Schedule F would absolutely have been a very big deal. (Fair disclosure: I cannot claim to be disinterested in the result). It is about a lot more than easy termination, though that's part of the set of absolute minimum authorities necessary to steer the ship. Future Democrat Presidents will absolutely try to revive the effort once they do the work needed to plow the road and get the necessary support and the Narrative-Parrots to endlessly echo the "... and why that's a good thing!" Slatepitch. It's precisely because the bureaucracy recognized the real significance of the move and immediately mobilized against it (and, to be honest, because it was associated with Trump which through unthinking brainstem reflex makes things which even Democrat Presidents want to do too toxic and radioactive for their base) that the Biden administration - which otherwise would love Schedule F and which suffers from pathological dysfunction every day because it lacks it - had no choice but to reverse it.
There is not going to be a reform of this system. There are only two outcomes possible in my opinion- either it collapses under its own weight and the government it runs collapses in bankruptcy and dissolution, or it becomes completely despotic in nature and name.
What is needed is for criminal behavior by government officials to be made explicitly criminal and swiftly investigated and prosecutable by impartial jurists.
What the FBI did to Trump was criminal. What the FDA did in hiding mRNA risks and ineffectiveness is criminal. What Democrat operatives did to Kavanaugh was criminal.
Unfortunately, that is just the tip of the criminal operations network that is the US Federal government.
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that we have state & city politicians getting indicted and convicted on a fairly regular basis, but this never happens anymore for Federal politicos?
Do we really believe the Federal government is headed by uniquely honest people?
Based on the evidence, before us being a Federal officer is the best place for a criminal mind to go. You are all but guaranteed to get away with theft, bribery, lying in an official capacity, gross negligence and more.
Trump tried and failed to fix the problem of this corrupt and parasitic unelected bureaucracy. The Biden Administration succeeds in making it worse. I'm more sympathetic to the former than the latter. Kling seems the opposite. At least Trump was making sincere efforts to go in the right direction and make things better. With Kling, I'm not so sure.
the spoils system is bad if you believe politicians (and the public that elects them) to be roving bandits
the spoils system is (probably) just as good as the professional oligarchy of a deep state if the politicians who control it are stationary bandits that have an interest in appointing competent minions who won't annoy the public too much
"I am not sure that this is necessary or sufficient"
Turnover is certainly necessary.
It won't be sufficient if it gets stopped by the Courts, if implemented and it's true that most workers will "do what they're told", it WOULD be sufficient to fire a few of the worst obstructers, and replace them with those who want a smaller, better working bureaucracy.
My own preferred solution is a 10 year term limit on Federal employment - so the firing turnover becomes less partisan.
The Tucker described Schedule F would be a bigger, but far more obviously partisan, deal. Tho I can imagine a maximum of 20% fired in a year might be a way for it to become less effective in the short term but more politically acceptable.
I like Arnold's COO idea, but it seems less politically likely: a new post or org seems contrary to the Rep idea of getting smaller, and is totally unnecessary to the big gov't Dems because it's really the Big Gov't Deep State. Vs. Trump, vs any "cut gov't" Republican (or Libertarian), including Bush 43, Bush 41, Reagan, and even Nixon.
It was illegal leaks from Deep State FBI (Mark Felt, #2 guy) which led to Nixon's ouster.
The reality of partisanship makes me think a COO type position would be better served with two explicit COO leaders, one from each party in Congress, with the non-mutual decisions being made by the party with the most Congressional Representatives, but both COOs in all conferences. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" - I think having all decisions "monitored" means they will be better, and especially might get better over time as Tit for Tat cooperation occurs so that good norms are established. Might get worse, too, as "scratch my back, I'll do yours" can lead to both accepting worse stuff. But this is less than half as likely that a single COO would turn out bad.
Regarding the COO, would it possible to turn the White House Chief of Staff into a COO? Wasn't that that what Donald Regan thought he was going to be when he became Reagan's Chief and how Jamrs Baker actually operated?
