Our "Home Alone" Government Helps No One
Washington is "Home Alone" as the Senate refuses to confirm nominees.
During last month's Bear Stearns financial crisis, the Federal Reserve was in the awkward position of having two empty seats on its seven-member Board of Governors. Two new nominees, along with a holdover member, have been awaiting Senate confirmation for a year. This was a problem because the votes of five governors were required to exercise the economic rescue clause that allowed the Fed to lend emergency funds. One governor was unavailable to vote, so a special rule had to be invoked for the Fed to act.
Back in 2000, then-Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warned the Senate that it must fulfill its duty to confirm nominees. Failure to do so, he said, "would effectively create a problem for us should a major financial crisis emerge." That almost happened last month. But the vacancies remain.
The problem goes far beyond the Federal Reserve. Partisan politics has brought Washington a "Home Alone" government, in which more than 200 nominees for the judicial and executive branches are waiting for Senate confirmation.
* * *
Foot-dragging in filling judicial vacancies is a growing problem. President Clinton got a Republican-controlled Senate to confirm 15 of his appellate court nominees in his final two years in office. So far the Democratic Senate has confirmed only seven Bush nominees. It is sitting on 10 more, apparently waiting to run out the clock on the administration, and never mind that seven of the remaining vacancies have been deemed "judicial emergencies."
The Securities and Exchange Commission has only three out of five commissioners. The National Labor Relations Board two members and three empty seats, so that, according to former chairman John Raudebaugh, it can handle "only cases that have no issues." The Consumer Products Safety Commission has only two of its five commissioners on the job at a time when public concern about lead-tainted toys is acute. Three key positions at the State Department, including the undersecretary for arms control, remain unconfirmed. Acting officials fill vacant slots at State and other agencies, but they are limited in their roles and often ignored by career bureaucrats who refuse to take them seriously.
The most ridiculous case is the Federal Election Commission, which has had only two out of six members since January. That's when Democrats balked at confirming Hans von Spakovsky, who had served on the FEC for two years. Sen. Barack Obama put his nomination on hold for years because Mr. von Spakovsky, as a Justice Department official, supported laws requiring voters to show photo ID. So much for Mr. Obama's call to transcend partisanship.
With only a skeleton crew, the FEC can't open new cases, hold public meetings or even issue advisory opinions. Michael Toner, a former FEC chairman, says the inability of the White House and the Senate to agree on nominees "hurts the ability of parties and candidates to comply with the law."
Presidential scholar Paul Light says both sides deserve some blame for a confirmation process he says has degenerated into "hostage negotiation between warring nations." Sure enough, while the Bush White House blames foot-dragging by Democrats, Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy responds that the administration "could care less" if some of its nominees get confirmed: "They dislike government. They dislike the way government works."
Suspicion of Mr. Bush runs so deep among Democrats that some seem to delight in making it impossible for a Republican administration to make policy decisions. Sen. Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Environment Committee, told Politico.com that "it's better to have fewer people on the commissions if the people who are nominated want to destroy the mission of their particular job." She added, "From my perspective, I'd rather have nobody."
* * *
It's already difficult to get good people to take top government jobs. Even before the confirmation process, they must contend with pay cuts, family disruptions, lengthy background checks and burdensome and duplicative financial disclosure forms. Mr. Light worries that the built-in delays in vetting and confirming Presidential appointees could mean the next administration won't be fully in place for a year.
The bloody-minded absolutism of the current confirmation wars threatens to have long-term negative consequences for whichever party holds office in the future. It's absurd for the United States to hold itself up as a model for democratic governance when as a nation we can't even get a full team onto the field to conduct basic administration and diplomacy.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Better to approve no one, then to approve a Bush Cronie.
Old story retold. See you next time this year.
Oh well what did you expect the Congress to do; let Bush get away with murder during the rest of his lame duck days?? God only knows who he wants pushed forward in these positions and I can't blame the Dems for sitting on nominations until Bush/Cheney, et al, get the hell out of office.
