The serious consequences of Bush’s Hackocracy

For the first six years of his presidency, Bush followed a fairly predictable model when it came to appointments and key government posts. He would appoint an unqualified hack to run and/or oversee an important agency, congressional Republicans would approve said hack, and when the hack screwed up, a GOP-led Congress would balk at any oversight. The result, of course, was an ineffective and inefficient government bureaucracy that served no one (except, maybe, in the case of regulatory agencies, the Republican Party’s corporate benefactors).

It seemed like good news, then, when congressional Dems reclaimed the majority on the Hill, and told the White House that it was time to start picking capable, qualified officials for federal agencies. Not surprisingly, Bushies didn’t care for the idea, and refused to play along.

The result is an executive branch that’s even worse than before.

At the height of concern over product safety and lead-tainted toys, the Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn’t have enough members to meet. The nation is facing the prospect of a presidential contest with no referee, because the Federal Election Commission is too short-handed to call a quorum. With the economy in peril, the Council of Economic Advisers is plodding along with a lone member. The National Labor Relations Board, the body that adjudicates disputes between workers and bosses, has only two of its five commissioners still on the job.

An explosion at a sugar refinery in Georgia took nearly a dozen lives in February, but the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is missing two of its five members — one of them the chairman.

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission’s two remaining members leave it one short of a quorum. Close to 200 nominees for federal appointments stand unconfirmed.

The federal government is running on fumes, and roadside signs suggest the next gas station won’t come until January 2009.

“It’s the worst last year of a two-term presidency since we created a two-term presidency,” said Paul Light, an expert on federal nominations at New York University.

Bush keeps sending unacceptable nominees; Congress keeps rejecting them; and the result is, in effect, a partial government shutdown.

The problem, aside from the obvious, is that the White House doesn’t much care.

It’s an unfortunate part of the negotiations with Congress. Democratic lawmakers want federal agencies that operate as they should. White House officials, fundamentally, don’t even want some of these federal agencies to exist, and certainly don’t believe in their missions. So, if Congress balks at an unqualified nominee, Bushies get to say, “Confirm, don’t confirm. We don’t really care either way.” Worse, they mean it.

Democrats charge that the federal commissions are not innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire between the White House and the Senate, but rather are targets of an administration happy to watch them die. “They could[n’t] care less,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, where many of Bush’s stalled nominations sit. “They dislike government. They dislike the way government works.”

Bush has a “blind indifference,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). “We didn’t have this during the Reagan period or Bush I. It’s unique and special now.” […]

Light said that Bush’s ambivalence toward government regulation plays a role in the stalemate. “If the Consumer Product Safety Commission is not able to promulgate rules, is that a bad thing for an anti-regulatory administration? Probably not,” he said. “If you’re in an anti-regulatory mood, having a regulatory commission unable to regulate is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it’s going to regulate against industry.”

Paul Kiel added that Securities and Exchange Commission is “crippled,” and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is close to being unable to function at all.

This is your government at work.

The alternative, obviously, is to allow more of Bush’s cronies to be appointed, some to jobs they couldn’t easily be thrown out of, and all to positions where they could bring influence to bear.

I’ll take dysfunction over corruption, if anyone’s asking.

  • What Bush has done to the CPSC makes me want to punch the guy in the face with the lead-tainted Thomas the Tank Engine toy I had to yank away from my son one morning.

    Yes, Bush has done many things that would justify not just a slap in the smacker, but a hangin’ at the Hague as well.

    But when you mess with my kid’s health, it starts getting way, way personal.

    It does go to show, however, what happens when you elect those who hate government to serve in that government.

  • when your entire theory of governance is “government never works,” you’ve got a hell of a lot invested in making sure government never works — either by omission or comission.

    btw, did you hear that the chinese equivalent of the cpsc just rejected a shipment of lead from the u.s.? turns out there were toys in in.

  • “It seemed like good news, then, when congressional Dems reclaimed the majority on the Hill, and told the White House that it was time to start picking capable, qualified officials for federal agencies. Not surprisingly, Bushies didn’t care for the idea, and refused to play along.”

    Of course, the Dems are not playing their version of political hardball in this case. Nothing to see here… move along…

  • There is more than one way to drown government in the bathtub. They’ve been working on all of them.

