4 ms·

On one hand I'm very happy with all the recent policy changes coming down from different federal agencies, but on the other there's a very high likelihood that

by paxys 3y ago

On one hand I'm very happy with all the recent policy changes coming down from different federal agencies, but on the other there's a very high likelihood that they will all be reversed a few months from now if/when a new administration takes over. That is always the downside of executive rule. With Congress unwilling/incapable of acting though I guess this is the best we'll get.

ehsankia 3y ago
At least it'll be one fewer "both sides" argument to be made.
colpabar 3y ago
What bothers me is that all these things are only happening because it's an election year and the incumbent doesn't have great polling numbers.
- paxys 3y ago
  Well, politicians doing what people want in order to get reelected is kinda the point of democracy.
  - colpabar 3y ago
    There's no need to talk down to me. My point was that they could be doing what people want for the entire duration of their term, rather than in the last few months. To use an analogy, it's like a student getting bad grades all year and then doing a bunch of extra credit assignments when they're worried about failing the class.
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      Your chief complaint is not new, it's nearly as old as democracy itself. Different forms of democracy have various trade-offs, what your describing is the trade-off of representative democracy.
      - hughesjj 3y ago
        Is also partly the fault of voters for being so darn susceptible to recency bias. Do a lot of good at the start and then reach a lull and everyone's gonna hate. Timing can and has cost elections.
    - astrange 3y ago
      They've been working on this for two years, it was announced they'd do it in 2022.
  - vuln 3y ago
    They only dangle the carrot when they need something, ie reelection.
  - dgunay 3y ago
    Yeah, but based on the guiding principle of democracy (govt by the will of the people), you'd hope to see them do that immediately instead of waiting years and years to do it when it is most strategically advantageous. I know politics is gamey like that by nature, but it sucks to see. The lag time between a policy becoming overwhelmingly popular and it actually being implemented is often long enough to radically alter the course of millions of peoples' lives.
    - yurishimo 3y ago
      While this is true, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. At some point, we decided as a nation to only care about politics during election years. Participation rates for local elections is near an all time low. If people were more involved with the process, I would imagine that we would see more movement in Congress as a reaction to the will of the people.
    - paxys 3y ago
      If doing it at the end of his term gets him more votes than the beginning, that means the voters want to see it done towards the end.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Yeah, if only every year were election year....
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  {{Citation needed}}
- 0x5f3759df-i 3y ago
  You obviously haven’t been paying attention as these rule making processes started literally years ago that’s how much red tape there is to get through. And even if what you are saying was true (it isn’t) isn’t that the entire argument for democracy in the first place? “Politicians make good policy because they want to get re-elected” is how we should hope things work.
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    Bunch of Holden Caulfields imo who just refuse to 'vote for phonies' and still haven't grown uo
  - hed 3y ago
    It started in October 2022 (a month before midterms), if anything a skeptic would say that's more confirmation timing is suspect.
- romellem 3y ago
  This is misinformation. Biden directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reexamine the scheduling of marijuana in October 2022. Nearly a year later in August 2023, the HHS wrote to the DEA recommending that marijuana be reclassified from Schedule I to Schedule III. A month ago, the DEA was still "writing [their] recommendation" on what they should reclassify marijuana to (if any change was to happen). And just now, April 2024, the DEA agreed with HHS (as reported by AP, DEA hasn't confirmed this yet). So no, this isn't "just happening" now, this has been going on for years. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/06/statement-from-president-biden-on-marijuana-reform/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... [2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-30/hhs-calls-for-moving-marijuana-to-lower-risk-us-drug-category https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-30/hhs-calls... [3]: https://twitter.com/DEAHQ/status/1772987478548287891 https://twitter.com/DEAHQ/status/1772987478548287891
sanderjd 3y ago
This kind of rule should be made by an executive agency, empowered by a congressional delegation of that rule-making power to that agency. This is just the same principle as private organization boards of directors delegating the minutia of running the organization to the executives and their teams. If you think it would be madness for hiring decisions on individual contributors to be made by board votes, then you should support the delegation of rule-making authority to executive agencies. Yes, it means that changing the executive might change the rules. Congress remains free to overrule the agencies by passing further legislation, if they so desire. And voters remain free to replace the executive the next time around, if they want to see different rules. These are all features, not bugs. There is certainly value in stability and predictability, but there is even more value in having an executive branch of government that is empowered to make decisions quickly and a short feedback loop between the public and the government.
- paxys 3y ago
  That only works if the rulemaking happens based on scientific reason rather than politics.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    ... no, it works in general, for the reasons I went into in my comment.
- rascul 3y ago
  > voters remain free to replace the executive the next time around Note that there are only either 538 or 100 voters, depending on which position in the executive branch.
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    Or 9 voters Or, if someone gets his way, just 1
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    No, the President exerts significant control over executive agency policy, and is elected by many more people than that.
treflop 3y ago
Maybe, maybe not. Support for the legalization of marijuana has consistently only gone up for 50 years and even more than half of conservatives supported it in 2023: https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legalizing-marijuana-hits-record.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legal... You typically see flip flop rulings on issues that half the country actually does not support. Abortion is probably the biggest issue and that's because a lot of the country does not support it and this has not substantially changed in over 50 years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Another contentious issue has been gay marriage but support for that has only risen over the years (although much more slowly), so generally that is another issue that I don't expect much flip flopping on: https://news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-holds-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-hol...
- consumer451 3y ago
  > Abortion is probably the biggest issue and that's because a lot of the country does not support it and this has not substantially changed in over 50 years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx I'm sorry, am I reading the data incorrectly, or your comment incorrectly? > Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances? > 2023 | 34(any) 51(some) 13(illegal) 2(no opinion) According these data, the vast, vast majority of Americans support the right to abortion, correct?
  - dingnuts 3y ago
    the wording of the questions aren't good, but the states that have recently banned it certainly seem to be catering to the 13% who say illegal under all circumstances, due to the extremeness of the actual laws passed before Roe was overturned I would have considered myself pro life because I don't believe in late term abortions, but with the new legal landscape I've become effectively pro choice because the new laws are so extreme that they ban life saving health care that has little to do with the life of the unborn I wonder how many are like me
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by paxys 3y ago

