Background Checks Slow Down White House

I read an interesting editorial online this morning, and have a bone or two to pick with the author. He is dissatisfied with the "tedious, intrusive and time-consuming" process candidates for top presidential cabinet positions must submit to, and bemoans the still-vacant Treasury seats. Mainly, he laments the requirements for extensive background checks.

While I personally abhor bureaucracy, even I must admit I understand the full seriousness of the process the special task force appointed by the Office of White House Personnel must undergo. Mind you, the author concedes that so far the recruitment efforts have proven to work well, because they "have placed highly competent people in top-level jobs". Ah, so the process must be working! Anything worth doing is worth taking time for, no pain - no gain, nothing is perfect, people are our most valuable resource, etc. etc. The truisms are nonetheless true. Given the recent history of corruptions, scandals and terrorist acts, can such serious appointments be possibly given less scrutiny?! I think not! Not only is it vital to ascertain that nothing in the candidates' background checks can potentially harm the president, these people are appointed to serve the nation, and serve it well. The Obama administration can't afford to screw this up, given all the adversity it inherited from its predecessors.

The columnist is surprised that there are extremes found amongst the hopefuls: on one end distinguished civil servants welcome complete strangers to their intimate life details, on the other - convicted felons attempt to hide past transgressions, only to be cast off by the background checks. Hold on! Isn't that why we unfortunately must put everyone under the microscope, to eliminate the undesirable element? How else does he propose to mitigate the applicant rift?!

My opponent also fears that countless numbers of qualified persons will elect not to undergo the scrutiny. I am sorry to hear those highly qualified applicants lack the dedication to go after their dream job because they are afraid of a few difficulties. Perhaps we don't want these individuals working for our government, because these jobs aren't likely to be easy either. The writer commiserates with the applicants: "Consider your own life from the time you reached maturity and ask whether you want some things you regret having done to make the front page of the Washington Post." Well, that's why we the common folk do not aspire to fill the highly politically sensitive government positions; the people who traditionally groom themselves for such careers must take responsibility for their choices, or face being considered unfit for the job.

Finally, the author complains that the Obama administration has an awful lot on its plate, what with the wayward Congress on its hands and the understaffed departments, unlikely to fill until at least June. In the meantime, the bureaucrats are in charge, and he worries that unless we find exceptional, politically astute appointees, the new staff will continue to rubber-stamp whatever the bureaucrats recommend. I'd say that's yet another good reason to stick to the painstaking, scrupulous examination of every candidacy. After all, successfully passing background checks is just the tip of the iceberg; the author himself states that these employees are also selected based on experience and suitability, party service, voting history, campaign contributions, etc. What more can the White House do? Yet, the writer thunders: "There must be a better way to run a government than this!" Then why don't you suggest one, smart ... shall we say aleck?!