Thread by @davidfrum

Of all the Senate-confirmed jobs, OMB director is one that would seem to call for *utmost* deference to the president.

Unlike judgeships, it's not a lifetime appointment.

It is not a separate cabinet department, it functions within the Executive Office of the President. 1/x

Unlike, say, directorships of NIH, or NASA, or NOAA, the OMB directorship legitimately answers directly to the president. The budget drafted by OMB is always and only a *proposal* to Congress, which has the ultimate deciding power always. 2/x

And if Congress doesn't like what it's hearing from an OMB director, guess what? Congress has its own in-house functional equivalent, director of the Congressional Budget Office. 3/x

In fact, it's kind of crazy that OMB director needs Senate approval at all. The National Security Adviser is not Senate-approved. The White House chief of staff is not Senate-approved. Why OMB, which is just as much under direct presidential purview as those other two? 4/x

Budgeting is in inherently partisan exercise. OMB directors are almost always partisan figures. Think of Richard Darman, Alice Rivlin, Mitch Daniels, Rob Portman, and Jack Lew - partisans all. 5/x

If a senator is minded to screen for undue partisanship and intemperate words, the place to do that job - I suggest - is with ambassadors, who a) represent the whole United States and b) are supposed to be, you know, diplomatic. 6/x

The idea that a Democratic senator willing to confirm Trump ambassadors draws the line at the brilliant @neeratanden - it's unfathomable. She ran a leading, arguably the leading, Democratic think. It would be like a Republican senator rejecting the head of @AEI for OMB 7/x

@neeratanden @AEI Weird. Would never happen. Why is it happening now? The president should have his/her people - and most especially should have his/her people for the president's own Executive Office. Scrutinize the judges, the ambassadors, the NOAA and NIH appointees. Confirm @neeratanden END