« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Senate Plans to Abdicate its Confirmation Duties

The Obama Czars will trump the constitution.

In recent years, the job of United States Senator has evidently been added to the list of ‘jobs that Americans won’t do.’  Harry Reid’s Senate has categorically shirked its core constitutional responsibility by refusing to pass a budget for over two years.  Concurrently, the Senate has been preoccupied with feckless, unconstitutional legislation that fails to deal with any of the paramount public policy problems facing the nation.

Today, Chuck Schumer, with the help of Mitch McConnell and Lamar Alexander, plans to vitiate one of the Senate’s few remaining constitutional duties; advising and consenting to presidential appointees.  The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act (S.679), which was never reported out of a committee, would eliminate the confirmation requirement for 200 presidential appointees.  This bill would completely abrogate the safeguards against tyranny that were established in the “Appointments Clause” of the constitution.  [The Heritage Foundation has a useful primer on the bill.]

The bill has seven Republican co-sponsors:  Lamar Alexander, Scott Brown, Susan Collins, Mike Johanns, Jon Kyl, Richard Lugar, and Mitch McConnell.

One would think that without the inconvenient burden of dealing with the budget process, the Senate would have plenty of time to execute its ‘advise and consent’ duties.  They are claiming that the confirmation process is too cumbersome and time-consuming, and as such, is precluding other more important legislation.  The reality is just the opposite.  Their abdication of their core responsibilities has left them with nothing other than executive confirmations on their plate.  Senator Marco Rubio succinctly observes the priorities of the Senate in a piece for the Daily Caller today:

Meanwhile, in the five months I have been in the Senate, Democratic leaders have focused on a reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, a patent bill, a bill to increase spending on the Small Business Administration and a plan to increase spending on the Economic Development Administration, a relic of the Great Society that funnels debt-financed cash to states and localities (never mind that the president’s own Fiscal Commission recommended eliminating it entirely).

The Senate has taken just 91 roll call votes, many on non-controversial nominations, and a third of our time has been spent in “quorum calls,” literally doing nothing. No one should be under any illusion about the desire of leaders in the Senate to confront our sagging economy and looming debt crisis.

Now, they have the moxie to complain that the confirmation process is distracting them from more important legislation!

Undoubtedly, there is a need to expedite the presidential appointee process.  However, ceding more power to an administration that is overzealous to impose policy by administrative fiat, is not the way to go.  Congress has slowly abjured its power to the executive branch by writing open-ended legislation, granting federal agencies wide latitude to promulgate destruction over our economy.  Obama has already used radical executive appointees for the purpose of consolidating power in the executive branch.  Why would any Republican sign on to such a dangerous expansion of executive power?  Whom do they think Obama will appoint to these positions if there is no oversight?

Here’s a novel idea for streamlining the confirmation process of presidential appointees: shrink the size of government so there will be no need for most of these jobs.  It’s high time for Congress to halt its self-immolation, and reign in the executive department behemoth.

The Senate is scheduled to hold the first cloture vote on S.679 later this evening or on Wednesday, following the expected failure on passage of the inane Economic Development Revitalization Act.  Call your senators and ask them if they plan to outsource their jobs to Obama.  Tell them to keep the presidential appointment process in the hands of the elected branch of government and vote no on S.679.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Locked and Loaded

    It will be very good to see MM fade into oblivion – and I have distrusted Kyl for quite some time now. Still, with both of them, I don’t think it’s just laziness or fecklessness. I think they believe it will be just peachy when a Republican is elected – and not THAT bad with Obama.

    It is the same greed and desire for indulgences infecting millions of Americans; these goofballs don’t want to deny anybody, because they don’t want to be denied when their turn comes.

    • acat

      Nice to see he’s willing to do his job…

      Mew

      • mriggio

        My thought exactly as I perused the sorry list…

    • ag8tor

      go ahead and change her affiliation? She has consistently voted with “O” on most proposed legislation (including O-care)! We don’t need any middle of the road conservatives. McCain proved that in 2008.

