Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Why ask the Senate?

By Dylan Matthews

At his Washington Post blog, NYU professor Paul Light has a typically smart suggestion for speeding up the appointments process:

Any presidential post that remains vacant for six months should be automatically abolished as a presidential appointment. Once removed from the appointment's roster, it should be filled instead by a member of the career Senior Executive Service. This career executive should be given a 10-year fixed term and be removable only for serious cause. Ten years should give future presidents and the Senate plenty of time to rethink their behavior. Any position that is so trivial that it can remain open for six months is a position that should either be cashed out or filled with someone who intends to stay on the job.

There are cases where I could see this not working. Consider the most infamous recent confirmation delay, that of Lael Brainard to be undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs. Brainard clearly brings something, through her work in political positions in the Clinton administration and through her time at Brookings, that a career Treasury official would lack. And the undersecretary position generally is an important policymaking post that should have people with policy, rather than administrative, backgrounds filling it.

So while Light's idea works for a number of posts, the long-term solution to this problem is to make far fewer positions Senate confirmable. I don't see any reason deputy, under or assistant secretaries should require Senate approval. The current system merely slows down the confirmation process without leading to any reasoned consideration of nominees. Giving department secretaries total discretion in picking subcabinet officials would allow experts without completely unobjectionable public records to serve, would eliminate the need for torturous vetting processes, and would allow administrations to be staffed much more quickly.

--Dylan Matthews is a student at Harvard and a researcher at The Washington Post.

By Washington Post editor  |  May 28, 2010; 3:21 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gulf spill: An opportunity for change?
Next: Pardon them

Comments

I think this idea would allow for a lot of "burrowing" at the end of an administration.

Posted by: ideallydc | May 28, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"I think this idea would allow for a lot of "burrowing" at the end of an administration."

Not really. These positions could remain subject to Presidential appointment; but without Senate confirmation.

Posted by: WoodbridgeVa1 | May 28, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I see the suggestion as what already happens. If a political appointment can't be made the operation doesn't just close shop and stop operating, you have one of the career civil servants continuing to keep the operations running.

On the other hand, the whole point of the political appointments is to ensure the administration is following the will of the people through the representative democratic process.

Posted by: Jaycal | May 28, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company