Recess Appointments

[stebo0728]

Ok, in light of this recent recess appointment for the "Medicare Czar" what is everyones thoughts on recess appointments? Yes I know every president uses them, not trying to pick on this particular one just yet, though I dont agree with it on the face of it, I have not formed a good solid opinion on it yet. Any thoughts on it, or the recess appointment notion in general?

[szh]

An earlier, related, discussion:

just-delightful-non-session-appointees-t485999.html

Z

[stebo0728]

Thanks for the redirect there, good read ...

Heres my deal I have given this alot of thought. I know that recess appointments have been used throughout history and I am in no means trying to point out a stinky on the POTUS necessarily. It seems to me the purpose of a recess appointment should be to fill a critical seat when the vacancy occurs during the same recess as the appointment, say a sudden death, or other incapacitating event on the current seat holder. Instead its being used to sneak people into positions that would otherwise not pass congressional filtering. This is a rediculous notion, and goes against standards this nation was founded on, IMHO. Seems that recess appointments should be treated the same way as declarations of war. Go ahead and do it, but the person still has to be evaluated and signed off on by the senate. They can go ahead in a pinch start filling the job, but can only remain once passed by the Senate.

Filling seats just to further your own agenda is rather self serving.

[IBCoupe]

On the other hand, when you're the President and half of Congress has made it clear that they won't cooperate with any initiative on your side of the aisle, even one as simple a decision as extending unemployment benefits in the middle of a historic recession, maybe recess appointments are the only way to get things done.

Not defending anything; I'm just trying to throw that out there. Maybe there's an interest in having a functional government.

[stebo0728]

I see your point, and truthfully the fact that our elected officials cling so tightly to party lines is really detrimental to the betterment of our nation. Our nation is never going to be completely functional as long as political parties and lobbyist are the true constituency of our elected officials.

As far as recess appointments, Id lean towards accepting the doors that are closed without them, than I would accepting the doors that it opens.

[IBCoupe]

I see your point, and truthfully the fact that our elected officials cling so tightly to party lines is really detrimental to the betterment of our nation. Our nation is never going to be completely functional as long as political parties and lobbyist are the true constituency of our elected officials.

As far as recess appointments, Id lean towards accepting the doors that are closed without them, than I would accepting the doors that it opens.

I couldn't agree more. Ideas are ideas, and they should be considered on the basis of their merits, not on who has presented them.

Of course, you heard that a lot from politicians, and it always seems to be an easier line for them to cling to when it's their turn in power. Which is a pretty perverted thought: why should anyone have a turn at being in power? We don't really need this endlessly spinning wheel, do we?

[stebo0728]

Ya, and it gets you into the scenario we are in now. My theory is, and just my theory, but I think Obama knows he has no prayer of re-election, but he is gonna try to ram every sorta socialistic thing in that he can, and get it wedged in tight enough that it will be hell to remove. The man is a socialist, you choose whether you agree or not and thats ok, but I think the evidence is pretty clear. Europe is finally breaking up with socialism after a 2 decade love affair, and here we are just about to jump into the same mud hole. Truely messed up if you ask me.

If there were no parties, there would be no such thing as "turn in power"

[IBCoupe]

I think calling these things "socialistic" is inaccurate. I think the word "socialist," as it has come into use, is more of a derogatory term than it is a descriptive label. Republicans are, again, taking a word and turning it dirty. As a result of conservative badmouthing, which is more of the partisanship that you and I were just complaining about, a majority of Americans currently identify with "liberal" values, but when asked if they're liberal, only a fraction respond in the affirmative. These are stupid games we play.

"Socialist" does not equal "bad." Bad policies can and do certainly exist, but we have to be able to explain why they're bad - what effect do they render or what principle do they espouse? I don't think that's a terribly high standard for to hold ourselves to. Calling something "socialist" and leaving it at that is certainly more convenient, but what I've found is that, usually, convenience and quality are mutually exclusive.

