4 ms·

> because a vote can't change the direction of the executive if parts of it are on autopilot independently of the president. That's only mildly true, and the b

> because a vote can't change the direction of the executive if parts of it are on autopilot independently of the president. That's only mildly true, and the belief of micromanagers everywhere. Ultimately, you need to set an overall direction and then let people execute within that framework, or you're going to get something that's badly run and slow as molasses. With a nuanced interpretation, this EO even might make some amount of sense (a bit more overview/stricter guidelines). But wherever you stand politically, you can't accuse the current administration to have a sense of nuance. And, of course, if you want to assume the worst, it's fair to point out that the EO removes all independence without having to spell out any guidelines, which means a world without guidelines and on-a-whim decisions is well possible. That's not a good thing for a regulatory environment. Or a democracy. And that's the biggest problem - because even if the current administration has only noble goals (and I really don't want to debate this either way, let's skip that comment stream), this XO is massively ripe for abuse for people with non-noble intentions.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
You're getting downvoted for basically saying 'you know how command economies don't work? That model also doesn't work as a national governmental system' by the people who claim to hate command economies.
petsfed 2y ago
I think this is a really good explanation of the underlying problem. The example that is top of mind to me, because it hits pretty close to home, is stuff like the Environmental Protection Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The laws direct designated agencies to come up with rules to accomplish whatever the act is meant to do, but it does not get into specifics, because lawmakers rightly recognized that they are neither environmental scientists, nor economists of the industries those acts regulate. So if an administration says "holding hands and singing Kumbaya in the commissary is sufficient to accomplish the goals of our mandating legislation", and neither the legislature nor the courts are unwilling to call the executive on it, that's the ball game.
- gottorf 2y ago
  > lawmakers rightly recognized that they are neither environmental scientists, nor economists of the industries those acts regulate The problem that this EO may be trying to address is that environmental scientists and economists aren't any more above moral reproach as presidents or legislators. Therefore, the status quo was such that if some unelected career civil servant working at an agency decides to interpret stuff under their expertise in one way or another that may be wrong, there was little possibility of redress on the part of the people. Vote for a different president? No matter; career civil servants can't be fired because the president isn't king! Vote for a different Congressperson? No matter; they aren't experts so they'll defer to the civil servants! And therein lies the "deep state". The correct answer, in my opinion, is that lawmakers need to sit down with the domain experts and write specific legislation with that expert input. That way, policy remains accountable to the people, who are the ultimate legitimate source of power.
  - petsfed 2y ago
    I disagree categorically with this. Yes, in principle, the court cases would be easier if the law was written with the complete regulations in place to begin with. However, facts on the ground change faster than the legislature is able to move at the best of times. It has always been the case that you or I could sue to overturn a rule from the EPA or the BATF or the FDA. At which time, you assemble subject matter experts to buttress whatever claim you might have, and the regulatory bodies present their experts and then a judge and jury decides. It’s pretty far from perfect, and it has some of the same flaws as the legislative approach, but the important strength is that national defense spending policy is not held up on where the sustainability of dolphin bycatch for tuna lays: 15 or 16 dolphins killed per 100,000 tons of tuna harvested. I think the underlying premise to requiring the legislature draft all regulations is “the legislature should not be making rules about things they don’t understand”. But 1) that sure as hell hasn’t slowed them down before, and 2) the fact that e.g. airplanes are very complicated is why we want regulations around their manufacture and operation in the first place. It’s confusing to me that the conclusion folks seem to draw here instead is “it’s too complex for the legislature to engage with in a timely fashion, so I guess we just have to accept all these plane crashes”.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

You're getting downvoted for basically saying 'you know how command economies don't work? That model also doesn't work as a national governmental system' by the people who claim to hate command economies.

petsfed 2y ago

I think this is a really good explanation of the underlying problem. The example that is top of mind to me, because it hits pretty close to home, is stuff like the Environmental Protection Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The laws direct designated agencies to come up with rules to accomplish whatever the act is meant to do, but it does not get into specifics, because lawmakers rightly recognized that they are neither environmental scientists, nor economists of the industries those acts regulate. So if an administration says "holding hands and singing Kumbaya in the commissary is sufficient to accomplish the goals of our mandating legislation", and neither the legislature nor the courts are unwilling to call the executive on it, that's the ball game.

gottorf 2y ago
> lawmakers rightly recognized that they are neither environmental scientists, nor economists of the industries those acts regulate The problem that this EO may be trying to address is that environmental scientists and economists aren't any more above moral reproach as presidents or legislators. Therefore, the status quo was such that if some unelected career civil servant working at an agency decides to interpret stuff under their expertise in one way or another that may be wrong, there was little possibility of redress on the part of the people. Vote for a different president? No matter; career civil servants can't be fired because the president isn't king! Vote for a different Congressperson? No matter; they aren't experts so they'll defer to the civil servants! And therein lies the "deep state". The correct answer, in my opinion, is that lawmakers need to sit down with the domain experts and write specific legislation with that expert input. That way, policy remains accountable to the people, who are the ultimate legitimate source of power.
- petsfed 2y ago
  I disagree categorically with this. Yes, in principle, the court cases would be easier if the law was written with the complete regulations in place to begin with. However, facts on the ground change faster than the legislature is able to move at the best of times. It has always been the case that you or I could sue to overturn a rule from the EPA or the BATF or the FDA. At which time, you assemble subject matter experts to buttress whatever claim you might have, and the regulatory bodies present their experts and then a judge and jury decides. It’s pretty far from perfect, and it has some of the same flaws as the legislative approach, but the important strength is that national defense spending policy is not held up on where the sustainability of dolphin bycatch for tuna lays: 15 or 16 dolphins killed per 100,000 tons of tuna harvested. I think the underlying premise to requiring the legislature draft all regulations is “the legislature should not be making rules about things they don’t understand”. But 1) that sure as hell hasn’t slowed them down before, and 2) the fact that e.g. airplanes are very complicated is why we want regulations around their manufacture and operation in the first place. It’s confusing to me that the conclusion folks seem to draw here instead is “it’s too complex for the legislature to engage with in a timely fashion, so I guess we just have to accept all these plane crashes”.