The Deep State
-
A friend of mine who served in the Trump administration published today in the NYT, arguing well the need for the sort of reform that Trump implemented and Biden has removed. I don't have NYT access, so just provide a photo his wife sent me.
-
@Ivorythumper said in The Deep State:
A friend of mine who served in the Trump administration published today in the NYT, arguing well the need for the sort of reform that Trump implemented and Biden has removed. I don't have NYT access, so just provide a photo his wife sent me.
I have NYT access, but it doesn’t help me with WSJ articles.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Deep State:
I have NYT access, but it doesn’t help me with WSJ articles.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The President Needs the Power to Fire Bureaucrats
Too often, insubordinate employees subvert the work of political appointees.
Aug. 8, 2022 5:58 pm ET
Career employees fill almost all federal jobs. Only 4,000 of the 2.2 million federal employees are political appointees. Career federal employees consequently do almost all the work of government. In theory, these career employees should be nonpartisan experts who neutrally implement elected officials’ policies. But in reality they have their own political views and policy preferences.
While many career employees faithfully implement the president’s policies, others don’t. Deborah Birx recently gave Americans a taste of this insubordination. Dr. Birx was a career employee tapped in 2020 to coordinate the White House Coronavirus Task Force. In her new book she boasts about advancing her own policies in defiance of senior White House staff. Senior appointees directed Dr. Birx to moderate lockdown recommendations in federal guidance. She instead deleted the offending materials, then reinserted them in less prominent places in the same documents. She describes this as “subterfuge” to “work around” senior appointees.
In hindsight it is clear the senior staff were right; Covid lockdowns went too far. But Dr. Birx’s actions wouldn’t have been justified even if she had been correct. Career employees should give their best advice to political appointees, but once politically accountable officials make a decision, career staff should implement it faithfully.
During my time in government, I saw what political scientists have long documented: Many federal employees reject this philosophy. At the White House I received frequent reports about career staff undermining presidential policies. Career employees routinely delayed producing new rules or produced drafts that couldn’t be used. As a result, many major regulations—such as the Education Department’s Title IX due-process protections—had to be drafted primarily by political appointees.
Career employees also frequently withheld vital information from political appointees. Career lawyers at the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, failed to brief political appointees about major lawsuits. Political appointees had to read public filings to learn what cases the agency was litigating and what arguments were being made in those cases.
Career staff at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division often wouldn’t work on cases they opposed for ideological reasons. They refused to enforce protections that say nurses can’t be forced to assist in abortions. And they refused to sue Yale for racially discriminating against Asian-American applicants.
This resistance, so widespread that it made national news, significantly delayed many policy initiatives and killed others. This behavior undermines our democracy. No one votes for career bureaucrats, and they have no authority to replace elected officials’ policies with their own.
This applies no matter which policies career bureaucrats sabotage. Conservatives widely opposed the Biden administration’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration vaccine mandate, but Labor Department career staff wouldn’t have been justified in slow-walking that rule. Courts decide the lawfulness of federal policies. (Eventually the Supreme Court struck the OSHA vaccine mandate down.) Career employees have no authority to block them unilaterally. Unfortunately, many do so anyway.
Career employees get away with this behavior largely because they have extensive removal protections. While it isn’t impossible to fire federal employees, it is difficult, uncertain and time-consuming.
Schedule F was developed to address this widespread misconduct and prevent its recurrence. We found a way for agencies to hold intransigent bureaucrats accountable. Schedule F would have made—and might still make—senior policy-influencing bureaucrats at-will employees. The order didn’t let agencies dismiss them for political reasons, but it enabled agencies to remove senior employees swiftly for poor performance or policy resistance.
In my research I learned this was the original vision for the civil service. The 19th-century reformers who ended the spoils system opposed removal protections. As George William Curtis, the era’s foremost civil-service reform advocate, argued, letting employees appeal dismissals would “seal up incompetency, negligence [and] insubordination” in the civil service. So while the Pendleton Act of 1883 strictly regulated federal hiring to prevent patronage, it intentionally kept civil-service employees at-will. The general federal workforce didn’t get removal appeals until a 1962 executive order.
Those protections now prevent the elected president from removing employees who try to undermine his agenda. For the federal government to answer to the American people, that needs to change.
Mr. Sherk is director of the Center for American Freedom at the America First Policy Institute. He served as a special assistant to President Trump on the White House Domestic Policy Council.
-
You chaps should watch Yes Minister, the 1980's British comedy show.
Probably the best satirical TV comedy show ever.
Sir Humphrey would not approve of this article.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Deep State:
@Ivorythumper said in The Deep State:
A friend of mine who served in the Trump administration published today in the NYT, arguing well the need for the sort of reform that Trump implemented and Biden has removed. I don't have NYT access, so just provide a photo his wife sent me.
I have NYT access, but it doesn’t help me with WSJ articles.
Oopsie.
What can I do to help you work through my brain-fogged typos?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Deep State:
You chaps should watch Yes Minister, the 1980's British comedy show.
Probably the best satirical TV comedy show ever.
Sir Humphrey would not approve of this article.
I enjoyed that show immensely.
-
I know the day-to-day workings of three different VA hospitals. They would run much better if they fired 1/3 of their staff. That would rid them of the sloths, and jerk a knot in the tail of about 1/3 more.
The VA has some good people. They're just badly outnumbered by the bad employees.
-
@Ivorythumper said in The Deep State:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Deep State:
You chaps should watch Yes Minister, the 1980's British comedy show.
Probably the best satirical TV comedy show ever.
Sir Humphrey would not approve of this article.
I enjoyed that show immensely.
It totally transcended politics. You really couldn't tell whether the writers were libs or cons. I think in actuality the cast was liberal, but the writers were to the right.
It might be time to crack open the DVD's....
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
I have the whole series on DVD as well. It does indeed transcend politics.
