Skip to main content

View Diary: Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey: The 112th Congress is almost over (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  polecat - if you have a new POTUS (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    liz dexic, Gooserock, Dogs are fuzzy

    from a new party it's not just changing the senior team at the White House there are thousands of appointed positions  in the executive offices and the agencies. While ten weeks seems like a long time I think most people who have actually been involved in one of these transition teams will tell you that it is ten weeks of working 16 hours a day, 7 days a week just to be ready to actually take firm control of the federal government in mid January.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:46:11 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Be that as it may, look at the damage a lame duck (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooserock, msmacgyver

      party can do in that period of time.

      And money was already being spent in advance, mind you, for Mitten's transition.  500 people were already in motion.

      So maybe two months is more than adequate.  How about ONE?  How about three weeks?

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:05:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  polecat - I have never worked in gov't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        akmk

        or on a transition team, but the people who I know who have say that we have no idea of the scale of the US federal government and what it takes to have a smooth hand off. Lame duck sessions can be good or bad. At times the people leaving are able to vote their conscience without any fear of party retribution and at times they pass bad legislation as a vindictive departing gesture.  

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:03:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The lame duck is undemocratic (0+ / 0-)

          Fundamentally, lame duck sessions lack accountability to the voters.  The existence of the lame duck session encourages policymakers to put off important decisions until after the election, so that voters cannot judge their representatives on what they have actually done.

          I can understand the need for a transition period for the presidency, although I suspect with adequate advance planning on both sides it could safely be eliminated or minimized.  But there's certainly no reason the Congress can't shut down on election day, or before it as they do in parliamentary democracies, and start back up again with the new crowd a few weeks later.

      •  Maybe this new early "transition funding" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat

        could lead to a shortening of the period between the election and a new POTUS.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:04:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was its purpose (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          The purpose was to allow any major candidate to do the necessary hiring before the inaugural.  The rationale was that the government productivity lost due to uncertainty dwarfed the cost of paying for constructing two different governments.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site