11 ms·

Not sure what the reasoning was at the time, but I can provide some personal thoughts on the idea - so don't take it as representative of everyone who is center

Not sure what the reasoning was at the time, but I can provide some personal thoughts on the idea - so don't take it as representative of everyone who is center-right like myself. I don't trust a government entity to be "independent" or "non-partisan." The rule of thumb I use is "would I trust this government entity if my respective political party is only in control ~50% of the time?" Some other folks in the threads already mentioned this, but as one example: the Obama campaign was pretty close to the Facebooks / Googles of the world - meaning that there could be a scenario that this OTA office was staffed fully with ex-Googlers or the like, almost like a lobbying firm would do. On one hand, they're fully qualified and (probably) very knowledgeable; on the other hand, I wouldn't trust that the office would provide a fair assessment into regulating those tech companies. EDIT: grammar / more precise vocabulary

maxerickson 7y ago
I think you mean non-partisan. Government is inherently political.
- oconnor663 7y ago
  People use the terms interchangeably. Also a lot of government jobs make the distinction between "career" and "political".
  - edraferi 7y ago
    I believe the distinction you’re looking for is Civil Service vs Appointed positions. The Civil Service is composed of employees who are hired and managed competitively (to the extent allowable by the unions and massive red tape...). Appointed positions are executive roles filled by the whim of the president, or the whim of someone the president delegates to. The most powerful appointed positions require Senate confirmation.
atonse 7y ago
As a DC Area resident for 25+ years, I have met many federal government employees, some in professional settings, and many in casual settings. They remind me of Journalists. Most journalists I've met are not centrists in their personal lives. But in their professional lives, they try (they're not perfect, they are human) to stay impartial, but some of your bias will definitely leak into things. But most federal agencies are simply too large and bureaucratic for individuals to push their own political agendas. (Not talking about the leadership that's appointed by each administration, but career employees). And it's been my informal experience that their hands are too often (rightly) tied by the laws and regulations of the day, in exactly what they can do. So this idea of non-partisan people truly being partisan is often true at an individual level, but generally false at an agency level. And they do take the non-partisan side of their jobs very seriously.
- excalibur 7y ago
  Well stated, can confirm. You are far more likely to encounter fiscal corruption than partisanship in most agencies, appointed leaders aside.
- s3r3nity 7y ago
  > But most federal agencies are simply too large and bureaucratic for individuals to push their own political agendas. I think I agree with you, both in principle and from similar anecdotes I have from friends & colleagues in the area. The leadership piece to which you allude worries me, but also the idea that to have a successful non-partisan government office you need to invest a lot of tax dollars to make it SO big & bureaucratic that any individual can't have significant impact makes me a tad nervous from a perspective of favoring smaller government. Therefore, if the trade-off is between massive, expensive government office that can have some non-zero probability of corruption OR relying on the responsibility of States & Representatives from those States to hire consultants / experts / research the issues, I'd opt for the latter.
  - Retric 7y ago
    You quickly hit massive bureaucracy at the national scale without actually being that expensive. Let’s say 4,000 people, which seems like massive overkill, costing 250k each (salary + benefits + office space etc). That’s 1 billion a year out of ~7630B total government spending. It’s still a cost benefit analysis, but a technology equivalent to the GAO or arguably the FDA could provide significant value.
sokoloff 7y ago
> The rule of thumb I use is "would I trust this government entity if my respective political party is only in control ~50% of the time?" I'm surprised that you'd use 50% as the threshold. I would use 0%. There are plenty of government agencies and functions that I trust even though my affiliated party is never in control.
bryanlarsen 7y ago
That question should be "is this better than the alternative if my respective political party is only in control ~50% of the time?" An argument can be made that a biased OTA is better than no OTA.
skybrian 7y ago
This idea that people who worked for a company can't be critical of it seems pretty unlikely to apply to Google, given all the internal political controversy they've gone through? Maybe we should judge people for their own actions rather than who they once worked for?
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I have some sympathy with this view. My main concern is that business will always try and fill the vacuum. Who would you rather is informing politicians on climate change, the oil companies or government scientists?
whoisthemachine 7y ago
It seems highly unlikely that because a President is elected an entire agency is replaced with people of their political belief overnight, or even in 8 years.
- mgkimsal 7y ago
  it may not have to be the entire agency, just the people in charge, to have a potentially quick impact.
_carl_jung 7y ago
The UK has what are called "Non-ministerial government departments"[0]. These are government departments who aren't overseen directly by the government because they are deemed issues that live outside of the domain of the current governing party. This is in part to avoid the kind of "50% control" problems. Does the US not have some kind of similar element? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ministerial_government_department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ministerial_government_dep...
- edraferi 7y ago
  Almost everything winds up as a department under the executive branch, headed by a political appointee. But exceptions exist, like the Post Office and TVA.
- Majromax 7y ago
