Administrative Agency Abuse

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I dealt with EEOC abuse of power daily in my legal practice. They get a passing mention in this video - which is mainly about an instance where the EPA got caught in regulatory abuse.

The death of the Chevron doctrine may - MAY - pull the reins in on some of this, but the point remains - power corrupts, and these federal agencies are full of little woke Eichmanns who love to throw their pseudo-weight around. They write regs without authority - they enforce “interpretations” without regs - they can put a “Main Street” business under with a single word. And when they do, they are the exact opposite of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I dealt with EEOC abuse of power daily in my legal practice. They get a passing mention in this video - which is mainly about an instance where the EPA got caught in regulatory abuse.

The death of the Chevron doctrine may - MAY - pull the reins in on some of this, but the point remains - power corrupts, and these federal agencies are full of little woke Eichmanns who love to throw their pseudo-weight around. They write regs without authority - they enforce “interpretations” without regs - they can put a “Main Street” business under with a single word. And when they do, they are the exact opposite of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

View embedded media

C’mon man. We all know this kind of deep state administrative abuse doesn’t exist. People on this forum frequently say so because the deep/administrative/unaccountable/ regulatory state doesn’t have a single leader or an established chain of command.

Seriously, I think the Supreme Court Court is primed to take a long overdue wrecking ball to the deep state. Overruling Chevron and restoring due process in adjudications are just for openers. The Administrative state’s overreach has been an increasing problem for decades which was made significantly worse under Obama and Biden. Trump and his administration didn’t know what to do last time, now I think he has some excellent cabinet secretaries and agency heads who know exactly how to swing the wrecking ball.

 

[IUINSB]

C’mon man. We all know this kind of deep state administrative abuse doesn’t exist. People on this forum frequently say so because the deep/administrative/unaccountable/ regulatory state doesn’t have a single leader or an established chain of command.

Seriously, I think the Supreme Court Court is primed to take a long overdue wrecking ball to the deep state. Overruling Chevron and restoring due process in adjudications are just for openers. The Administrative state’s overreach has been an increasing problem for decades which was made significantly worse under Obama and Biden. Trump and his administration didn’t know what to do last time, now I think he has some excellent cabinet secretaries and agency heads who know exactly how to swing the wrecking ball.

Blame congress for "Deep State". Congress relinquished most of its power to agency bureaucrats and presidential executive orders (fiats) years ago.
"Some" is the correct word.

 

[hookyIU1990]

Blame congress for "Deep State". Congress relinquished most of its power to agency bureaucrats and presidential executive orders (fiats) years ago.
"Some" is the correct word.

Congress needs to get it's shit together and take back a bunch of the power it's ceded to the executive branch over the years.

 

[IUINSB]

Congress needs to get it's shit together and take back a bunch of the power it's ceded to the executive branch over the years.

Ain't gonna happen. If they took back the power they would have to actually work. No effing way, it would eat into grandstanding time on the T and V.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Blame congress for "Deep State". Congress relinquished most of its power to agency bureaucrats and presidential executive orders (fiats) years ago.
"Some" is the correct word.

It’s an all of government problem. Congress certainty plays a role by avoiding hard choices. SCOTUS’ Chevron decision was correct but its reasoning was flawed because SCOTUS has a tendency to say more than necessary to decide a particular dispute. Of course the administrative agencies love to grab more power and authority. Finally we have the rent seekers, special domestic and foreign interests, and various grifters who know which relatives of which officials to shower with gifts, money, and do-nothing jobs to get what they want whether it’s a clause in new legislation, an agency interpretation, or sole-source consulting contract. Overlaying all of this is the relatively recent phenomenon of agency employees abusing their power and authority to further political or social justice agendas.

This deep state is a huge problem.

 

[All4You]

Congress needs to get it's shit together and take back a bunch of the power it's ceded to the executive branch over the years.

Ain't gonna happen. If they took back the power they would have to actually work. No effing way, it would eat into grandstanding time on the T and V.

Exactly...they don't want that back, because it comes with accountability.

 

[BradStevens]

What if the size of our country, the size of our govt., technology, etc. have made it so that we can't really legislate every single rule on every law efficiently enough and instead we need something like an administrative state to manage it all?