  • Wasn’t it just last week , the supreme court ruled in favor of the FDA with the case where the cardiac catheter esploded during the cardiac catherization. A per the bush’s Tort reform, the American consumer can no longer bring suit because the FDA approved the cardiac catheter. That is also a part of “don’t care attitude of the Republicans/Bush cabal. Time to vote the Republicans out. Enough has been destroyed by the RNC and BUSH Cabal
    Isn’t the FDA run by Bush incompetents with low staffing and the same problem of not enough appointee’s. IMPEACHMENT of Bush /Cheney is what should be done!!!!

  • The problem, aside from the obvious, is that the White House doesn’t much care. The problem really is, Harry Reid is more consumed by his public hatred of the President than he is to get these appointments filled. But, “liberal” Dem shills will pass the buck because, that’s what they do, kind of like those they vote for; accept no responsibility for their own actions.

  • Hey, when the Democrats get the White House and control both houses next January, they will have an unprecedented chance to appoint buckets full of people to very important federal agencies. That is a good thing. If the Dems cave (again) and accept these insane appointments of W’s, we will be stuck with them for years. It may be difficult in the short term, but it will enable change to occur more rapidly and completely in the end. Let Bozo kiss the nominations off, when he’s gone it will be easier to correct all oh his screwups.

  • Ugh. And of course, Republicans will just say that Congress is just hitting Bush’s appointees in the same way that the Republican Congress stalled the majority of Clinton’s appointees.

    It’s like why impeachment is off the table – there’s just no point, the Republicans already frittered away all of the tools of good governance.

  • The problem really is, Harry Reid is more consumed by his public hatred of the President than he is to get these appointments filled. But, “liberal” Dem shills will pass the buck because, that’s what they do, kind of like those they vote for; accept no responsibility for their own actions.

    Your mother fed you big bowls of lead paint chips as a child, didn’t she?

  • of course, we who pay attention know the Repubs dont care if these agencies die on the vine, but just wait until fall when the Repubs shed crocodile tears and slam on the Congressional Democrats for failing to approve the President’s appointments, leaving important agencies understaffed.

    dont underestimate the traction this charge will get among the mindless sheeple.
    (because i know no one here underestimates the Republican capacity for hypocrisy that will allow those charges to be made)

  • There is more than one way to drown government in the bathtub.

    When we claim a government of, by, and for the people…
    What does it mean to have a government so small you can drown it in a bathtub?

  • JRS Jr at 4 – are you suggesting either (a) the Senate has no real role in review and/or (b) that the Senate should approve people who are incompetent or wholly inappropriate?

    If Bush wants to put the former head lobbyist for the manufacturers association, who lobbied actively to eliminate safety regulations, in charge of the Consumer Product Safety Commisison, do you think that is ok? Do you think the people who voted a Democratic majority in 06 think that is ok? (or someone who led vote suppression efforts against black communities on the Federal Election Commission, etc etc etc)

  • 7.
    On February 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pm, SteveIL said:
    The problem really is, Harry Reid is more consumed by his public hatred of the President than he is to get these appointments filled. But, “liberal” Dem shills will pass the buck because, that’s what they do, kind of like those they vote for; accept no responsibility for their own actions.
    _____________

    So what’s your point? Reid should just “suck it up” and allow incompetent or corrupt or indifferent Bush cronies to run the government? Cronies who won’t do the work, and who won’t be held accountable when the s**t hits the fan, but who will be MORE than happy to cash the checks those jobs provide? THAT’S better, in your opinion?

    Makes about as much sense as every other dopey decision this Administration has made. Which is, no sense at all.

  • They are taking the Bush Katrina resonse and using that as a model for the entire government.

    If I was a Democratic ad maker, I would definitely highlight the lack of government oversight of the toy industry. Parents can’t tell which toys are unsafe, but they know that kids are being poisoned. This isn’t fear mongering, this is reality. Add to that Bush’s petulant refusal to appoint sensible regulators, and his appointment of industry hacks, and you have a hell of a wallop to smash the Republicans with.

    Boil it down, make it short, and target the Republicans. Something like this:

    (Bush’s scowling face in the background) Because they refuse to work with the majority party elected by the American people, the Republicans are protecting corporations that are poisoning American kids. Call them and tell them that you’re tired of a party that hates good government.

  • “But, ‘liberal’ Dem shills will pass the buck because, that’s what they do, kind of like those they vote for; accept no responsibility for their own actions.”

    Who are they passing the buck to?