  > Does the US not have some kind of similar element? Not on such a widespread basis, no (exceptions exist). For example, Wikipedia lists the Crown Prosecution Service as one such UK government department, but in the US the Attorney General directly governs the Department of Justice. This led to the then-chronic debate about just who had the authority to oversee/direct the Mueller investigation. Even when an organization is set up outside the traditional Cabinet hierarchy, its leadership is still typically appointed by the President (often with Senate confirmation), such that a new administration should quickly expect to appoint a working majority of directors. This can also directly cause problems of governance. The Federal Election Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission) is an independent agency that is responsible for administering elections law, but because of Presidental/Senate deadlock the board no longer has a quorum required to take official actions.
  - Enginerrrd 7y ago
    Eh, Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are all lifetime appointees. Part of the theory for that is to decouple their decisions from a fear of political backlash like they might face if they had to get reelected. Despite their many failings, I actually think this system works pretty well, and I'm always impressed at the reasoning behind supreme court rulings --even those I don't agree with.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
I don't trust a government entity to be "independent" or "non-partisan." This is unfortunate perspective, but I can understand why many would have this view. As others have stated, for the overwhelming majority of the career Civilian and Military workforce, partisanship is a third rail topic at best. I've been in government service as a military officer or civilian for about half of my working life and being vocally partisan is just not something that is institutionally tolerated, is actively frowned upon and in certain cases unlawful. I wonder how we could change that perception.
atoav 7y ago
I know “I don’t trust the government” is a very popular trope in the US, but I am a bit curious how the solution to this lack of trust is always diminsishing government power instead of say trying to figure out how to properly compartmentalize or divide it? As somebody who grew up in the german language area (Central Europe) and dealt with Nazi history and extremism for half his life, I am quite sure that a too strong government without proper division of forces is equally dangerous to a weak government that can be taken over too easily by political movements like Germany was in the late 20s. The whole history of how the Nazis came into power is really something people should study, because I am convinced similar things could easily happen today in multiple democratic nations. Power is after all fluid and if you weaken your elected government just enough it will flow somewhere else. And if you are unlucky that somewhere else is even more out of the control of the citizen than a government would be.
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  The people who talk about reducing government are the same types who enjoy the status quo and don’t want wealth redistribution even though this nation, unlike Germany, has still yet to pay reparations for its greatest sins. Your comment above is quite rare and I agree we must find a middle ground where we can distrust government but still empower it enough to resolve what is best for the nation. The status quo is not what is best for the nation and we should empower conservatives to think bigger than they have been. Maybe conservatives don’t need to dismantle government like an anarchist. Perhaps they could be augmenting it so it can be conserved and saved from revolution.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  > I am a bit curious how the solution to this lack of trust is always diminsishing government power instead of say trying to figure out how to properly compartmentalize or divide it? If we had a German civil service system instead of the orcs we're actually afflicted with, that would seem like a reasonable thing to do. When an American with historical sense looks at government regulation, we see Tammany Hall, defense contractors, the Clinton family's net worth (a considerable fortune made entirely from political graft) and guys like former SF Mayor Willie Brown wearing $40,000 suits when his job as Mayor pays him $35k a year: overt graft at the highest levels is as part of the fabric of society as Mom and Apple Pie. Usually reducing regulation is wanted by people who are not plugged into the power structure but would like to get their way. FWIIW I think the OTA was a pretty good government agency, and though I am pretty right wing, Newt Gingrich was an evil jackass and almost everything he did was horrible for the country. I'm guessing they got the axe because they made the mistake of dabbling in policy rather than sticking with their mission, but it's just a guess. Bob Park would know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Park
sct202 7y ago
I think it depends who you're getting from those companies. We've seen a lot of Googlers standing up and publicly denouncing the company's practices. I suspect a lot of people would be inclined to regulate the crap out of their old employers if they were sufficiently divested. But if you're getting people who want to basically rotate to the government for a couple years and rotate back to Big Tech, that's not going to go great for us.
dekhn 7y ago
I trust the GAO and the GBO even when the party I do not normally vote for has a majority in both houses and the presidency.
nabla9 7y ago
> I don't trust a government entity to be Is this feeling or sentiment, or can you give reason why private enterprise providing the same service would be less partisan?
zzzeek 7y ago
> I don't trust a government entity to be "independent" or "non-partisan." so do you worry about the post office not delivering your mail if it's of a political nature, the fire department not showing up to put out a fire at your political parties' headquarters, cops not showing up if you're known to be of "that party" ? do these people all act in a partisan fashion throughout their day jobs ?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

maxerickson 7y ago

I think you mean non-partisan. Government is inherently political.

