Many Important Administration Jobs Go Unfilled Because of New Ethics Code
I wondered at the time the new Obama hiring rules were announced if that was possible in a company town like D.C., and it looks like it isn't. While it's a valiant effort, it's just not practical if it cuts some of the most talented and experienced people out of the running. And, as the examples in this Gloria Borger column show, in some cases, it's just plain silly:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Tim Geithner may be the latest political piñata in Washington these days, but -- policy aside -- there may be another reason he is the one fellow everyone is picking on at Treasury: He's there alone. President Obama's ethics code requires that no lobbyist can work for an agency he may have lobbied.
Believe it or not, Geithner is the only confirmed official at his department. Some top nominees, even those who have served in government before, have decided to withdraw. Others are still pending as they go through arduous background checks that one pro-Obama Democrat calls "maddening vetting hell."
Sure, this is about extensive scrutiny to make sure no one has a tax problem after Geithner's own embarrassing unpaid tax bill. But the staffing problem is not just at Treasury, and it goes way beyond the time-consuming nature of extensive background checks.
It's also about overreaching anti-lobbyist rules.
Consider Tom Malinowski. He's the advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, an expert on genocide and torture. But when it came time for a top human rights job at the State Department, he was turned away.
Why? "Because he lobbied against torture," says one incredulous administration official. "It's crazy."
But the rules are the rules: The ethics code requires that no lobbyist can be hired to work for an agency he may have lobbied.
So, just to clarify: Someone like Malinowski who lobbied against torture and is a widely acknowledged expert on international human rights law is, er, blackballed. More to the point, he was shown the door precisely because he tried to influence Congress on an issue that both he and the administration agree, and care deeply about. (Malinowski won't comment.)
Only in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of Washington would this make any sense. And it still doesn't. It's just a prime instance of the problems that can arise when great-sounding (theoretical) campaign one-liners rub up against the (real) difficulties of trying to staff a government. In other words, the short-term interest in demonizing all lobbyists has led to some very difficult staffing problems.
So, if you're an environmental expert and lobbyist, forget about the Environmental Protection Agency. But you might want to think about some work in the health field.
what's it say about the state of federal politics, when ethics actually will stand in the way of appointments. I'm sure if they really clamped down on lobbying, and ethics, there would be very very few left in Washington. Perhaps the name should be changed to Greedsville.
That an ethics code could theoretically turn DC into a ghost town. Just like we always joked.
That said, and mirth having now subsided, maybe we can chalk this up to, "A noble idea, but..." and try try not to bash President Obama too much for having to reel this one in a bit (I'z looking at YOU and ME, fellow libs and progs!).
[lol]
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
maybe it will actually inspire change? Hahahahahaha...ya right.
But will change win out? We can hope, to coin a phrase.
Seriously, ALL of this is better than no hope at all, which is what we had with Bush and would have had with McSame. No: conversation has come back to town, having been exiled for too long. Will it always be civil, rationale or fair? Maybe not, but at least, it seems, we have a president who encourages debate. Unless he needs to lay down the occasional BOOOMSHAKKALAKKA!!! 360degree, slam dunk, facial on GOP lapdogs like Ed Henry, but I digress.
:)
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
Hahaha! I love that!
you seem pretty cynical... based on this and previous posts of yours I've read
nearly all of the Canadians I know are BC folks, but they seem pretty optimistic about where the US is headed in general...
not that you're all the same or anything =P. so anyway, what's the deal? are you always that way? or just about the US? or just on the Internet? or what?
just curious...
I realize that Canada's population is a lot smaller than the U.S., but still, we come in all shapes, sizes & opinions, just like Americans. I'm from Western Canada but I live on the east coast of the U.S. In my experience, Canadians have huge political & cultural differences from one another, just like any other diverse population.
B.C., for instance, has gained a reputation for being laid-back (in part because of its pot culture), but it also has a long-standing & well-deserved reputation as a hotbed of far-right & nativist activism. It's not unlike Washington State, where there's somewhat progressive Seattle but there's also a thriving John Birch "god 'n' gunz" culture.
However, you just spent the first paragraph arguing that you are all different, when I actually *asserted* that explicitly in my post, and followed up by turning my attention towards ConcernedCanuck specifically... I hope that you wouldn't think think I was referring to YOU when I said YOU in that post just because I also mentioned Canada. I was just trying alluding to the fact that I didn't think he was a US hater because he was a Canadian... but apparently I was to subtle and you missed my point. I'll spell it out next time.
