View Full Version : Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid of Obama's Latest Big Brother Plan
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/10/bradley-blakeman-obama-office-personnel-management/
Bradley Blakeman
- FOXNews.com
- December 10, 2009
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid of Obama's Latest Big Brother Plan
Why the White House and Democrats' plans to expand the Office of Personnel Management should scare all Americans.
The Obama administration seeks to empower a very powerful government agency you have probably never heard of with new and expanded powers that will have a direct consequence on every American if they are successful in their efforts to implement national health care reforms.
The Obama White House is also drunk with power and is seeking to expand the powers of government agencies to oversee and act out to affect Americans in ways that this country has never seen before.
What is the Office of Personnel and Management and why should you care?
The Office of Personnel Management, (OPM), is suppose to be an independent government agency that is charged with managing the civil service system of the federal government. If you are a federal employee then civil service laws, rules and regulations that are managed by OPM govern you. One of the main charges of OPM is to administer and oversee federal health care provided to all federal employees.
The Director of OPM is appointed directly by the president and confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate. The current director of OPM is a fellow by the name of John Berry who, before becoming OPM director this past year, was director of the Smithsonian’s National Zoo. -- You cannot make this stuff up.
Under the Democrats' national health care scheme not only would OPM be charged with overseeing and administering federal employees health care but they will have the added charge of administering civilian federal health care as well. What does that mean? Basically, that Americans will be treated as “civil servants.” Are you starting to see the danger?
The more government seeks to control our lives the more Orwellian it gets. This “big brother” mentality that "government knows best" and that it is their mission to provide cradle to grave “care” of its citizens will doom America as we know it. Under such a system the individual becomes meaningless and the state becomes the entity upon which we are all forced to rely.
Most recently OPM made news when the Obama administration sought to use it as a tool upon which to consolidate power.
Under orders from the White House, it is being reported that OPM is on a mission to rid the executive branch bureaucracy of Bush-era personnel who are no longer political appointees and who have lawfully become civil servants.
It is not uncommon for some presidential political appointees to have the opportunity to become civil servants within the federal bureaucracy when they meet all the criteria for a federal civil service job.-- Ordinarily, a political appointee serves "at the pleasure of the president" who originally appointed that person to a particular position. When the president’s term is up their job is up as well. But, when a political appointee becomes a civil servant they are considered full- time government employees and are subject to the rules and regulations governing all other federal employees. Civil service jobs are seen a non-political jobs and are not based on appointment. They are based on merit. Their employment continues until they retire, quit, or are removed from their position for cause. It should never be permissible to remove a civil servant based solely on their political affiliation.
The Obama administration has now ordered a purging of Republicans from federal government civil service.
The Office of Federal Personnel Management, (OPM), has become the “henchman” of the Obama administration. Following orders they have issued new rules -- going back five years --wherein every employee hired, who previously had been a political appointee, will be terminated regardless of cause or poor performance.
It is clear what the intent of the Obama administration is by looking at the following statement made by John Berry the Director of OPM:
Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws. I have delegated decision-making authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.
The memorandum specifically applies this change to all political appointees hired in the past 5 years and effectively works to freeze them out of their current jobs or make their lives so miserable by denying promotions, that they will quit before they are forced out.
It is outrageous that the Obama administration would politicize what is supposed to be a independent government agency and would become so vindictive and cold in their exercise of raw political power that they would take steps to eliminate people from their legitimate government employment, based solely on their political pedigree and not their job performance.
I served in the White House during the presidency of George W. Bush. When he took office, we knew that a fair amount of Clinton appointees were making the transition from political appointment positions to civil service positions and nothing was done to “root them out”. They were entitled to remain in their positions and were held to the same standard of job performance as any other civil service employee.
There is nothing worse than abuse of government power. It erodes the very fabric of our laws and respect for government institutions.
For an incoming administration to make a "witch hunt" one of its top priorities and to attempt to fire civil servants who they believe are Republican “sympathizers” is something you might have expected in the former Soviet Union or from the KGB. But it's not something we expected to see in the United States led by the White House.
The expanded “portfolio” of OPM should worry all Americans. This little known agency will make the IRS look down right friendly if the Obama administration is successful in expanding their duties, powers and responsibilities.
Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2004. He is currently a professor of Public Policy and Politics at Georgetown University and is a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.
Warrior-Mentor
12-12-2009, 18:41
Seems you must bear the mark of the beast to work in Obama's administration. :eek:
Triman19
12-12-2009, 20:40
Seems you must bear the mark of the beast to work in Obama's administration. :eek:
I litterally thought the same thing, Warrior-Mentor. Scarey stuff. Good readd, thank you.