oconnor663 7y ago
People use the terms interchangeably. Also a lot of government jobs make the distinction between "career" and "political".
- edraferi 7y ago
  I believe the distinction you’re looking for is Civil Service vs Appointed positions. The Civil Service is composed of employees who are hired and managed competitively (to the extent allowable by the unions and massive red tape...). Appointed positions are executive roles filled by the whim of the president, or the whim of someone the president delegates to. The most powerful appointed positions require Senate confirmation.

atonse 7y ago

As a DC Area resident for 25+ years, I have met many federal government employees, some in professional settings, and many in casual settings. They remind me of Journalists. Most journalists I've met are not centrists in their personal lives. But in their professional lives, they try (they're not perfect, they are human) to stay impartial, but some of your bias will definitely leak into things. But most federal agencies are simply too large and bureaucratic for individuals to push their own political agendas. (Not talking about the leadership that's appointed by each administration, but career employees). And it's been my informal experience that their hands are too often (rightly) tied by the laws and regulations of the day, in exactly what they can do. So this idea of non-partisan people truly being partisan is often true at an individual level, but generally false at an agency level. And they do take the non-partisan side of their jobs very seriously.

excalibur 7y ago
Well stated, can confirm. You are far more likely to encounter fiscal corruption than partisanship in most agencies, appointed leaders aside.
s3r3nity 7y ago
> But most federal agencies are simply too large and bureaucratic for individuals to push their own political agendas. I think I agree with you, both in principle and from similar anecdotes I have from friends & colleagues in the area. The leadership piece to which you allude worries me, but also the idea that to have a successful non-partisan government office you need to invest a lot of tax dollars to make it SO big & bureaucratic that any individual can't have significant impact makes me a tad nervous from a perspective of favoring smaller government. Therefore, if the trade-off is between massive, expensive government office that can have some non-zero probability of corruption OR relying on the responsibility of States & Representatives from those States to hire consultants / experts / research the issues, I'd opt for the latter.
- Retric 7y ago
  You quickly hit massive bureaucracy at the national scale without actually being that expensive. Let’s say 4,000 people, which seems like massive overkill, costing 250k each (salary + benefits + office space etc). That’s 1 billion a year out of ~7630B total government spending. It’s still a cost benefit analysis, but a technology equivalent to the GAO or arguably the FDA could provide significant value.

sokoloff 7y ago

> The rule of thumb I use is "would I trust this government entity if my respective political party is only in control ~50% of the time?" I'm surprised that you'd use 50% as the threshold. I would use 0%. There are plenty of government agencies and functions that I trust even though my affiliated party is never in control.

bryanlarsen 7y ago

That question should be "is this better than the alternative if my respective political party is only in control ~50% of the time?" An argument can be made that a biased OTA is better than no OTA.

skybrian 7y ago

This idea that people who worked for a company can't be critical of it seems pretty unlikely to apply to Google, given all the internal political controversy they've gone through? Maybe we should judge people for their own actions rather than who they once worked for?

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

I have some sympathy with this view. My main concern is that business will always try and fill the vacuum. Who would you rather is informing politicians on climate change, the oil companies or government scientists?

whoisthemachine 7y ago

It seems highly unlikely that because a President is elected an entire agency is replaced with people of their political belief overnight, or even in 8 years.

mgkimsal 7y ago
it may not have to be the entire agency, just the people in charge, to have a potentially quick impact.

