Richardson Forced to Withdraw?

by: tremayne

Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 22:20

Bill Richardson has been described as voluntarily withdrawing from consideration as Commerce Secretary due to an impending federal investigation of contracts awarded to a company with ties to the New Mexico Governor.

But at least one news outlet is reporting that Richardson's withdrawal came at the urging of the Obama transition team:

Meanwhile, two Democratic strategists outside the transition told CNN that Obama aides pushed the withdrawal because they did not want another ethical distraction in the wake of controversy surrounding embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors charge that Blagojevich had hoped to barter Obama's Senate seat for either money or influence.

One of these Democrats described Richardson as "stunned" by the sudden turn of events. But Democrats who talked with CNN noted it was in keeping with the Obama philosophy of resolving issues quickly.

Maybe this was the idea of the President-elect or maybe it was chief of staff designate Rahm Emanuel, who experienced the political costs of transition controversies in 1992 as a senior advisor to President Clinton:

As the new White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, knows well, the early days of the Bill Clinton administration in 1993 were marred with nomination missteps that had to be withdrawn after presenting a brief image of incompetence.

Meanwhile a Reuters story mentions several possible replacements including Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

"No Match" No Fair

by: The Opportunity Agenda

Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 12:58

Last week the Bush administration announced a renewed push to clamp down on undocumented workers.  Specifically, the rule would ask a federal judge to lift an injunction on the "no-match" rule.

The rule protects businesses from failing to respond to so-called "no match" letters sent out by the Social Security Administration stating that the number provided by an employee does not match the information in their database.  This may indicate the worker is undocumented but many are the result of clerical errors including, for example, women not updating last names after marriage.

Judge Charles R. Breyer last year warned that the plan would have "staggering" and "sever" effects on workers and businesses.  It's reasons such as this that have brought together not just traditional groups working for immigrant rights, such as the ACLU, but also the AFL-CIO, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Particularly amidst the recent sharp economic downturn, business leaders are concerned about the Bush administration's plan.  If this effort to lift the injunction against the "no-match" rule is successful, the government would ask up to 140,000 employers to check the social security numbers of 8.7 million workers.  Businesses must resolve discrepancies within 90 days or fire the workers.

Angela Amador, the Chamber's director of immigration policy is concerned about the costs of complying with this rule.  The Chamber's objections "[have] been about the cost of a badly thought out rule and the cost on legitimate businesses following all the rules and complying with it."

Groups such as the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center are concerned that the plan would lead to racial profiling, discrimination, and the firing of people based on clerical errors.  They argue the Bush administration should work instead towards fixing the flawed database.

Cross posted at The State of Opportunity.