Ret10Echo
12-12-2009, 21:37
Seems you must bear the mark of the beast to work in Obama's administration. :eek:
Is that in reference to the new OPM director's former position as the director of the National Zoo?
(Of course the National Zoo Directorship is a clear stepping-stone to directing OPM....small furry creatures running about, odd squealing and screeching going on....the smell of poop....)
OK,
This is one that may deserve a second reading. I am certainly no Obama fan, and I'm about far enough to the right that I ask the Lord to forgive me whenever I make a left turn on the highway.
However, if I read this correctly, Obama is going to eliminate by some sort of attrition, the number of political appointees in our departments and agencies. He is going (by default) to see more leadership promoted from within the departments, based on merit.
Having recently retired from civil service, I know that the "rank and file" have longed for just that. Leadership that is less vulnerable to outside political influence, that came from within, that must reach a position through a standardized rating of background, experience, and performance looks like a win-win to me.
Hopefully, someone with a younger, fresher mind will explain why having a policy that keeps fewer political appointees in key department positions "from now on" is a bad thing.
In fact, if Obama is doing what the article indicates, (without the authors opinions), I'm surprised as hell that he would handicap himself that much for what he hopes will be the next seven years.
Civil service jobs are seen a non-political jobs and are not based on appointment. They are based on merit. Their employment continues until they retire, quit, or are removed from their position for cause.
I began my Federal career in Nov 2001 and almost left in that first year because of some of the silly Shi'ite that I saw people get away with (plus the transition from Mil to Civ was very tough for me). ALL of those "oxygen thieves" that I had issues with back then, are STILL "working" and drawing a paycheck. A Federal employee will keep his job unless he breaks the law...and even then, it must be proven that it was willful misconduct.
Honestly, if the USG were to purge it's ranks because of political affiliation, I assume that many of the 3 letter agencies would not be able to function.
Obama may be favored at the higher levels in the USG but at the "let's get dirty" low-level, he isn't popular at all.
The article also mentions the Excepted Service (http://www.usajobs.gov/EI6.asp), a different animal entirely. "They're takin' our jahbz!" ;)
....However, if I read this correctly, Obama is going to eliminate by some sort of attrition, the number of political appointees in our departments and agencies. ........
Plato, read this from the story......
".....Under orders from the White House, it is being reported that OPM is on a mission to rid the executive branch bureaucracy of Bush-era personnel who are no longer political appointees and who have lawfully become civil servants..."
Appointed by Bush - lawfully became civil servents - rid -?
How about donated to Bush, registered Republican - loyalty oath?
Gee, the only people who can hold a government job will soon be his people.
Most recently OPM made news when the Obama administration sought to use it as a tool upon which to consolidate power.
Under orders from the White House, it is being reported that OPM is on a mission to rid the executive branch bureaucracy of Bush-era personnel who are no longer political appointees and who have lawfully become civil servants.
The Director of OPM is appointed directly by the president and confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate. The current director of OPM is a fellow by the name of John Berry who, before becoming OPM director this past year, was director of the Smithsonian’s National Zoo. -- You cannot make this stuff up.
The White House wants to purge Bush Era personnel, they have a Tool in Zoo Director John Berry to carry out the purge......In other words the White House is on a track to remove any .GOV civil servant/employee that doesn't tow the Socialist line and/or could hinder the progress of the White House Agenda.
Obama's version of Night of the Long Knives......CZARS, Purges, more to come I am sure.
Utah Bob
12-13-2009, 10:49
Gee, the only people who can hold a government job will soon be his people.
That sounds oddly familiar somehow.........
That sounds oddly familiar somehow...
A fresh leader or administration gets rid of the old and brings in new ideas and personnel. For example, Once he takes office, you can be sure the President will replace most of the people on the staff--a new broom sweeps clean. This term was already in John Heywood's 1546 proverb collection, was used figuratively by Shakespeare, and exists in many other languages as well.
http://www.answers.com/topic/a-new-broom-sweeps-clean
I've seen many commanders do the same thing once they get the guidon handed to them.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Richard;
I don't think anyone here would object to the President firing a political appointee. One of the complaints many had with Bush was that he kept too many of Clinton's people.
But you think it's OK to fire goverment workers who got their job legally just because of their political involvement?
Say hello to the brave new world.
It's not all bad news out there:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Here (http://www.chcoc.gov/Transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx?TransmittalId=2588) is the actual memo from OPM.
