Elphaba

Host laid out a list of apparent cronyism in the Bush administration, and a post was added that pointed out that the same could be found in the Clinton administration. I remember Clinton's firing of the White House travel staff as one example.

I think we can all agree that cronyism has existed since the earth was still cooling. It is a means of rewarding allies and is a necessary part of political reward. My question is what are the appropriate limits of it, and where should the line be drawn in terms of competence.

Hurricane Katrina is the most recent example of misplaced cronyism. How would you recommend that crucial positions within the government be tested for competence?

Elphaba

Host pointed out in his thread that political appointees require approval within the appropriate congressional committee. These appointments seem to be rubber-stamped, or the committee's are too busy to pursue an applicants credentials. In my opinion, this is a case of "business as usual."

The Office of Budget and Management (OBM) may be a better place to vet nominees before they arrive to committees for approval. OBM is a neutral party in examining costs for particular legislation, and I think it possible for them to scrutinize political appointees for their background and competence in a particular position.

My emphasis in this discussion is on placements within a critical function. For example, no one here would tolerate "Brownie" replacing Greenspan at the Fed a few months from now.

Is the OBM the best place for this initial scrutiny? At the moment, I fear the FBI has become too politicized to do the job.

tecoyah

In my opinion....criminal charges might be brought up in the Katrina case....as a loss of life "could" be attributed to an incompetent individual in a position of power, placed there inappropriately as a political favor. I find this extremely unlikely, and probably a misplaced emotional reaction to something that has REALLY pissed me off. That said, much of this so called "cronyism" is built into our system at this point and will be very difficult to remove....if not impossible. I would simply hope, going forward people are not given responsibility they are totally unprepared for, just because someone scratched the right back.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Elphaba

How would you propose to avoid that, Tecoyah? I believe a level of scrutiny in a relatively independent department (OBM) might be a fresh start in evaluating political candidates before their submission to the appropriate committee.

I am not keen about adding another layer of government for scrutinizing political appointees, but I can't think of another alternative. There is also the chance that this type of scrutiny already exists, but has been corrupted over the years.

alansmithee

The main problem I see is that determining qualification would itself become politicised (you yourself said how you feel the FBI, an agency that in theory is dedicated to fighting crime, is to politicised). Also, how do you determine qualification for many of these posts? Or determine which posts need to go before a review board? And how would you apponint the board itself? For OBM, you can pretty much get off filling it with economists, but a board to review potential appointees would be a trickier thing all together. And also, many people who fill elected positions aren't seemingly qualified, and many qualified-seeming people end up totally incompetant.

I understand this reaction after the FEMA mess, but I don't see any way of fixing it without going more toward a meritocracy and taking away appointment power altogether, which would severely cripple the executive branch. I think that anyone could have screwed up the hurricane relief just as much even going through a approval process.

Elphaba

These are all valid questions, Alansmithee, and deserve consideration. First, let me clarify my vague comment on the FBI being politicized, because it's leadership is also "appointed." The same could be said for every cabinet director and it really wasn't my intent to single out the FBI.

All levels of government have job descriptions for each position at this time. Granted, higher positions require a much broarder list of qualifications. It is the higher, appointed positions that appear to be subject to cronyism and should IMO be under greater scrutiny by an independent group such as the OBM.

I agree with you that a seamingly qualified candidate can turn out to be incompetent, but the proper course of action is to fire the individual. However, I don't think you would find the most brilliant scientist appointed to what is largely a managerial role, unless that person also held managerial credentials equivalent to the position's requirements. I'm not suggesting that more stingent vetting of political appointees would be an easy thing to do, but I don't believe the problems are insurmountable.

Voters are free to elect anyone, whether qualified or not, at all levels of government. We don't have a similar say with political appointees, nor should we. I think we do have an obligation to insist that our government infrastructure is guided by qualified leadership. An independent vetting of appointees may not be the only means of doing this; it's just the only one that occured to me.

Pollyanna falls off her soapbox

host

I guess NY Times columnist Frank Rich read some of the content in my recent thread when he was composing his column. Here is his latest........

<a href="http://www.etaiwannews.com/Opinion/2005/09/26/1127702784.htm">Bring back Warren Harding</a>

It amuses me to read comparisons of what is just starting to come to light vs. what happened in past administrations. This will be bigger and already is more damaging to the country than anything that has come before.

host

I guess NY Times columnist Paul Krugman read some of the content in my recent thread when he was composing his column. Here is his latest........

<a href="http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/27Sep2005_news23.php">Find The Brownie</a>

It amuses me to read comparisons of what is just starting to come to light vs. what happened in past administrations. This will be bigger and already is more damaging to the country than anything that has come before.

Due to the NY Times new fee policy that restricts access to new columns, we must rely on the foreign press for this content.

I prefer to post these articles that I've linked, especially since they will be difficult to access when the ny times archives them in a week from now, but I am instructed not to do so without posting personal comments of similar length. I view that as unnecessary, since I devoted a lengthy thread starter recently that covered this subject.

Judging by content that I've read in new threads started here today, everyone is not subject to the same rules and posting restrictions.

Marvelous Marv

Bigger than John Huang and Charlie Trie?

Wonder if Bush will pardon them on his way out the door.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher