Buddhists stole my clarinet... and I'm still as mad as Hell about it! How did a small-town boy from the Midwest come to such an end? And what's he doing in Rhode Island by way of Chicago, Pittsburgh, and New York? Well, first of all, it's not the end YET! Come back regularly to find out. (Plant your "flag" at the bottom of the page, and leave a comment. Claim a piece of Rhode Island!) My final epitaph? "I've calmed down now."

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Measure Those Drapes: Our Presidential Candidates SHOULD Have Their Cabinets Selected

By now, both candidates should be deep into preparations for the responsibilities one of them is about to take on.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A16, Washington Post editorial

WE WRITE today in praise of drape-measuring. Early preparation for a presidential transition is essential to a successful launch of any presidency, and this transition will be more challenging -- more perilous -- than any in decades. It will be the first transfer of government since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, presenting America's enemies with a tempting moment of potential vulnerability. It arrives in the midst of a financial crisis and two wars. Any new president must scramble to produce a budget shortly after taking office; this president also will have to assume management of the $700 billion (and counting) financial bailout.

The candidates are understandably reluctant to discuss the transition for fear of appearing presumptuous. Indeed, Sen. John McCain has been deriding Sen. Barack Obama for "measuring the drapes" in the Oval Office. The fact of the matter, however, is that both candidates have engaged in transition planning, Mr. Obama in what appears to be a more systematic and detailed way than Mr. McCain. This is grounds for praise, not carping. As Clay Johnson, who launched George W. Bush's transition planning in spring 2000, wrote in a recent article for Public Administration Review, "It is irresponsible for anybody who could be president not to prepare to govern effectively from day one." Exhibit A in how not to handle the transition is Bill Clinton, whose dawdling on filling his Cabinet and naming his White House staff contributed to the early stumbles of his presidency.

Mr. Johnson and other transition experts believe the new president should announce his chief of staff within a few days of the election and, by Thanksgiving, name his key White House, economic, national security and foreign policy officials. That will be a daunting task; no recent president-elect has followed so ambitious a timetable. As Patricia McGinnis of the Council for Excellence in Government testified last month, of the 400 Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions that require Senate confirmation, "No more than 25 . . . have ever been confirmed within three months of any new Administration and only half within six months." Having Cabinet secretaries in place does not help much if they are home alone at their departments without confirmed deputies to assist them.

There are grounds for hope that the process will be speedier this time. A 2004 law gives candidates the opportunity to submit the names of transition planners for quick security clearances, "completed by the day after the election, to the extent practicable." In addition, the president-elect may submit, the day after the election, "the names of prospective nominees for high-level security positions for the cabinet and sub-cabinet." The Bush administration appears committed to assisting in a smooth transition at a difficult time; President Bush recently signed an executive order creating a Presidential Transition Coordinating Council to oversee the handoff.

The Senate has a responsibility to act swiftly and without partisan considerations. The Sept. 11 commission recommended that it change its rules to require a vote to confirm or reject national security nominees within 30 days of their nomination at the start of a new administration; lawmakers chose not to adopt that recommendation, but they should live up to its spirit in dealing with economic as well as national security positions. A report by the Congressional Research Service found that the longest lag, however, has involved getting nominations to the Senate in the first place; of 31 positions in the Bush administration that would have been subject to the 30-day deadline, 22 were confirmed within that span, four were holdovers from the Clinton administration and just five took longer than the allotted time. Yet it took an average of 65 days for Mr. Bush to submit his nominations, and even longer, 90 days, for Mr. Clinton. Getting background checks done quickly is critical. But the country will be better off if the winner of next week's election has a firm idea now of whom he would like in key positions.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home