It's unthinkable to Democrats and reporters: That someone who opposed an agency as a congressman should run it as an executive-branch official.

I defended that arrangement in a recent blog post on many grounds a few weeks back, and now this specter has arisen again: Mick Mulvaney could run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whose existence he opposed as a member of Congress.

Regarding Scott Garrett's nomination to head the Export-Import Bank, Vero de Rugy makes the case why such skeptics could be particularly good administrators:

For one thing, there's really nothing he could do to destroy the bank from the inside. However, he could flag inappropriate loans, making sure that when Iran buys Boeing planes, taxpayers aren't subsidizing the deal. Keep in mind that economists have shown these export subsidies to boost the profits of Ex-Im beneficiaries while hurting the country as a whole. He could make sure the mission of the bank is honored with as little economic distortions as possible, without unduly imposing costs on unsubsidized U.S. companies. He could also alert Congress of any wrongdoing by Ex-Im employees, something previous presidents of the institution failed to do until it had become headline news.

That is, a man who sees Ex-Im's flaws and is bound by law to carry out its mission is most likely to carry out its mission while minimizing its flaws.