PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on October 27, 2019, 09:38:02 AM
-
https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/26/bureaucratic-rule-by-what-right/
-
This is a pretty anarchist line of logic. It's been discussed many times before - not necessarily here. The end result of taking this to the extreme is declaring yourself to be an independent country, wearing tin foil hats, and shooting census workers knocking on your door.
Bureaucrats administer law based on authority derived from Congress. They don't "rule" us because they are superior. I don't doubt that some government employees exhibit hubris at their inflated view of their position, but they really don't have any authority not granted by Congress.
Regrettably, many of the mandates from Congress are overly broad, which the few self absorbed ones tend to use to give themselves nearly unlimited self granted mandates of authority. Frequently these people wind up stepping in it sooner or later and get their hand slapped by courts who tell them no.
-
This is a pretty anarchist line of logic. It's been discussed many times before - not necessarily here. The end result of taking this to the extreme is declaring yourself to be an independent country, wearing tin foil hats, and shooting census workers knocking on your door.
Bureaucrats administer law based on authority derived from Congress. They don't "rule" us because they are superior. I don't doubt that some government employees exhibit hubris at their inflated view of their position, but they really don't have any authority not granted by Congress.
Regrettably, many of the mandates from Congress are overly broad, which the few self absorbed ones tend to use to give themselves nearly unlimited self granted mandates of authority. Frequently these people wind up stepping in it sooner or later and get their hand slapped by courts who tell them no.
Did we read the same article? Anarchy? What on earth are you talking about? Bureaucrats administer laws from Congress, yes, did you not read the following:
The premise of the Times’ campaign is that the bureaucrats’ knowledge and positions give them the right, and the duty, to rule in defiance of elected officials.... In practice, this argument means that bureaucrats should obey elected officials only when these measure up to the bureaucrats’ Progressive standards....Their superior right supposedly comes from superior knowledge and morality. In short, they should rule us because they are better than we.
They defy the authority given to them by Congress (the elected officials) and they do so because they believe themselves superior to all the rest of us.
You can't see this? You can't see this in Peter Strzok for example? Let's have an "insurance policy" to get rid of Trump in case he is legitimately elected, because after all we have morals and knowledge superior to the voters.
Or are you saying this article is only referring to a few bad apples?
This article says: The ruling class bases it's legitimacy on the pretense of excellence, not actual excellence. TRUE! What does this have to do with anarchy and tin foil hats?
-
^^^^^^To Rush's point. I've said this before. It's not just elected officials (politicians) but the Bureaucracy that has become like ROYALTY. It has gotten to the point of tyranny and has been for quite some time. That is why they are desperate to find anyway to get the guns away from the LAW ABIDING.
There is no recourse for citizens against the unelected bureaucracy. We can't even vote them out of office. This is what Tar and Feathering was all about, but now we have such a large, militarized "law enforcement" BUREACRACY that holding people personally accountable by even just getting in their face is no longer possible. They are insulated, protected, they know it and now think they are entitled to wield power because now THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY BETTER.
-
My feeling is, that over the years legislation has been written in a more broad manor allowing for a lot of interpretation from the resident bureaucrats. I think the ACA showed that lot with its language about letting the Secretary decide many things.
-
My feeling is, that over the years legislation has been written in a more broad manor allowing for a lot of interpretation from the resident bureaucrats. I think the ACA showed that lot with its language about letting the Secretary decide many things.
The Clean Air and Water Act and the EPA is another HUGE example. Total bureaucratic overreach.
-
My feeling is, that over the years legislation has been written in a more broad manor allowing for a lot of interpretation from the resident bureaucrats. I think the ACA showed that lot with its language about letting the Secretary decide many things.
Thr problem government are the SES (Senior Executive Service) types. Unelected bureaucrats that can exploit their positions and use them in partisan ways. Remember Lois Lerner?
These SES types are embedded everywhere and after a while begin acting as if they are in charge and not accountable to the Secretaries of the various departments they work under. It's almost impossible to remove a SES type.
Look at the DoJ/FBI/EPA/DoD/State as a few examples.
