New York Times Editorial - Anointed, not appointed
New York Times Editorial - Anointed, not appointed
Copyright by The New York Times
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006
President George W. Bush's high-handed attitude toward his own majority in Congress keeps getting worse, and we keep waiting for the Republicans to notice they are being insulted.
The latest case in point is Bush's appointment last week of the next two public trustees for Social Security and Medicare. Normally, those positions require confirmation by the Senate. But leaders from both parties had made it clear they objected to the president's choices. The president went ahead and installed his candidates while Congress was in recess.
It's not unheard of for a president to use a recess appointment to overcome stonewalling from his opposition. But in the past, such maneuvers have been treated by the White House as emergencies; this one seems to regard them as nothing unusual.
Social Security and Medicare are overseen by six trustees, four of them administration officials. The other two are supposed to represent the public. The terms of the last two public trustees - Thomas Saving, an economist at Texas A&M University, and John Palmer, former dean of the Maxwell School at Syracuse - expired last spring. In November, Bush renominated the same two men to serve new four-year terms. Senators protested, maintaining that the point of having public trustees is to ensure that fresh outsiders' perspectives are represented on the board.
The senators are right, the president is wrong. With the four other administration trustees, the public trustees approve the assumptions that are used to project the financial health of Social Security and Medicare, as well as the text of the programs' annual reports. It sounds like a dry and pro forma job, but in fact, that information greatly influences policy. As the baby boom generation ages and as the Bush administration pursues an overall agenda of privatization, the need for public-interest representation grows only more acute. The law wisely requires that the two public trustees come from different parties, and the Senate has never allowed any pair to serve repeated terms.
The White House says that it had to resort to recess appointments because it wanted public trustees in place to sign the 2006 annual reports for Social Security and Medicare, which were due on April 1. That's ludicrous. The two reappointed public trustees have not served as such during the past year, when the reports were being prepared. Their signatures would therefore be nothing but rubber stamps on administration documents.
It is easy to understand why Bush would want the two trustees' imprimatur. His Social Security privatization plan was a colossal flop and the rollout of his Medicare drug benefit has been the target of widespread criticism. The public trustees' signatures would magnify any positive spin the reports manage to put on things.
Congress cannot undo the recess appointments. But the two newly re- upped public trustees can and should refuse them.
Copyright by The New York Times
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006
President George W. Bush's high-handed attitude toward his own majority in Congress keeps getting worse, and we keep waiting for the Republicans to notice they are being insulted.
The latest case in point is Bush's appointment last week of the next two public trustees for Social Security and Medicare. Normally, those positions require confirmation by the Senate. But leaders from both parties had made it clear they objected to the president's choices. The president went ahead and installed his candidates while Congress was in recess.
It's not unheard of for a president to use a recess appointment to overcome stonewalling from his opposition. But in the past, such maneuvers have been treated by the White House as emergencies; this one seems to regard them as nothing unusual.
Social Security and Medicare are overseen by six trustees, four of them administration officials. The other two are supposed to represent the public. The terms of the last two public trustees - Thomas Saving, an economist at Texas A&M University, and John Palmer, former dean of the Maxwell School at Syracuse - expired last spring. In November, Bush renominated the same two men to serve new four-year terms. Senators protested, maintaining that the point of having public trustees is to ensure that fresh outsiders' perspectives are represented on the board.
The senators are right, the president is wrong. With the four other administration trustees, the public trustees approve the assumptions that are used to project the financial health of Social Security and Medicare, as well as the text of the programs' annual reports. It sounds like a dry and pro forma job, but in fact, that information greatly influences policy. As the baby boom generation ages and as the Bush administration pursues an overall agenda of privatization, the need for public-interest representation grows only more acute. The law wisely requires that the two public trustees come from different parties, and the Senate has never allowed any pair to serve repeated terms.
The White House says that it had to resort to recess appointments because it wanted public trustees in place to sign the 2006 annual reports for Social Security and Medicare, which were due on April 1. That's ludicrous. The two reappointed public trustees have not served as such during the past year, when the reports were being prepared. Their signatures would therefore be nothing but rubber stamps on administration documents.
It is easy to understand why Bush would want the two trustees' imprimatur. His Social Security privatization plan was a colossal flop and the rollout of his Medicare drug benefit has been the target of widespread criticism. The public trustees' signatures would magnify any positive spin the reports manage to put on things.
Congress cannot undo the recess appointments. But the two newly re- upped public trustees can and should refuse them.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 8:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home