7 ms·

I don't agree it will be chaos. Congress has for far too long abdicated what it is supposed to be directly responsible for to unelected bureaucrats that exist i

I don't agree it will be chaos. Congress has for far too long abdicated what it is supposed to be directly responsible for to unelected bureaucrats that exist in agencies that are overseen by the executive branch of government. Congress is now free to focused on creating chaos between the people that elect them. When is the last time you've seen anyone from Congress campaign on any substantive issue? I've not seen it in my lifetime they leave that campaign up to the president. Congress is invested with the sole power to regulate our money when is the last time you've seen them do anything except throw up bloated budgets? They have completely advocated that power to the Federal reserve of which they exercise zero oversight of and apparently leave it to the president who also lets it run autonomously. So what you call chaos is reconnecting the actual responsibilities of our elected representatives with their duties. I for one would very much enjoy seeing my elected representative actually doing their constitutional duties instead of pitting citizen that one another's throat in order to get reelected again.

wkearney99 4y ago
have you met any congress personnel? fence posts would be insulted to be compared to some of them. there's definitely a gap between regulatory officials making regulations and legislature codifying the details. This is where appointing heads of those departments is supposed to come to bear. It's a mess, but the answer isn't to let lobbyists and special interests burn the house down.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  It's not like the regulators are incorruptible. The regulators get captured all the time. I don't know what the right answer is here.
  - burkaman 4y ago
    The right answer here is that Congress explicitly delegated a decision to the EPA administrator, so they should be allowed to make that decision. The court's decision is well-argued, but it seems to come down to "I know Congress said you could do this, but it's a really big deal and they might not have thought it through enough, so you have to go ask for permission again before you do it". It's kind of patronizing to both the EPA and Congress, and I don't think it's a good decision or precedent.
- gumby 4y ago
  > have you met any congress personnel? fence posts would be insulted to be compared to some of them. have you met any congress personnel? "dedicated", "idealistic", and/or "thoughtful" apply to some of them.
cloutchaser 4y ago
- prpl 4y ago
  This is an interstate issue, as emissions do not respect state lines, so it can’t be decentralized to the states if that’s what you are implying.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- timeon 4y ago
  > things that the majority doesn’t actually want Majority of square feet of land or majority of people?
  - cloutchaser 4y ago
    The majority of people don’t want to allow abortions at 36 weeks, but they also don’t want abortions completely banned. So there is a democratic debate to be had about where in the middle the non extreme two sides could meet. (In Europe there is no debate about abortion and most countries allow it to 12 weeks). Better to have a debate and both sides compromise than some court deciding on one of the most extreme views. The Supreme Court didn’t ban abortion, they did however allow it to 36 weeks for decades. What they did do last week is say: hey guys, it’s a federal democracy, why don’t you fucking debate it and legislate it somehow where both sides can agree, as is normal with divisive issues in a democracy
    - refurb 4y ago
      Pretty much this. Even RBG said that Roe v Wade was on shaky ground as a legal precedent. And what people don’t realize is that if Roe v Wade wasn’t overturn the next ruling discussed was allowing further restrictions by states, further eroding the precedent. The alternative was just kicking the can down the road until the next challenge. This just ripped the bandaid off.
- 4y ago
voisin 4y ago
Many of those unelected bureaucrats are experts in their fields due to their ability to focus for entire careers.
- throw10920 4y ago
  Is Congress not capable of listening to those experts and then publicly debating which of their suggestions to implement?
  - mriet 4y ago
    1. Dunning-Krueger or, in other words, Congress probably thinks they know better. 2. Politicians, per definition, are elected to represent the interests of their constituents. Many constituents disagree with experts (climate change, for example). QED, there is little motivation for politicians to listen or follow the advice of experts, especially if an expert's conclusion is not popular.
  - thrown321 4y ago
    Congress writes laws vague enough for the experts to implement the policy. It's always been this way. It will be total chaos if Congress has to explicate the specific.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    Have you met our Congress?
  - drew-y 4y ago
    They are not. Even if we assume congress wasn't a complete gridlocked mess, they simply do not have the bandwidth. There 535 Members of Congress and they work less than 200 days a year in a typical session. How many regulatory bodies are there that need rules passed? I can think of the FAA, FTC, EPA, FDA, USDA, and the NRC just off the top of my head. A quick google search shows there are 19 of these rule making agencies. Even with a wide distribution of rule making authority, these agencies struggle to keep up with our rapidly evolving world. Forcing congress to hear and make a decision on every single regulation these agencies propose would be a bottleneck that brings this country to it's knees.
burkaman 4y ago
> Congress has for far too long abdicated what it is supposed to be directly responsible for to unelected bureaucrats that exist in agencies that are overseen by the executive branch of government. Yes, that's what the executive branch is for. That's how our government and basically every government in the history of the world has worked. > When is the last time you've seen anyone from Congress campaign on any substantive issue? Literally every campaign in my life that I've had any exposure to. Campaigning on real issues is not hard, the problem is getting into Congress and then being unwilling or unable to follow through.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

