10 ms·

This has been on a trend of less and less true as Congress continues to abdicate its responsibilities to bureaucrats in the Executive office. It doesn't matter

This has been on a trend of less and less true as Congress continues to abdicate its responsibilities to bureaucrats in the Executive office. It doesn't matter which party they vote for as much of the day to day lives of citizens is determined by people who never stood for election, and barely answer to someone who did.

vkou 7y ago
Those bureaucrats are appointed at the whim of the President, and occasionally through a senate confirmation, both of which are elected offices. > and barely answer to someone who did. Their hiring is done by elected officials. Their employment and power, aside from a few positions, which are fixed-term, is contingent on the whims of those elected officials. Just because Congress has been very busy with abdicating all responsibility for governing the country to the executive (Works great when Obama's in charge, because you can blame him for the milk going sour, works great when Trump's in charge, because he can take all the bad PR), doesn't mean that the bureaucrats don't answer to anyone.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Their hiring is done by elected officials. No, hiring is largely done by other civil service personnel. The Secretary of State isn't deciding who works in the cafeteria - there's a number of tiers of career employees between him and that decision.
  - vkou 7y ago
    I dearly hope the janitor isn't the person who the grousing about the deep state is targeted at... Because if that's the case, it's a pretty weak one. The janitor isn't the reason the DoS makes poor decisions. These decisions are made much higher up the food chain, and elected officials have direct influence over the people who make them.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Irrelevant. The Secretary is accountable, and has people working for him or her who serve at the Secretary’s pleasure.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Irrelevant. Most of the people working in the State department do not serve at the Secretary’s pleasure.
      - Spooky23 7y ago
        The bosses do. Government employees don’t just run around and do whatever.
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        Those bosses are limited, both by law and by union contracts, in their ability to fire, punish, or reassign the career civil service professionals. We learned our lesson on this way back in the 1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform...
        Spooky23 7y ago
        Have you ever worked for government? I have. There are a myriad of ways to do those things. Civil servants tend to occupy a public perception of a bunch of incompetent idiots or a malignant threat. The reality is that they just do their jobs, and they are on the whole pretty good at it. If you want unmanageable, replace the professionals with political people. Have fun getting Senator so-and-so’s kid to stop drinking at his desk or having county chairman such-and-such’s spouse not screw up everything they touch. The United States did the spoils system for 100 years, it sucked.
js2 7y ago
Congress is 535 people and is filled with relatively little expertise[1]. The United States has a population of 330M and is the largest and most advanced economy in the world. Of course Congress has to delegate to executive agencies. This is not abdication. Abdication is letting lobbyists and "model legislation" outfits author the laws which legislators have been known to almost literally just rubber stamp. [1] Just to pick on one representative, because I'm familiar with him, this guy has no college degree past an AA, and his career experience is running a restaurant and real estate development. I would hope he'd delegate running the country to someone more experienced than himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meadows_(North_Carolina_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meadows_(North_Carolina_p...
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Congress is 535 people and is filled with relatively little expertise. That's like calling the Executive Branch one person (currently filled by someone with extremely little expertise). Congress includes bureaucratic organizations staffed by career experts like the Government Accountability Office. They used to have the Office of Technology Assessment until it was killed off by ideologues. They also enjoy ready access to experts from the various agencies. > Of course Congress has to delegate to executive agencies. This is not abdication. They've very clearly abdicated their responsibilities to the Executive in things like war powers and surveillance oversight. They are supposed to serve as a co-equal branch of government and as a check on Executive power.
  - js2 7y ago
    Fair enough and I don't disagree at all on your last point, but I was really addressing the delegation to executive agencies to write regulations as part of executing the laws passed by congress. I do not consider that abdication.
- jfengel 7y ago
  As the guy who said "we are going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya" I doubt Meadows has a very broad-minded approach to delegating responsibility to those with more experience and expertise. I wouldn't automatically discount the value that a restauranteur or real estate developer could bring to office. At least it would bring a bit of diversity of opinion compared to the roomful of lawyers. Though in this case, we're experiencing the opposite problem: people who have absolutely no idea how legislation is done or how the government functions, and who cannot be convinced that they're not experts in every domain they touch. It would be nice if people came to DC with the intent of listening, discussing, and coming to conclusions together. But the system is adversarial by design, and grows more adversarial with each passing year.
Spooky23 7y ago
Hogwash. The elected officials absolutely have control of the institutions that they are responsible for. “Deep State” nonsense is a trope that is just plain dumb. Brought to you by the same people who cry and whine about judicial activism and appoint people specifically to change the law.

