The Senate Takes an Inward Look

Members of the US Senate are not, by nature, terribly self analytical.

It's not their fault.  Really.  They're awesome.  Just ask their staff and the lobbyists who make up, between them, 75 percent of Senators' human contact.

So it's noteworthy that the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration ("Senate Rules") is holding a series of hearings designed to assess the current state of the U.S. Senate's filibuster rule, which allows for unlimited debate until "cloture" is invoked.  Because a cloture vote requires 60 votes, the minority can, in affect, require that virtually any measure taken up by the Senate require a 60 vote (out of 100 Senators) super majority.

This isn't terribly surprising.  At present, Senate Democrats are frustrated with the increased use by the minority Republicans of the filibuster.  When the Republicans had control of the Senate, they too were frustrated by the filibuster, and held hearings of their own in 2003.

To the great credit of Chairman Charles Schumer (D-New York), he recognizes that the increased use of the filibuster is something that has occurred "over the last decade" (implicitly acknowledging that it's a bi-partisan problem) and that the best place to begin with is the history of the filibuster.  When you really want to understand something, beginning with history is usually the best place to begin.  You not only know the "what," but equally importantly, the "why."

I'll be following these hearings, which began yesterday - summarizing and commenting where appropriate.

Coming Out of Retirement

Too much is going on for me to keep indefinitely silent.  There are simply too many things that are interesting and important.  Rather than not blog at all, I've decide to "re-open" shop with some modifications.

(a) It's ok if I don't post every day.

(b) It's ok if no one reads it.

My inability to make a daily, high quality post, and the fairly low "hits" number were discouraging to me.  But I've decided it's quality rather than quantity in both numbers of posts of readers that really counts.

TPB

Going Out of Business

When I started this blog, I wasn't sure exactly where it was going to go or evolve.

At the very least, I wanted to make a small contribution during this political season to promoting a better understanding of the political process for those who were trying to make some difficult choices in the election.

It was never my desire to guide anyone's choice or substitute my opinion for theirs. It was only to provide some counsel to those looking to deepen their own understanding and make better choices.

This was important to me, because, as I've stated, we've got the system we deserve in my view. If voters were better informed, politicians would respond by raising the tenor of the political discourse. Now that the election is over, however, it seems to me that the main reason for this blog (even if I didn't realize what it was when I began this summer) has come to an end. Accordingly, I plan to cease my posts.

While writing this blog, I have learned a good deal about the world of blogs. It's a lot like business. You need a product for the market and you need to work hard at something you're passionate about to attract readers, whose blog reading time is as limited as customers' cash.

With the election over, I don't think there is a market right now for the type of blog I'd want to have if I continued blogging here. Most people either want more depth on specific issues than I can devote with my other commitments, a more narrow focus than suits my interests, or more partisanship (which I am unwilling to provide).

So, thanks for reading. It's been fun.

DC Lawyer

Election Day - Time to Vote

Freedom is Not Free - Please Don't Took Yours for Granted

A Government Ill Executed - Posts of Honor

In chapter 3 of A Government Ill Executed, Paul Light turns to the state of federal political appointees.

Unlike the civil service, political appointees come and go with different administrations, and generally serve at the pleasure of the President. They play an important role in the executive branch as intermediaries between the President and the unelected civil service who are on the front lines. As Light describes them, political appointees "play a central role is managing the chain of command, interpreting legislation, overseeing regulations, and faithfully executing the laws." Without a competent person in these roles, the business of the executive branch can slow or even come to a halt.

Light is concerned that the process by which political appointees are identified, recruited, appointed and, if necessary, confirmed is broken. What is needed is a "fast, simple and fair appointments process." What we have, however, has been best characterized as "nasty and brutish without being short." This is due to "needless forms, needless delays" and the sense by all involved that a candidate is "innocent until nominated." As a result, the management of the executive branch suffers as mediocre appointees fill these posts, or they remain unfilled for large amounts of time.

Appointment

Light notes that extensive screening and many questionnaires appointees must fill out. They are unnecessarily time consuming, requiring the candidate to spend inordinate amounts of time locating every last address and phone number since college. Light estimates that a candidate will have had to answer 240 separate questions, including 61 on personal and family background, 32 on tax and finances, 35 on legal proceedings,7 on public and organizational activities and even one on the people they hired for child care.

