We need a RICO law for the Bush administration.
 

How hard is it for the next president to dismiss people in such positions?
 

My honest answer to bitswapper is "I'm not at all sure." But I do think that one purpose of the Civil Service Act of 1886 is to make it extremely difficult to dismiss (or "purge") people on political grounds. And the point of the Post story, as in a similar earlier piece in the NYTimes, was that the Bushies are trying their hardest to shift political appointees to protected civil service slots.
 

There is always the option of setting appropriate job duties, functions, etc. At the least a decent supervisor can make sure that nothing but a waste of a salary occurs. At best they can be cleared out in months.

I heard a tale about a railroad that was stuck with a bunch of lifetime firemen after the steam trains were gone. They got to specify the duties though: come in on time, sit at a desk, take designated breaks and lunch. While not on break no talking, no reading, no nothing. They all resigned fairly soon.
 

The purpose of the Civil Service Act is to make dismissal for political reasons difficult, but not to make dismissal for incompetence difficult. If these positions actually require a scientific background, it should be possible to demonstrate that these political appointees are unable to perform their duties. Ask somebody whose chief qualification is leadership in the Young Republicans about a differential equation with singular perturbations (which arises in the study of the interaction of the atmosphere with the surface of the planet), and he probably isn't going to understand the question, much less come up with a coherent answer. It may, however, take quite a while and create a lot of legal costs.
 

Professor McCarthy is hardly in a position to criticize Mr. Bush's politicization of science. McCarthy was a primary "scientific advisor" behind Al Gore's work of fiction entitled "An Inconvenient Truth," a leader in the UN's IPCC when it negotiated a political compromise as to what the computer models actually showed concerning global warming, falsely cited to several dozen scientists who actually either never reviewed and the IPCC work product or openly challenged the findings and still backs the IPCC models which have all been spectacularly wrong over the past decade of global cooling.
 

Shorter little Lisa's bro:

"Party before country."
 

Past decade of global cooling, Bart?

Never happened:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

I trust your other comments here are equally well informed.
 

Pardon my bad link.

Try "Temperature Record" on Wikipedia.
 

commercial criminals
 

leovy:

Past decade of global cooling, Bart?

Well, when you ask the "Bart"-approved 'scientists'....

Remember, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality...."

I'm guessing that "Bart" will soon be busy constructing a world where the Rethuglicans won the 2008 elections ... oh, wait, nevermind, that's what he has been doing.

Denial and rivers and all that crapola....

Cheers,
 

The lame duck period is undoubtedly a serious defect in our system. Many an outgoing President from John Adams to Bill Clinton has used the unnaccountable time to try to sabotage his successor. James Buchanan is undoubtedly the very worst example, but George Bush is bad enough. At least we've shortened the interregnum from Buchanan's time, but nearly three months is still much too long.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Sandy Levinson said...
But I do think that one purpose of the Civil Service Act of 1886 is to make it extremely difficult to dismiss (or "purge") people on political grounds.

I note that this didn't slow down the political purges of the justice dept, although I would suppose the CSA didn't apply to them. Perhaps the new democratic congress can pass a law blocking political aids from civil service positions.

Perhaps the Bush appointees can be reassigned to posts more fitting their qualifications.
 

I've seen some great suggestions for Bushie's moles. First, while it will take some work it won't be terribly hard for competent management to identify these folks. Then, as mentioned above, lay down strict performance standards and review frequently. Part of the job, right? So more work, yes, but not crippling for competent administrators. Another great idea was to put them in charge of p.r. That's what they do best, right? Well, throw a little jiu jitsu at them and put 'em to work aggressively promoting Obama's policies. Kind of like railroad firemen, only better. Again, with high performance standards it's a twofer. Either the Bushbots perform and enable the policies they swore to undermine, or they quit, or (preferably) both. Personally, I really like that one. And exactly how much control does Obama have over his staff, anyways? I find it hard to believe these bumpkins won't stick out like sore thumbs in an ecology of competence, and be subject to removal. Ultimately, however, the mole thing strikes me as a distraction, a relatively minor tactic meant to bleed energy from the incoming administration and distract attention in general, but most of all to give America the middle finger, to smear one last swipe of excrement on the wall after s***ting all over our country, people, and Constitution.

Plus, another thing that just occurred to me: even if dismissed these positions are great resume builders for loyalists, which for them makes it win/win. Either they stay on, and benefit accordingly, or they exit and use their newfound credentials to build careers. Nice. I still say remove any and all supervisory/decision making responsibilities and put 'em to work, NOW, with the jobs of aggressively promoting Obama's policies. Huge workload, all progressive, all the time. Problem solved.