That John Fund even has a column, anywhere, is proof there is a crisis in America...
Snort...LOL.
The advice and consent role of the Senate has its partisan problems, as do the nominations that precede this process. A useful starting point would be for both sides to agree upon professional, standardized criteria for all the relevant positions in question. These criteria could then be used to review the applications of the relevant individuals and have all Senators supplement, critique, and evaluate the various professional qualifications at issue. This process could be transparent and open, and we could attach the results of these evaluations to the relevant websites where these individuals, once confirmed, serve us at our expense and grace.
A very valid part of this process would be to evaluate whether a candidate has participated in any hyper-partisan or legally questionable activities. In circumstances where an individual has, it should be understood that the opposition has the right--indeed, the responsibility to its sector of the electorate--to object with all means at their disposal. Neither Bush nor any other President has a mandate to shove through idealogues without a mandate from the electorate. At the same, the process does little at this point to systematically sort through the relevant issues and focus on qualifications because, oddly, after all these years, there are no agreed to job descriptions or these top slots. Even your local store now has standardized job descriptions for its employees. This is not rocket science.
I agree, Rule. Being a Republican should be cause for disqualification.
Any time one has voted for an appointment it has become the equivalent of waiving any future objections to anything that appointee may say or do in the future. I have heard it argued too often that e.g. the approval of Petraeus means you cannot criticize anything he says or wants ever or you should not have voted for his appointment. What do you expect in response.
No, that's not true. Just because you voted for someone ONCE doesn't make it so that you cannot challenge that person ever again! It simply means that you've learned more about the person, and therefore you disagree with what they are standing for NOW!
President Bush is Responsible for Judicial Vacancies
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy has stressed the key comparison on circuit court of appeals nominees: “nearly three quarters of President Bush’s nominations have been confirmed, compared to just over half of President Clinton’s.”
President Bush artificially created the remaining appellate vacancies to inflame his right-wing base. The vacancies have resulted from Bush’s unjustifiably antagonizing Republican and Democratic senators. He refuses even to listen to Senators’ “advise and consent” and selects nominees with extreme records.
For example, pending 4th Circuit nominee Steve Matthews was an officer and director of the extremist Landmark Legal Foundation when it tried to nominate Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize.
A recent exception proves the rule. A Virginia 4th Circuit nominee who was opposed by Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Jim Webb (D-VA) withdrew. President Bush then belatedly nominated Virginia Supreme Court Justice G. Steven Agee, one of five candidates Warner and Webb jointly recommended, and Leahy predicted a prompt confirmation.
Bush’s prior unsuccessful Virginia 4th Circuit nominees provide a contrast. Two did not live in the state (one of whom was convicted of shoplifting), another wrote an infamous Administration “torture memo,” and one was sued for defamation related to his nomination.
If President Bush decides to consult with Senators, he can confirm lifetime judges in this election year.
For more see www.judgingtheenvironment.org.
-Glenn Sugameli
Senior Legislative Counsel, Earthjustice
Washington, D.C.
I am delighted with your story, Mr. Fund. It proves to me that the Dems in the House and Senate are far more awake than I have given them credit for. By the way, tune into a hearing or two since the Democrats won back the majority. You will find, almost without exception, that committee requests for information from Bush appointees is either long-delayed, ignored, only partially satisfied, or denied. Perhaps if this Administration had an iota of respect for anyone save themselves.............
I just never will forget that evil blond lawyer from Justice who admitted to using the FEDERALIST Society in determining whether or not to hire.... They have stuffed the ranks (who even though they are Republicans, still like the civil service union which will protect their jobs when the next administration comes in.... They will shred every piece of evidence that they can...
We need an entire battalion of auditors to come in after and clean up the mess and make sure these crooks at least pay their taxes... And Halliburton in Dubai and Enron in Switserland should get no more money from us hard working taxpayers.