Our system, businesses, etc. have grown accustomed to, and evolved to handle, the administrative state. Beware unintended consequences and Chesterton's fence.

 

[twenty02]

What if the size of our country, the size of our govt., technology, etc. have made it so that we can't really legislate every single rule on every law efficiently enough and instead we need something like an administrative state to manage it all?

Our system, businesses, etc. have grown accustomed to, and evolved to handle, the administrative state. Beware unintended consequences and Chesteron's fence.

When the country was founded there was a House Rep for every 37k citizens. It was expanded every census until 1929.

Now it's an average of something like 750k per Rep....some districts are closer to 1m. If the House were the same proportion as in the early days there would be 9,000 House Reps.

 

[IUCrazy2]

When the country was founded there was a House Rep for every 37k citizens. It was expanded every census until 1929.

Now it's an average of something like 750k per Rep....some districts are closer to 1m. If the House were the same proportion as in the early days there would be 9,000 House Reps.

Might be worthwhile to look into expansion. Definitely decreases the power that any individual House Rep would have....although it probably makes the committee chairs that much more powerful, so not sure how that balances out.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What if the size of our country, the size of our govt., technology, etc. have made it so that we can't really legislate every single rule on every law efficiently enough and instead we need something like an administrative state to manage it all?

Our system, businesses, etc. have grown accustomed to, and evolved to handle, the administrative state. Beware unintended consequences and Chesteron's fence.

No doubt we need an administrative function in government. We absolutely need agencies to manage governmental activities. And as the needs of the population grows, we need more managers.

This notion is far different from the myriad of problems caused by the deep state as I tried to explain in #6. The administrative function of government has morphed into a huge unaccountable force in its own right. It places heavy burdens on itself, state and local governments, and the private sector. The economic waste from duplicating functions, the nit-picking regs, and the compliance costs is significant.

I agree businesses have adapted to this state of affairs— large businesses. Lord knows they spend billions on lobbyists and influencers to deal with government. Small businesses is where the problems are. This kind of bureaucracy stifles innovation and commerce. Even China figured this out when it established free enterprise zones for capitalist endeavors.

Chesterton’s fence is an inapt analogy. An old fence should not be given a presumption of usefulness in solving current problems. Better is a fresh look at the situation and determine whether the fence is a good idea. Resting thinking on “fence assumptions” or any assumptions inhibits creativity and innovation.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

When the country was founded there was a House Rep for every 37k citizens. It was expanded every census until 1929.

Now it's an average of something like 750k per Rep....some districts are closer to 1m. If the House were the same proportion as in the early days there would be 9,000 House Reps.

We have taken up the problem with congressional staff, committee staff, subcommittee staff, select committee staff, and consultants. The members don’t really do all that much work. Do you really think they even look at even a portion of a thousand page bill? The actual members don’t do much except raise funds, posture for the public, and campaign.

 

[twenty02]

Might be worthwhile to look into expansion. Definitely decreases the power that any individual House Rep would have....although it probably makes the committee chairs that much more powerful, so not sure how that balances out.

There are some recent proposals out to expand it to like 600.

 

[twenty02]

We have taken up the problem with congressional staff, committee staff, subcommittee staff, select committee staff, and consultants. The members don’t really do all that much work. Do you really think they even look at even a portion of a thousand page bill? The actual members don’t do much except raise funds, posture for the public, and campaign.

I think it varies a lot by member. Some Reps do a lot of work and are very involved. But yes the different staffs do all the grunt work. You also get frustrated members like Victoria Spartz who wanted to be very involved with House Ways and Means and got shut out. So she basically quit the Caucus

 

[twenty02]

Might be worthwhile to look into expansion. Definitely decreases the power that any individual House Rep would have....although it probably makes the committee chairs that much more powerful, so not sure how that balances out.

And fortunately we've already got a design template for a future House of Rep...

 

[TomEric4756]

C’mon man. We all know this kind of deep state administrative abuse doesn’t exist. People on this forum frequently say so because the deep/administrative/unaccountable/ regulatory state doesn’t have a single leader or an established chain of command.