Appointees are generally left to navigate these with little help from the White House. Outside help from lawyers and accountants must be paid for by the appointee. They then have to wait while overworked investigators from various federal agencies confirm their accuracy. The process keeps getting longer. President Kennedy took just two months to get his Senate confirmed appointments finished. The current President took nine.

Confirmation

Light does not discuss the Senate's confirmation process in much detail, which is too bad because it's every bit as bad. Senate committees have their own questionnaires, sets of interviews, etc. in preparation for a confirmation hearings. The hearing itself is generally a breeze in comparison to filling out the forms and going through the staff interview. Once that is completed, the committee needs to schedule a hearing, which requires Senators' attendance. Merely getting a confirmation hearing on the calendar can delay the appointments for months.

Lessons Learned

Light's research had revealed that appointees are most motivated by the honor and chance to serve their country. Further, they are motivated by the future leadership opportunities that holding a political appointment will provide. The federal government is unlikely to offer pay that is comparable to the private or even non-profit sectors. Presidents can provide more support for their appointees through the Office of White House personnel, which all too often doesn't act as if it really cares whether someone appointed ever takes the position. Forms and questionnaires can be streamlined.

Here, I'll add a few suggestions of my own, having staffed several confirmations in the Senate. The White House and Senate staff should devise uniform questionnaires to streamline the appointment process. Further, the number of appointees subject to Senate confirmation is ridiculous and it seems every time Congress creates a new position, the Senate insists it confirms it to gain leverage in negotiations with the White House even when the particular appointment isn't controversial. The President should agree to reduce the number of appointees (leaving more work to the civil service) in exchange for the Senate's agreeing to reduce the number of appointees subject to Senate confirmation.

I can dream, can't I?

Internet Donations

The Internet has made contributing to political campaigns very easy.  

But has it made it too easy?  

Specifically, there are reports surfacing that Senator Obama's campaign has been the recipient of illegal contributions from those ineligible to contribute, or those making contributions under false names, thereby evading Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules.

While this was just something percolating on conservative web blogs, I hadn't paid too much attention.  However, the story has now gone mainstream.

The LA Times reports:

Obama has revolutionized campaign fundraising, employing the Internet to tap into more donors than any candidate in history. The campaign has reported $160 million in contributions from donors of $200 or less, more than a third of the $458 million raised. But as Obama sets records, his fundraising has come under increased scrutiny.

The Democratic candidate's donors also include "Derty Poiiuy," an individual with a scatological sense of humor who has given $950. "Mong Kong" has contributed $1,065 and lists an address in a nonexistent city. "Fornari USA" gave $800 and listed the address of an apparel store of that name near San Francisco.

The Washington Post has a more disturbing take:

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed. Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

There's a big difference between a campaign that receives illegal donations despite taking reasonable precautions against them. If the Post is correct, then, the Obama campaign has failed to live up to its obligations to take them. Even worse is the possibility that this is something more than negligence, although there has been no proof of that.

Given that one of the reasons to vote for Obama has been his very well run campaign, this is disturbing news in any case. The campaign needs to come clean immediately about what went wrong, why, and discipline those responsible. If it sweeps it under the rug, it will all come out during the transition, making it very hard for Obama's administration to get off to a strong start.

Weekend Homework

"Your every voter, as surely as your chief magistrate, exercises a public trust."

-Grover Cleveland

As a voter, you have a public trust. It is your duty to cast an informed ballot. You owe it to those who died so that you might have it. You owe it to your countrymen who will have to live with the consequences of your collective votes. I would argue that its less important who you vote for than that your vote is informed.

That means some work for this weekend. Think not? Perhaps you know who you'll vote for for President. Great. Can you give me three reasons? If not, perhaps you need to think about it a little more.

Even if you can provide a cogent reason for your presidential vote. If so, who are you voting for for Congress? The state legislature? The school board? Why? What are the ballot questions up for a vote? Are you voting yes or no? Why?

See. You do have some homework. So do I.

The local papers likely have a voting guide that will provide some information about the candidates, and most office seekers now have websites - even guys running for the legislature and the school board. Still stumped? Look at your neighbors houses. Do you see some lawn signs? Ask them why they are supporing that candidate. Not every political discussion needs to turn into a debate.