2010 Fousesquawk Jerk of the Year Janet Napolitano
Janet Napolitano has embarrassed herself yet again. Now she is denying responsibility for the recent release of illegal aliens by her department and laying it off on underlings-just as the Justice Department did with Operation Fast and Furious and the State Department did with Benghazi.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/napolitano-says-regrets-surprise-announcement-illegal-immigrant-release/?test=latestnews
Does this woman have no shame?
The answer is no. Even if it was done without her knowledge, it points to an appalling lack of competence on her part.
In fact, I find it hard to believe that this didn't come from higher ups-that is- over Napolitano. It has become clear by now that President Obama is using this sequestration to make a political point. If it happens, the responsible thing for a president to do is to direct his agency and department heads to cut in ways that minimize the damage to the country. Using Obama's speeches as a yardstick, it is clear that he wants to maximize the damage to prove his points-as opposed to the way Reagan and Clinton dealt with government shutdowns. The priorities of our government were protected.
As a retired government employee, I can find lots of ways to save money. The first thing you do is cancel conferences and non-essential government travel. In less than essential agencies, you cut your numbers by attrition. When people retire, you have a hiring freeze. You also get rid of the fat and the government studies on the mating habits of the tse-tse flies (You laugh).
Personally, I hope the sequestration happens-whether it is about 44 billion dollars or 88 billion dollars or whatever. History will judge Obama on how he manages the cuts. He can act responsibly or he can act irresponsibly. The actions of Janet Napolitano's DHS in releasing illegal aliens indicates he intends to act irresponsibly.
6 comments:
The question is? "Who is on first?"
Squid
Squid,
Nobody-first base being the border.
In the professional world in which I once lived, those in supervisory/managerial positions with line authority over subordinates were, properly or otherwise, charged with accountability/responsibility for the actions of those subordinates, even if they knew nothing about the activity until after the fact. We all accepted this fact as part of the territory.
Once upon a time in the West, I was such a field manager. On one specific occasion, in a tricky little operation, I directly ordered several subordinates, including one supervisor, to do certain things, not to do certain other things, and to ensure that all rules/regs were observed.
Without my prior knowledge, my directives were not followed, rules/regs were broken, and a little kerfluffle ensued. My employer was held responsible for monetary damages for an individual by a Federal Court. I was held professionally (demotion, geographical reassignment) although not personally (as far as the monetary damages were concerned) responsible, when the Court reasoned that I “knew, or should have known”, that my subordinates would disobey my directives. How I would have known that is beyond me, but the facts remain as I have stated them and I took my medicine.
Obama/Clinton/Napolitano, Holder, et al are, as Gary noted, “laying off on underlings” the shortcomings of F&F, Benghazi, this goat rope with illegals, and, in a differnt sense, sequestration (as well as a plethora of other activities), which puts them at the head of the class among the “lamest of the lame”, with no price (at least yet and probably never) to pay for their failures of leadership.
elwood... you're projecting...
Janet Napolitano is showing proper deference to the budgetary decisions of congress, particularly the House of Representatives, in which all fiscal bills must originate.
Siarlys,
Have you ever hear the word "priorities?".
When your budget is constrained, you don't buy that next yacht. You do, however, continue to buy food.
Priorities are set by congress. They allocate money for specific purposes, not a lump sum block grant for the president to spend as he wishes.
If you want to deal with priorities, you should have been out there writing to all the conservatives in the House, demanding that they work out something they and the senate could both pass, and the president could sign, that would deal with priorities rather than letting the sequester go through.
Post a Comment