TOM DASCHLE: THE CREDIBILITY PROBLEM.

As the post below indicates, I'm not convinced that Tom Daschle's future is substantially imperiled by his shoddy tax returns. Nor am I convinced that it should be. Few actually believe that Daschle meant to cheat the government out of a $100,000 in tax revenue at the cost of his future political viability. His tax problems have little obvious bearing on the job he's being considered for. The same cannot be said for the money he's earned giving speeches to the health care industry.Over the past two years, Daschle has made more than $220,000 giving speeches to health care stakeholders. This includes $40,000 for two speeches to America's Health Insurance Plans, $30,000 for a speech to CSL Behring, $16,000 to the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, $15,000 from a talk at the Principal Life Insurance Co. given policy advice to United Health, and much more. These are payments from the parties with a direct interest in the eventual shape of health reform. Responding to my query, Jennifer Backus, Daschle's spokeswoman, e-mailed:

Tom Daschle is one of the strongest advocates for health reform in this country. He has literally written a book on the topic and has been out there leading the fight for reform and making the case for change. He has done that as a Senator and a Congressman, he has done that as a fellow at the Center for American Progress, he has done that as a professor as Georgetown and he has done that in speeches. Some of his speeches are paid – some of his speeches are free –but his message is the same – we need to reform health care in this country. His commitment to bringing down costs and providing access to all Americans is clear.

That's all true. Daschle is not an opaque nominee. He has, as Backus says, written a book on health care and given endless public and private talks on the subject. He is solidly within the Democratic consensus on health reform. Nothing in his book, or even in his speeches, conflicts with Obama's positions, except where Daschle is actually more liberal. As someone who has read Daschle's book, watched his speeches, interviewed him, I trust his sincerity. I trust that the guy who spends his weekends reading Health Affairs isn't in this for speaking fees. But Daschle can't rely on every American reading his book and picking through his testimony. He needs prima facie credibility. And Daschle is less credible today than he was a week ago.It will be harder for him to tell single payer advocates that he neutrally considered their views on the worth of the private insurance industry given that AHIP put $40,000 in his pocket. So too with those concerned by the medical device industry. Indeed, the Washington Post reports that "the Health Industry Distributors Association, a trade association representing medical product distributors, wrote to Daschle last week to express concerns about proposed Medicare changes and reminded him of the $14,000 speech he delivered at its conference last year." It may not be the case that these groups actually succeeded in buying sympathy when they paid Daschle to speak. But it was certainly their intent.These speeches will not pose a threat to Daschle's nomination. They are par for the course in Washington. As Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, says, "Daschle is the quintessential Washington story. You leave a powerful position, and you leverage it to make a fortune." Daschle is not the only one of Obama's nominees and advisers who has made money giving speeches to the very groups he must regulate. This corrupt bargain is so constant that the Senate has little interest in embarrassing anyone over it. But it is a corrupt bargain. And it's unnecessary. Daschle's wife is a lobbyist. He was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and served as on the board of directors and as a consultant for multiple major companies including BP and InterMedia. The Daschles own three houses, including a DC residence valued at nearly $3 million. The speech income was piddling amidst this wealth. It was unnecessary. Which makes it all the more galling: This type of exchange is so common that even though he didn't need the money, Daschle didn't see a reason to refuse the check and just take expenses. No one even worries that these optics are damaging anymore.The tax problems appear to be a legitimate mistake. This, however, is reflective of a systemic disease in Washington. It is unlikely to imperil Daschle's nomination. But it will impede his work and damage his credibility among those who disagree with his decisions and can now judge them motivated by profit rather than evidence. This is why people don't trust the government. And it needs to stop. Indeed, the one question I'd like to hear Daschle answer at his hearing on all this is the simplest one: Why? Why, when AHIP offered $40,000 for two speeches, did he say "yes?" As his spokesperson said, he was writing books on these issues and speaking out and working Congress. He knew he wanted to be a public voice on these issues. That should have made him more careful about industry money, not less. Why trade even an iota of public credibility for such a small payoff?