The Sleeper EA's...

[Aardvark86]

Obviously lots of noise about immigration, sex, geography, etc. but here are some more process oriented things done yesterday...

1. Senior executive service to be subject to performance review/standards/reassignment focused on consistency with elected official agenda. SES members supposed to tell OMB if their peers aren't playing along. (I hear he may rename that part of OMB the State Taskforce Against Senior Inertia...)
2. Pause/reevaluation of all foreign aid programs for consistency with us foreign policy strategy
3. "promoting beautiful federal civic architecture.' just kidding, this isn't that big a deal, but I'm guessing we won't be seeing NA or AA museum like designs for the Mall for the next few years.

 

[Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo]

Don't forget the one where he outlawed wind.....plus medium or larger gloves.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

1. Senior executive service to be subject to performance review/standards/reassignment focused on consistency with elected official agenda. SES members supposed to tell OMB if their peers aren't playing along. (I hear he may rename that part of OMB the State Taskforce Against Senior Inertia...)

Translation: Refuse to support anything I want - even if unconstitutional or illegal - and you're gone.

 

[Aardvark86]

Translation: Refuse to support anything I want - even if unconstitutional or illegal - and you're gone.

sadly, probably more right than wrong on that front. Hence my tongue in cheek reporting office designation.

Honestly, it's a legitimate issue imo that the unelected -- particularly at a particular level of career civil service - have a tendency to think that they actually run the show. To the extent there's a deep state, it's not some conspiratorial thing, it's them, and it's antidemocratic even if it is human nature. But I don't know what the right mechanism is to make them more accountable while preserving their non-political status.

 

[Aardvark86]

Don't forget the one where he outlawed wind.....plus medium or larger gloves.

it's pics like this that sometimes make me ruminate over whether bed head, hat head, or wind head is really the worst among the three. (though i thought for a moment you were referrig to the one that halts offshore wind projets)

also, my actual favorite among the eo titles was "Putting People over Fish..."

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

sadly, probably more right than wrong on that front. Hence my tongue in cheek reporting office designation.

Honestly, it's a legitimate issue imo that the unelected -- particularly at a particular level of career civil service - have a tendency to think that they actually run the show. To the extent there's a deep state, it's not some conspiratorial thing, it's them, and it's antidemocratic even if it is human nature. But I don't know what the right mechanism is to make them more accountable while preserving their non-political status.

Or maybe they act as a check and balance against wild swings and nutty ideas coming from the WH (from either side)?

 

[ThorneStockton]

Honestly, it's a legitimate issue imo that the unelected -- particularly at a particular level of career civil service - have a tendency to think that they actually run the show.

Could you expand on this? I'll try to help set you up:

What makes it a legitimate issue in your opinion? Is it the number of unelected people? The power that they have? Specific instances of abuse that make it legitimate? Anecdotes? What particular level of career civil service? What is the tendency in percentages of people who think they actually run the show? Is there data or something else to measure or is it more faith/feels?

I can follow the logic, and have no problem accepting that it could be a legitimate issue. It's just not at all clear how you've made the determination that it is a legitimate issue and how prevalent it is.

 

[Aardvark86]

Or maybe they act as a check and balance against wild swings and nutty ideas coming from the WH (from either side)?

Absolutely that's true, to a degree, and I would agree that it can be a feature in the system. Indeed, my buddy at DHS who does a lot with cybersecurity was telling me how it's always a challenge to explain to new political appointees that some of their ideas/desires are in fact bad.

But while it can be a feature, at the end of the day, it can also be a bug. We do live in a representative democracy, and the elected politically accountable people do have the job of choosing, or not, to do nutty or wild things. No one has elected the SES to do anything, and generally, has no idea who they even are. Once they've done so, including over the objection of the SES, it is the job of the civil service to execute on that.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Absolutely that's true, to a degree, and I would agree that it can be a feature in the system. Indeed, my buddy at DHS who does a lot with cybersecurity was telling me how it's always a challenge to explain to new political appointees that some of their ideas/desires are in fact bad.