[stebo0728]

Socialism = Government control of resources = Barak Obama = very bad

Yes socialism has become a bit of an epithet, just like racism has, but this forum from what Ive seen is mostly above the usage of such epithets. When I say socialism, thats what I mean, and and this case it most certainly applies.

[IBCoupe]

Correction: socialism = complete public control over resources. It exists, necessarily, in varying degrees in every society on Earth. Don't like factories polluting your waterways? You're going to have to exert some public control over that. Don't like arsenic in your cheeseburgers? Socialist swine! See why it's silly to call someone a "socialist?" See why it's silly to associate "socialism" with "bad?" It necessarily makes your political positions either contradictory to your beliefs or extreme(ly retarded) in their consistency.

President Obama is not a socialist in the absolutist meaning that you appear to employ. There is nothing that he's done or said that makes him out to be one. You can't simultaneously agree with me that we need to be judging ideas on the basis of their individual merits and continue to use such ridiculously hyperbolic language.

[stebo0728]

Don't like factories polluting your waterways? You're going to have to exert some public control over that. Don't like arsenic in your cheeseburgers?

Which can all be handled perfectly well by the private sector.

Did we conveniently forget about "spreading the wealth"? Did we forget that BO's shining star has been socialized medicine. I consider your refusal of his socialistic nature as absurd as you consider my labeling him so, so on that we are at a loss.

And I find it a bit naive to fail to equate public with government. The two terms are synonymous, at least in our current societal structure.

[IBCoupe]

Which can all be handled perfectly well by the private sector.

Only in an entirely reactive manner. Sure, people will stop paying for things that pollute water (if they can manage to make the connection between polluted water and that plastic bottle they drink out of) and they'll stop buying burgers with arsenic in them. But in order for people to do that they either have to a) know in advance that these things are happening, or b) realize that it's happened after people have gotten hurt.

Did we conveniently forget about "spreading the wealth"?

We had a progressive tax structure long before he failed to get rid of it. If that's all it takes to be a socialist, buddy, you're quite a bit late to this game.

Did we forget that BO's shining star has been socialized medicine.

We don't have socialized medicine. Not even close. We have roughly what the Republicans proposed in 1994. Were they socialist?

"Socialized medicine" refers to a system where the government owns and operates both the financing of health care and the delivery of health care. "Socialized health insurance" refers to a system where the public pools resources based on an ability to pay in order to finance health insurance. By subsidizing private health insurance for the poor, we get close to the latter, but we still have only private insurers, and 90% of our hospitals are privately owned and operated, as opposed to being municipal facilities.

I consider your refusal of his socialistic nature as absurd as you consider my labeling him so, so on that we are at a loss.

Except that I can explain what's wrong about your statements.

And I find it a bit naive to fail to equate public with government. The two terms are synonymous, at least in our current societal structure.

Sure, they're synonymous, but it certainly disarms your rhetoric by pointing out that "socialism" encompasses "government" in our country only because government is public.

Stebo, usually you're a pretty bright guy. I don't know why you've gone full-derp on me.

[stebo0728]

Hmm, maybe im out of man-pons.

Ill consider a rebuttal a little later on. Wheels are still cranking

[IBCoupe]

Happens to the best of us. I was badly sunburned this past weekend, and so I got a bit snippy responding to Aud yesterday.

[stebo0728]

Ok let me try and see if I can keep the derpness to a minimum this time.

IB - Let me start by saying I understand you consider your role here to be both devils advocate at times, as well as to try and keep us in a spirit of healthy debate, logical debate, and I commend that. Its needed, and you have the means and resources to do this much better than I can (a.k. developing law degree) Im just a common man, who tries to argue best he can

Now for the rebuttal, of sorts ...

Only in an entirely reactive manner. Sure, people will stop paying for things that pollute water (if they can manage to make the connection between polluted water and that plastic bottle they drink out of) and they'll stop buying burgers with arsenic in them. But in order for people to do that they either have to a) know in advance that these things are happening, or b) realize that it's happened after people have gotten hurt.