I don't see how this is a bad thing: either you're qual'd to do the job or not. If President Bush appointed you to a Senior Executive Service (SES) position but you're not qual'd, get out (I need the promo). OPM doesn't live in the dark world so any paperwork, email, etc related to political views, party affiliation, etc of a "fired USG employee" will be subject to FIOA release.
IMO it looks like Rush & Co are just stirring up stuff to make mountain out of a mole hill. The GOP should return to its roots and focus! :lifter
[QUOTE=lindy;302074...........OPM doesn't live in the dark world so any paperwork, email, etc related to political views, party affiliation, etc of a "fired USG employee" will be subject to FIOA release.....[/QUOTE]
Just like NASA and it's weather data? Two years and counting on that one.
And isn't why somebody was fired a personal issue and not subject to release under the FOIA?
I don't think anyone here would object to the President firing a political appointee. One of the complaints many had with Bush was that he kept too many of Clinton's people.
But you think it's OK to fire goverment workers who got their job legally just because of their political involvement?
Say hello to the brave new world.
Sounds a lot like the DOJ and party affiliation requirements for federal prosecutors during the GWB administration - smells like pure polcatus washingtonium politically organic manure to me.
Richard
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/...el-management/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/...el-management/Sten--
What are you trying to say?:p
MOO, the editorial quoted in the OP is counting on readers' hostility towards the president to overlook its writer's effort to monger fear.Obama's version of Night of the Long Knives....With respect and putting my own personal views of the man aside, I do not think that this historical comparison is sustainable.
Over a year ago, Gypsy, whom no one could mistake as an admirer of the president, offered a scathing analysis of the man within the context of Chicago politics. IMO, that post, available here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=228784&postcount=58), offers a more relevant context in which to analyze and to criticize the current administration.
YMMV.
Sounds a lot like the DOJ and party affiliation requirements for federal prosecutors during the GWB administration - ....
So Richard, how many of the seven prosecutors fired by Bush were appointed by Clinton?
So Richard, how many of the seven prosecutors fired by Bush were appointed by Clinton?
Don't forget all the non-hires who were deemed not Republican enough to be offered a DOJ slot. ;)
Richard
Sten--
What are you trying to say?:p
MOO, the editorial quoted in the OP is counting on readers' hostility towards the president to overlook its writer's effort to monger fear.With respect and putting my own personal views of the man aside, I do not think that this historical comparison is sustainable.
Counting on hostility and Monger fear, No. Hoping for opinions and comment.....even yours. Obama's track record in the past 11/2-2 years alone is one of deception and hidden agendas. IMO you have to look no further than his associations, campaign speeches and appointees for evidence.
Do I think the White House would like to remove all opposition and obstacles to their agenda? Yes I do.
Is the comparison sustainable? Only time will tell.
CoLawman
12-13-2009, 18:21
Don't forget all the non-hires who were deemed not Republican enough to be offered a DOJ slot. ;)
Richard
So The Bush administration told those seeking employment and not hired that it was due to their political party. I think not. I think it is much more likely that if a person was not hired they claimed it was due to their politicial affiliation.
Just trying to lend an opposing view here.
Counting on hostility and Monger fear, No. Hoping for opinions and comment.....even yours. Obama's track record in the past 11/2-2 years alone is one of deception and hidden agendas. IMO you have to look no further than his associations, campaign speeches and appointees for evidence.
Do I think the White House would like to remove all opposition and obstacles to their agenda? Yes I do.
Is the comparison sustainable? Only time will tell.Paslode--
To clarify, I was referring to the intent of the writer of the op-ed piece, not to yours. My effort to make that distinction is reflected by the observation that "the editorial quoted in the OP is counting on readers' hostility." By "editorial quoted" I was referring to Mr. Blakeman's piece. By "readers' hostility," I was indicating yours, mine, and many others'.
Please do accept my apology for the confusion. My snark was directed at Mr. Blakeman. We do not have the resources to chase down every bouncing ball in the Beltway which is why, at least in my opinion, even editorials need to balance criticism with good judgment.
As for the comparison, two of the many reasons it is not sustainable is that the Night of the Long Knives (Operation HUMMINGBIRD) are:
the event was a deliberate act of deliberate, organized political violence not an example of bureaucratic legerdemain; and
the violence was committed by one faction of a party against a faction of that same party.
I think the following shows that the game remains exactly the same, so in this case we hate the player not the game.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072801007.html
For nearly two years, a young political aide sought to cultivate a "farm system" for Republicans at the Justice Department, hiring scores of prosecutors and immigration judges who espoused conservative priorities and Christian lifestyle choices.