_carl_jung 7y ago

The UK has what are called "Non-ministerial government departments"[0]. These are government departments who aren't overseen directly by the government because they are deemed issues that live outside of the domain of the current governing party. This is in part to avoid the kind of "50% control" problems. Does the US not have some kind of similar element? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ministerial_government_department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ministerial_government_dep...

edraferi 7y ago
Almost everything winds up as a department under the executive branch, headed by a political appointee. But exceptions exist, like the Post Office and TVA.
Majromax 7y ago
> Does the US not have some kind of similar element? Not on such a widespread basis, no (exceptions exist). For example, Wikipedia lists the Crown Prosecution Service as one such UK government department, but in the US the Attorney General directly governs the Department of Justice. This led to the then-chronic debate about just who had the authority to oversee/direct the Mueller investigation. Even when an organization is set up outside the traditional Cabinet hierarchy, its leadership is still typically appointed by the President (often with Senate confirmation), such that a new administration should quickly expect to appoint a working majority of directors. This can also directly cause problems of governance. The Federal Election Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission) is an independent agency that is responsible for administering elections law, but because of Presidental/Senate deadlock the board no longer has a quorum required to take official actions.
- Enginerrrd 7y ago
  Eh, Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are all lifetime appointees. Part of the theory for that is to decouple their decisions from a fear of political backlash like they might face if they had to get reelected. Despite their many failings, I actually think this system works pretty well, and I'm always impressed at the reasoning behind supreme court rulings --even those I don't agree with.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

I don't trust a government entity to be "independent" or "non-partisan." This is unfortunate perspective, but I can understand why many would have this view. As others have stated, for the overwhelming majority of the career Civilian and Military workforce, partisanship is a third rail topic at best. I've been in government service as a military officer or civilian for about half of my working life and being vocally partisan is just not something that is institutionally tolerated, is actively frowned upon and in certain cases unlawful. I wonder how we could change that perception.

atoav 7y ago

I know “I don’t trust the government” is a very popular trope in the US, but I am a bit curious how the solution to this lack of trust is always diminsishing government power instead of say trying to figure out how to properly compartmentalize or divide it? As somebody who grew up in the german language area (Central Europe) and dealt with Nazi history and extremism for half his life, I am quite sure that a too strong government without proper division of forces is equally dangerous to a weak government that can be taken over too easily by political movements like Germany was in the late 20s. The whole history of how the Nazis came into power is really something people should study, because I am convinced similar things could easily happen today in multiple democratic nations. Power is after all fluid and if you weaken your elected government just enough it will flow somewhere else. And if you are unlucky that somewhere else is even more out of the control of the citizen than a government would be.

birdyrooster 7y ago
The people who talk about reducing government are the same types who enjoy the status quo and don’t want wealth redistribution even though this nation, unlike Germany, has still yet to pay reparations for its greatest sins. Your comment above is quite rare and I agree we must find a middle ground where we can distrust government but still empower it enough to resolve what is best for the nation. The status quo is not what is best for the nation and we should empower conservatives to think bigger than they have been. Maybe conservatives don’t need to dismantle government like an anarchist. Perhaps they could be augmenting it so it can be conserved and saved from revolution.
scottlocklin 7y ago
> I am a bit curious how the solution to this lack of trust is always diminsishing government power instead of say trying to figure out how to properly compartmentalize or divide it? If we had a German civil service system instead of the orcs we're actually afflicted with, that would seem like a reasonable thing to do. When an American with historical sense looks at government regulation, we see Tammany Hall, defense contractors, the Clinton family's net worth (a considerable fortune made entirely from political graft) and guys like former SF Mayor Willie Brown wearing $40,000 suits when his job as Mayor pays him $35k a year: overt graft at the highest levels is as part of the fabric of society as Mom and Apple Pie. Usually reducing regulation is wanted by people who are not plugged into the power structure but would like to get their way. FWIIW I think the OTA was a pretty good government agency, and though I am pretty right wing, Newt Gingrich was an evil jackass and almost everything he did was horrible for the country. I'm guessing they got the axe because they made the mistake of dabbling in policy rather than sticking with their mission, but it's just a guess. Bob Park would know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Park

sct202 7y ago

I think it depends who you're getting from those companies. We've seen a lot of Googlers standing up and publicly denouncing the company's practices. I suspect a lot of people would be inclined to regulate the crap out of their old employers if they were sufficiently divested. But if you're getting people who want to basically rotate to the government for a couple years and rotate back to Big Tech, that's not going to go great for us.

dekhn 7y ago

I trust the GAO and the GBO even when the party I do not normally vote for has a majority in both houses and the presidency.

nabla9 7y ago

> I don't trust a government entity to be Is this feeling or sentiment, or can you give reason why private enterprise providing the same service would be less partisan?

zzzeek 7y ago

> I don't trust a government entity to be "independent" or "non-partisan." so do you worry about the post office not delivering your mail if it's of a political nature, the fire department not showing up to put out a fire at your political parties' headquarters, cops not showing up if you're known to be of "that party" ? do these people all act in a partisan fashion throughout their day jobs ?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]