-
Thr problem government are the SES (Senior Executive Service) types. Unelected bureaucrats that can exploit their positions and use them in partisan ways. Remember Lois Lerner?
These SES types are embedded everywhere and after a while begin acting as if they are in charge and not accountable to the Secretaries of the various departments they work under. It's almost impossible to remove a SES type.
Look at the DoJ/FBI/EPA/DoD/State as a few examples.
This.
-
Did we read the same article? Anarchy? What on earth are you talking about
I think it was understood that we were talking about bureaucrats who think they deserve to rule.
Anarchy is never mentioned in the story, it's my commentary on the story. The idea that we should not be ruled by anything IS anarchy. We are all bound by the law, that is what makes us a Republic. When this topic comes up, there's generally some radical who says that we shouldn't be ruled by anyone, which is an anti-republic and anti-American statement. Enter the tin foil hats and census workers.
Yes, there are a some bad apples in government who let it go to their head and start making up rules. However in general, no government employee is likely to exceed the law because if they do, they will go to jail and lose their cushy little job and their retirement. Almost all of them just want to do the minimum at their job, not rock the boat and retire after 20 or 30 years, depending on their situation.
The few in the other group are usually pretty easy to spot because they are crusading their way through government and they attract attention to themselves. Sooner or later, you usually see these people headed to Dansbury minimum security prison sans pension.
-
I think it was understood that we were talking about bureaucrats who think they deserve to rule.
Sooner or later, you usually see these people headed to Dansbury minimum security prison sans pension.
Oh right. Like Lois Lerner was. Or those folks from the EPA who overstepped.
-
Oh right. Like Lois Lerner was. Or those folks from the EPA who overstepped.
It is very, very rare that Bureaucrats on the Federal, State, and Local level are held accountable, and suffer the penalties they deserve. If they do get investigated they are usually reassigned, promoted or allowed to retire with FULL PENSIONS and BENEFITS.
-
I think it was understood that we were talking about bureaucrats who think they deserve to rule.
Anarchy is never mentioned in the story, it's my commentary on the story. The idea that we should not be ruled by anything IS anarchy. We are all bound by the law, that is what makes us a Republic. When this topic comes up, there's generally some radical who says that we shouldn't be ruled by anyone, which is an anti-republic and anti-American statement. Enter the tin foil hats and census workers.
Yes, there are a some bad apples in government who let it go to their head and start making up rules. However in general, no government employee is likely to exceed the law because if they do, they will go to jail and lose their cushy little job and their retirement. Almost all of them just want to do the minimum at their job, not rock the boat and retire after 20 or 30 years, depending on their situation.
The few in the other group are usually pretty easy to spot because they are crusading their way through government and they attract attention to themselves. Sooner or later, you usually see these people headed to Dansbury minimum security prison sans pension.
Okay so anarchy and tin foil hats have nothing whatsoever to do with the article, but you were bringing in opinions of other people who talk on other forums or something. Were you assuming we here are of that ilk? I didn't see anything in that article implying there should be no laws. It may have implied that a minimum of laws is a good thing but that's not at all the same thing as anarchy.
I'm still not sure what that has to do with the point of the article.
-
Okay so anarchy and tin foil hats have nothing whatsoever to do with the article, but you were bringing in opinions of other people who talk on other forums or something. Were you assuming we here are of that ilk?
A lot of other forums have been larger, but invariably someone goes that route. I was adding in the thought, hopefully to short cut it. It's gotten for more focus than it deserves.
-
A lot of other forums have been larger, but invariably someone goes that route. I was adding in the thought, hopefully to short cut it. It's gotten for more focus than it deserves.
If you will forgive me, it seems you are completely side stepping the thrust of the article, which is that the ruling class - IOW, those with legal authority over our lives, and speaking particularly of progressives - seem to anoint themselves with imagined superior merit, thus justifying going outside the bounds of law to achieve what they imagine is a justified outcome.
But what you originally said was: “This is a pretty anarchist line of logic.”
Does that mean that anyone who acknowledges there are too many of these progressive bureaucrats flaunting the laws of elected officials (and even one actual election) is somehow a radical anarchist? Is that what people are saying on these large forums? Is it progressives saying anyone who disagrees with these bureaucrats are anarchists? Is that what you mean by “someone goes that route”? Or is it the anarchists themselves jumping in and saying, “we need anarchy!”