      • BigRedConservative

        When did she vote for Obamacare. She has shown herself to be a centerist worryingly often, but I swear she voted against Obamacare. Correct me if I’m wrong.

        • roscopico

          Snowe will be quick to claim that she didn’t vote for the final bill, but when she cast her vote to allow it to proceed from committee, it was pretty much a done deal. Snowe was the lynchpin, and could have killed it.

          Collins is terrible, but it was Snowe who allowed Obamacare to pass.

    • mikeymike143

      i will be so happy when richard mourdock sends this career politician into retirement. lugar cares more about getting kudos from the press than he does watching out for his constituents.

  • wennejunk

    Why did Conservatives rally to Scott Brown and help him get elected?

    I’m sure he was better than the alternative, but I keep seeing his name on stuff like this.

    • Kyle-MI

      I never expected anything else from him because I don’t expect anything from the ultra liberal voter sheep of MA.

      This is not a seat worth fighting for. It is better to concentrate on replacing people like Lugar or others from red or at least purple states.

  • azrally

    was my first thought! Let’s see what the Senate can accomplish when they won’t be spending so much time on confirmations by eliminating the positions that require confirmation. . .

    • djvu

      and that is why not keep the confirmation process and keep the Senate from having the time to pass such inane laws as ObamaCare?
      Robert Palmer Smith

  • romeg

    who needs an opposition?

  • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

    I mean really – what does this idiot think he’s doing. I’m sorry Erick, I know we’re supposed to be respectful here, but respectful of what? We need to get these people the heck out of Dodge.

  • streiff

    over 1,000 presidential appointees require Senate confirmation. I’m not sure cutting that number back to a smaller number qualifies as an abdication.

    Remember, the Dems used the confirmation process on Bush in 2001 in retaliation for the whole Bush v Gore debacle. As a result most of the people at Defense, etc., on 9/11 were Clinton appointees. I’m all for confirming the top couple of guys at cabinet/independent agencies and members of commissions, but I think confirming deputy assistant secretaries goes way too far.

    • acat

      That is, today’s department heads are yesterday’s deputy assistant to the regional manager… Better to grill ‘em and get rid of the chaff when they’re still small fry.

      What I think is really going on here is that Obama has appointed a really lousy batch of candidates and the Senate Dems, who know they’re on the short end of the stick going into 2012, are looking to avoid further damage.

      Why McConnell seems to want to let them off the hook I just don’t get.

      Mew

      • streiff

        are selected.

        Typically they come in for a couple of years, get the job on their resume, and leave. A guy who is deputy secretary only rarely moves up to replace his boss (witness the musical chairs underway at CIA/Defense, the replacement for Gary Locke is not his #2).

        This is especially true if the president wins a second term because many of his second term positions are going to come from campaign staff, an activity his first term appointees can’t be involved in because of the Hatch Act.

        Trying to confirm 1,000 people expeditiously can’t be done. Why not cut the list down and really look at those people in detail?

        • acat

          in a think tank or university, or work in the private sector, and then come back at a higher level…

          From what I recall, it’s rare for the near-top (not top) jobs to go to someone with *no* experience.

          Mew

          • streiff

            with any measurable frequency. There are just too many people out there who want the jobs and who have political clout.

          • poquinn

            And what exactly was Mr. Obama’s experience before becoming president? (Man, I really don’t like writing that he’s our resident!)

            I realize that there’s a difference in becoming an elected leader and being appointed to a leadership position. But, if the guy making the appointments has no managerial experience, he has nothing on which to base an appointment decision. I can very easily see him appoint someone with no experience just like him.

          • poquinn

            See, I couldn’t even type the word President while referring to Obama twice in the same post

        • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

          that the two branches need to work together to expedite the process by removing red tape and cutting down paper work. I just don’t like the idea of totally exempting people from the process in light of Obama’s insidious way of stacking the agencies with fruitcakes. Also, this will set the ball rolling for an undesirable precedent.

          Notwithstanding that, Harry Reid’s Senate can probably afford to deal with 1,000 nominees full time. They ain’t doin’ anything else constructive!

