3 ms·

Yeah, and why does it have to be that way? Everyone knows that micromanagement never leads to good results. So why do we simply accept the system as it is, in

Yeah, and why does it have to be that way? Everyone knows that micromanagement never leads to good results. So why do we simply accept the system as it is, instead of trying to make it more efficient? If you ran a company the way government is run, nothing would ever get done because there wouldn't be enough consensus. We do it in government because of "democracy!!", but the end effect is horrible waste and no one's happy because progress is sooooo slow. This doesn't mean we need to switch to an authoritarian model (because that does have real dangers), but it really should be possible to streamline things more and eliminate the micromanagement. Only give Congree the ability to pass high-level budgets, for instance, and don't let them micromanage funds: only allow career department heads to do that, so that smaller decisions are not (as) political. For instance, Congress should have no ability to tell the military what weapons systems it's going to buy or fund R&D for. The military should make that decision itself. And Congress should definitely not have the ability to make decisions about what State military installations are placed in, or which bases are closed, etc. These decisions should be entirely within the DoD. (This is why we have stupid stuff like US Navy bases in landlocked midwestern states.) Congress should only be able to make high-level decisions, such as granting the military a certain budget for the next several years. You haven't proven your assertion that government cannot be run as a business, all you've done is state a tautology.

cromwellian 10y ago
> Yeah, and why does it have to be that way? > For instance, Congress should have no ability to tell the military what weapons systems it's going to buy or fund R&D for. Umm? The Constitution? You do realize that the United States isn't even supposed to have a permanent standing army, and that it has to be reauthorized every two years? ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12: The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. The appropriations clause of the constitution is generally interpreted as giving Congress the power to dictate how the money is spent. This was very specifically argued by the Founders, "The Power of the Purse" as a check on executive power by the people, and very specifically, assigned to the House of Representatives. You're telling me it can be done, I'm telling you 240 years of history and the very structure of law makes it very difficult. The US is crafted to have a weak executive power.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  The Constitution also says that Senators are elected by State legislatures. This isn't true any more, thanks to the 18th Amendment. All these things can be changed.

cromwellian 10y ago

> Yeah, and why does it have to be that way? > For instance, Congress should have no ability to tell the military what weapons systems it's going to buy or fund R&D for. Umm? The Constitution? You do realize that the United States isn't even supposed to have a permanent standing army, and that it has to be reauthorized every two years? ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12: The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. The appropriations clause of the constitution is generally interpreted as giving Congress the power to dictate how the money is spent. This was very specifically argued by the Founders, "The Power of the Purse" as a check on executive power by the people, and very specifically, assigned to the House of Representatives. You're telling me it can be done, I'm telling you 240 years of history and the very structure of law makes it very difficult. The US is crafted to have a weak executive power.

Grishnakh 10y ago
The Constitution also says that Senators are elected by State legislatures. This isn't true any more, thanks to the 18th Amendment. All these things can be changed.