It seems to me that the cynics in this thread have overlooked the real issue here. The very purpose of a signature is to affirm that the signatory of a document has personally verified/complied/agreed/etc. with the document. To allow subordinates to "consensually" forge such is to usurp the very purpose of such. Yes, powerful arguments for the practice exist, and yes, our bureaucracy is sufficiently cumbersome to occasionally necessitate such things, but it does not in any way provide the public with one more reason to doubt the legitimacy of our government's word.

If it is a senior staffer that vets a document, he/she should sign it with the consent of the Senator/whoever. Anything else betrays the trust of the office. A striking example of an official (albeit much-reviled) who personally put pen to paper was General Westmoreland--who personally signed the tens of thousands of death notifications in the Vietnam War. If he could do this, why can't a Senator personally sign a letter on behalf of someone on his staff? To quote Bob Dole--" Where's the outrage?"

Fark me--My autopen wrote the last comment. Should say:

Yes, powerful arguments for the practice exist, and yes, our bureaucracy is sufficiently cumbersome to occasionally necessitate such things, but it does nonetheless provide the public with one more reason to doubt the legitimacy of our government's word.