I dont believe this to be the case. The private sector can be every bit as proactive and the public. The people actually involved in any industry know the risks and what must be done to avert the. Any that get by would get by the public sector just as easily.

We had a progressive tax structure long before he failed to get rid of it. If that's all it takes to be a socialist, buddy, you're quite a bit late to this game.

I never stated that Obama was the FIRST socialist in washington. Certainly not! Nor have I stated that he is the most extreme, the Secretary of State strikes me as a bit more extreme. The fact that he is not the first does not negate placing this label on him as well.

We don't have socialized medicine. Not even close. We have roughly what the Republicans proposed in 1994. Were they socialist?

"Socialized medicine" refers to a system where the government owns and operates both the financing of health care and the delivery of health care. "Socialized health insurance" refers to a system where the public pools resources based on an ability to pay in order to finance health insurance. By subsidizing private health insurance for the poor, we get close to the latter, but we still have only private insurers, and 90% of our hospitals are privately owned and operated, as opposed to being municipal facilities.

Again trying to keep the derpness on the low low, but I hope you dont really think that this "socialized medicine lite" plan we are looking at now is going to be the end of the line. You boil a frog by putting him in cold water, then slowly turn up the heat.
Ok maybe thats hyperbole, but I am convinced by patterns presented by the left, that this steam roller is just getting started.

Except that I can explain what's wrong about your statements.

Is that a thumb I feel in my eye? Everyone has flaws in their arguments, some are just easier to spot, and some of us are better trained to spot them.


Anyway we seem to have gone scuffling down a rabbit trail here, as the original post regarded recess appointments. (I accept that its probably mostly my fault). Let me futher explain my position regarding them. I am a strong believer in unintended consequences. Consider the notion of ending the fillibuster. Both parties want to end the fillibuster when they are the majority, and fight to keep it when they are the minority. The truth is, its a good tool when used properly, and removing it knee-jerkingly would be detrimental. Consider the 16th Ammendment, which places senator voting into the hands of the people. This was done in knee-jerk fashion due to corruption found at the time, and now the senatorial constituency has moved from state governments as it was intended, to the people, and has contributed to our broken system. To end recess appointments in knee jerk fashion because we see one crappy use of it, I disagree with that notion. However, careful review of the process is always welcomed.

[IBCoupe]

I dont believe this to be the case. The private sector can be every bit as proactive and the public. The people actually involved in any industry know the risks and what must be done to avert the. Any that get by would get by the public sector just as easily.

I don't buy it; the private sector does its best to lobby against regulation and to bypass it. If this was something they were planning to do anyways, why bother throwing money against it?

I never stated that Obama was the FIRST socialist in washington. Certainly not! Nor have I stated that he is the most extreme, the Secretary of State strikes me as a bit more extreme. The fact that he is not the first does not negate placing this label on him as well.

You're right; that he's not the first does not mean he's not one. The fact that favoring progressive tax structures does not a socialist make means he's not one (at least for the reasons you've given).

Again trying to keep the derpness on the low low, but I hope you dont really think that this "socialized medicine lite" plan we are looking at now is going to be the end of the line. You boil a frog by putting him in cold water, then slowly turn up the heat.
Ok maybe thats hyperbole, but I am convinced by patterns presented by the left, that this steam roller is just getting started.

Sorry about the "derp."

I cannot argue against this. There is nothing I can do except point out what you're doing, and hope that you're convinced that it's not a terribly good tactic. There is absolutely no way for me to prove to you that there is no secret plan to turn the United States into a Socialist Hell (TM). I can tell you that such a fear is entirely irrational, but I can't provide you with evidence that it doesn't exist.