ehsankia 3y ago

At least it'll be one fewer "both sides" argument to be made.

colpabar 3y ago

What bothers me is that all these things are only happening because it's an election year and the incumbent doesn't have great polling numbers.

paxys 3y ago
Well, politicians doing what people want in order to get reelected is kinda the point of democracy.
- colpabar 3y ago
  There's no need to talk down to me. My point was that they could be doing what people want for the entire duration of their term, rather than in the last few months. To use an analogy, it's like a student getting bad grades all year and then doing a bunch of extra credit assignments when they're worried about failing the class.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    Your chief complaint is not new, it's nearly as old as democracy itself. Different forms of democracy have various trade-offs, what your describing is the trade-off of representative democracy.
    - hughesjj 3y ago
      Is also partly the fault of voters for being so darn susceptible to recency bias. Do a lot of good at the start and then reach a lull and everyone's gonna hate. Timing can and has cost elections.
  - astrange 3y ago
    They've been working on this for two years, it was announced they'd do it in 2022.
- vuln 3y ago
  They only dangle the carrot when they need something, ie reelection.
- dgunay 3y ago
  Yeah, but based on the guiding principle of democracy (govt by the will of the people), you'd hope to see them do that immediately instead of waiting years and years to do it when it is most strategically advantageous. I know politics is gamey like that by nature, but it sucks to see. The lag time between a policy becoming overwhelmingly popular and it actually being implemented is often long enough to radically alter the course of millions of peoples' lives.
  - yurishimo 3y ago
    While this is true, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. At some point, we decided as a nation to only care about politics during election years. Participation rates for local elections is near an all time low. If people were more involved with the process, I would imagine that we would see more movement in Congress as a reaction to the will of the people.
  - paxys 3y ago
    If doing it at the end of his term gets him more votes than the beginning, that means the voters want to see it done towards the end.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Yeah, if only every year were election year....
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BobaFloutist 3y ago
{{Citation needed}}
0x5f3759df-i 3y ago
You obviously haven’t been paying attention as these rule making processes started literally years ago that’s how much red tape there is to get through. And even if what you are saying was true (it isn’t) isn’t that the entire argument for democracy in the first place? “Politicians make good policy because they want to get re-elected” is how we should hope things work.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  Bunch of Holden Caulfields imo who just refuse to 'vote for phonies' and still haven't grown uo
- hed 3y ago
  It started in October 2022 (a month before midterms), if anything a skeptic would say that's more confirmation timing is suspect.
romellem 3y ago
This is misinformation. Biden directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reexamine the scheduling of marijuana in October 2022. Nearly a year later in August 2023, the HHS wrote to the DEA recommending that marijuana be reclassified from Schedule I to Schedule III. A month ago, the DEA was still "writing [their] recommendation" on what they should reclassify marijuana to (if any change was to happen). And just now, April 2024, the DEA agreed with HHS (as reported by AP, DEA hasn't confirmed this yet). So no, this isn't "just happening" now, this has been going on for years. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/06/statement-from-president-biden-on-marijuana-reform/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... [2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-30/hhs-calls-for-moving-marijuana-to-lower-risk-us-drug-category https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-30/hhs-calls... [3]: https://twitter.com/DEAHQ/status/1772987478548287891 https://twitter.com/DEAHQ/status/1772987478548287891