But while it can be a feature, at the end of the day, it can also be a bug. We do live in a representative democracy, and the elected politically accountable people do have the job of choosing, or not, to do nutty or wild things. No one has elected the SES to do anything, and generally, has no idea who they even are. Once they've done so, including over the objection of the SES, it is the job of the civil service to execute on that.

I agree. Wasn’t claiming that was a desired role in all cases, just that bureaucratic inertia can be an unintended benefit in some instances.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

sadly, probably more right than wrong on that front. Hence my tongue in cheek reporting office designation.

Honestly, it's a legitimate issue imo that the unelected -- particularly at a particular level of career civil service - have a tendency to think that they actually run the show. To the extent there's a deep state, it's not some conspiratorial thing, it's them, and it's antidemocratic even if it is human nature. But I don't know what the right mechanism is to make them more accountable while preserving their non-political status.

Here's what Dr. Ron Sanders - Trump's appointee to chair the Federal Salary Council - had to say about it when he tendered his resignation during Trump's first term over the same move...note the second sentence of the second paragraph:

Their job is NOT to support the president's agenda. They are not supposed to be rubber stamps. Their job is to evaluate it and advise the president from a non-partisan perspective. That is not running the show - it's serving the American people and the Constitution. If they violate THAT mandate, they need to go. Standing up to the administration over policy does NOT rise to that level. It's quite literally their job.

 

[Aardvark86]

Could you expand on this? I'll try to help set you up:

What makes it a legitimate issue in your opinion? Is it the number of unelected people? The power that they have? Specific instances of abuse that make it legitimate? Anecdotes? What particular level of career civil service? What is the tendency in percentages of people who think they actually run the show? Is there data or something else to measure or is it more faith/feels?

I can follow the logic, and have no problem accepting that it could be a legitimate issue. It's just not at all clear how you've made the determination that it is a legitimate issue and how prevalent it is.

per my other post, the legitimacy arises mostly out of their sheer unelectedness. It's generally the top level or two of career types within a reporting line where problems most commonly arise -- though to be clear it is NOT a problem with all of them. And that's not particularly surprising -- they've been around the longest, have seen a lot, people kiss their ass over time, and are often passionate about the programs they supervise even setting aside the fact that it puts bread on the table.

Without getting into the more 'political' manner of things that others might cite as examples (think DOJ), in my more mundane world of health care, there are many examples, and they can be driven by many things ranging from 'i know better' to 'this will be a pain' to 'i don't like this group of political types'. So to be clear, it is not that they're doing something that is either political or sinister per se. A common example is slow walking stuff in implementation, to death. For example, Azar's official portrait at HHS actually has a pic of a particular regulation on his desk designed to ensure that price discounts get passed through to patients - that's how important he thought that was and how proud he was of it. That got stalled, and killed, in the comment process, then, oddly, some of the things in there are probably the best part of the 'negotiated drug pricing" rule that the biden administration advanced.

No quantitative data (and how could you really), but enough analogs over three decades to know they're not just outliers.

 

[Aardvark86]

Here's what Dr. Ron Sanders - Trump's appointee to chair the Federal Salary Council - had to say about it when he tendered his resignation during Trump's first term over the same move...note the second sentence of the second paragraph:

Their job is NOT to support the president's agenda. They are not supposed to be rubber stamps. Their job is to evaluate it and advise the president from a non-partisan perspective. That is not running the show - it's serving the American people and the Constitution. If they violate THAT mandate, they need to go. Standing up to the administration over policy does NOT rise to that level. It's quite literally their job.

When push comes to shove, i agree completely as to their advisory role, i disagree completely once the political branches have made the call (though i agree completely as to legality). Beyond that, "service to the american people" isn't defined by what they think is right. If you feel strongly enough, you resign, and you raise a stink with the other members of the political branches.

