Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I never said members of Congress know which rules are being implemented, but the leadership of the agencies do, which are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If Congress was unhappy with a rule the agency has passed, they'll repeal or amend the statute.
There is no official in Washington that isn't controlled by elections, even if indirectly.
Then once certain people are in, they should be able to get rid of whatever offical they see fit, except for the fact that there are civil service regulations, and if the person is in the executive branch they have to fight over the legislation authorizing the position, and usually some congressperson will get all butthurt over removing the position.
Except that civil service members aren't the ones setting policy. That's ultimately controlled by the appointed officials.
I figured that's the part you'd dispute, but it doesn't make much sense to do so. Are you denying that elect the people who make decisions?
Yes.
As an example, the decision about whether Obamacare is a tax or not, and thus justifiable, came down to one man. Unless you know something I don't, Roberts never ran for any office in his life.
Then we have the decisions about what Obamacare actually does. The law contains a lot of vague guidelines, but no actual decisions were made about what is, and is not, covered by Obamacare. Those decisions are delegated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services because Congress is to $#!^**# lazy to actually make hard decisions. That is why we are now spending tax dollars defending the birth control mandate that Sebelius threw in, and why that decision will, ultimately, be made by the courts.
The bureaucrats in Washington, and the judges, are not elected by anyone.
Roberts was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, both of which are elected. If the people are angry enough, they could elect a Congress that would remove Roberts from office. Same principle applies to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If people don't like his/her decisions, elect a new president who will then appoint a new secretary who will claw back all the provisions you don't like.
There is no official in Washington that isn't controlled by elections, even if indirectly.
There is no official in Washington that isn't controlled by elections, even if indirectly.
Then once certain people are in, they should be able to get rid of whatever offical they see fit, except for the fact that there are civil service regulations, and if the person is in the executive branch they have to fight over the legislation authorizing the position, and usually some congressperson will get all butthurt over removing the position.
Except that civil service members aren't the ones setting policy. That's ultimately controlled by the appointed officials.
Except that civil service members aren't the ones setting policy. That's ultimately controlled by the appointed officials.
You would be very wrong. The Congress gives what is usually a pretty loose mandate to the bureaucracies it sets up and funds, but it is left to the bureaucrats themselves, many if not most in protected civil service positions, who write the rules and regulations that form the effective policy.
Rules which ultimately have to be approved by the leadership, which are appointed positions.
I never said members of Congress know which rules are being implemented, but the leadership of the agencies do, which are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If Congress was unhappy with a rule the agency has passed, they'll repeal or amend the statute.
They have to know what the rules and regs are in order to know what needs to be repealed. They have to care about things like that. But most don't. They just trust that the noble sounding titles keep the gullible people appeased and assured that their government is wonderful and is doing wonderful things for them. What is actually happening isn't really important.
Then once certain people are in, they should be able to get rid of whatever offical they see fit, except for the fact that there are civil service regulations, and if the person is in the executive branch they have to fight over the legislation authorizing the position, and usually some congressperson will get all butthurt over removing the position.
Except that civil service members aren't the ones setting policy. That's ultimately controlled by the appointed officials.
Absolutely deluded statement. Congress doesn't write legislation anymore. THey write blank checks like Dodd-Frank.. Where only after years of unaccounted bureaucratic fiddling do we get the details of what has been passed. There is little to no oversight, it evolves over changes in Admins and it hoses up the entire sector while the threat of constant manipulation of that legislation is upon us..
There IS NO accountability for the bureaucracy.. When they fail -- their budgets are increased and the guilty are promoted. You have WAAAY too much unwarranted faith in your ability to manage the beast thru your puny vote...
I never said members of Congress know which rules are being implemented, but the leadership of the agencies do, which are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If Congress was unhappy with a rule the agency has passed, they'll repeal or amend the statute.
They have to know what the rules and regs are in order to know what needs to be repealed. They have to care about things like that. But most don't. They just trust that the noble sounding titles keep the gullible people appeased and assured that their government is wonderful and is doing wonderful things for them. What is actually happening isn't really important.
