United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: BILL TO CUT SENATE CONFIRMATION GETS FINAL ACTION
Source:
MYWAYNEWS.COM
URL Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120801/DA0C8UQG0.html
Published: Aug 1, 2012
Author: LARRY MARGASAK
Post Date: 2012-08-01 15:16:27 by rowdee
Keywords: Senate, confirmation, bills
Views: 195
Comments: 6
WASHINGTON (AP) - The House gave final congressional approval Tuesday to a bill that would save the slow-paced Senate some time by eliminating the need for confirming nominees to some 170 executive branch jobs and 3,000 military officer positions. The vote for this rare instance of streamlining Senate procedures was 261-116. The bill goes to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature. The bill also establishes a five-year term for the nation's census director, to ensure that the position is separated from politics and the election-year calendar. In 2010, there was no director in place for that year's census until months before the count started. In 1990, it was one week before the count. The position still would require Senate confirmation. At the start of the Obama administration, there were 1,215 executive branch positions that required Senate confirmation. President John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, had only 286 positions to fill but the number had jumped to 914 by the end of the Clinton administration in January 2001. Among positions that will no longer need Senate approval are a chief scientist in the Commerce Department, directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the top press spokesmen for the Defense, Treasury and State departments, members of the Council of Economic Advisers, the commissioner of education statistics, the Homeland Security Department's chief medical officer, director of the Labor Department's Women's Bureau and members of the Mississippi River Commission. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said the bill would streamline "the bureaucracy and red tape that comes with requiring the Senate to confirm presidential appointments." She said the change would only have an impact on lower level positions that a president routinely fills. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said, "The current nominations process has grown too cumbersome and too complicated, discouraging individuals from seeking appointments." He said only 35 of the 100 most needed leadership roles were filled in the first 100 days of the Obama administration, and 200 days into the administration, only 50 percent of key national security officials were in place. He called the bill "a common-sense solution that preserves the role but unburdens the process" in the Senate. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said he opposed the bill because Obama bypassed the Senate last January, making recess appointments when Republicans insisted the chamber had not adjourned. Gohmert said Obama demonstrated "the most disdain for Congress and the confirmation process of any president I'm aware of." The Texas Republican referred to recess appointments of Richard Cordray to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three members of the National Labor Relations Board. The Senate was holding so-called pro-forma sessions at the time, when little or no business was conducted. The bill had bipartisan support in the Senate, and its four main supporters praised the House action: Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; Susan Collins, R-Maine and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. They said the bill, which passed the Senate last summer, would help clear the backlog of stalled presidential nominations.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
I initially thought this is a good deal. There can actually be substantial savings just in printing costs for the bills and then there are hearings for each of these nominees as well as investigative time, hearings, etc. However, when I saw the liberal Schumer, the RINOS Snow and Alexander, and the chameleon Lieberman were major sponsors and pushers, I figure it would be best to read the bill and any debate on the matter before wholeheartedly endorsing such action. I trust not a one of these 4 people.
Congress is absolving themselves of all responsibility for whatever happens, and blaming it all on the president & SCOTUS. They can say... It's not MY fault, the prez and supreme court did it! Basically the old... The dog ate my homework... excuse. Cowards and traitors.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
I don't see it as absolving themselves at all. Look at the mindless growth of numbers of miscellaneous appointed bureaucrats who generally just go thru the motions as they don't know what the hell is going on with the people or departments that actually do the work. All these positions do is guarantee the Senate spends meaningless hours arguing about someone they know very little about and could care less about even more. Its all a 'show'--but it does provide coverage for why their job is so special (the congress cowards, that is). The better idea, of course, would be to eliminate these stupid positions to begin with...but we know that isn't going to happen due to the aforesaid reason. Furthermore, the Senate is not any better at selecting winners or losers than the president, I might add, of whichever party is doing the nominating.
The better idea, of course, would be to eliminate these stupid positions to begin with True, but even worse is to just accept Obama's (or anyone's) picks without any objective vetting or oversight. Besides, it might just keep them busy enough, that they don't have time to pass any more stupid legislation adding to gov complexity and killing businesses with over-regulation. In general they're a bunch of derelicts out to cause mayhem. IMO they should be repealing legislation, closing agencies, impeaching officials, or out playing golf. Mark Twain had it right... No ones life, liberty, or property is safe for as long as congress is in session.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said someone may steal from it at night, so they created a night watchman position (GS-4) and hired a person for the job. Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning position and hired two people: one person to write the instructions (GS-12) and one person to do time studies (GS-11). Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Q.C. position and hired two people, one GS-9 to do the studies and one GS-11 to write the reports. Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a timekeeper (GS-9) and a payroll officer (GS-11) and hired two people. Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative position and hired three people: an Admin Officer (GS-13), an Assistant Admin Officer (GS-13), and a Legal Secretary (GS- 8). Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cut back overall cost." So they laid off the night watchman.
That's government for you....perfect match to what happens in la la land.
The bill had bipartisan support in the Senate, and its four main supporters praised the House action: Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; Susan Collins, R-Maine and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
#2. To: rowdee, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#1)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: hondo68 (#2)
At the start of the Obama administration, there were 1,215 executive branch positions that required Senate confirmation. President John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, had only 286 positions to fill but the number had jumped to 914 by the end of the Clinton administration in January 2001.
#4. To: rowdee (#3)
guarantee the Senate spends meaningless hours arguing about someone they know very little about and could care less about even more
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#5. To: rowdee (#3)
#6. To: Abcdefg (#5)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]