Obviously, these unreasonable parameters make absolutely no concessions for those coming from key fields of related expertise, particularly in the equestrian-themed arenas. :rolleyes:
Unbelievable.
Yeah, we’ve been chewing over this one back in the current “Constitutional Crisis?” thread over in GD (2 la-z 2 link, sorry).
I’m still scratching my head over how a requirement specifying that FEMA directors must have experience and knowledge would somehow hurt the prospects of potential appointees who are “best qualified by experience and knowledge”.
Like I said, this signing statement appears to be nothing more than Bush deliberately looking like a fool for no apparent advantage. This is not his usual M.O. (generally, AFAICT, when he looks like a fool it’s either inadvertent or a side effect of pursuing some specific goal), and I don’t understand it at all.
Wait, I just thought of a possible explanation. Is this simply “unitary-executive” dick-brandishing in the face of a perceived rebuke from Congress?
That is, was the credentials-requirement provision of the bill intended at least partly as a slap to Bush in rebuke for the “Brownie” FEMA fiasco? And is Bush perhaps concerned that if he doesn’t overtly reject that provision, he will be appearing to have admitted error? Is this signing statement essentially nothing more than a “fuck you for trying to scold me”?
At this point, it seems that Bush is such an Entitlement Baby, that anyone (like, say, democratically elected Congressional representatives) who presumes to force him to do anything he doesn’t want to do will automatically get a knee-jerk reaction: A Signing Statement and subsequent dismissal. There’s a reason he doesn’t veto anything, if it’s just easier to ignore what he wants to.
There are any number of things one might cite as his contempt for democracy, but this seems to take the cake.
Eh. I see this as more of a typical power struggle between a president and Congress. No president likes to be hamstrung by Congress for any reason. As for “did Bush learn anything”, who knows? But it simply isn’t true that the head of a large organization like FEMA must be experienced in the particular operations of that orgainzation in order to be successful. Look at Lou Gerstner at IBM, for a a good example. The person needs good organizaitonal and leadership skills, but you can get those in areas other than cirses management. Also, keep in mind that whomever he nominates has to be confirmed by the Senate already, so this might as well be the Congress telling the Senate what it must do during the confirmation process.
It must be noted. How many show horses died in katrina. The man did his job.
I’m kinda with John Mace on this. I think Michael Brown was unqualifed to be head of FEMA, and the agency performed horrendously when it was needed the most under his leadership. Bush appointed Brown and deserves his share of the blame for it. If he’s learned anything, he’ll only appoint capable people to positions like that in the future. But, I don’t see that that gives Congress the right to dictate requirements for a job that’s within the executive branch.
Most presidents, though, wouldn’t risk looking like such an idiot over such a comparatively trifling issue. Bush is simply reminding everybody of an extremely embarrassing instance of crony capitalism that ended up significantly contributing to a catastrophic fuckup. If he’d just bitten his tongue and passed over the FEMA-director provision in silence, I doubt that most people would ever have known anything about it.
I’ll go along with your general principle but not your particular application or analogy. Yes, many management skills are transferable, and I wouldn’t approve if Congress had specified, say, that the FEMA director had to have twenty years’ experience in emergency management, or an advanced degree in a particular field related to it, or something.
But five years’ direct experience in the field is not a lot to ask for, especially when we’re talking about a position whose occupant could at any time be suddenly faced with a massive humanitarian and logistical crisis. I want somebody in that position who doesn’t just have “good organizational and leadership skills”—fuck, dude, I’ve got good organizational and leadership skills myself—but who actually knows something about the activities and procedures that they’ll have to be directing under incredible pressure while hundreds or thousands of lives hang in the balance.
Congress has the power to create the job, and the power to abolish the job. In most environments, the power to make finer adjustments in the job, such as setting minimum qualifications, would come with those powers.
And I don’t see why that wouldn’t be the case here. One can say Congress should or shouldn’t do it, but where does it say they can’t do it?
Remember too that pretty much everything of significance that Congress does pertains to the executive branch. Congress can only write laws; the Executive Branch has to execute them. (“Faithfully,” per Article II, Section 3.)
Oh, and regarding the Bush Administration and Katrina, you’ve got to see this.
Does anyone have direct text of the bill? So far I’ve heard contradictory information as to whether it requires “five years executive experience with some emergency management background” or “five years emergency management executive experience.”
If it’s the former, then absolutely Bush is in the wrong for opposing this.
If it’s the latter, I’m a little more inclined to agree with him unless someone can show me that emergency management is a vast enough field that this legislation wouldn’t turn the available hiring pool into a hiring drop. I still think he’s a weasel for using a signing statement rather than vetoing it.
I’d agree with that. I mean, how many times is this going to come up between now and Jan 2009 anyway? Why remind people of one of his biggest blunders…
Yes, but what if the person had previously run FedEx or some operation like that? Anyway, I’m not so much disagreeing with you. It certianly would be good to have a background in crisis management, I’m just wondering if it’s essential. Of course that speaks to the wisdom of the law, not whether Congress has the authority to pass it, which I think they do.
That’s the salient point.
Is it? The thread title certainly doesn’t strike me as being about signing statements. 
Kimstu - if the requirements are for five years in emergency management, where does one get that? FEMA, and the state agencies, sure, but where else? I’m skeptical of a situation where the only person allowed to run a bureaucracy is someone who has already been a member of that bureaucracy for a while- it seems to be a guarantee of institutionalizing tradition.
Seems to me emergency management could encompass the police or fire chief of a large city, the head of a major metropolitan hospital, folks like that outside of FEMA.
Not much worry about institutionalizing tradition in FEMA right now, anyway; there’s been a huge exodus of experienced people under Bush’s administration.
Here’s what the bill says, in appropriate part:
The bill, btw, was H.R. 5441 “Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007”.
Red Cross, other charities who routinely have responded to emergency situations across the years.
According to the quote in Captain Amazing’s post, the requirement isn’t for five years’ experience in emergency management per se. It’s for “demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security” in part (A), plus a separate qualification in part (B) “not less than 5 years of executive leadership and management experience in the public or private sector”.
Thanks for the cite, Captain Amazing. As ETF noted, the job qualifications that the bill actually specified are even less restrictive than the ones I would have considered acceptable. I remain absolutely baffled as to what the fuck Bush thinks he’s accomplishing by refusing to agree to them.
So the punchline isn’t “What do Hurricane Katrina and Yale University have in common?”