A week after the election, all the rhetoric from the White House was sweetness and light. The president pledged cooperation and bipartisanship. On Nov. 15, Dan Froomkin asked the right: “Is Bush’s claim that he wants to work in a bipartisan manner a genuine change — or a ruse? Watch what he says — but even more so, what he does.”
Good idea. Remember what Cheney told Leahy to do in 2004? That’s what the president told the Senate to do yesterday.
President Bush, defying Senate Democrats, gave [tag]recess appointment[/tag]s yesterday to three controversial nominees, including, as ambassador to Belgium, Republican donor [tag]Sam Fox[/tag], who had contributed to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group whose ads helped doom Sen. John F. Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid.
Kerry (D-Mass.), who grilled Fox about his $50,000 contribution to the group during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February, had complained that Fox never disavowed his actions and that he should not be confirmed. “It’s sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate,” Kerry said in a statement yesterday.
Those of you with long memories may recall that President Clinton used a recess appointment to name philanthropist James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg. Was yesterday’s stunt the same thing. Not really — Hormel had majority support, but was denied a vote because Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) hates gay people. Fox, in contrast, did not have majority support, suggesting that Bush decided to ignore the whole notion of advise and consent.
What’s more, since Fox’s nomination was no longer before the Senate, the White House said Fox would serve as ambassador without pay. Except, as Mary Ann Akers explained, that’s probably illegal — “federal law prohibits ‘voluntary service’ in cases where the position in question has a fixed rate of pay, as an ambassadorship does.” In other words, the whole matter may be going to court.
But as offensive as the Fox stunt is, let’s also not overlook the other two recess appointments yesterday, which seem to be getting lost in the shuffle.
For example, the president appointed [tag]Andrew Biggs[/tag] to serve as the next deputy commissioner of Social Security, despite the fact that Biggs is an aggressive advocate of privatizing the Social Security system. His nomination in November was considered ridiculous by Senate Democrats, and with this recess appointment yesterday, Bush effectively announced that he no longer wants to even consider negotiations over reforming the system.
Ironically, in November, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pledged to try and “build a consensus” on Social Security. A few days later, Biggs’ nomination made it clear the president would rather play games than get anything done. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters yesterday, “Prospects for getting real Social Security reform anytime soon just took a big hit with this recess appointment.”
And then there’s [tag]Susan Dudley[/tag], whom Bush appointed to oversee federal regulatory policy at the Office of Management and Budget, despite her anti-regulatory career at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs holds sway over federal regulatory agencies like the EPA and helps set regulatory policy for a wide range of issues, from workplace safety to water quality. […]
As the director of regulatory studies at the industry-backed Mercatus Center she has worked to oppose vital public health regulation as a “hidden tax” that hinders profits.
Some of her targets have included EPA health standards for smog, opposition to lower-polluting cars, opposition to air bags, and opposition to stronger regulations for arsenic in drinking water. For some reason, the Senate had some concerns about her nomination. The White House not only doesn’t care about the concerns, it also decided it doesn’t care about the constitutional nomination process.
Frankly, the Bush gang’s recklessness and disregard for the nation’s institutions and standards has become tiresome. No abuse is too offensive.
They know no limits; they have no shame.
Post Script: Would anyone mind a quick history lesson? Article II, Sec. 2, of the Constitution says, “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” Notice that it says, “the recess,” not “a recess.”
Yesterday’s recess appointments were in the midst of a week-long break for the Senate. The chamber will be back in business on Monday. When the Founding Fathers empowered presidents to make recess appointments, was this what they were referring to? Almost certainly not.
In the early days of the country, framers saw recesses that could last months and wanted presidents to be able to fill key positions temporarily in emergency situations without the Senate’s “advice and consent.” There’s a lengthy break following the final adjournment for the legislative session. This is “the recess.” The provision was not about giving presidents the authority to evade the legislative process when the White House feels like it (at last count, Bush has used recess appointments more than 100 times).