vkou 7y ago

Those bureaucrats are appointed at the whim of the President, and occasionally through a senate confirmation, both of which are elected offices. > and barely answer to someone who did. Their hiring is done by elected officials. Their employment and power, aside from a few positions, which are fixed-term, is contingent on the whims of those elected officials. Just because Congress has been very busy with abdicating all responsibility for governing the country to the executive (Works great when Obama's in charge, because you can blame him for the milk going sour, works great when Trump's in charge, because he can take all the bad PR), doesn't mean that the bureaucrats don't answer to anyone.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> Their hiring is done by elected officials. No, hiring is largely done by other civil service personnel. The Secretary of State isn't deciding who works in the cafeteria - there's a number of tiers of career employees between him and that decision.
- vkou 7y ago
  I dearly hope the janitor isn't the person who the grousing about the deep state is targeted at... Because if that's the case, it's a pretty weak one. The janitor isn't the reason the DoS makes poor decisions. These decisions are made much higher up the food chain, and elected officials have direct influence over the people who make them.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Irrelevant. The Secretary is accountable, and has people working for him or her who serve at the Secretary’s pleasure.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Irrelevant. Most of the people working in the State department do not serve at the Secretary’s pleasure.
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      The bosses do. Government employees don’t just run around and do whatever.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        Those bosses are limited, both by law and by union contracts, in their ability to fire, punish, or reassign the career civil service professionals. We learned our lesson on this way back in the 1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform...
        Spooky23 7y ago
        Have you ever worked for government? I have. There are a myriad of ways to do those things. Civil servants tend to occupy a public perception of a bunch of incompetent idiots or a malignant threat. The reality is that they just do their jobs, and they are on the whole pretty good at it. If you want unmanageable, replace the professionals with political people. Have fun getting Senator so-and-so’s kid to stop drinking at his desk or having county chairman such-and-such’s spouse not screw up everything they touch. The United States did the spoils system for 100 years, it sucked.

js2 7y ago

Congress is 535 people and is filled with relatively little expertise[1]. The United States has a population of 330M and is the largest and most advanced economy in the world. Of course Congress has to delegate to executive agencies. This is not abdication. Abdication is letting lobbyists and "model legislation" outfits author the laws which legislators have been known to almost literally just rubber stamp. [1] Just to pick on one representative, because I'm familiar with him, this guy has no college degree past an AA, and his career experience is running a restaurant and real estate development. I would hope he'd delegate running the country to someone more experienced than himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meadows_(North_Carolina_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meadows_(North_Carolina_p...

ceejayoz 7y ago
> Congress is 535 people and is filled with relatively little expertise. That's like calling the Executive Branch one person (currently filled by someone with extremely little expertise). Congress includes bureaucratic organizations staffed by career experts like the Government Accountability Office. They used to have the Office of Technology Assessment until it was killed off by ideologues. They also enjoy ready access to experts from the various agencies. > Of course Congress has to delegate to executive agencies. This is not abdication. They've very clearly abdicated their responsibilities to the Executive in things like war powers and surveillance oversight. They are supposed to serve as a co-equal branch of government and as a check on Executive power.
- js2 7y ago
  Fair enough and I don't disagree at all on your last point, but I was really addressing the delegation to executive agencies to write regulations as part of executing the laws passed by congress. I do not consider that abdication.
jfengel 7y ago
As the guy who said "we are going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya" I doubt Meadows has a very broad-minded approach to delegating responsibility to those with more experience and expertise. I wouldn't automatically discount the value that a restauranteur or real estate developer could bring to office. At least it would bring a bit of diversity of opinion compared to the roomful of lawyers. Though in this case, we're experiencing the opposite problem: people who have absolutely no idea how legislation is done or how the government functions, and who cannot be convinced that they're not experts in every domain they touch. It would be nice if people came to DC with the intent of listening, discussing, and coming to conclusions together. But the system is adversarial by design, and grows more adversarial with each passing year.

Spooky23 7y ago

Hogwash. The elected officials absolutely have control of the institutions that they are responsible for. “Deep State” nonsense is a trope that is just plain dumb. Brought to you by the same people who cry and whine about judicial activism and appoint people specifically to change the law.