A Poke in the Eye at Recess

Mary Ann Akers blogs for washingtonpost.com: "To fight the Fox appointment, Democrats are questioning the Bush administration's plan to have Fox serve in a voluntary capacity -- receiving no pay for his duties as ambassador. This is an important legal technicality, as federal law prohibits 'payment of services' for certain recess appointments. However, if the recess appointee in question agrees that he or she will take an unpaid position and not sue the government at a later date for compensation, then the appointment can go forward, at least as the White House sees it. . . .

"But here's the rub that makes Democrats view Bush's recess appointment of Fox as a major-league no-no: Federal law prohibits 'voluntary service' in cases where the position in question has a fixed rate of pay, as an ambassadorship does. That's how the Government Accountability Office, an arm of the Democratic-controlled Congress, interprets the law. . . .

"In other words, according to senior Democratic Senate aides, the salary is a 'statutory entitlement' and cannot be waived. While Fox would not be receiving a salary, he would still be entitled to live in government-owned housing and receive other benefits due any ambassador.

"'How to reconcile this clear conflict between the pay restriction, which says that Fox cannot be paid, with the voluntary services provision, which says that the State Department cannot accept voluntary services from Fox?' queried one senior Democratic aide who asked for anonymity to speak frankly about the matter.

"'That is the $64,000 question,' he added."

Here is a Congressional Research Service FAQ on recess appointments, which explains the circumstances under which such appointees "may not be paid from the Treasury."

Bush's Iraq Drumbeat

Michael A. Fletcher writes in The Washington Post from Fort Irwin in California: "President Bush brought his confrontation with Congress over funding of the war in Iraq to the huge armed forces training facility here in the Mojave Desert on Wednesday, telling troops that to withdraw before 'the job is done' would be tantamount to accepting defeat."

Military crowds can generally be counted on for a boisterous response when their commander in chief visits.

But Steve Holland notes for Reuters that the response was underwhelming yesterday: "Dozens of camouflage-wearing troops sat quietly at their lunch tables, some joined by family members, as Bush spoke during a visit to this remote base in the high desert of California, where Iraqi-American actors train soldiers to understand Iraq's cultural differences. . . .

"A number of the troops who listened quietly are from units about to rotate into service in Iraq."

Doyle McManus and Johanna Neuman write in the Los Angeles Times: "Denouncing Democrats from coast to coast for trying to limit his freedom of action in Iraq, President Bush is betting -- as he often has -- that when it comes to national security, confrontation works better than conciliation. . . .

"In Washington, Republicans and Democrats expect that the president will win this battle in the short run; that after weeks or months of debate, Congress will eventually provide billions of dollars for the war in Iraq with only mild conditions attached. . . .