Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 20
How much closer we are getting to the Soviet system in such a short period of time.

Obama Administration Intends to Purge Republicans From the Civil Service

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/11/12/obama-administratio...

It is a typical Washington process that many political appointees are able to take jobs within the civil service once their political appointment expires -- usually at the conclusion of one administration. What often happens as well is Congressional staffers, before an election or shortly thereafter, will move over to the Executive Branch placed into the civil service, in effect, by appointment.

Barack Obama is changing that. He intends to purge all Republicans from the federal bureaucracy retroactive to five years ago.

This is what happens in third world kleptocracies and totalitarian regimes.
___________________________________

After his theft of bondholders' money that was given to the UAW, nothing will surprise me about Stalinbama.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 25
Obama Administration Intends to Purge Republicans From the Civil Service
.....
He (Obama) intends to purge all Republicans from the federal bureaucracy retroactive to five years ago.


Wow! What a spin! Here is the transmittal letter your link referenced. Perhaps you can explain how one interprets a GOP purge?

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 decisionmaking authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.

In no case may an agency make an appointment of the type described below without written authorization from OPM:

1. The appointment of a current political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee or a former political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position under title 5 of the U.S. Code.

2. The appointment of a current Non-career SES Executive Branch employee or a former Non-career SES Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position under title 5 of the U.S. Code.


http://www.chcoc.gov/Transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx?Tr...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
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 decisionmaking authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.
++++++++++++++++++++

LMAO, you are right a political board, put in place when only Republicans will be getting looked at for obvious reasons could not possible be political.

This administration the most bipartisan of all time would(I have not paid much attention since I heard that promise(it's a promiee it must be honest right?) would never do that


No wonder you are an Obama suppoerter,you are obviously a bright guy.

BTW I have a good bridge here in NY. connects Manhattan to Brooklyn, there's no toll on it now, but if you buy it today, you can put one on there this is a limitted time offer, I have a PO Box in nigeria send me a million today and you can make a million a day easy,
and If you do not have a million send whatever you have I like you, and will give it to you cheap.

It is a promise,I say that to avoid any hint of dishonesty(bolding seesm to make it true I guess
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Are my questions/comments too hard for you? I ask;
Perhaps you can explain how one interprets a GOP purge?

and you reply;
LMAO, you are right a political board, put in place when only Republicans will be getting looked at for obvious reasons could not possible be political.

This administration the most bipartisan of all time would(I have not paid much attention since I heard that promise(it's a promiee it must be honest right?) would never do that

blah, blah, blah


On another thread I comment;
And me thinks you forgot the "bail out capital" was from Bush - - making the Bush losses much worse.

and you retort;
LMAO - that has been addressed so many times, you are either open to lying OR unable to process information that makes Obama look like Obama

Are you really that disconnected from what I'm saying?

And you're trying to sell me the Brooklyn bridge?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 50
You really shouldn't comment on things you clearly do not understand.

The Civil Service is comprised almost entirely of career employees who got their jobs through merit, not through party affiliation, plus a relatively small number (a few percent of the total) of discretionary, upper level positions which each President has a right to fill, and whose holders serve at the discretion of the President. At the end of every administration, there are political appointees who try to grab civil service positions open to the career force, in order to gain the benefits of that employment, or perhaps to embed their political views in the civil service where by law they should not be. Thus, there are significant protections of the civil service career workforce and the country from lateral moves by political appointees into non-political positions after their appointer leaves office.

It is apparent from this story that Obama is either reaffirming that policy or increasing its enforcement after a period of neglect.

The only people who should be mad at this are those who want to further politicize the civil service as the previous administration has done. Not really a very high-minded platform from which to whine.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
You really shouldn't comment on things you clearly do not understand.
----------------------------------------------------------
Then what would you post about?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If you take that position, it should not just go back five years, to remove those leaving the Bush administration, but back forever...so anyone in the Clinton administration who did the same thing also gets the boot out the door.

However, the Obama -bots only are going back five years.

Go figure...well, no need to...those folks are Republicans, and we can't 'out' any democrats can we?

I'm sure not a one of Obama's 'friends' will wind up in a civll service job, or in a 'agency' which he creates without full civil service advertisement of the job, and considering only 'qualified civil servants' first....and last.

Hee hee....joke...joke..... never will happen. His buddies will magically wind up with all those 100,000 health care regulatory positions......

Heck, Obama moved 50,000 troops from TX (didn't vote for him) to Ft Carson in CO (lib bastion).....and took 100,000 jobs along...to a state that voted for him.... Chicago style politics has no limit.....

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Telegraph,

You are a liar and a moron. Obama is not removing anyone, he is merely reinforcing regulations to ensure that political appointees do not unfairly move into Civil Service positions.

Oh, and calling Fort Carson (or any military outpost) a liberal bastion is wingnut whining foolishness.

And yes I am perfectly aware that you and your doppels will FA my post. You can dish it out but you can't take it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
He, he, he, way to go tele! ROTFLMAOWHM.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>> Chicago style politics has no limit..... <<

I prefer pizza Chicago style, not politics.

#29
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
>> And yes I am perfectly aware that you and your doppels will FA my post. You can dish it out but you can't take it. <<

Sort of like how your PA pals and all their doppels troll the Best Of list and post drive-by droppings here? And all those posts by 2828 and others that get routinely FA'd by the PA drive-bys?

Pot, meet kettle.

#29
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
It is apparent from this story that Obama is either reaffirming that policy or increasing its enforcement after a period of neglect.