That aide, Monica M. Goodling, exercised what amounted to veto power over a wide range of critical jobs, asking candidates for their views on abortion and same-sex marriage and maneuvering around senior officials who outranked her, including the department's second-in-command.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/23/civil_rights_hiring_shifted_in_bush_era
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | July 23, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is quietly remaking the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, filling the permanent ranks with lawyers who have strong conservative credentials but little experience in civil rights, according to job application materials obtained by the Globe.
The documents show that only 42 percent of the lawyers hired since 2003, after the administration changed the rules to give political appointees more influence in the hiring process, have civil rights experience. In the two years before the change, 77 percent of those who were hired had civil rights backgrounds.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108852/
I know the Bush-Cheney campaign occasionally requires the people who attend its events to sign loyalty oaths, but this was the first time I have ever seen an audience actually stand and utter one. Maybe they've replaced the written oath with a verbal one.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/13/national/main4718870.shtml
(CBS/AP) Investigators say a former top Justice Department official made false statements to Congress and violated federal law in hiring for the department's civil rights division by discriminating against those he believed were not conservative enough.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111703537_pf.html
By Juliet Eilperin and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Just weeks before leaving office, the Interior Department's top lawyer has shifted half a dozen key deputies -- including two former political appointees who have been involved in controversial environmental decisions -- into senior civil service posts.
The transfer of political appointees into permanent federal positions, called "burrowing" by career officials, creates security for those employees, and at least initially will deprive the incoming Obama administration of the chance to install its preferred appointees in some key jobs.
Similar efforts are taking place at other agencies. Two political hires at the Labor Department have already secured career posts there, and one at the Department of Housing and Urban Development is trying to make the switch.
Between March 1 and Nov. 3, according to the federal Office of Personnel Management, the Bush administration allowed 20 political appointees to become career civil servants. Six political appointees to the Senior Executive Service, the government's most prestigious and highly paid employees, have received approval to take career jobs at the same level. Fourteen other political, or "Schedule C," appointees have also been approved to take career jobs. One candidate was turned down by OPM and two were withdrawn by the submitting agency.
The personnel moves come as Bush administration officials are scrambling to cement in place policy and regulatory initiatives that touch on issues such as federal drinking-water standards, air quality at national parks, mountaintop mining and fisheries limits.
lindy,
Thanks for posting the memo. It reads very differently from what the article suggests.
From my reading, recent appointees are safe. In the future, starting Jan 1, 2010 the govt will no longer appoint a person into a position if they have held that position as an appointee during the prior 5 years. That will prevent future prez's from appointing folks who will later qualify for the position due to their direct experience in doing that job. Basically the door closes to appointees, and folks who have worked their way most of the way up can now make it into those top slots.
Subparagraphs A and B of the memo refer only to future appointments, so Bush appointees who have transitioned are safe, Obama appointees cannot make a similar transition.
Makes me wonder if Obama really wanted this or if John Berry is PO'ed at the current Prez. :D
Paslode--
To clarify, I was referring to the intent of the writer of the op-ed piece, not to yours. My effort to make that distinction is reflected by the observation that "the editorial quoted in the OP is counting on readers' hostility." By "editorial quoted" I was referring to Mr. Blakeman's piece. By "readers' hostility," I was indicating yours, mine, and many others'.
Please do accept my apology for the confusion. My snark was directed at Mr. Blakeman. We do not have the resources to chase down every bouncing ball in the Beltway which is why, at least in my opinion, even editorials need to balance criticism with good judgment.
As for the comparison, two of the many reasons it is not sustainable is that the Night of the Long Knives (Operation HUMMINGBIRD) are:
the event was a deliberate act of deliberate, organized political violence not an example of bureaucratic legerdemain; and
the violence was committed by one faction of a party against a faction of that same party.
No need to apologize, I could have read it either way ;)
Now regarding the Night of the Long Knives I did say 'Obama's version'. While not violent at this point (unless you consider recent SEIU behavior at the Tea Parties) I do believe there is a high probability that it a deliberate and organized an effort to purge the foes regardless of political affiliation.....recent events Venezuela may have been a better example.
Plato, read this from the story......
".....Under orders from the White House, it is being reported that OPM is on a mission to rid the executive branch bureaucracy of Bush-era personnel who are no longer political appointees and who have lawfully become civil servants..."
Pete,
I read the story, but the conclusions didn't track with the "factual" portions. lindy's recent post seems to indicate only future appointments will be subject to these new rules..
lindy,
BTW, it is very very very easy to fire a civil servant. During my last 5 years, I helped a number out the door. I thought that I was more demanding than the average supervisor until I found out that several ex-employees were sent to my department as an equivalent to standing them on the trap-door and readying the noose. Heck, I had the spare time. :)
There is only one thing that will prevent an organization from getting rid of a problem employee, and that's a worthless and lazy supervisor.