  • “are you suggesting either (a) the Senate has no real role in review and/or (b) that the Senate should approve people who are incompetent or wholly inappropriate”

    Nope, I am just suggesting that I don’t think EVERY nominee is incompetent or wholly inappropriate and at least some of the hold ups are for political reasons. I mean look at the Supreme fiasco a while back — Roberts and Alito were neither “incompentent” or “wholly inappropriate” yet their conservative philosophies (several I don’t agree with) caused all sorts of tizzy fits among the Dems.

    When/if Obama wins ’08 it’s your turn to pick. Same goes for the regulatory agencies. Until then get out of the way for the qualified nominees.

  • Who are they passing the buck to?

    The goopers are passing it to us.

    Goopers never accept responsibility. They fuck everything up and then let dems go in, fix it, and take all the heat for being conscientious.

    The debacle that Bush created is going to have to be fixed by raising taxes. There is no other way to pay off this ginormous debt.

    Dems tax and spend for (usually) smart things. Goopers borrow and spend.

    IT’S TIME TO CUT UP THAT CREDIT CARD!

  • Jim said:
    “Hey, when the Democrats get the White House and control both houses next January, they will have an unprecedented chance to appoint buckets full of people to very important federal agencies.”

    I’m not counting any prenatal chickens but I think that’s about as good a way to see this as there is. ShrubCo The Skunk isn’t changing it’s stripe for anybody. Why should they bother to get on the stick now?

    There can’t be any mystery about ShrubCo any more. They told us what they wanted to do and they’ve done it. And did it quite well considering what perfect assholes they had to be to pull it off.

    If RepubCo does bite the dust in November, e-mail inboxes will be packed and FedEx trucks loaded with resumes are going to be lined up around the block. Tar and feather stands should be placed every 50 feet along the streets leading away from congress and the White House.

  • “I mean look at the Supreme fiasco a while back — Roberts and Alito were neither “incompentent” or “wholly inappropriate” yet their conservative philosophies (several I don’t agree with) caused all sorts of tizzy fits among the Dems.”

    There’s a difference between having a political view different from those confirming you (Roberts, Alito), and being incompetent for the job (Michael Brown, Alberto Gonzalez, Donald Rumsfeld)

    “When/if Obama wins ‘08 it’s your turn to pick. Same goes for the regulatory agencies. Until then get out of the way for the qualified nominees.”

    Well, if Bush finds any, I’m sure they’ll get the job they’re applying for.

  • So, to THEIR supporters, the GOP sells this as small government, with the implicit suggestion that it will cost the taxpayers less if “governement is smaller”.

    Funny thing, the cost of government has NOT gone down. We have huge annual budget deficits, enormous national debt and huge debt service costs … not to mention foreign countries that are adversaries buying up US debt.

    These guys are the “Duke and the Dauphin” from Huckleberry Finn. We need tar. And feathers.

  • “When/if Obama wins ‘08 it’s your turn to pick. Same goes for the regulatory agencies. Until then get out of the way for the qualified nominees.”

    Gen. Shinseki
    Larry Lindsay
    Richard Clark
    John W. Snow
    The entire Civil Rights Division of DOJ

    Gee, I guess that it’s good that the Democrats blocked Alito & Roberts from SCOTUS because of their politics.

    WTF are you talking about JRS, JR.?

  • The Politico article says the following:

    Close to 200 nominees for federal appointments stand unconfirmed.

    The post says the following:

    Bush keeps sending unacceptable nominees; Congress keeps rejecting them; and the result is, in effect, a partial government shutdown.

    The problem, aside from the obvious, is that the White House doesn’t much care.

    If Congress, actually the Senate, was actually rejecting them, then a case could be made that Bush keeps sending unacceptable nominees. But as clearly stated in the Politico piece (and is backed up by history), the Senate isn’t rejecting them. It isn’t doing anything with them. See, “liberals”, when reading the Constitution, it says that the President appoints people to various positions with advice and consent of the Senate. Well, the President has appointed his nominees. Yet the Senate isn’t doing, you know, the “advice and consent” part. Now the Constitution doesn’t say when the Senate has to do it, but that the appointment doesn’t get confirmed until the Senate does the vote thing, or puts in recess appointments when the Senate takes a break.