sanderjd 3y ago

This kind of rule should be made by an executive agency, empowered by a congressional delegation of that rule-making power to that agency. This is just the same principle as private organization boards of directors delegating the minutia of running the organization to the executives and their teams. If you think it would be madness for hiring decisions on individual contributors to be made by board votes, then you should support the delegation of rule-making authority to executive agencies. Yes, it means that changing the executive might change the rules. Congress remains free to overrule the agencies by passing further legislation, if they so desire. And voters remain free to replace the executive the next time around, if they want to see different rules. These are all features, not bugs. There is certainly value in stability and predictability, but there is even more value in having an executive branch of government that is empowered to make decisions quickly and a short feedback loop between the public and the government.

paxys 3y ago
That only works if the rulemaking happens based on scientific reason rather than politics.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  ... no, it works in general, for the reasons I went into in my comment.
rascul 3y ago
> voters remain free to replace the executive the next time around Note that there are only either 538 or 100 voters, depending on which position in the executive branch.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  Or 9 voters Or, if someone gets his way, just 1
- sanderjd 3y ago
  No, the President exerts significant control over executive agency policy, and is elected by many more people than that.

treflop 3y ago

Maybe, maybe not. Support for the legalization of marijuana has consistently only gone up for 50 years and even more than half of conservatives supported it in 2023: https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legalizing-marijuana-hits-record.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legal... You typically see flip flop rulings on issues that half the country actually does not support. Abortion is probably the biggest issue and that's because a lot of the country does not support it and this has not substantially changed in over 50 years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Another contentious issue has been gay marriage but support for that has only risen over the years (although much more slowly), so generally that is another issue that I don't expect much flip flopping on: https://news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-holds-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-hol...

consumer451 3y ago
> Abortion is probably the biggest issue and that's because a lot of the country does not support it and this has not substantially changed in over 50 years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx I'm sorry, am I reading the data incorrectly, or your comment incorrectly? > Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances? > 2023 | 34(any) 51(some) 13(illegal) 2(no opinion) According these data, the vast, vast majority of Americans support the right to abortion, correct?
- dingnuts 3y ago
  the wording of the questions aren't good, but the states that have recently banned it certainly seem to be catering to the 13% who say illegal under all circumstances, due to the extremeness of the actual laws passed before Roe was overturned I would have considered myself pro life because I don't believe in late term abortions, but with the new legal landscape I've become effectively pro choice because the new laws are so extreme that they ban life saving health care that has little to do with the life of the unborn I wonder how many are like me

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]