As to the second part of your post about Washington, et al: I've lived here (Washington State) for 30 years, so really, it wasn't necessary.
n/t
By *he*, yes I assumed ConcernedCanuck is male. It's more of a typing convenience, I use masculine pronouns on the Internet when I don't know... I don't think that makes me sexist... people that speak spanish aren't necessarily sexist, and they do this all the time... but I live around a bunch of Mexicans (read, people who are actually citizens of Mexico) and speak some spanish so maybe I'm biased...
/pre-emptive preventive snark
Well to be honest, I've been around long enough to have figured out that almost all politicians are frauds and liars. I've put my time and "hope" in a few over the years, and have always been crapped on, so excuse me if I find blind politcal partisanship a bit on the immature side.
And no, it isn't just American politics that brings out the cynic in me, but it is the most globally advertised. The part that really gets me, is the blind followers that can be completely crapped on, but still will support "so and so" cuz it's the least of evil, or better than the alternative. That is so sad, for groups of people that say that they can create change, then fall for the same dog and pony shows. It goes beyond degrading of people's intellect.
I also believe that any and all politicians need their feet held to the fire all the time, or you end up with what the globe is in right now. A complete clusterf*ck, yet still, people want to blindly follow and wait. Wait for what? Who knows.
I thought we'd seen the end of mindless "black & white world" rules and decision-making?
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
it has basically guaranteed that there is nobody in Washington that isn't tainted somehow. Good grief. I knew the state of US politics was bad, but damn, this is just outright ridiculous.
Imagine. Politicians that are expected to be honest!! Why the nerve! How the heck to find them??
...I doubt I would even qualify!
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
Especially the part about experts, and lobbying against torture - you know, advocacy work. My fiancee could never get a govt. job in anything having to do with immigrant rights, just because she advocates (read lobby) various agencies and organizations now... -1000 points because of her history as a Christian missionary. /snark
Usually lobbyists are registered. I don't think the ethics rules apply to people who aren't registered lobbyists. Of course, why would anyone live in DC if he/she weren't an elected official or a lobbyist?
really? you don't think there may be some leftover winger motive there?
well, i do...
what i don't understand is, why not broaden the search, actually AVOID the dc area...
We need people from "outside the bubble". The same old same old people can't cut it anymore. On the other hand, just wait till Congress takes a recess. Soon, I hope.
Susie,
That's why we need to have exceptions to rules. Advocacy for a cause should not disqualify you.
Exceptions should not be made if the lobbying or advocacy is for personal profit, or for an organization with a financial interest.
is like trying to find a whale in a rain barrel!
...to deny an anti-torture lobbyist a job working to prevent torture. But put the shoe on the other foot: would we all be just as upset if, say, a pro-life lobbyist were denied a spot in the Dept.of Health? Of course not. Because we have the same "blind spot" as conservatives do: our guys are right and deserving, their guys are wrong and should be tossed out.
Rules and policies MUST apply equally, or they are of no use whatsoever.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" - Red Green
Freedom Ain't Free - Pay Your Share
n/t
You see my analogy as a "fale equivalency", huh? Why, because I used a pro-life example? How about if I had said a mining advocate being considered for the EPA? Or a Monsanto lobbyist appointed to the Dept. of Agriculture?
It's called "putting the shoe on the other foot". Try it sometime...you might actually understand your enemy, and be better able to defeat him.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" - Red Green
Freedom Ain't Free - Pay Your Share
The legal system does in fact require the law to apply equally - as it should. Law application = Law enforcement, and needs to be clear and evenly applied. This is basic civics.
However, law-*making*, should be reflective of the above prerequisite...
I also agree that everyone is subject to ideological blind spots.
A don't think that a pro-life lobbyist working at the dept of health is a good analogy though. For starters, the idea of a litmus test for dept of health positions is unconstitutional and, in my opinion, scary.
A better analogy might be a pharma lobbyist working at the FDA
Where did I infer a litmus test? I postulated a person who had advocated/lobbied for pro-life policies and laws who applied for/was nominated for a position in the health dept. Progressives would scream bloody murder if such an individual were hired/appointed. Nothing there about "litmus testing". Anyone whose lobbying history is there for the world to see isn't suffering any "litmus tests"...