    Who is in charge of getting the actual votes done? Why the Majority Leader of the Senate, per Senate rules. So, the President does his job to fill vacancies. In many cases, the committees are doing their jobs to move the nominations to the full Senate. But Senate Majority Leader Reid, who hates the President, isn’t calling for votes. Why not? Does he know all these nominees will be confirmed? They don’t have to be confirmed; the Senate isn’t a rubber-stamp. The can vote out a nomination and make the President put in another one. That isn’t even happening. Reid isn’t calling for votes, and isn’t letting these nominations move forward as recess appointments because he has kept the Senate from actually recessing.

    In effect, Reid, like Daschle before him (and we know what happened to Dascle, the ex-Senator), wants to control who the nominees are. Except the Constitution clearly states he isn’t allowed to do this. The ventriloquist dummies in the regular Democrat media don’t bother informing the people of these things because they are so obviously partisan (the reports can be picked apart to expose this partisanship in minutes) as to be laughable. The Politico normally has a much fairer approach to political reporting, but this piece is just another Democrat media example. One Republican (other than a Bush spokeswoman is mentioned, in paragraph 19 of a 25-paragraph “news” report. And the spokesman for Minority Leader McConnell is the only one who says something intelligent:

    Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said the solution to the logjam is simple: “The leader controls the floor. If he wants to get [the nominees] through, why not bring them up for a vote?”

    Nobody says the nominees have to be confirmed. I wouldn’t doubt Reid is afraid too many will be confirmed, and he may actually have to do work to come up with the double-talk for the weasely answers he’d have to give to explain why Democrats would vote for this or that nominee.

    But has long as the ventriloquist dummies in the Democrat media keep parroting the Democrats’ lies about what is really going on, Senate Democrats will still be allowed to pass the buck of blame. Because it isn’t exactly as old windbag Leahy states, “They [the White House] dislike government,”; it’s that Democrats are trying get away with violating the Constitution.

  • By the way, “liberals”, the state government of Illinois met today to contine to try to get passed a budget battle for 2008 that has been going on since last July. As threats of a government shutdown loom, an extension is always granted to hash it out at a later date. Today’s meeting is another attempt to find a way past the impasse, or figure out an extension to allow the government to continue for a while longer, or to let the government shut down.

    I say this because Obama’s and Tony Rezko’s good friend is Democrat governor Rod Blagojevich. The Illinois Senate majority leader is Chicago Democrat Emil Jones. The Illinois House majority leader is Chicago Democrat Michael Madigan. All Democrats, and all very, very, “liberal”. And these clowns still haven’t gotten the 2008 budget in place even though that was supposed to be done last summer. In fact, more time has passed since budget battles went into overtime than when the Illinois General Assembly has to come up with the 2009 budget this July.

    With a lot of those Bush appointees like Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and Brown, Democrats had enough Senate members to filibuster them all the live long day. But they didn’t. Again, Senate Democrats pass the buck, and the ventriloquist dummies in the Democrat media spew only what Senate Democrats tell them to say. There are three co-equal branches of the government; that means that Senate Democrats have to accept their share of the blame for passing through those nominees they consider incompetent. And now that they are in the majority, they also have to accept their share of the blame for allowing these agencies to get run down by not rejecting some nominees or voting others in. Complaining about it without doing anything, as Senate Democrats are wont to do, is passing the buck.

    This is what happens when pathetic “liberals” actually have to, you know, govern. Do work. That kind of thing. Oh sure they know how to pander and whine; they have a gift for that. But to actually run something? Well, all one has to do is see how things are not getting done here in what is becoming the “Land of Lenin” instead of the “Land of Lincoln”, since all these “liberals” can’t come up with ways fast enough to steal more taxpayer funds to set up more public industries (and receiving the kickbacks from them) and drive out the private ones that actually provide jobs, or the vast majority of middle class people getting poorer because they would end up paying for it all. It is a motion picture of what would happen if Obama (or Clinton) gets elected, and the Dems retain a congressional majority.

  • re: posts 25 & 26…

    Wow. Just… wow.

    Reality is a heck of a long way for you to drive, isn’t it?

  • on the news last night (no cable, don’t know abc/nbc/cbs — is there a difference?) i was informed that once we all get our tax “rebate” checks, the recession will be over. period. literally, that is what was said.

    okay then.

    i’m glad to know that an economy so far down the toilet as to have set records in multiple areas is easily fixed simply by passing out a little of the ever-ready to the masses. geez, why didn’t someone think of that sooner? we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble with crashing house prices, depressed consumer confidence and spending, etc., etc.

    and oh, yeah, the democrats should just shut up about it because if no one talks about it, no one would worry!

