4 ms·
>Bureaucrats who must follow the rule of law is what you want. Under Chevron we had the opposite of that: bureaucrats who had ridiculously wide latitude to mak
by JCTheDenthog 5mo ago
>Bureaucrats who must follow the rule of law is what you want.
Under Chevron we had the opposite of that: bureaucrats who had ridiculously wide latitude to make their own rules.
What we actually need is for congress to take back control instead of passing all power and authority to the executive branch.
- pocksuppet 5mo agoCongress always had the power to remove delegated power from an institution if it didn't like how that institution was performing. It's also had the power to disband the executive branch regime at any point since January 20. Everything that is happening now is happening with the complete approval of Congress.
- JCTheDenthog 5mo agoCorrect, and congress hasn't been exercising that power for the better part of a century now. The War Powers Resolution was 1973, for example. I don't know what the exact solution is, but something needs to change in the structure and incentives of congress to incentivize them to exercise power again. Eliminating the filibuster and drastically increasing the total number of representatives seem like the best ways to me, but I'm open yo other possibilities.
- nielsbot 5mo agoMoney out of politics
- pocksuppet 5mo agoNobody should be incentivized to exercise power for the sake of exercising power. They should be incentivized to exercise power to change things they don't agree with. And they already have that incentive. And they are already using it. What is there to change?
- brookst 5mo agoAre you saying Congress should be domain experts every area they allocate funds to? From maritime safety to preschool nutrition, congress should be expert enough in everything to specify all important details, and then the agencies (staffed by actual domain experts in each area) are mere accountants to execute the policies? I don’t think it’s workable. At best it just swaps lobbyists for civil servants.
- fragmede 5mo agoOstensibly, who's paying their salary is important. Lobbyists, paid for by corporations with a vested interest in things going their way, is far worse than civil servants who's salary comes from taxpayers, and who's responsibility is to them, and not corporate interests. Ostensibly.
- ipaddr 5mo agoPeople don't vote for civil servants their loyality is not with the public but themselves. Congress's loyality is with donors and/or leader's who's loyality is with donors. Nothing will work when the courts decide giving money is speech and now protected. Super pacs have unlimited spending and shield donors. It's hard to change. You need a new supreme court or amendment to remove super pacs then you need to convince the people who got in power by having more money to limit donations to an amount an average American can afford. Then you need laws to fix gerrymandering or possible an amendment. Then you need radical laws to deal with immigration vote buy which mlght involve rules not allowing people not born in the country from voting. And then we will realize that people with more money will actually need more power because they have bigger needs. So they will start buying people through convert ways (media ownership, ai filtered data, ...) and we'll have more disinformation. Maybe this is the best democracy can offer.
- fc417fc802 5mo agoMore realistically you'd end up with an official advisory body where the exact same experts would write the regulations, they would be intermittently passed by congress between their regular bouts of systemic dysfunction, and the current crop of bureaucrats would be replaced by mindless pencil pushers. Add an official title for members of this government run advisory body such as "sage" and give them lifelong tenure and we've about completed the process. On paper it's different but in practice congress would largely be rubber stamping things. I predict the differences would be largely negative. More room for non-experts to meddle, more room for lobbyists to insert themselves into the process, and more room for broad capture of the advisory body to go unnoticed.
- lovich 5mo ago[flagged]
- JCTheDenthog 5mo agoWhat else have your psychic powers revealed to you about me?
- lovich 5mo ago[flagged]
- nielsbot 5mo agoI don’t see how congress taking control is better if you’re opposed to regulation. Except maybe congress is even more captured than regulators. The government is good and does good things. We need more of it not less.