the unchecked policymakers...

[nittanyalum]

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.

[Senusret I]

Dear nittanyalum,

I love you.

Regards,
Senusret I

[agzg]

I'd like the agencies to be "freshened up" just because I need a job.

Therefore, I make this plea to the US Government:

HIRE ME. I'm cute. I work hard. And I'm cute. And I won't sleep with elected officials!

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

And I won't sleep with elected officials!

You just blew your chances.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

You just blew your chances.

Damn!

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Dear nittanyalum,

I love you.

Regards,
Senusret I

Aw. *blush*

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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 KSigkid

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Aw. *blush*

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.

But, I think good lobbyists will find ways to adjust their tactics so as to get an "in" with a Democratic administration. I have friends who lobby for causes that one would qualify as "liberal" or "left-leaning" interests, but who still have gotten a seat at the table for certain decisions. Lobbying does depend a great deal on connections, but strong lobbying organizations are able to work on both sides, and will have no trouble keeping their influence (at least, to some degree) in a new administration.

As far as the change-over; I think you would be right if this were to be a different Republican - to - Republican change-over. But, I think there's a good deal of bad blood built up between McCain and Bush, and between their people. I think, in the (admittedly unlikely) event he were to get elected, that there would be a near-complete house-cleaning, even more so than in the past when one party has retained control. Plus, the Bush name has become such a political liability that it gives extra incentive to clear out anyone with any say, so as to have the complete change that you're referring to.

Again, we won't end up agreeing on this, as it perhaps goes to the heart of one of the reasons why we'll be voting differently in the upcoming election. I'm just saying that there can be an argument made the other way.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

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.

Trust me, I understood exactly what you're saying, and mostly agree - my issue is that we're replacing one agenda with another, and I'm not precisely sure that the agendas are all that different, or that "shakeup" will do more than replacing bad with equivalent. In other words, I agree completely with this:

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

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

[UGAalum94]

I'm not sure the shake ups really affect the bureaucracy that much. The wheels keep on turning or grinding. I think real bureaucratic reform would require the same people be minding the system, assuming that any professional politician is really interested in reform.

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.

Remember when Al Gore was going to reinvent government? How weird to be wistful about Al Gore.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

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

What's the ratio of merit based to political appointee? I'm reading through, but I haven't seen it yet. ETA: I don't think that data is in there. I'll look for it elsewhere.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm This makes it appear that political appointees, using the number in the article Nittanyalum linked, are a really small percentage of total government employees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100501782.html This seems to cover the same window of time and looks at growth overall.

Will the Bush appointees all be expected to resign with the new administration?

ETA: It's appalling that the government grew this much with Republican control, but I'm not seeing the evidence that a change in leadership equals a change in the nature of the bureaucracy although I'd love to see Obama reduce the overall size as well as reform the process.

[nittanyalum]

http://www.opm.gov/transition/TRANS20R-Ch1.htm

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

http://www.opm.gov/transition/TRANS20R-Ch1.htm

So Bush's schedule Cs will go away. That's who I was wondering about. I knew agency heads, etc, were replaceable. I wonder if Obama will eliminate positions or simply fill them with his appointees since the position already exists?

This was random, but kind of interesting to me http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTE...6305,00.html#1