This is the same kind of theory that says 9/11 was secretly an inside job, and that President Bush let it happened while Vice President Cheney secretly planned it, in order to justify the invasion of Iraq to seize Iraqi oil. This is the same kind of theory that says Israeli Mossad controls Hamas in order to keep the Palestinians down. This is the same kind of theory that says President Obama is hiding his secret Muslim faith. You can't fight against something like that. All you can do is point out that it's a bit nutty to assert such conspiracy theories as truth, and hope that people agree with you.

Consider the notion of ending the fillibuster. Both parties want to end the fillibuster when they are the majority, and fight to keep it when they are the minority. The truth is, its a good tool when used properly, and removing it knee-jerkingly would be detrimental. Consider the 16th Ammendment, which places senator voting into the hands of the people. This was done in knee-jerk fashion due to corruption found at the time, and now the senatorial constituency has moved from state governments as it was intended, to the people, and has contributed to our broken system. To end recess appointments in knee jerk fashion because we see one crappy use of it, I disagree with that notion. However, careful review of the process is always welcomed.

I agree with this comment completely.

And I apologize for being overly negative. I do my best to avoid it, but sometimes my temper can get the best of me.

[stebo0728]

Well let me clarify a bit. My position is not that Obama, or the left for that matter, say down and said "You know what guys, we fought against communists and socialists for 4 decades, now lets go out and institute the same sorta thing here". That would be a bit nutty, heres the deal. The left continues to embrace public charities, programs which continue to give people fish rather than teach them how to fish and demand they catch their own. This continued embrace stems from the desire to keep an imaginary "power" by continuing to pass programs that cater to the votes of the many people recieving these programs. And with every step we move closer to the totalitarianism of 1920 Italy, which only leads to socialism, which then ultimately ends up at communism for a few decades before causing a self implosion and dismantling, only to start back at square one. The pattern is there, and is being ignored for the sake of "poverty" which I dare argue that no one in this nation is actually in "poverty". Poor maybe, but this nation does not yet know actual poverty. The left and their defenders denounce socialism, but actions and patterns speak much louder than campaign speeches.

I commend you for pointing out that you cant prove a negative against my argument, and I apologize for putting you in the position of needing to do that. Perhaps my clarification makes more sense, perhaps it makes it worse.

[IBCoupe]

This continued embrace stems from the desire to keep an imaginary "power" by continuing to pass programs that cater to the votes of the many people recieving these programs. And with every step we move closer to the totalitarianism of 1920 Italy, which only leads to socialism, which then ultimately ends up at communism for a few decades before causing a self implosion and dismantling, only to start back at square one.

So I think these two sentences of yours adequately sum up the points you're making.

First, that the left is making a political calculation in embracing "socialistic" policies, and second, that there is a predictable, unavoidable result of following those policies. I'm pretty sure you're wrong on both.

I'll address the second point, first, because I'm going to go on a little tangent after I address the first. I really don't think that we're anywhere near totalitarian Italy, and I really don't think that our system of government (let alone our Constitution) would permit such a state.

While it's possible that there are leftist politicians that are simply doing what they think is politically expedient, I think you summarily ignore and dismiss the roughly half of our nation that supports the policies put forth by those leftist politicians. Certainly the liberal who sits a few cubicles away from me at work is trying to court no votes. Might it be that there's a real humanitarian and social justice aspect to it?

Here's my tangent: I think you're demonizing what comes down to little more than an alternate expectation of how the world functions. You stand by the "teach a man to fish" line, which sits in the core of every conservative's ideology, but I'm not sure if you realize that, in adopting that theory as perhaps the best way to achieve a just society, you're making some serious assumptions. In order to accept "teach a man to fish," deep down you're probably of the mind that the world works best when people get what they earn. And in order to be of that mind, it's probably necessary for you to assume that people can actually get what they earn, that people get what they deserve, and that with enough hard work and intelligent thought, someone will get what's coming to them. That's where the "right" lives.

