GOP double standard on hiring and firing

In the Washington Post, Ezra Klein points out that GOP obstruction of the confirmation process is making it more difficult for President Obama to fire his appointees because they can't be easily replaced.

It's worth noting the irony of this result. In the past, Republicans have argued against labor market regulations that would reduce firms' flexibility to fire their workers, arguing that businesses won't hire new employees if they aren't free to reduce their workforce as needed. We're now witnessing the same dynamic in reverse. Obama can't fire underperforming appointees -- the ones Republicans would seemingly most wish to see removed -- because GOP obstructionism limits his inability to hire new ones. It's a bizarre and counterproductive outcome.

Comments

[Rob]

As a theoretical matter, Klein's point may be valid in the long haul. However, it is a little nuts to blame Republicans for the Administration's not having fired appointees when the Administration has shown no inclination whatsoever to fire any of its appointees. (The few departures of appointees that have occurred have been resignations that resulted from public embarrassment over disclosures by Glenn Beck and the blogosphere; when the Administration wants to throw someone under the bus, they are very capable of doing so.)

Klein's attempt to shift to Republicans the responsibility for incompetence by the Administration's appointees deserves marks for chutzpah but ought not to deceive any sensible observer.

[David]

Klein's version of "the Devil made me do it" is particularly silly given that the Dems have 59 Senators. A nominee has to be truly awful to engender a unanimous Republican filibuster. E.g., Craig Becker was such a terrible choice for NLRB that the filibuster against him included at least one Democrat.