If you had established credibility, your views on what is apparent might be accepted, but since you've shown an inability to establish credibility, your views are summarily dismissed. Since Zero also has failed to establish credibility, I am more inclined to suspect his motives for doing anything that can have even a hint of partisanship, than to believe he is doing anything that is without partisan ulterior motive. Perhaps now you can grasp the significance of your failures (and his) to establish a moral basis for your beliefs.

1HF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you had established credibility, your views on what is apparent might be accepted, but since you've shown an inability to establish credibility, your views are summarily dismissed

Since you raised it, my credibility on TMF far exceeds yours.

I am more inclined to suspect his motives for doing anything that can have even a hint of partisanship, than to believe he is doing anything that is without partisan ulterior motive.

In a party system, partisanship is the norm -- it is absurd for anyone to validly hope partisanship will not exist. Where partisanship goes too far is where it obstructs or violates the law, as in the case of the partisan way the Bush administration hired and managed US Attorneys' positions around the country and politicized the Justice Department more than any predecessor.

You really have two options in this -- either you can endorse the rampant politicization, far beyond the intent and sometimes the letter of the law, which went on under Bush, in which case you have no moral basis from which to critique whatever Obama does, since you have endorsed the practice,...

...or, you can admit that Bush overstepped, applaud Obama for retrenching and depoliticizing the civil service, and hold his feet to the fire on that basis.

Perhaps now you can grasp the significance of your failures (and his) to establish a moral basis for your beliefs.

The ball is in your court on this. I have established the moral basis for my views here -- a belief in a non-partisan civil service. You have not, but resort merely to nasty partisan jibes at Obama.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you take that position, it should not just go back five years, to remove those leaving the Bush administration, but back forever...so anyone in the Clinton administration who did the same thing also gets the boot out the door.

I'm sure they had a reason about choosing five years, and I'm sure one could argue the correctness of the number plus or minus a few.

The problem is, and your statement does not show you get it, though you may, that the people who got the jobs were not the ones doing wrong, in any sense of the word. They were people who wanted jobs, and wanted to stay in government, and wanted the benefits of continuing service in the government. It was the people who waived the restrictions on their lateral transfer from exempt positions to civil service positions who were in the wrong, but probably not susceptible to sanction for so doing.

So there has to be a matter of reasonableness involved. No doubt many of the people who made these shifts are fine civil servants -- others probably left as soon as they could find a high-paying lobbyist job or another political job, and some may be in-between. There has to be some limitation on how far one takes it back -- this is not capital crimes, after all.

The rest of your post is nasty partisan drivel. Nothing I will say will dissuade you from any of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Since you raised it, my credibility on TMF far exceeds yours.

What would you base such a claim on and why would I consider it relevant?

[I am more inclined to suspect his motives for doing anything that can have even a hint of partisanship, than to believe he is doing anything that is without partisan ulterior motive.]

You really have two options in this

I disagree. Since Zero must sell his policy decisions in order to get reelected, I have the option of suspecting everything he does and withholding belief that his motives are moral until he establishes credibility and acts morally.

[Perhaps now you can grasp the significance of your failures (and his) to establish a moral basis for your beliefs.]

The ball is in your court on this.

You wish. Since you have not established credibility and since you are in the position of trying to convince others to sacrifice their liberties for your immoral purposes, there is no ball and no court. There is only the question of whether you can establish credibility. I'm guessing that's just not possible.

I have established the moral basis for my views here

You wish. You have left questions unanswered in the past and until you provide honest and relevant answers, you will retain your zero credibility status.

1HF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Actually, Cairo is correct. It is devastating when a political appointee gets into a critical position. Imagine "Brownies" in a position that requires leadership and vision. How that agency works for the next ten years will be affected.

An agency is the same as any company, get a mediocre CEO and it will be reflected in how the agency functions. If you want to ruin government, appoint a bunch of "Brownies" to critical positions. Your dreams of incompetent government will be fulfilled.

Someone takes the time to nurture talent coming up within the ranks, only to have the position taken by someone who doesn't understand the agency, how it works, critical problems, etc. What do you think happens to the talent pool? You lose part of the talent pool is what happens.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What would you base such a claim on and why would I consider it relevant?

Oh you wouldn't. Of that, I am sure. You don't have the integrity to admit when you are wrong or mistaken. I can't change that. Good bye.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
[What would you base such a claim on and why would I consider it relevant?]

Oh you wouldn't. Of that, I am sure. You don't have the integrity to admit when you are wrong or mistaken. I can't change that. Good bye.

Another cowardly dodge and another example of why you can't earn credibility. This is characteristic of collectivists. They cut and run when they're challenged to rationally justify their immoral beliefs. Maybe they deserve credit for being smart enough to realize they can't, but then why are they stupid enough to cling to them anyway?

1HF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The prerequisite for Obama appointments seems to be you have to be a socialist,and maybe a commie at heart, to have a 'czar' position.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The prerequisite for Obama appointments seems to be you have to be a socialist,and maybe a commie at heart, to have a 'czar' position.

He has a lot of friends to pay back for their help in duping enough of America's Most Gullible to vote for him.

1HF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Telegraph,

You are a liar and a moron. Obama is not removing anyone, he is merely reinforcing regulations to ensure that political appointees do not unfairly move into Civil Service positions.

Oh, and calling Fort Carson (or any military outpost) a liberal bastion is wingnut whining foolishness.

And yes I am perfectly aware that you and your doppels will FA my post. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

tgrshark


A fundraising consultant. Sounds like a parasitical occupation. Congratulations pal, your first post here and you make the penalty box. Good job.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top