 

[ThorneStockton]

per my other post, the legitimacy arises mostly out of their sheer unelectedness. It's generally the top level or two of career types within a reporting line where problems most commonly arise -- though to be clear it is NOT a problem with all of them. And that's not particularly surprising -- they've been around the longest, have seen a lot, people kiss their ass over time, and are often passionate about the programs they supervise even setting aside the fact that it puts bread on the table.

Without getting into the more 'political' manner of things that others might cite as examples (think DOJ), in my more mundane world of health care, there are many examples, and they can be driven by many things ranging from 'i know better' to 'this will be a pain' to 'i don't like this group of political types'. So to be clear, it is not that they're doing something that is either political or sinister per se. A common example is slow walking stuff in implementation, to death. For example, Azar's official portrait at HHS actually has a pic of a particular regulation on his desk designed to ensure that price discounts get passed through to patients - that's how important he thought that was and how proud he was of it. That got stalled, and killed, in the comment process, then, oddly, some of the things in there are probably the best part of the 'negotiated drug pricing" rule that the biden administration advanced.

No quantitative data (and how could you really), but enough analogs over three decades to know they're not just outliers.

I appreciate that you took time to write a lot of words. But for a lawyer, you aren't very good at making a case. It's still not clear - or convincing at all - that this is a big deal or pervasive or really what exactly the deal is at all regardless of its size. Your examples of 'i know better', 'this will be a pain' and 'i don't like this group of political types' just sounds like something that you'll find in any organization made up of people, a corporation, a team, whatever, as opposed to some sort of unique element of an unelected work force.

 

[seminole97]

Obviously lots of noise about immigration, sex, geography, etc. but here are some more process oriented things done yesterday...

1. Senior executive service to be subject to performance review/standards/reassignment focused on consistency with elected official agenda. SES members supposed to tell OMB if their peers aren't playing along. (I hear he may rename that part of OMB the State Taskforce Against Senior Inertia...)

I'm not sure the crowd will keep up on that one, but it's good.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

When push comes to shove, i agree completely as to their advisory role, i disagree completely once the political branches have made the call (though i agree completely as to legality). Beyond that, "service to the american people" isn't defined by what they think is right. If you feel strongly enough, you resign, and you raise a stink with the other members of the political branches.

First, defending the Constitution and the rule of law IS "in service to the American people". Second, advocating for what "they think is right" pursuant to the Constitution and the rule of law is - once again - literally their mandated job. If the president can just get them all to resign and replace them with his own people by pushing illegal/unconstitutional policy, Trump really doesn't need the EA. Since he can't do that, he wants to change the conditions of their employment so he can put people into those positions whose mandate is to bow.

TBH, I can't even figure out what a middle ground between those two very different responsibilities would look like. You either get independent, non-partisan advice or you get obeisance.

 

[Aardvark86]

I appreciate that you took time to write a lot of words. But for a lawyer, you aren't very good at making a case. It's still not clear - or convincing at all - that this is a big deal or pervasive or really what exactly the deal is at all regardless of its size. Your examples of 'i know better', 'this will be a pain' and 'i don't like this group of political types' just sounds like something that you'll find in any organization made up of people, a corporation, a team, whatever, as opposed to some sort of unique element of an unelected work force.

...and i like chocolate better than vanilla. the point of a lot of those words was simply that civil service is not "sinister" as many might suggest, and often operates in good faith and in a way that normal people do. but it's the g, and when it comes to government, politics is not a dirty word. the civies are subject to it, not its overlord. Ask a lot of questions...

 

[ThorneStockton]

...and i like chocolate better than vanilla. the point of a lot of those words was simply that civil service is not "sinister" as many might suggest, and often operates in good faith and in a way that normal people do. but it's the g, and when it comes to government, politics is not a dirty word. the civies are subject to it, not its overlord. Ask a lot of questions...

I agree with that. I was hoping you would have made a case for why you believe it's legitimate issue. You know where people at a certain level think they run the show. Maybe make specific claims, then maybe substantiate those claims with something akin to evidence. Instead it's just generalities. Kind of how most people theorize about the Deep State.