  • steveIL says: … “becoming the “Land of Lenin” instead of the “Land of Lincoln”, ”

    this is pretty hilarious. i guess this is the downstream result of all the comparisons bush and his pals have been making between him and lincoln. land where lincoln lived/lives = all things wonderful, including ponies; bush = lincoln; therefore, land that bush rules = “land of lincoln”!

    shall we play further?

    “land of lenin” = adequate government oversight; therefore, adequate government oversight = very, very evil!

    so simple! duh, then of COURSE this is all good. it has to be, right? “land of lincoln” and all?

  • Yes, you’re right, Steve. Bush certainly has a gift for “running things”. You know, “governing”. He has a gift for running things into the ground. You can dance around it all you want, because you obviously love that kick-ass-and-take-names type of leader, but his loyal base has shrunk to less than 20% of Americans. To me, that’s still an incredible amount, but it indicates that for every 5 people you ask, “are you better off today than you were before George Bush took power?”, 4 would say no.

    I wish I could see what you see in him, but I can’t. By every measure, he was a disaster as a leader. More good jobs were lost under George Bush than under Clinton, by way of example. A surplus turned into a deficit – you don’t have to be an economist to realize that’s bad. America lost the world’s respect, and is now reviled as a torturer, and hasn’t a leg to stand on. Sometimes strong leaders have to be hard, and they’re not always appreciated at home, but usually their iron will is admired abroad – Maggie Thatcher was a good example. Bush is hard on everybody but the rich; you can dance around that, too, but there’s no arguing that the rich have gotten much richer under Bush, without a commensurate bump in income for the middle class or the poor.

    He can’t balance the budget, can’t pick a fight that wins any international support (even among the populations of strong allies like Britain and Australian, majorities in the population are against the war in Iraq and want their troops out), can’t react to a natural disaster in his own country, and his party is dragged through the mud in scandal after scandal. All those things were in the news, I didn’t make them up.

    When the Democratic party takes power in a big way in the General, maybe you’ll be so upset that you’ll want to move. I recommend Zimbabwe, they have a history of the kind of leadership you appreciate. Just a thought.

  • steveIL says: … “becoming the “Land of Lenin” instead of the “Land of Lincoln”, ”

    this is pretty hilarious. i guess this is the downstream result of all the comparisons bush and his pals have been making between him and lincoln. Actually, it isn’t. On my blog (no, I’m not blogwhoring here), I’ve been calling Illinois a “People’s Republic” for several years. And since I first used that phrase, Illinois government has gotten worse. “Land of Lenin” is a pretty good slogan describing Illinois as it is run now as an antithesis of the real state slogan, “Land of Lincoln”. I wasn’t attempting to equate, as some may have done recently, Bush with Lincoln.

    “land of lenin” = adequate government oversight No, I don’t think so. One needs to read on the governments of the city of Chicago, Cook County, and the state, all run by Democrats (Chicago and Cook County for the last haif-century) to see that “land of lenin” is not equal to adequate government oversight. The only ones who would are Democrats, the Democrat media, and those who echo, line by line, Democrat talking points.

  • Yes, you’re right, Steve. Bush certainly has a gift for “running things”. You know, “governing”.

    Please re-read what I wrote. I certainly didn’t say anything about how Bush is running things. I did comment on what would happen if Democrats were to run the U.S. as a one-party state again, using examples of what is going on in Illinois. Hell, we can go back to when the U.S. was a one-party state when the Democrats ran things. Between 1933 and 1941 under FDR and the Dems, we got the “New Deal” (with many programs rendered unconstitutional), which actually didn’t lessen the effects of the Great Depression, and many we are still suffering under today due to the lack of real reform (Social Security), and which economic recovery didn’t occur until after U.S. involvement in WWII; the LBJ years of the one-party state Democrats ran between 1961 and 1969, where we are still suffering under the effects of the “Great Society” (lifetime welfare, which was finally reformed greatly under the Republican-led Congress 30 years later) and his mishandling of Vietnam, and in which Dems provided zero oversight; the years 1977 to 1981 under Carter where the U.S. dropped alliances on so-called ideological grounds, but which led to even greater tyranny of the former ally (Iran), along with refusing to stand up to the aggressiveness of the Soviet Union in its invasion of Afghanistan (and which ultimately led to the beginnings of Islamist terrorists); and the first two years of Clinton’s first term of the one-party Democrat state, where we had a ridiculous tax increase (following the one by the first President Bush, which cost him a second term; both were thankfully cut by the second President Bush, an act of “governing”), the first WTC bombing, Somalia (Clinton completely changed the mission established by his predecessor), Waco, and “don’t ask, don’t tell” (a completely Democrat policy). And I haven’t even gotten to the exclusively Democrat-run cities that leave vast numbers of those city residents vulnerable to street gangs because the local Democrat government refuses to properly prevent crime. Republicans during this time actually helped in governing during these periods, not “passing the buck”; their votes on these matters prove it. Two examples include the following: a greater percentage of the Republicans in Congress in 1964 and 1965 voted for the respective Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act than the percentage of Democrats that voted for those measures.

