It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republican Civil Servants Beware!

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
I just wondered if any of you out there knew this was in the works.

Probably just a sign of more to come?

From
www.foxnews.com...

Quote:

"The Obama administration has now ordered a purging of Republicans from federal government civil service.

The Office of Federal Personnel Management, (OPM), has become the “henchman” of the Obama administration. Following orders they have issued new rules -- going back five years --wherein every employee hired, who previously had been a political appointee, will be terminated regardless of cause or poor performance.

It is clear what the intent of the Obama administration is by looking at the following statement made by John Berry the Director of OPM:

Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws. I have delegated decision-making authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.

The memorandum specifically applies this change to all political appointees hired in the past 5 years and effectively works to freeze them out of their current jobs or make their lives so miserable by denying promotions, that they will quit before they are forced out.

It is outrageous that the Obama administration would politicize what is supposed to be a independent government agency and would become so vindictive and cold in their exercise of raw political power that they would take steps to eliminate people from their legitimate government employment, based solely on their political pedigree and not their job performance.

I served in the White House during the presidency of George W. Bush. When he took office, we knew that a fair amount of Clinton appointees were making the transition from political appointment positions to civil service positions and nothing was done to “root them out”. They were entitled to remain in their positions and were held to the same standard of job performance as any other civil service employee.

There is nothing worse than abuse of government power. It erodes the very fabric of our laws and respect for government institutions.

For an incoming administration to make a "witch hunt" one of its top priorities and to attempt to fire civil servants who they believe are Republican “sympathizers” is something you might have expected in the former Soviet Union or from the KGB. But it's not something we expected to see in the United States led by the White House.

The expanded “portfolio” of OPM should worry all Americans. This little known agency will make the IRS look down right friendly if the Obama administration is successful in expanding their duties, powers and responsibilities."



[edit on 13-12-2009 by On the Edge]




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
I was under the impression that every new administration guts the old groups people from appointment positions-so they can staff it all with their own. At least: Each side always complains this goes on at every switch.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Yes, it's standard procedure. But if a president does it later in his term, suddenly it's a scandal.



I wonder, just when is it okay to clear out the old debris and replace it with new debris?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Yes, it's standard procedure. But if a president does it later in his term, suddenly it's a scandal.



I wonder, just when is it okay to clear out the old debris and replace it with new debris?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyred
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Yes, it's standard procedure. But if a president does it later in his term, suddenly it's a scandal.



I wonder, just when is it okay to clear out the old debris and replace it with new debris?


Well, I am sure if he did it when he first took office it would be "OH LOOK! He's already showing how partisan he is by being an evil tyrant!".

With all the stuff going on (from wars to economic issues etc. etc.) I'm actually kind of surprised he is doing it this early.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
George W. Bush kept an extraordinarily large number of Democrat Party civil servants in place. It was quite a surprise at the time but perhaps not so surprising given the questionable voting proceedings that took place prior to his being sworn in as President.

If Obama intends to purge all Republican civil servants down to the last 'pickle picker', that will be something new in the annals of the USAmerican Presidency and the Federal government of the USA.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
I would back Obama's move if he fired every last one of the political appointees of the last 50 years.

But, if they are going to only pick and choose by party affiliation, it looks to me like the revolution has begun.

I have a feeling that the ones targeted are not going to be Repubs only though. It sounds like the elimination is going to be based on who is bought(stay) and who are not bought(gone).

My $2,000 in this economy.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
From what I've been able to find: He isn't targeting republicans. He is going after those who wormed in and made the appointments into careers. It just so happens that Bushs people seem to be the bulk of them. Different articles like from Slate have indicated he is also going after some residual Clinton people.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Well that is great news!

Bye bye theocrats!



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 



George W. Bush kept an extraordinarily large number of Democrat Party civil servants in place


Thats simply not true what so ever....infact it is about as far from the truth as one can get...you're basically standing out there in "im willfully making this crap up" land



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Its not standard procedure for an administration to purge civil servants based on party affiliation.

Civil servants are not appointees, they are supposed to be impartial employees of the executive.

It IS standard procedure for appointees to be purged, but with Obama, we see he still has Bush appointees in charge for the big stuff.

Gates is still the sec def and Geithner is a Paulson lackey.

My favorite Obama appointee by far though is Leon Panetta, Chairman of the NYSE appointed as Director of the CIA - LOL.

Change we can believe in.



[edit on 15-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Its not standard procedure for an administration to purge civil servants based on party affiliation.

Civil servants are not appointees, they are supposed to be impartial employees of the executive.

It IS standard procedure for appointees to be purged, but with Obama, we see he still has Bush appointees in charge for the big stuff.

Gates is still the sec def and Geithner is a Paulson lackey.

My favorite Obama appointee by far though is Leon Panetta, Chairman of the NYSE appointed as Director of the CIA - LOL.

Change we can believe in.



[edit on 15-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


Thats all fine and dandy, but he isnt going after "Civil Servants" He is gutting the people who forced a career out of an appointment in the OPM (Office of Personnel Management) which oversees Civil Service programs. Even then: Again he isn't doing it on a party thing, it just so happens most of the people who moled into the appointment positions (turning them career) happen to be Cons appointed by Bush. That is: most. Certainly not all.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Wow .. This is Great News...





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join