daschle's work on behalf of the various health care interests he would regulate.

The conservative blogs are beating up for Obama lax standards, but I don't think this is quite right. The problem isn't guys like Daschle, but Obama's pious promise that his Administration would be different. It is just a fact that you need knowledgeable people to run government, and those people generally use that knowledge to make money. I don't think Obama understood the complexities of "reforming" the lobbyist/government relationship.

The larger problem is the presumption that these conflicts of interest can be managed. They can't. Tom Dachle had a long career building up the welfare state, and then he made considerable money explaining it and navigating it. The temptations for any one holding office, and their implications, are obvious. But the problem can't be "managed" by regulation. If you really believe career paths like Daschle's corrupt the formation of policy, you have to curb the size of govermnet to limit the value of government expertise to remove the temptations.

Power always corrupts. If you want less corruption, you need either more checks, or less power. If you can't have checks, then you have only one option.