    But the point is to show that Dems now do nothing but whine and pass the buck, and the lack of votes on Presidential appointments proves it. When Republicans held both Houses between 2003 and 2007 (the Dems did have a majority in the Senate for 18 months between 2001 and 2003), Senate Dems would have to put their butts on the line in cloture votes for nominations, only to make sure cloture would fail and a final Senate vote on a nomination would not take place (many of the vacancies from this time have remained). Now, they aren’t even doing that. One could argue that the Republicans did the same under Clinton. But Senate Majority Leaders Dole (1995-1996) and Lott (1996-2001) didn’t resort to political tricks to keep Clinton from putting in recess appointments to at least keep agencies staffed, regardless of the quality of those individuals.

    Reid, and now Pelosi, have resorted to cheap stunts they call “parliamentary maneuvers” to keep Bush from even trying to run the Executive Branch of the government. Reid is sending in a Senator to open a day’s session every three days by banging the gavel followed by an immediate adjournment to keep the Senate technically “in session”, all done to keep recess appointments from being installed, as well as with not even calling for cloture votes on nominees, with the added feature of many nominees being stuck in committees all chaired by Democrats; Pelosi has adopted this trick to disallow Bush from reconvening Congress as is his right under Article II, Section 3, all so she doesn’t have to put her ass on the line and actually vote on the FISA Amendments Act. And then the Dems have the gall to blame the President for this; and the Democrat media, and “liberals” in general, provide them cover in this obvious display of “passing the buck”. A question for “liberals”: what do you think Harry Truman would say?

  • My god, steve, go start your own blog, blowhardsluvbush.com or something. Overloading us with text does not pass for content. I believe Harry Truman would concur.

  • Harry Truman would tell you to go fuck yourself.

    Overloading us with text does not pass for content. I believe Harry Truman would concur.

    This is what passes for analysis from “liberals”. Ass covering for Dem lies.

  • , SteveIL said:

    Blah, blah , Baaaaaah, bleeet, garp.

    Your willingness to turn every situation into purely good/evil scenerio and blame the messenger assures will will never make a cognizant point to a “liberal”.

    Frankly, you guys are bringing the word liberal full circle. Where you made it taboo you are now helping in our attempt to reach out to the rational people.

  • Sorry to be so curt Steve but surely you understand how I could come up with a list just as long of despicable things that Nixon or Reagan or either Bush, especially the most recent did. That is not analysis in my book. That is playground tit for tat. This is what listening to the right wing radio screechers has done to your brain. It makes you think you are talking intelligently cuz you can repeat facts and figures. This solves nothing. Please evolve your thinking.

  • SteveIL,

    The civil service act should have prohibited the appointment of a great many of these meritless choices. (Corporate hacks on regulatory and environmental boards, Brownie at FEMA, etc.) What enforcement mechanism do you propose to reduce “spoils system” behavior by ANY president now and for posterity?

    I have to agree the current method is unacceptable. I just don’t much care to see Democrats stonewall Republican presidents any more than The GOP congress holding off Democrats. I’m really impatient with the “but they other guys do it too!” nonsense.

    Holding up votes as the method of quality control dopesn’t seem kosher yet much of Congress if loathe to properly vote down poor candidates possibly because vetting takes work and there are many many candidates for so many positions. The honor system has become increasingly abused. We assume you send competent people and we rubber stamp them. That doesn’t work anymore and maybe it hasn’t for a long long time. Did Clinton, Bus, and Reagan install unqualified people? I can’t say for certain.

  • Comments are closed.