But, if you acknowledge that those are assumptions that are necessary to live on one pole of social politics, you've probably already figured out that there are a similar set of assumptions necessary to live at the other end. Some might prefer to give a man a fish if they're of the mind that the world doesn't always work out the way we think it ought to. Sometimes, you're born poor, or you're born inherently different that makes it so the world isn't going to give you a fair shake, no matter how hard you study or work. That's where the "left" lives.

I'd love to go on, but class is starting.

[AZhitman]

I'm hesitant to even enter this one - You two are drilling 420-footers over the cheap seats and into the bay.

I'll speak to the [brilliantly-explained] "tangent" brought up by IBC (we gotta come up with a name for you, lest "derp" sticks in my Alzheimer's-addled melon and I start calling you that )...

The divide here, and it's simple, is over the concept of "fairness". If we reject the notion that life should be "fair", that there's always going to be someone handsomer, smarter, more well-spoken, etc than we, then our decisions as to governance become much simpler. It's just NOT the role of the government to assuage those differences.

If that policy REALLY held water, then I should, theoretically, be a wealthy and successful actor. Alas, I wasn't born with movie-star good looks, or a propensity to memorize lines, or the ability to "get into character" a la George Clooney. Therefore, I'll be needing my compensation, because, dammit, I just try and try, but I can't compete. Hollywood, as liberal as it is, would laugh heartily in my ugly, non-acting face.

Yet those same folks expect the governemt to intervene when someone complains that "the world doesn't always work out the way we think it ought to".

Perhaps the opposition to continuation of unemployment benefits is the result of common sense, and the fact that the very existence of such a crutch leads many to simply not put forth the extra effort. And that extra effort, my friends is what makes America strong.

Incidentally, it's ALSO that "extra effort" that gives us female CEOs, Black NFL quarterbacks, disabled triathletes, underprivileged pop stars, women on the Supreme Court, dropout billionaire entrepreneurs, and *gasp* a half-Black President.

Strip away the crutches. People can (and do) overcome.

Do I sound like a liberal? Hmmm. Rugged self-reliance, individualism, bootstrap mentality: It's the core of conservatism.

[stebo0728]

I applaud your tangent, lol. Its a fair assessment, and what your describe is quite true. Yes I do believe that the world works best when people make their own way though life. I would agree with your assessment of me, and I would agree that the polar opposite exists. Thats the nature of discussion, and the reason we even need representative government: Not everyone things the exact same way. But I believe firmly if you do an exhaustive study of societies of history you would see that they functioned better when embracing person liberty, and individual responsibility, and only start to fail when the government takes up the task of evening the playing field that should be left to handle itself.

On a side note to further my position, my belief is that we are a product of our choices in life. Regarless of our start, we all have the propensity of coming to the same end, at either end of the spectrum, or anywhere in between. Thats one of the wonderful things about this nation, or it used to be.

[IBCoupe]

You're both making great points, and I'll try to respond to each of you in the few minutes I have before class resumes:

Greg, I think you're spot-on in identifying the ugly underbelly of the "even playing field" crowd, just as I'd be spot-on in pointing out the ugly underbelly that is violence and coercion of the "individual liberty above all" crowd. I think, if nothing else, we all need to be aware that our world is nothing if not an assortment of varying shades of gray, and I think it would behoove us to start approaching the world that way, if not in our actions, at least in our rhetoric.

Stebo, you've made a great point, too. Societies do need to embrace individual liberty in order to grow and improve themselves, but we can't have a society that regularly ignores the fact that we are not all born to equal circumstances. And while we shouldn't all get boob-jobs, as Greg would satirize, perhaps a leg-up for those born into (relative) poverty is not quite the same. We can acknowledge that some people get it especially rough because of no fault of their own. But let's take another tangent into affirmative action: if society benefits from the suffering of a person's ancestors, and that suffering is severe enough to be shown to carry forward into future generations, might society owe it to those future generations to, at the very least, help them pick themselves up? Give them the fishing rod so that they might teach themselves, where otherwise we might have someone carve their own?

