|
Blog Talk . . Thursday, January 31, 2008 08:14 PM. . |
||
| Hello: I have two observations about your very interesting article. First, we need to remind ourselves that only about 20% of the Presidential appointments require Senate confirmation. The President and the White House have enormous power built into the non-confirmation appointments and use it in a tough handed manner in most administrations. Second: There is some political science logic is giving the President power to transmit his policy through friendly people in a variety of positions, particularly those requiring Senate confirmation. It is tough for the President to force the civil service part of the government to act in many policy issues where it disagrees with an administration's views. Some amount of political responsibility makes common sense if a President is to be effective. That works better when the number and depth of the appointees in any department or agency is limited and transparent. In general, the problems with patronage - i.e., non-civil service staff, are often very substantial for the White House. The political staff wants of political appointees - the policy side wants fewer with more direct control. Thank you for your interesting article. John Isaacson, Director Presidential-Appointments.org |
. . Posted to DemocracyArsenal.org 10-15-07 There is no doubt that the Bush Administration is slow to fill both confirmed appointments and day-to-day non-confirmed political appointments. Historically - this shortage of appointments occurs later is a lame duck administration - people don't want to leave another permanent job for a few months in a closing administration - and in this case more than others - it is tough to get people to serve an unpopular President. |
|
. .
. .