Avatar feed
Responses: 1
MSG Thomas Currie
0
0
0
Much of the rhetoric in that editorial seems to have been lifted from the insane rantings of Vivek Ramaswamy who wanted to institute "term limits" for all government employees including clerks and janitors.

Ever since the creation of the Civil Service system to reduce the waste and abuse of the 'spoils system' there have always been a layer of political appointees at the top level of the government bureaucracy. And there has always been some degree of debate over just where the boundary should be between the political appointees and protected civil servants.

The role of the political appointees has always been to set the direction of each agency in accordance with the policies of the administration. The role of the career workers has always been to implement those policies within the bounds of law.

Yes, there are problems with the system -- no system is perfect.

Should the line between political appointees and career employees move? Perhaps a bit, probably more in some agencies than others. One part of the problem is that those political appointees at the top levels of each agency have become more and more devoted to partisan politics than to the nation. Another part of the problem is that as the federal bureaucracy has grown, the Senate has all but abrogated their responsibility to actually consider the appointees that are confirmed en masse.

The legitimate issue with the line between political appointees and career employees is that those political appointees shape the structure and overall attitude of the upper levels of the career employees. Those political appointees aren't just setting policies, they are also responsible for regular management functions including selecting employees for promotion at the highest levels of the career employees. As one example, while the Director of the ATF is a gun-grabbing moron, what do you suppose are the opportunities for advancement for a Branch Chief who supports the Second Amendment?

But moving the line between political appointees and career employees won't really solve the problem, at best it moves the problem slightly down into each agency which only increases the numbers involved.

Massive changes in either direction are a very bad move. We don't need to declare thousands of upper level career employees are suddenly political appointees, and we don't need to give career protection of significant numbers of political appointees and their selected minions.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close