Seriously, I think the Supreme Court Court is primed to take a long overdue wrecking ball to the deep state. Overruling Chevron and restoring due process in adjudications are just for openers. The Administrative state’s overreach has been an increasing problem for decades which was made significantly worse under Obama and Biden. Trump and his administration didn’t know what to do last time, now I think he has some excellent cabinet secretaries and agency heads who know exactly how to swing the wrecking ball.

Yes too many regulations are being foisted upon the public with inadequate authority in pursuit of agendas that the public didn’t think they voted for. Sunsetting ICE powered vehicles is a well discussed example. SEC board room directives, outside fiduciary obligations are another.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think it varies a lot by member. Some Reps do a lot of work and are very involved. But yes the different staffs do all the grunt work. You also get frustrated members like Victoria Spartz who wanted to be very involved with House Ways and Means and got shut out. So she basically quit the Caucus

Agree the situation varies a lot by member. But some of the problems are baked in and members have little control over. If you don’t toe the party line, leadership will limit campaign funds and put you on low visibility committees.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

C’mon man. We all know this kind of deep state administrative abuse doesn’t exist. People on this forum frequently say so because the deep/administrative/unaccountable/ regulatory state doesn’t have a single leader or an established chain of command.

Seriously, I think the Supreme Court Court is primed to take a long overdue wrecking ball to the deep state. Overruling Chevron and restoring due process in adjudications are just for openers. The Administrative state’s overreach has been an increasing problem for decades which was made significantly worse under Obama and Biden. Trump and his administration didn’t know what to do last time, now I think he has some excellent cabinet secretaries and agency heads who know exactly how to swing the wrecking ball.

You’re referring to me and that is not what I said or meant and it’s disappointing you’d say it is. I even liked the post you replied to. I said “deep state” isn’t an entity with an organization and leadership. We agreed on that. We agreed over regulation is a problem and needs to be addressed and elimated when possible.

The problem is that when many use Deep State they are thinking about an actual organization of Democratic federal workers led by Democrats for Democrats and against Republicans. This is harmful thinking and why I say the Deep State as an entity does not exist because it does not.

 

[IUCrazy2]

And fortunately we've already got a design template for a future House of Rep...

Well the cool light saber battle in that room every few years to determine who runs the Senate will be fun for us.

 

[BradStevens]

And fortunately we've already got a design template for a future House of Rep...

Worst. Movie. Ever.

 

[hookyIU1990]

Worst. Movie. Ever.

 

[BradStevens]

I agree businesses have adapted to this state of affairs— large businesses. Lord knows they spend billions on lobbyists and influencers to deal with government. Small businesses is where the problems are. This kind of bureaucracy stifles innovation and commerce. Even China figured this out when it established free enterprise zones for capitalist endeavors.

Waste is always a problem. But I think you are vastly overselling the "stifling" going on here. Every economic analysis I've seen, has the US far ahead of China in terms of innovation.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-worlds-most-innovative-countries-in-2024/#:~:text=For%20the%2014th%20consecutive%20year,the%20world's%20most%20innovative%20country.&text=%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B8%20U.S.&text=Similar%20to%20last%20year%2C%20the,third%20place%20in%20the%20GII.

The U.S. has ten of the top 15 most innovative corporations in the world:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/21-most-innovative-countries-world-213910539.html

U.S. companies' market cap account for 65% of the world's total market cap:

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/07/top-100-companies-usa-china-money-capital-market/

 

[hookyIU1990]

Waste is always a problem. But I think you are vastly overselling the "stifling" going on here. Every economic analysis I've seen, has the US far ahead of China in terms of innovation.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-worlds-most-innovative-countries-in-2024/#:~:text=For%20the%2014th%20consecutive%20year,the%20world's%20most%20innovative%20country.&text=%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B8%20U.S.&text=Similar%20to%20last%20year%2C%20the,third%20place%20in%20the%20GII.

The U.S. has ten of the top 15 most innovative corporations in the world:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/21-most-innovative-countries-world-213910539.html

U.S. companies' market cap account for 65% of the world's total market cap:

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/07/top-100-companies-usa-china-money-capital-market/

What does any of that have to do with small business?