Now here's an odd story, for a couple different reasons:
1. Somebody is getting a nice severance package ($150,000) for resigning from his job (as a lobbyist) and taking another job elsewhere (for the government). The payout in fact is about the same as what he'll get from his new job, which pays about half what his old job paid.
2. The government agency he's joining is empowered to make life very uncomfortable for many of the companies he used to lobby for in his previous job.
3. Some people in Washington think there's something fishy going on, using the analogy of "putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," because his activities as a lobbyist apparently included efforts to "weaken" the organization he's now going to lead.
I guess the one question that begs to be asked in this story, but isn't, is this:
Is it even remotely possible that this person will do a good job in his new post, serving the needs of consumers while remaining sensitive to the economic challenges manufacturers face in the global marketplace?
Actually, I guess there's one more question that needs to be asked:
With the political climate in Washington being what it is, is there anybody who would even want a high-level government job if they weren't already firmly entrenched in that arena? Is the ability to survive constant scrutiny of every decision you might make the number one job qualification these days in Washington?