[stebo0728]

I wont try to get too far ahead until you can rebut completely But let me just say, there is a stark difference between having supportive resources available to people who either are, or think they are "underprivileged", and then just arbitrarily cutting them a monthly check.

EDIT - And let me just say I think its rather indicative that most threads here somehow end up on some sort of welfare reform tangent, regardless of their beginnings.

[stebo0728]

Stebo, you've made a great point, too. Societies do need to embrace individual liberty in order to grow and improve themselves

And just let me ask before we move on, is this statement excluding personal responsibility a complete representation of your view on this matter, or do you also highly regard personal responsibility and failed to mention it in the reply? Just curious, didnt want to assume either way.

[IBCoupe]

While there's a difference between cutting someone a check and providing conditional support, I think both are attempts to solve the same perceived problem - that someone inherited unequal circumstances that are the product of society (as opposed to nature).

And, yes, personal responsibility must play a part. That's why affirmative action doesn't secure a person a job - it gets them in the door for an education that, if properly used, can get them a job. That's why the Civil Rights Act doesn't say, "You have to hire certain people so that we may get things into proper proportion," it says, "You have to consider people equally." I tried to hint at that by pointing to the "fishing rod" comment towards the end of my last post - we don't just give people a supply of fish (and not for an unconditional indefinite period of time). We may give them a fish or two if they show an absolute need (the way welfare started out as compensation for stay-at-home mothers, then Reagan used the "welfare queen" ploy and made non-wealthy stay-at-home mothers a thing of the past) for a certain period of time.

Back to class.

[stebo0728]

Im sure you are correct, and I hate to sound like I am vilifying some elses attempt to solve a problem, but just see to stark a contrast between the condition support approach, and the cut a check approach. I dont necessarily believe a mixture of the two in bad, but the mixture has to HEAVILY weighted with responsibility. We also have to be able to say no to people who allow themselves to be come institutionalized by the aid they are receiving. Set limits, with near impossiblity of movement (inflation or cost of living should be the only factors that increase aid in my opinion). I dont have a problem throwing some one some money to start them off, but the spicket needs to run dry real quick, and the person needs to use the aid for their self betterment, and be able to pick themselves back up and move on. Of course handicaps and disabilities factor in (true ones that is) but even then, family, friends, and religious institutions should still carry the bulk of that weight to the best of their abilities.

There is another aspect of the socialist now to bring up as well, and thats the whole notion of the "nanny state". Government using its unique ability to legally hold someone at gun point and make them do something, in order to force people to do what the government thinks is in either the person's or the government's best interest.

[IBCoupe]

I don't necessarily see a problem with what you propose, so long as you keep in mind the purpose of the aid.

And re: Nanny State, I'd say more often than not the Government does these sorts of things for what it estimates to be the public's best interest. And if your government isn't looking out for that, what the heck is it doing?

[stebo0728]

Im glad we can sorta come to a headway on that topic then. I think youd find most of us hear preach to the choir because we are more alike than we realize, we just argue things differently, and try to take stances in other camps to better understand our own position.

And great point on the nanny-state issue, but I would argue that the government passes these "nanny-state" laws in the publics best interest, because we have such a wack way of giving anyone anything they want. You dont have to force people to save for retirement as long as your not gonna be trying to bail them out in their old age because they failed to be personally responsible. Irresponsibility used to have consequences, it no longer does, hence the rampant irresponsibility we see today.

PS - I love this sorta stuff, and AZ, IB, Aud, etc, ever in the atlanta area lets grab a beer!

[IBCoupe]

I'd actually be surprised if "irresponsibility" was any more rampant today than it was, say, fifty years ago. Maybe today it's more publicized because we've got different ways of getting our information these days. Maybe today it's easier to find because there are so many more of us around.

But I'm usually skeptical when I hear comments that refer to the degradation of society. Makes me wonder if society really was different before, or if we just like to remember it that way.