You see my confusion? If it’s the former, then it’s a total falsehood; a complete misrepresentation of conservatives or libertarians who bemoan a large overreaching government. If it’s the latter, then it would be interesting to me that someone thinks total anarchy is the answer to the problem of a too large and overreaching government.
-
If you will forgive me, it seems you are completely side stepping the thrust of the article, which is that the ruling class - IOW, those with legal authority over our lives, and speaking particularly of progressives - seem to anoint themselves with imagined superior merit, thus justifying going outside the bounds of law to achieve what they imagine is a justified outcome.
But what you originally said was: “This is a pretty anarchist line of logic.”
Does that mean that anyone who acknowledges there are too many of these progressive bureaucrats flaunting the laws of elected officials (and even one actual election) is somehow a radical anarchist? Is that what people are saying on these large forums? Is it progressives saying anyone who disagrees with these bureaucrats are anarchists? Is that what you mean by “someone goes that route”? Or is it the anarchists themselves jumping in and saying, “we need anarchy!”
You see my confusion? If it’s the former, then it’s a total falsehood; a complete misrepresentation of conservatives or libertarians who bemoan a large overreaching government. If it’s the latter, then it would be interesting to me that someone thinks total anarchy is the answer to the problem of a too large and overreaching government.
I would correct it - not side stepping, but yes minimizing. I am more concerned about people losing faith in the law and therefore the Republic than I am about the abuse of power from these individuals.
The number of these people who make up the “swamp” is actually very small. Yes, theses few have power and need to be dealt with by using their own law against them; they have a great deal at risk when they are exposed. They also have handcuffs on them because if they overstep their boundaries, they lose everything. That is their weakness.
-
I would correct it - not side stepping, but yes minimizing. I am more concerned about people losing faith in the law and therefore the Republic than I am about the abuse of power from these individuals.
The number of these people who make up the “swamp” is actually very small. Yes, theses few have power and need to be dealt with by using their own law against them; they have a great deal at risk when they are exposed. They also have handcuffs on them because if they overstep their boundaries, they lose everything. That is their weakness.
Until some of these senior people start going to prison for long periods of time, faith in the law will continue to diminish at a rapid pace. At the federal level, very, very few people ever pay the price for their autocratic and illegal behavior. See Lois Lerner, et. al.
As for the size of the swamp, you’ve got to be kidding me.
The top three wealthiest counties in the US surround Washington DC. Government is big business, and business is doing well for those people directly and indirectly sucking at the teat of the bureaucracy.
The swamp is more pervasive than anyone can even imagine.
-
Until some of these senior people start going to prison for long periods of time, faith in the law will continue to diminish at a rapid pace. At the federal level, very, very few people ever pay the price for their autocratic and illegal behavior. See Lois Lerner, et. al.
As for the size of the swamp, you’ve got to be kidding me.
The top three wealthiest counties in the US surround Washington DC. Government is big business, and business is doing well for those people directly and indirectly sucking at the teat of the bureaucracy.
The swamp is more pervasive than anyone can even imagine.
Agreed on all points: EXCEPT . . .
We need to come up with more examples besides Lois Lerner. Yeah, she is the poster child and there are many more like her (like Strzok and Page), but singling her out is like the left point out FOX anytime they want to point to a right leaning media outlet (of which FOX isn't any more), or using Stephen Paddock as an excuse for banning bump stocks.
I especially agree on the fact that when these deep staters are found committing crimes, it is STILL almost impossible to punish them. Trump finally got permission (I think) to fire VA employees that mistreat veterans. But that power needs to apply to all levels of government. Most government workers are so damn protected they can literally get away with murder. And I hate using that word "literally".
But the deep state is deep and entrenched and it supports the party that protects them. (guess which one that is).
-
^^^^^^The Media does not report the investigations of these bureaucrats unless it gets to the proportions of Lois Lerner. Agencies on every level, Fed, State and Local COVER IT UP, reassign, promote or allow the people to retire. Nothing to see here. It is a huge problem.