Schedule F would absolutely have been a very big deal. (Fair disclosure: I cannot claim to be disinterested in the result). It is about a lot more than easy termination, though that's part of the set of absolute minimum authorities necessary to steer the ship. Future Democrat Presidents will absolutely try to revive the effort once they do the work needed to plow the road and get the necessary support and the Narrative-Parrots to endlessly echo the "... and why that's a good thing!" Slatepitch. It's precisely because the bureaucracy recognized the real significance of the move and immediately mobilized against it (and, to be honest, because it was associated with Trump which through unthinking brainstem reflex makes things which even Democrat Presidents want to do too toxic and radioactive for their base) that the Biden administration - which otherwise would love Schedule F and which suffers from pathological dysfunction every day because it lacks it - had no choice but to reverse it.
There is not going to be a reform of this system. There are only two outcomes possible in my opinion- either it collapses under its own weight and the government it runs collapses in bankruptcy and dissolution, or it becomes completely despotic in nature and name.
What is needed is for criminal behavior by government officials to be made explicitly criminal and swiftly investigated and prosecutable by impartial jurists.
What the FBI did to Trump was criminal. What the FDA did in hiding mRNA risks and ineffectiveness is criminal. What Democrat operatives did to Kavanaugh was criminal.
Unfortunately, that is just the tip of the criminal operations network that is the US Federal government.
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that we have state & city politicians getting indicted and convicted on a fairly regular basis, but this never happens anymore for Federal politicos?
Do we really believe the Federal government is headed by uniquely honest people?
Based on the evidence, before us being a Federal officer is the best place for a criminal mind to go. You are all but guaranteed to get away with theft, bribery, lying in an official capacity, gross negligence and more.
Trump tried and failed to fix the problem of this corrupt and parasitic unelected bureaucracy. The Biden Administration succeeds in making it worse. I'm more sympathetic to the former than the latter. Kling seems the opposite. At least Trump was making sincere efforts to go in the right direction and make things better. With Kling, I'm not so sure.
The linked article is great.
Schedule F == the spoils system
the spoils system is bad if you believe politicians (and the public that elects them) to be roving bandits
the spoils system is (probably) just as good as the professional oligarchy of a deep state if the politicians who control it are stationary bandits that have an interest in appointing competent minions who won't annoy the public too much
"I am not sure that this is necessary or sufficient"
Turnover is certainly necessary.
It won't be sufficient if it gets stopped by the Courts, if implemented and it's true that most workers will "do what they're told", it WOULD be sufficient to fire a few of the worst obstructers, and replace them with those who want a smaller, better working bureaucracy.
My own preferred solution is a 10 year term limit on Federal employment - so the firing turnover becomes less partisan.
The Tucker described Schedule F would be a bigger, but far more obviously partisan, deal. Tho I can imagine a maximum of 20% fired in a year might be a way for it to become less effective in the short term but more politically acceptable.
I like Arnold's COO idea, but it seems less politically likely: a new post or org seems contrary to the Rep idea of getting smaller, and is totally unnecessary to the big gov't Dems because it's really the Big Gov't Deep State. Vs. Trump, vs any "cut gov't" Republican (or Libertarian), including Bush 43, Bush 41, Reagan, and even Nixon.
It was illegal leaks from Deep State FBI (Mark Felt, #2 guy) which led to Nixon's ouster.
The reality of partisanship makes me think a COO type position would be better served with two explicit COO leaders, one from each party in Congress, with the non-mutual decisions being made by the party with the most Congressional Representatives, but both COOs in all conferences. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" - I think having all decisions "monitored" means they will be better, and especially might get better over time as Tit for Tat cooperation occurs so that good norms are established. Might get worse, too, as "scratch my back, I'll do yours" can lead to both accepting worse stuff. But this is less than half as likely that a single COO would turn out bad.
Regarding the COO, would it possible to turn the White House Chief of Staff into a COO? Wasn't that that what Donald Regan thought he was going to be when he became Reagan's Chief and how Jamrs Baker actually operated?