          • streiff

            all he has to do is bring them on staff in an agency and then appoint them as an “acting” whatever.

            And only 1000 or so of 7000 presidential appointees are covered right now so it isn’t like this bill increases his chances to do mischief.

            I think fewer hearings that gave staff time to really check the person out would be beneficial.

      • azrally

        It is intended to eliminate the requirement to approve only 200 of over 1400 positions, all of which are below assistant director level, mostly in PR and administrative levels. But I will still contend that the way to satisfy the time required for Senate confirmations is to remove the positons. . .

        • Mike Ferguson

          (nt)

        • ihateliberals

          to confirm.

    • judges176

      If anything Congress should be writing legislation to require confirmation of all these “czars” the O is trying to slip by us. Maybe the legislation should say something like, “…any position or person who is appointed by the POTUS and will supervise, guide, advise, direct or in any way have influence over a position requiring confirmation must also be confirmed…” (Maybe we need a professional bill-writer on this, I’m afraid there will still be another Rahm that will guide the POTUS on how to get around that language, too.) As said above and/or below, if the confirmation duties are indeed overwhelming, eliminate some positions! The fewer professional bureaucrats the POTUS, especially this one, gets to install without review, the better! There is no need to enable tyrants. (Anymore than our Congress(es present and past) already have(has)!)

    • zuckey6

      Your idea is very goog but also eliminarte the “czars” who not responsible to anyone.

    • ag8tor

      They have proved they won’t take up the tough calls unlesss “O”: tells them to. Reid is a hand puppet (plus being an idiot) so there is NO leadership there. What else have they to do in order to justify being there?

    • edintexas

      The reason there were many Clinton Schedule C (Political) appointees in all departments and agencies of the government on 11 September was not due to Democrat foot-dragging on confirmations. If that had been the reason, then on 20 January 2001 all those Clinton appointees would have been gone (or at least those who the Clinton Administration had not been able to convert to career status, as was common with Democrat administrations when faced with an incoming Republican administration).

      No, the problem was, once again, the Bush propensity to see all Democrats as the kind of Democrats he knew in Texas, more concerned with the good of the state/country than the party. That was the presumed reason the new Bush Administration didn’t kick out the Clinton appointees on day one – they wanted to “get along” with a “new attitude in DC”. He was repaid with constant leaks from both career and appointee Democrats in the government.

      Two final thoughts:

      1. Most of the remaining Texas Democrats are no longer like those of a few decades ago.

      2. Retaliation wasn’t the answer, political stupidity was.

    • rivahmitch

      He could have simply fired tham all immediately (e.g. “accepted their resignations”) and left the slots blank…

  • tea4me

    And the rest of these lefties…need to be primaried. I don’t care if he just got in and took Kennedy’s seat. If he’s going to be no better than Kennedy…get him out.

    Either get in a real conservative…or just give the d*mn seat back to them. What difference does it make?

    • unclefred

      Committee chairs. Stopping cloture. Have that seat Republican makes a difference.

      Brown is a RINO. He is going to vote with us probably no more than 60% of the time. But the hack that he prevented from getting in would have voted against us 100% of the time.

      This is a moot point anyway. Brown is toast in 2012. The goodness is that he has raised and will spend a lot of money to defend the seat and the dems in Mass and nationally will spend a lot of money to get back a seat that they would have got almost for free. Money they won’t have to spend on seats we can take.

      LIke the man said, it was to stop or at least impede ObamaCare and worth it.

  • tea4me

    …for Scott Brown’s campaign.

    Did I get scammed…

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    Or to put it another way, if everything is a hill to die on, then none are – our representatives will just ignore us because it’s too much noise.

    Furthermore, in this case I think the better argument is with those arguing if we’re talking the 200 lowest on the totem pole our of about 1,000 appointments then it actually may be better to reduce the number – especially if it allows better examination of the higher positions.