If you'll send me a pmsg with your email, I'll send you a document detailing many reasons/situations that can be used to help someone out the door. (Same offer to any other interested party on this forum)
@lindy and plato
I can understand where your coming from in the good it may do in getting out dead weight so to speak. But what are the potential negatives?
Who makes the final decision as to who is and who isn't appointed? Who appoints the decision maker?
Ret10Echo
12-14-2009, 07:03
I agree with what was mentioned concerning "firing" of civil service employees. The primary reason for the difficulty is similar to those issues come up against in the Military, a lack of historical documentation to support the effort. Position descriptions are generally outdated and written in very vague terms. Trying to determine a tangible outcome or product from any position is sometimes extremely difficult (and makes you wonder why the position even exists).
There is a balance somewhere between having a liberal hire/fire capability and being unable to unseat a civil servant once they are in place, but that would mean an evaluation of process and organizations. I don't see that happening. (There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program)
Keep in mind that many times it is the civil servants who must live with the aftermath of a political decision, so most times the high-level civil service folks are hesitant to make bold moves. The general methodology appears to be if the "something" you are tasked with is unpalatable then execution will be at glacial speeds.
If you think the government bureacracy is ate-up now...imagine it with rank-and-file employees worried that the axe will fall if they make a decision that does not fit the current regime. We have seen where risk-aversion leads.
alright4u
12-14-2009, 07:30
:rolleyes:A fresh leader or administration gets rid of the old and brings in new ideas and personnel. For example, Once he takes office, you can be sure the President will replace most of the people on the staff--a new broom sweeps clean. This term was already in John Heywood's 1546 proverb collection, was used figuratively by Shakespeare, and exists in many other languages as well.
http://www.answers.com/topic/a-new-broom-sweeps-clean
I've seen many commanders do the same thing once they get the guidon handed to them.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Yes, this has been going on for years as you said. What has not been going on for years is putting totally unqualified people in jobs like the czars that Zero has. Now we get a Zoo director. Frankly, I believe Zero hates this country and he wants to destroy it to rebuild it like he thinks/believes it should be. Oprah and Zero share that view as the way to change America.:rolleyes:
Wellllll...remind me who it was that headed FEMA when the Gulf Coast was ravaged by two major hurricanes back in 2005 and his qualifications for that appointment...
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Ret10Echo
12-14-2009, 08:18
Wellllll...remind me who it was that headed FEMA when the Gulf Coast was ravaged by two major hurricanes back in 2005 and his qualifications for that appointment...
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
A lawyer and poly-sci major...that makes him perfectly suited for the appointment....
OOOooooohhhhh, yeah, that whole "disaster response" thing....
From what I gather from the responses, this policy is a double edged knife that can cut both ways good or bad and is highly susceptible to misuse.
The only question remaining is intent of use, which is at present a wait and see....
Ret10Echo
12-14-2009, 08:33
From what I gather from the responses, this policy is a double edged knife that can cut both ways good or bad and is highly susceptible to misuse.
The only question remaining is intent of use, which is at present a wait and see....
As with any other personnel policy it is only as "good" as those who implement and oversee the policy and procedures.
On the one-hand you have the potential to limit a more permanent presence by some (perhaps) less than qualified but well connected people. The down-side is that if you present an obstacle to the application of an administration position then you may do so at your own risk.
If it were anywhere other than D.C. I would probably not be quite so pessimistic on the outcome. But the reality is that everything that happens here has an ulterior motive. It's just a matter of how long you cut the time-fuse.
It's just a matter of how long you cut the time-fuse.
Exactly...and the RF of the explosive potential of the issue at the time. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I would add "What are the unintended consequences of this policy?" to the list of questions that can be answered only by waiting and by seeing.
I think the current administration is going to set a standard for "unintended consequences" that will have us scratching our heads, wringing our hands, and pulling hair from our head for decades to come.
The Reaper
12-14-2009, 19:32
Exactly...and the RF of the explosive potential of the issue at the time. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
See, I thought the RE was the Relative Effectiveness for explosive calculations and RF (Radio Frequency) was a commo term.
You learn something every day.:D:munchin
TR
See, I thought the RE was the Relative Effectiveness for explosive calculations and RF (Radio Frequency) was a commo term.
Well...guess I coulda claimed I'd meant the Rat Factor associated with politicians - but you're correct and they are - my mistake. :o
Thanks. :D
Richard