Where were you, Mr. Fund, when the Republicans held up many more of Pres. Clinton's nominees than the Dems have held up of Mr. Bush's? And, name some of the Clinton appointees that you "think" were unqualified or overly partisan. There are too many of the Bush appointees to name that are either unqualified or wholly partisan.
You're right, there should be no foot-dragging with regard to any nominations made by the Bush White House - they should all be rejected outright!
Anyone nominated for any post by the Cheney/Bush Crime Syndicate is by definition a "loyal Bushie" and a criminal co-conspirator. We don't want ANY of those scumbags to take office EVER.
Since Bush is content to "kick the can down the road" on everything which matters, why should the Senate be scurrying around to fill government vacancies with Bushnik henchmen at this late date? Instead of filling those vacancies, Congress should be busy creating two more vacancies in the Executive Branch by impeaching and imprisoning Cheney and Bush for their innumerable crimes against humanity.
I am beginning to become a fan....
With respect to Judicial Nominations I have two words for you - FOR LIFE.
After the remaking of the Supreme Court, which will be with the majority of those now living for the rest of their lives, the ideological HACKS appointed to the federal bench, from district courts to appeals courts, and the never ending hijinks in numerous "watchdog" departments, including the travesties that have continually oozed out of the cesspool that Bush has made of the Justice Department, the only "Up or Down Vote" that any appointment or conrimation of anyone from this adminstration should bet is a MIDDLE FINGER SALUTE.
And as to your claim that "The bloody-minded absolutism of the current confirmation wars threatens to have long-term negative consequences for whichever party holds office in the future." I have to say your are about 4 years too late in making that pronouncement. Were you of the same view when the Republican controlled Senate was steam rollering over the Democrats and filling our agencies and courts with Right wingers or when they threatened the "Nuclear Option" with respect to Judicial Appointments?
Politics is all about ebb and flow (or in the case of the Republicans - steamrollering and flooding) so it's tiime to quit whining and brace for what we on the street and not in your Beltway or Wall Street Ivory Towers mean when we say "Pay back is a Bitch".
The Democrats in the Senate are so concerned about these crazy ass nominations by this crazy ass administration that it has not "recessed" the Senate for fear that there will be further crazy ass recess appointments.
Sorry John, the public is now awake.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-to-block-white-house-recess-appointments-again-2008-03-13.html
The government is broken. What we don't need is any more "good people" helping us out. And the first place that we should shut down to save money is the Defense Department. Peace
Mr. Fund please google Hugh's List and read it. Maybe you'll gain some insight. It's a long list so please get comfortable.
Here's a suggestion: how about the administration stop sending up nominees who are ideological shills for a specific agenda and find some people qualified for the position instead? I love your characterization of the Spakovsky disagreement as being about support for ID cards--you left out the part where the "law" he was supporting was deemed illegal and was most certainly an attempt to suppress voting among specific demographics. I guess some Democratic Senators have some sort of fanatic hangup about keeping vote riggers off the governing board of the Federal Election Commission.
By the way, I'm sure it was purely an omission and not an attempt to present Mr. Spakovsky in a deceptive light at all, but you left out the part where he was a recess appointment to the FEC by George Bush. A minor point, to be sure, but the way you presented it might have left some people with the impression that he was good enough to be confirmed once and thus make it all the more curious why he couldn't be confirmed again.
After 7 years of this administration, I finally realize why you right wingers all say government doesn't work: Because when you guys are in charge of it, you're right.
"how about the administration stop sending up nominees who are ideological shills for a specific agenda and find some people qualified for the position instead? "
Good point. If only the Republicans would behave like Democrats, who have no agenda, and only appoint the very best of the best non-partisan people to political positions.
That's not going to happen, and we all know it. However, most of those who are ideologically aligned with the democrats tend to put the Constitution ahead of the administration which they work for, whereas a MUCH smaller number of those who are ideologically aligned with the republicans do that!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