wkearney99 4y ago

have you met any congress personnel? fence posts would be insulted to be compared to some of them. there's definitely a gap between regulatory officials making regulations and legislature codifying the details. This is where appointing heads of those departments is supposed to come to bear. It's a mess, but the answer isn't to let lobbyists and special interests burn the house down.

cryptonector 4y ago
It's not like the regulators are incorruptible. The regulators get captured all the time. I don't know what the right answer is here.
- burkaman 4y ago
  The right answer here is that Congress explicitly delegated a decision to the EPA administrator, so they should be allowed to make that decision. The court's decision is well-argued, but it seems to come down to "I know Congress said you could do this, but it's a really big deal and they might not have thought it through enough, so you have to go ask for permission again before you do it". It's kind of patronizing to both the EPA and Congress, and I don't think it's a good decision or precedent.
gumby 4y ago
> have you met any congress personnel? fence posts would be insulted to be compared to some of them. have you met any congress personnel? "dedicated", "idealistic", and/or "thoughtful" apply to some of them.

cloutchaser 4y ago

prpl 4y ago
This is an interstate issue, as emissions do not respect state lines, so it can’t be decentralized to the states if that’s what you are implying.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
timeon 4y ago
> things that the majority doesn’t actually want Majority of square feet of land or majority of people?
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  The majority of people don’t want to allow abortions at 36 weeks, but they also don’t want abortions completely banned. So there is a democratic debate to be had about where in the middle the non extreme two sides could meet. (In Europe there is no debate about abortion and most countries allow it to 12 weeks). Better to have a debate and both sides compromise than some court deciding on one of the most extreme views. The Supreme Court didn’t ban abortion, they did however allow it to 36 weeks for decades. What they did do last week is say: hey guys, it’s a federal democracy, why don’t you fucking debate it and legislate it somehow where both sides can agree, as is normal with divisive issues in a democracy
  - refurb 4y ago
    Pretty much this. Even RBG said that Roe v Wade was on shaky ground as a legal precedent. And what people don’t realize is that if Roe v Wade wasn’t overturn the next ruling discussed was allowing further restrictions by states, further eroding the precedent. The alternative was just kicking the can down the road until the next challenge. This just ripped the bandaid off.
4y ago

voisin 4y ago

Many of those unelected bureaucrats are experts in their fields due to their ability to focus for entire careers.

throw10920 4y ago
Is Congress not capable of listening to those experts and then publicly debating which of their suggestions to implement?
- mriet 4y ago
  1. Dunning-Krueger or, in other words, Congress probably thinks they know better. 2. Politicians, per definition, are elected to represent the interests of their constituents. Many constituents disagree with experts (climate change, for example). QED, there is little motivation for politicians to listen or follow the advice of experts, especially if an expert's conclusion is not popular.
- thrown321 4y ago
  Congress writes laws vague enough for the experts to implement the policy. It's always been this way. It will be total chaos if Congress has to explicate the specific.
- brewdad 4y ago
  Have you met our Congress?
- drew-y 4y ago
  They are not. Even if we assume congress wasn't a complete gridlocked mess, they simply do not have the bandwidth. There 535 Members of Congress and they work less than 200 days a year in a typical session. How many regulatory bodies are there that need rules passed? I can think of the FAA, FTC, EPA, FDA, USDA, and the NRC just off the top of my head. A quick google search shows there are 19 of these rule making agencies. Even with a wide distribution of rule making authority, these agencies struggle to keep up with our rapidly evolving world. Forcing congress to hear and make a decision on every single regulation these agencies propose would be a bottleneck that brings this country to it's knees.

burkaman 4y ago

> Congress has for far too long abdicated what it is supposed to be directly responsible for to unelected bureaucrats that exist in agencies that are overseen by the executive branch of government. Yes, that's what the executive branch is for. That's how our government and basically every government in the history of the world has worked. > When is the last time you've seen anyone from Congress campaign on any substantive issue? Literally every campaign in my life that I've had any exposure to. Campaigning on real issues is not hard, the problem is getting into Congress and then being unwilling or unable to follow through.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]