-
There are 8,000+ employees in the SES for the federal government.
Here's a breakdown:
Department of Education – 86
Department of Housing & Urban Development – 115
Department of the Air Force – 182
Department of Labor – 200
Department of State – 204
Department of Transportation – 231
Department of Interior – 258
Department of the Army – 261
Department of the Navy – 326
Department of Veterans Affairs – 357
Department of Agriculture – 361
Department of Commerce – 425
Department of the Treasury – 458
Department of Health & Human Services – 468
Department of Defense – 478
Department of Energy – 490
Department of Homeland Security – 639
Department of Justice – 821
All Other Agencies (all non-Cabinet level agencies) – 1,796
These positions sit between Presidential appointees and are a link between political appointees and civil service workers. There are 2 kinds of SES positions; general and career reserved. Career reserved positions are just that—reserved for career appointees.
These are the people that actually craft regulations, and oversee the enforcement of those regulations.
Senior level employees of several agencies are exempt from the SES but have their own senior executive positions; these include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Government Accountability Office, Members of the Foreign Service, and government corporations.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/senior-executive-service/423435/
Forty years ago, Congress set out to fix the government’s broken bureaucracy. It worried that the political appointees who head federal agencies didn’t have solid relationships with the civil servants below them. So it established a new corps of government workers, called the Senior Executive Service, to be the executive branch’s expert managers, linking appointees to the rank-and-file. But today, a new report finds, the corps isn’t operating the way it’s supposed to be. And officials—from the Obama administration, to members of Congress, to the managers themselves—agree that they still haven’t perfected the art of running the federal government.
When the SES was created in 1978, Congress envisioned it as an “agile corps of generalists” who’d “move about the government much in the way that military officers or foreign-service officers move through the military or the diplomatic corps,” said Jim Read, the director of policy and evaluation at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, which produced the December report. They’d bridge divisions within agencies and ensure continuity in operations across administrations, but first and foremost, they’d be top-flight managers. The SES, though, has drifted away from its original mission: The “agile corps” isn’t full of many generalists at all, and the senior executives receive little training to hone their management skills.
One of the glaring problems with the SES are the partisans that hold key positions in government. These agencies have slowly been weaponized politically. We've seen it with the IRS, and now we've seen it with the DoJ and FBI, and various intel agencies.
You won't see or hear much about them because they are embedded in government, and many times when misdeeds have happened, it never sees the light of day outside of an agency. The recent Spygate scandal has changed this, and we are now seeing just how dirty some of these SES types have operated.
-
There are 8,000+ employees in the SES for the federal government.
Here's a breakdown:
Department of Education – 86
Department of Housing & Urban Development – 115
Department of the Air Force – 182
Department of Labor – 200
Department of State – 204
Department of Transportation – 231
Department of Interior – 258
Department of the Army – 261
Department of the Navy – 326
Department of Veterans Affairs – 357
Department of Agriculture – 361
Department of Commerce – 425
Department of the Treasury – 458
Department of Health & Human Services – 468
Department of Defense – 478
Department of Energy – 490
Department of Homeland Security – 639
Department of Justice – 821
All Other Agencies (all non-Cabinet level agencies) – 1,796
These positions sit between Presidential appointees and are a link between political appointees and civil service workers. There are 2 kinds of SES positions; general and career reserved. Career reserved positions are just that—reserved for career appointees.
These are the people that actually craft regulations, and oversee the enforcement of those regulations.
Senior level employees of several agencies are exempt from the SES but have their own senior executive positions; these include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Government Accountability Office, Members of the Foreign Service, and government corporations.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/senior-executive-service/423435/
One of the glaring problems with the SES are the partisans that hold key positions in government. These agencies have slowly been weaponized politically. We've seen it with the IRS, and now we've seen it with the DoJ and FBI, and various intel agencies.
You won't see or hear much about them because they are embedded in government, and many times when misdeeds have happened, it never sees the light of day outside of an agency. The recent Spygate scandal has changed this, and we are now seeing just how dirty some of these SES types have operated.
THIS.
-
Liberals live to LOVE big, oppressive, nanny state, government.
The rest of us think.