    That is, with limitations of staff resources and time, who is going to be able to vet 1,000 names in a reasonable amount of time. It’s much more likely to have dangerous people slip through the more important positions with the higher number than the lower number.

    How about we start holding folks feet of to the fire on the really important issues that may not be quite as sexy – like cutting funding to the NLRB and the EPA and the energy regulatory agencies. I’m glad that we’re seeing holds on some of the Obama appointments as leverage – that’s what we should be encouraging.

    And for those who argue that we should be reducing the number of executive appointees – that’s a good target to shoot for as well in the appropriations process, but it’s going to be fragmentary at best unless we win both houses and the Presidency in 2012.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      are holding their feet to the fire on all of those issues, but we want to focus on some things that fall under the radar as well.

      Regarding the backlog, I agree with Ed Feulner that there are administrative ways of expediting the process without totally exempting these guys from confirmation. Also, I don’t think that any bad nominee was ever confirmed because there was a lack of time, resources, or info into researching the nominee. Any radical appointee who makes it is due to the GOP willingly letting them through. Granted that when you lose the presidency, you have to let in some of these guys, as elections have consequences.

    • ag8tor

      concerned that “O” can name any of his Marxist stooges to posts that could have major impact on our rights as citizens? What happened to the “Cheks & Balances” part of the Constitution? Ah yes, I remember. “O” and his buddies don’t have to go by the Constitution anyhow. Right?

  • dbass

    These Republicans are afflicted with this serious disease that sometimes affects conservatives. It comes from an excess of power that leads to a swelling of the head. . .
    Rinoapathy!

  • http://www.ilovedny.info letsfixit

    What is wrong with these Senators? Don’t they understand our US Constitution?

    They just ripped another page out of the greatest plan for self-government ever created by man, the US Constitution. WE can’t let these BFG(Big Feudal Gov’t) Ruler-crats ruin OUR nation.

    Write them. Call their offices. Stop in to visit them. “Storm the Hill”, July 28-30, 2011, with the FairTax Freedom crowd.

    “Let’s fix it!”
    www.ilovedny.info

  • gfwarhol

    be intent on becoming totally irrelevant, and to hand the ‘community organizer’ dictatorial powers. They are succeeding quite well!

  • radicalrighty

    You think the Dem senators would hand this little present to a Republican president who may have 5 1/2 more years in office?

    Another example of the GOP = the stupid party.

    If you can’t handle your job duties, go find another job!

  • gunslingr45

    I AM SHOCKED, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!
    This man has to go next time. In fact it will be him or me because this man is enough to turn a Republican into a libertarian.

    So many RINO’s, So little time!
    And Dick is their leader!!

  • mutantone

    That this congress and administration is blatantly ignoring the constitution already perhaps it is time to make them uphold their oath of office and impeach them for violation of that oath and their duties.

  • ihateliberals

    No one on the list surprised me. This is what you get when you elect RINO’s and Democrats. It is very hard to tell the difference between a RINO and a Democrat. I wish tht people would wake up and stop electing Republicans that really aren’t. A good Friend of mine got mad when i criticized John Boehner. Boehner represents his district. He told me tht Boehner had done a lot of good for them. My response was “What has he done to the country”? We have to stop just thinking locally with this guys anymore. While they maybe good for district they can destroy a country. I will fight against RINO’s wherever i find them. I do not send money to the RNC anymore. They only support who they want to. I send money directly to the candidate that way i am sure where it goes and not to a RINO.

    • mspector

      So we have McCain standing up in the Senate and confronting Obama for flipping Congress the bird on Libya by saying “let’s vote to approve what he has done”. Wow.

      Now we have Republican Senators confronting Obama for having eluded the confirmation process by saying “let’s vote to approve what he has done.” More wow.

      The wild expansion of Presidential authority under this administration is surpassed only by the craven willingness of Congress to go along for the ride.

  • midwestmike

    Every Republican on this list needs to be replaced at the next election. Especially, Richard Lugar, and Mitch McConnell, one more classic example of the need to throw out anyone who has been there for more than 3 terms. Dump them all!

  • Pingback: URL