Congress routinely passes laws to overrule agency determinations. That they don't do so means they agree with those determinations.
They have to know what the rules and regs are in order to know what needs to be repealed. They have to care about things like that. But most don't. They just trust that the noble sounding titles keep the gullible people appeased and assured that their government is wonderful and is doing wonderful things for them. What is actually happening isn't really important.
Congress routinely passes laws to overrule agency determinations. That they don't do so means they agree with those determinations.
I thought Congress is gridlocked with partisan debate. How do you jibe that with your insistence that Congress routinely overrules agency decisions? By the way, do you have any examples of that?
So tell me, which part of my statement is incorrect?
Citizens do not own the Government. We elect representatives to run the Government legislative and Executive functions. We do not own either, we do not own the Judiciary and we certainly do not own the millions of employees and thousands of Government agencies.
To own something means you have control over it. We have zero control. We can elect ( as an individual) one Representative of 438 and 2 Senators of 100. We can help elect the President. This does not give us any control. We have zero control over the Judiciary and zero control over the thousands of Government agencies or their employees.
Or perhaps you can explain how we own any part of the Government?
We do have control over it. We elect the people who run it.
There is no official in Washington that isn't controlled by elections, even if indirectly.
Except that civil service members aren't the ones setting policy. That's ultimately controlled by the appointed officials.
You would be very wrong. The Congress gives what is usually a pretty loose mandate to the bureaucracies it sets up and funds, but it is left to the bureaucrats themselves, many if not most in protected civil service positions, who write the rules and regulations that form the effective policy.
Rules which ultimately have to be approved by the leadership, which are appointed positions.
Congress routinely passes laws to overrule agency determinations. That they don't do so means they agree with those determinations.
I thought Congress is gridlocked with partisan debate. How do you jibe that with your insistence that Congress routinely overrules agency decisions? By the way, do you have any examples of that?
Gridlocked with partisan debate and overturning agency decisions aren't mutually exclusively (it's not as if they're doing zero work most sessions). I can't think of any recent examples that have passed, but that's due to divided control of the chambers. House Republicans have often passed measures to stop the EPA from implementing greenhouse gas regulations.
Citizens do not own the Government. We elect representatives to run the Government legislative and Executive functions. We do not own either, we do not own the Judiciary and we certainly do not own the millions of employees and thousands of Government agencies.
To own something means you have control over it. We have zero control. We can elect ( as an individual) one Representative of 438 and 2 Senators of 100. We can help elect the President. This does not give us any control. We have zero control over the Judiciary and zero control over the thousands of Government agencies or their employees.
Or perhaps you can explain how we own any part of the Government?
We do have control over it. We elect the people who run it.
Passive Control at best. There are no guarantees. You should know better than that.
You would be very wrong. The Congress gives what is usually a pretty loose mandate to the bureaucracies it sets up and funds, but it is left to the bureaucrats themselves, many if not most in protected civil service positions, who write the rules and regulations that form the effective policy.
Rules which ultimately have to be approved by the leadership, which are appointed positions.
Rubber Stamp.
I thought Congress is gridlocked with partisan debate. How do you jibe that with your insistence that Congress routinely overrules agency decisions? By the way, do you have any examples of that?
Gridlocked with partisan debate and overturning agency decisions aren't mutually exclusively (it's not as if they're doing zero work most sessions). I can't think of any recent examples that have passed, but that's due to divided control of the chambers. House Republicans have often passed measures to stop the EPA from implementing greenhouse gas regulations.
You can't produce examples, but insist that you are right.
Got it.
Gridlocked with partisan debate and overturning agency decisions aren't mutually exclusively (it's not as if they're doing zero work most sessions). I can't think of any recent examples that have passed, but that's due to divided control of the chambers. House Republicans have often passed measures to stop the EPA from implementing greenhouse gas regulations.
You can't produce examples, but insist that you are right.
Got it.
I gave a recent example of an attempt. The internet doesn't do a great job of categorizing the 1990s (didn't see a lot of action in the 2000s because Republicans controlled Congress and the agencies).
