Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam (Post 1736479)

And I won't sleep with elected officials!

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 1736442)

I've mentioned before part of my interest in a shake-up of DC is not just about who's sitting at 1600 PA Ave and the OEOB, but it's the politicos deeply entrenched in the agencies, creating policy right before our eyes but completely under the radar that need to be dislodged and the agencies aired out after 8 long years. And the Bush Administration isn't done pushing their agenda through while they have their lackeys in place. To whit:

With Time Short, Bush Pushes EPA to Relax Power-Plant Rule

EPA Weakens New Lead Rule After White House Objects

You hear plenty about the "dangers" of a Democrat-controlled or Republican-controlled legislature because of the effect it can have on policy, but really, the bureaucracy is what often concerns me the most. So many political appointees, often put in place out of duty or favor, given more access and power than most Americans are aware of, being courted by lobbyists and having power exerted on them by the high rollers who got them their jobs. Policies are crafted and put into effect by these people and their staffs day after day without the public even being aware of it the majority of the time.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni (Post 1736497)

You just blew your chances. ;)

Originally Posted by Senusret I (Post 1736447)

Dear nittanyalum,

I love you.

Regards,
Senusret I

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1736543)

So we're going to replace one with another?

No offense intended, NA, I just really don't see a whole lot of difference at this point.

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1736580)

It seems your issue, as expressed, is more with the results of the process than the process itself. There will be a fresh group of people in the White House, but it will be a group that will bring with it special interests, and a number of lobbyists. I'm almost absolutely sure that Obama, having been in the Senate for a time, has certain lobbyists who will have his ear, as well as certain aides who have been with him for some time and will be rewarded with White House positions.

Some of the aims may be changing, but the process will stay the same, for better or worse. Additionally, I think every President tries to push through changes before they leave office - again, whether we agree with those changes or that legislation is a whole other matter, but the process is one that even the presumptive President Obama will engage in when he eventually leaves office.

And, to be fair, I think there will be a personnel shake-up regardless of who is elected. There's no love lost between McCain and Bush, and most, if not all, of Bush's appointees would find themselves booted out even if a new Republican administration came in. A President is going to want to be surrounded by his own people, the people who helped get him the job, and the people who have his trust.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 1736614)

Aw. *blush* :p

Replace one what with another? I'm not saying that it makes a difference what party the administration is, it's the continuity that needs interruption to ensure that a legislative agenda that most Americans don't even know is being enacted without the standard oversight and checks and balances they assume happens for policy to go into effect in this country doesn't continue to go unchecked indefinitely. I am absolutely aware that Democrat administrations entrench their lackeys just as Republican administrations do. I'm not saying it's better or worse. I'm saying it's something that does need airing out on a regular basis, because the deeply rooted ones can really start to stink.

And I disagree on both parts, it is the process itself that bothers me more than who is partaking in the process. We talk about our government being a system of checks and balances, but while everyone's distracted by the stalemates at the legislative and executive level, policies are quietly being put into effect at the agency level without any of the same checks and balances. And the ones leading the agendas are appointees by the administration, regardless of what party that is. I also disagree that a McCain administration would bring on a wholesale shake-up. With how many appointees there are across the bureaucracy, some are likely to be left in place because of (a) the ease of it when there are higher-level appointments to worry about that absolutely will turn over and (b) some of those people will have created their own circle of access and influence -- with lobbyists and organizations that will be on the same page as another Republican administration -- that he would be advised to keep them in place so as not to lose the "power seat" that so-and-so has already made that position into. And that person would likely keep his or her staff in place if they have been effective and loyal. Not saying that there wouldn't be some turnover, but I don't believe it would be as thorough as what would happen with a full-party change at the administration level.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 1736614)

Replace one what with another? I'm not saying that it makes a difference what party the administration is, it's the continuity that needs interruption to ensure that a legislative agenda that most Americans don't even know is being enacted without the standard oversight and checks and balances they assume happens for policy to go into effect in this country doesn't continue to go unchecked indefinitely. I am absolutely aware that Democrat administrations entrench their lackeys just as Republican administrations do. I'm not saying it's better or worse. I'm saying it's something that does need airing out on a regular basis, because the deeply rooted ones can really start to stink.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 1736614)

And I disagree on both parts, it is the process itself that bothers me more than who is partaking in the process.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1736791)

Even when there's change at the top with a new administration and new department heads, I don't know how much that really affects the day to day experience of people working in the agency. And I think it probably takes some time for the people who do change to really know how the system is functioning beneath them.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 1736807)

You need to understand more about Schedule Cs, the # of them and their roles. http://oversight.house.gov/documents...0909-97328.pdf

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 1736833)

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 1746357)

No, I've been saying DC needs a shake-up from the last 8 years, I never argued that no one that's ever served in an administration should serve again (I just recently had this argument with my father by email too ;)). And with all the "experience" arguments some made against Obama, what would the reaction be if he brought in a full new slate of newbies? He knows he needs to bring people in with the experience and expertise to support him. And looking back, there were a lot of relatively young people in the Clinton Administration that are still in the prime of their lives and have plenty of years left to serve, I've been very comfortable with the people he's brought on so far and the prospects I'm hearing about. (my father warns of a "3rd Clinton term", I reminded him that there are plenty of people for whom that is a welcome, rather than scary, prospect ;) :)).

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 1746359)

No, I get what you were saying, my father keeps saying something similar (in fact, he had the same reaction when I sent HIM the link this morning ;)).

The implication is that Obama isn't really living up to the "change" mantra since he's bringing in some people that served in the Clinton administration. And my argument is that the "change" mandate was in reference to the past 8 years. If these people have not been in position the last 8 years, then hey, that's CHANGE! And yes, I believe in it. ;) :)

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 1746345)

THIS is what I'm talking about: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802730.html?nav%3Dhcmoduletmv&sub=new

I know this administration is not the first or only one to do it, but the maneuvering and manipulation at the agency level just drives me crazy.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1746532)

Does it seem odd that they mention that the transfers have longed been tracked but then only give data for the Bush administration? Wouldn't it be helpful to know how many positions have been similarly converted at the end of other presidential terms for a basis of comparison?

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1746566)

For real comparison, we'll have to wait until January. The Bush Administration has two more months to go.