On Wednesday, January 4th, President Bush used the highly-disputed Constitutional powers of Recess Appointment to place Julie L. Myers as the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.), a division of the Department of Homeland Security, while Congress was again on recess.
The power of Presidential Recess Appointment was originally created for the President to fill an emergency vacancy, originally high importance, while Congress was out of town. However, in recent administrations, the recess appointment power has been used to get people into a job without the required confirmation from the U.S. Senate. This is usually used when the nominee is liked by the President, but is considered too controversial for the Senate to approve.
However, this appointment is even more controversial, due to who the President appointed. Here's a few facts about Julie L. Myers:
1. If her last name sounds familiar, that's because you've heard it before. She is the niece of former Joint Chief Chairman Gen. Richard Myers.
2. Her new boss will be D.H.S. Secretary Michael Chertoff. Her husband is the Chief of Staff of Michael Chertoff. That's right, her HUSBAND is the Chief of Staff of her NEW BOSS!
3. She already has an established relationship with Michael Chertoff, since he was her boss previously.
Here are a few stats about her old job and her new job:
Julie L. Myers currently works at the Commerce Dept.
There, she has 170 employees working under her,
At her new job, she will have 20,000
Her operating budget at her current job is $21.5 Million,
At her new job, the operating budget is $4 Billion
Some political consultant on CNN said that in the Private Sector, this sort of job change would never happen, due to the fact that she's not qualified for such a change in budget and personnel.
The news media is calling it an "Inside Job". I tend to agree with them. If you ignore the family associations, which is hard to do, she's simply NOT qualified to go from the Commerce Dept. to Immigration enforcement. The differences between her two jobs are too great, and with all those money and personnel increases, comes the greater chance of a screw up.
I'm not saying she can't do the job, I just think that they could find somebody better qualified.
However, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to ignore all the family connections. Her uncle, her husband, and her former (and now new) boss. This is the sort of thing that shouldn't happen in the Government. Unfortunatly, it does all the time.
Jack Abramoff used money to court votes from Congressmen; Bush is appointing someone close to his top general and his DHS Secretary. If Abramoff didn't break other laws, the the things these to politicans have done would have been just as bad!
When will it END?
-Adam
3 comments:
When will it end, indeed.
"President William J. Clinton made 140 recess appointments during his eight years in office, 95 to full-time positions."
-From the senate's own website.
You make the same mistake that the rest of the dems/liberals make, especially the media. You suffer from historical myopia, thinking that George Bush is the only one to ever employ these "controversial" practices, and then you vilify him for it. It's the same exact ploy you guys stooped to on the wire tapping "issue" (see Drudge's report for more on this), something that Carter and Clinton did regularly, AND before we realized we were under the threat of Islamo-facist terrorism.
Now, Julie Myers nomination may be a good one, or it may not be. You address that in the second half of your post, and I commend you for it. I just don't see any reason for (or the substance behind) taking a cheap shot at the President when he employs a political maneuver that has been in the playbook for every president in recent history.
I don't blame you particularly, as this is the most common path taken by the Democrats these days. Fortunately, most Americans are able to see through their "gun down the president, get our facts later" strategy. Except for the kool-aid drinking, Michael Moore disciples out there, everyone else is beginning to feel sorry for the dems because they have baseless allegations all day long, but no ideas or substance for improving America. As we saw in the last election, Americans won't settle for an empty suit whose only contribution to the betterment of America is his ability to attack the president. That is why Hillary doesn't stand a chance, either.
blog.wittmania.com
Thanks for the information on Clinton's Recess Appts. I knew he also made quite a few, but not THAT many!. I can only imagine that Bush will make more before he's done, too.
Looking at the Senate site you sent along, this is a trend no matter who is in office! Clinton made 140, 95 which were full-time. Reagan made 240, 116 full-time. During current President Bush's FIRST term, he made 110, 66 full-time. Bush 41 appears to be the best, only making 77 appts, 18 full-time, but then I remembered that he only served one term, so he's on the same track as everyone else. I'd be interestd to see how many Carter, Nixon, Ford, and further back made, compaired to these newer ones.
I think we can agree, this needs to stop! I understand if Rumsfeld up and resigned or became ill, and Bush needed a new one, ASAP, due to the ongoing wars. But waiting to shove someone into a position AFTER Congress leaves is rediculous. If I.C.E. needed a new dept. head immediately, I understand, but if they DID, I would of heard about this earlier. Or at least President Bush would of announced his choice to be nominated first.
These are important jobs, but they are not ESSENTIAL jobs. If they were, they would have had someone already lined up and announced whenever the last guy stepped down. So why couldn't he wait? Although given, there seems to be an ever-shortening window as to when Congress is ACTUALLY in session!
I think the "check" in the system is that they are only temporary appointments, and they have to be renewed at the end of congress' next session. I also would say that congress' role is to advise and consent, and only the worst nominations should be shot down. Unfortunately, that is not the case. At this point, many senators believe that it is Bush's job to pick people that they themselves would have picked, otherwise they fillibuster and find other ways to slow down or derail Bush's appointments. They should not have this kind of power, and the Constitution certainly does not grant it to them. An example: Stephen Breyer's Supreme Court nomination during Clinton's administration. Breyer is about as liberal as they get, especially in the constitutional sense, but republicans let him through because he was qualified. Contrast that with the reaction to Roberts and Alito, who are both extremely qualified, even if you disagree with their ideologies.
So, all that to say I'm not terribly convinced that recess appointments are that big of a problem, and senate Democrats may have forced Bush's hand on this one, just like the Bolton nomination.
Post a Comment