A few days after Commissioner Astrue appointed Andrew Biggs to a position as Deputy Commissioner for Policy, a position which does not require Senate confirmation, President Bush has used the Congressional recess to give Biggs a recess appointment as the number two position at Social Security, Deputy Commissioner, according to Dow Jones Market Watch. The Deputy Commissioner slot normally requires Senate confirmation. The Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee had earlier made it clear that Biggs' nomination to become Deputy Commissioner would not be go forward. With a recess appointment Biggs can serve as Deputy Commissioner of Social Security until the end of the current Congressional session.
This recess appointment can only complicate Commissioner Astrue's life. Biggs's only interest in the Social Security Administration has appeared to be in dismantling the agency in favor of private accounts. It puts Biggs in a position to try to use the resources of the Social Security Administration to push privatization. Commissioner Astrue will have the constant worry that Biggs is going to do something that will cause embarrassment.
It seems unlikely that Astrue had much warning that this was coming, since he appointed Biggs to a position that did not require confirmation just a few days ago.
Astrue's patience may be tested in coming months -- and there are many signs that Michael Astrue is not a patient man.
This recess appointment can only complicate Commissioner Astrue's life. Biggs's only interest in the Social Security Administration has appeared to be in dismantling the agency in favor of private accounts. It puts Biggs in a position to try to use the resources of the Social Security Administration to push privatization. Commissioner Astrue will have the constant worry that Biggs is going to do something that will cause embarrassment.
It seems unlikely that Astrue had much warning that this was coming, since he appointed Biggs to a position that did not require confirmation just a few days ago.
Astrue's patience may be tested in coming months -- and there are many signs that Michael Astrue is not a patient man.
1 comment:
Will Mr. Biggs do the job for free?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-ties-democrats-hands-with-recess-appointments-2007-04-05.html
Bush ties Democrats' hands with recess appointments -- excerpt
"CRS (Congressional Research Service) reported in 2005 that recess appointments, while intended as a practical means to preserve executive-branch effectiveness, have “also been employed by presidents for political purposes throughout the history of the Republic.” Recess appointees may be subject to limits or revocation of pay for their positions, CRS noted, under an appropriations rider first passed to check President Lincoln in 1863."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070405-2.html
Apr. 5, 2007
Press Gaggle by Gordon Johndroe -- excerpt
"Q Thank you, Gordon. On Sam Fox, some Democrats are saying that he can be denied pay because it's a recess appointment. Is he prepared to do the job for free, or are you guys aware of that? What's your take?
MR. JOHNDROE: I think the State Department has something on that about his willingness to -- on his compensation. But I'd refer you to the State Department specifically, because they're the ones who handle that -- the finances of that position.
Q Gordon, does the President see recess appointments as a way of circumventing Senate opposition to his nominees?
MR. JOHNDROE: I think the President views recess appointments as an appropriate way to get people who are qualified into jobs that need to be filled. And it's a process that's been used many times over the years for people whose nominations have lingered or have been stopped for various reasons.
Q Well, on the Sam Fox case, on the day that the Foreign Relations Committee was going to put it to a vote, the President withdrew the nomination, and then a week later he recess appoints Sam Fox to that very same post. Now you've got some Democrats in the Senate calling it an abuse of the recess appointment authority.
MR. JOHNDROE: Well, I, of course, certainly would disagree with that. It's certainly a presidential prerogative. But I think it was clear that people were putting the politics over the policy of needing to get an ambassador into Brussels. And so the President took his action there to get our ambassador in place -- a qualified individual.
Q Are you saying that the Senate Committee would have denied his nomination and it was all political, or do you think there are some other reasons why they might have denied him?
MR. JOHNDROE: Far be it for me to say why various members of the Committee would or would not deny Mr. Fox the ability to serve in the position. But the bottom line is, he's qualified for the position, the position needed to be filled."
Post a Comment