My point being, it is not correct to take offense when one of our own is denied something under a law or policy that, if applied equally, would also deny the conservatives the same.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" - Red Green
Freedom Ain't Free - Pay Your Share
Inspire change? I doubt, politic will not end when there are politicians.
its like looking for a swab comb
that there aren't others that haven't been lobbyists who would qualify for the jobs. Maybe, they're looking for love in the wrong places.
i'm even more concerned about the weenies who are turning down the opportunity because of a pay cut, or even being scared of the scrutiny...
service to country is almost meaningless these days...
Pres. Obama is trying to get the sleazy weasels out of government, and Gloria Borger has the nerve to COMPLAIN? I'll bet, though, that Obama never realized so many people in government are "tainted".
Maybe some of these folks who want to work in the public sector should avoid lobbying as a means to an end, how about that?
when it comes to the art of perverting the very spirit of a law or policy... changing the very notion of "ethics guidelines" into some monster so asinine, grotesque, and dumbly mechanical that it bears no resemblance to what it was meant to be or promote.
----------
Totally OT, but just watched Rachel tear a "conservadem" a new one... I knew those dumb bastards would find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory somehow. Spineless wonders. How they stand upright still puzzles me...
i thought rachel held back some...
she sure had reason and opportunity to get tougher...
still, she did good...
say, C&L, did i miss the post about jane hamsher's appearance on rachel last night about these conservadems?
should be publicized to the max!
and Conserva Dems think they will have more POWER if they play it recalcitrant. Look at how Olympia & Specter were treated by the Dems.
by toting wheelbarrels full of shit for their masters
It seems to me that those rules need to be changed.
Personally, I think that Obama's focus on transparency of government should preclude the need for an outright ban based on lobbying history. Make the information on lobbying history public and searchable on lobbying.gov (or something) or throughout the new gov sites. Let the public be the judge, and basically just stake political capital (or public opinion anyway) on the info provided...
Presidents can't always keep campaign promises...
Yeah let the people decide
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley_Obama_ge...
Is it just me, or are any of you relieved that we are even having a discussion on this topic? esp after the previous 8 years...
..a couple of financial industry insiders with extremely questionable motives (Geithner, Summers) get positions but an anti torture advocate has to go packing.
Generally speaking I don't trust anyone making over 150K a year.
The first thing that struck me was, certainly the financial industry guys were lobbying in some form, maybe not as lobbyists, but as big business leaders. Sounds like this was a mess made by people with good intentions.
Good intentions? Relative to what?
great point in fact...
I wish they'd just can both of those jokers, but where would the replacements come from... Paul Krugman wouldn't even consider the idea, but I doubt he has the tempermant for politics in any case... not that Summers does... hmmm... maybe we should just fire summers, draft krugman and I don't know - draft Peter Schiff to replace Geithner, too... if anyone (other than Schiff) complains we'll strap them to a chair, prop their eyelids open Clockwork Orange style, and make them watch that video where he calmly schools Art Laffer back in 2k6...over and over again
by "that video" i mean:
Peter Schiff Was Right
That was great, thank you.. the other so-called pundits who denigrated Peter while he held to his views look like so many syncophant poseurs
So don't look to lobbyists to fill these positions. Look to academia, authors, etc.
I can't believe that we are so berefit of talent that only a chosen few are capable.. mystification is part of the problem..
At least the Obama Administration is moving in the right direction; that is to say removing the INFLUENCE PEDDLING from the government. I think it's a good rule. And since there are no qualified people in D.C. why don't some of the people from around the nation apply? People who don't live anywhere NEAR D.C. and might want to make a difference in their country? You can't tell me there aren't enough unemployed people qualified to put in an application? You can do it on line.
what the GOP swiftboat machine, with the talk radio monopoly leading the way, will do to them.
try eight years of unpaid tax bills... and falsely claiming back taxes on wrong child care
Once could be a mistake, two years running is sloppy accountants,
three years running and more is something unpalatable.
Us small people who have our taxes extracted from our paychecks, suffer in silence knowing our taxes go to pay for everything around us.
