Last Friday President Biden fired the head of the Social Security Administration, Andrew Saul. Saul was a Trump appointee who had been working to clean up processes and prevent fraud at the SSA (described by Democrats and their union allies as “abuse” and “politicization,” of course). Saul, citing the authorizing statute for the SSA, said that the firing was illegal because he could only be fired for “neglect of duty” or “malfeasance.” The Biden administration cited neither, instead firing him to install their own man.
I, apparently, am too obtuse to get the connection to the headline, but have to admit to agreeing with the conclusion in the article. The tone, however, seemed to lean on criticism of the Republicans and the lack of logic to their objection. It helps to balance the totality of the criticism by recalling the Left's tantrum upon the removal of various U.S. Attorneys a number of years back. It is quite logical that if a President is to be the "head" of government and be held accountable, he must have the ability to put his choices in positions of control. The flip side, however, is that the American public have to vigilant and actually hold the President libel for his choices and their actions as well as his own. (Hasn't happened lately and I have little faith a change is in the air...at least on the Left). It is clear to anyone doing even a modicum of research that the bureaucratic administrative agencies and their employees have highjacked our government; the "swamp" (I prefer "landfill") is the real power because they are "forever" and not dependent on elections and truly don't much care about anything except protecting their jobs. Any "good" performed by the agencies is purely accidental and not a goal. Sad!
Can fire quite a few people on day one…Fire ALL appointees and anyone else attached to them. Don’t need any reasons.
Can take their security clearances same time.
After that impeach poor performing and illiterate judges. Bust up the 9th Circuit.
Lots of stuff could get done in Day 1…
I, apparently, am too obtuse to get the connection to the headline, but have to admit to agreeing with the conclusion in the article. The tone, however, seemed to lean on criticism of the Republicans and the lack of logic to their objection. It helps to balance the totality of the criticism by recalling the Left's tantrum upon the removal of various U.S. Attorneys a number of years back. It is quite logical that if a President is to be the "head" of government and be held accountable, he must have the ability to put his choices in positions of control. The flip side, however, is that the American public have to vigilant and actually hold the President libel for his choices and their actions as well as his own. (Hasn't happened lately and I have little faith a change is in the air...at least on the Left). It is clear to anyone doing even a modicum of research that the bureaucratic administrative agencies and their employees have highjacked our government; the "swamp" (I prefer "landfill") is the real power because they are "forever" and not dependent on elections and truly don't much care about anything except protecting their jobs. Any "good" performed by the agencies is purely accidental and not a goal. Sad!
So, do you think Andrew Saul should go, or not?