People who are in the category of self taxpay or declaring other incomes and deliberately evade paying taxes are doing so in the knowledge that they are starving the country and community of its life blood, they are traitors, inhuman, immoral and unfit to hold public office
As that famous rich bietch once said "taxes are for small people"
God tells us whom he prefers by giving them money and power, so shut up about it!
Apologies to the ghosts of Gilbert and Sullivan, tho they would be laughing their socks off at what is going down now.
or, because some are wussy (imo)...
Deputy EPA chief nominee withdraws
Jonathan Cannon, citing questions about a foundation for which he served as a board member, said he didn't want to be a distraction.
By Jim Tankersley
March 26, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Another Obama administration nominee withdrew his name Wednesday as questions emerged about a nonprofit group with which he had been affiliated.
Jonathan Z. Cannon, nominated as deputy director of the Environmental Protection Agency, cited questions about the now-defunct America's Clean Water Foundation, for which he had been a board member. He said he didn't want to be a distraction.
In 2007, EPA auditors accused the foundation of mismanaging $25 million in taxpayer funds. The foundation had won that much in federal contracts to identify environmental risks at beef, poultry and pork plants, and to help states and Native American tribes comply with the Clean Water Act.
EPA auditors questioned the foundation's accounting of almost all that money and alluded to allegations of embezzlement. The report did not mention Cannon, who is a professor of environmental law at the University of Virginia and the former top EPA lawyer.
"Today I am voluntarily removing my name from consideration to be deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency," Cannon said in a statement. "It has come to my attention that America's Clean Water Foundation . . . has become the subject of scrutiny. While my service on the board of that now-dissolved organization is not the subject of the scrutiny, I believe the energy and environmental challenges facing our nation are too great to delay confirmation for this position, and I do not wish to present any distraction to the agency."
[...]
and i just don't want to be bothered...
Too bad, so sad. You have to draw a line somewhere and if this policy happens to keep some legitimate people out of government while at the same time keeping out weasly self serving lobbyists then so be it. That's the price you pay. Any bending of the rules now would just lead to complete abandonment of the rules in the future. Stick to your guns Mr. Obama, you're finally bringing back a bit of respect for the US, but there's still an awful long way to go.
But this is a bullshit post.
Yes, it is unfortunate that good people (which, in this case, means he was lobbying for the "right side" of an issue) will not get positions, but, let's look at it this way, because there is no win-win here.
If Obama nominates someone who lobbied for a good cause, the right will go apoplectic. They do now, over nothing and everything (read: teleprompters). I have seen many a right wing post about who is being placed in positions as it is, and that is with people with no past whatsoever.
If Obama nominated someone who lobbied for something YOU (and this can apply to any YOU who is reading this) do not believe in, it is going to get press (because someone with a voice is bound to agree with YOU). And what YOU and I might think are good causes, others will think are bad. What YOU and I think are bad causes, others believe are good.
Susie, you have railed on everything Obama has done, little has made you happy (including buying into the whole VA healthcare issue, which to be honest, got a lot of people confused, including Jon Stewart and VoteVets (there is also a link to VA Watch which debunks is, which I do not have my fingers on now). You, Susie, would be the first to bitch about a lobbyist getting into the Admin.
This is a no-win situation for Obama. The scrutiny by everyone, on both sides of the political spectrum, is creating these distractions, which is what the people who do not want Obama's policies to succeed want to accomplish. Distract and distort.
This is a policy which he has to maintain. He said no lobbyists, he needs to have no lobbyists, across the board.
I do believe he has put lobbyists in place - and it is wrong, no matter what they have lobbied for. That a man who was on a board but not a lobbyist has pulled out, that is a personal decision. One which makes me think there was more to it than just he was on a board of a clean air or water (I forgot already which one) group.
And I again repeat, if so many people have tax issues - CHANGE THE TAX CODE!
because they are lying corrupt scum. Why is it that some people believe "some" politicians that are caught are innocent, and others are not, all because of their political affiliation? A corrupt crook is a corrupt crook.
I am saying that tax issues do not make them corrupt.
I was told by my accountant and attorney I would not have a tax liability on a property I sold and voila! the IRS comes back and says I owe them $23,000.00. Am I corrupt? Hardly.
You're missing my point by saying everyone is corrupt. EVERYONE is not corrupt. You cannot sweep that broad of a brush. Sorry.
Comments are closed on this entry