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?

 

[DontComeAroundMuch]

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?

I hate to say Brad I find these kinds of bromides to be the height of hubris.

There is no level of technological advancement or population growth that warrants an abdication of constitutional duties and a breach of the social compact.

Once more, I think it is self-evident that the size and scope of our administrative state is almost entirely a matter of poor political philosophy brought about chiefly and firstly by Woodrow Wilson and those agencies self-preservation.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I hate to say Brad I find these kinds of bromides to be the height of hubris.

There is no level of technological advancement or population growth that warrants an abdication of constitutional duties and a breach of the social compact.

Once more, I think it is self-evident that the size and scope of our administrative state is almost entirely a matter of poor political philosophy brought about chiefly and firstly by Woodrow Wilson and those agencies self-preservation.

Father of public administration

 

[Univee2]

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/

Yeah, and Brad innovated a way to make all those Jersey drones disappear. Did China do that? Hell no!

Anybody notice that with Brad’s return from the Garden State that drone sightings have dropped to zero?

 

[DANC]

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.

Actually, no one thinks that and is just a constuct you use to deny there's a deep state.

 

[BradStevens]

I hate to say Brad I find these kinds of bromides to be the height of hubris.

There is no level of technological advancement or population growth that warrants an abdication of constitutional duties and a breach of the social compact.

Once more, I think it is self-evident that the size and scope of our administrative state is almost entirely a matter of poor political philosophy brought about chiefly and firstly by Woodrow Wilson and those agencies self-preservation.

None of that has anything to do with the theoretical correlation between the size of a nation and the complexity of its government or administrative apparatus. I'm guessing the same idea might hold true of any institution or organization.

Hubris has nothing to do with it.

 

[BradStevens]

Yeah, and Brad innovated a way to make all those Jersey drones disappear. Did China do that? Hell no!

Anybody notice that with Brad’s return from the Garden State that drone sightings have dropped to zero?

 

[BradStevens]

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

I'm pretty sure it's easier to start a small business here than most other places in the world.

 

[DontComeAroundMuch]

None of that has anything to do with the theoretical correlation between the size of a nation and the complexity of its government or administrative apparatus. I'm guessing the same idea might hold true of any institution or organization.

Hubris has nothing to do with it.

Hubris is exactly what it is. Hubris is what causes those to dress up the mundane as “complex”. Hubris is what calls for a regulation to address every single potential or real externality, because a market system couldn’t possibly flush those out itself. Hubris is what throws the founding vision in the dirt because the falutin’ political philosophy of the founders can’t possibly hold given the “complexity” of today.

No. That calls for technocrats and armies of administrators.

 

[BradStevens]

Hubris is exactly what it is. Hubris is what causes those to dress up the mundane as “complex”. Hubris is what calls for a regulation to address every single potential or real externality, because a market system couldn’t possibly flush those out itself. Hubris is what throws the founding vision in the dirt because the falutin’ political philosophy of the founders can’t possibly hold given the “complexity” of today.

No. That calls for technocrats and armies of administrators.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

One of my family's go to jokes:

 

[DANC]

I'm pretty sure it's easier to start a small business here than most other places in the world.

In the western world, maybe. It's only easier here because you can do it all online. There's still a shit-ton of admin stuff that has to be done. Kind of depends on what type of business.

 

[hookyIU1990]

I'm pretty sure it's easier to start a small business here than most other places in the world.

That means very little and isn't the point/argument. You can read articles penned across the last 3 administrations talking about regulations stifling the creation and/or growth of small businesses and the publications come from organizations that run the gamut of political leanings.

The regulatory regime in place is a barrier to entry for competition. That's why the big boys in nearly every industry segment lobby for and agree with more regulations.

 

[BradStevens]

That means very little and isn't the point/argument. You can read articles penned across the last 3 administrations talking about regulations stifling the creation and/or growth of small businesses and the publications come from organizations that run the gamut of political leanings.

The regulatory regime in place is a barrier to entry for competition. That's why the big boys in nearly every industry segment lobby for and agree with more regulations.

I get that. And I think we can streamline a lot of these more ridiculous regs. I'm just pushing back on the extent of that barrier to entry and the degree of streamlining.

Throwing out the entire administrative state--which is what some here seem to be arguing for--is going a little too far and isn't very realistic.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm pretty sure it's easier to start a small business here than most other places in the world.

I don’t think so. The undeveloped world is full of small businesses. Take a drive through the Navajo Nation and see the regulation-free businesses all over.

 

[hookyIU1990]

I get that. And I think we can streamline a lot of these more ridiculous regs. I'm just pushing back on the extent of that barrier to entry and the degree of streamlining.

Throwing out the entire administrative state--which is what some here seem to be arguing for--is going a little too far and isn't very realistic.

Well, I'm not arguing that we throw out the entire administrative state. We need to clean up the garbage on the books now and there needs to be a way to write legislation that is clearer and more targeted, while also enforcing some sort of oversight on the regs being written after the legislation is signed into law.

The current model seems to be push the envelope and throw as much against the wall as possible, because some of it will stick.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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/

Country rankings all over the place.

This one ranks the United States 12th in world competitiveness. A decade or so ago we were always among the top 5. The disgusting part about this ranking is our 34th position in the quality of government metrics. We should be at or near the top.

WCR-Rankings - IMD business school for management and leadership courses

World Competitiveness Ranking

www.imd.org

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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.

That definitely is part of the problem.

See Lois Lerner and the IRS dude who leaked data about those who supported the wrong side on California’s gay referendum years ago.

There is no doubt Garland and others in the DOJ targeted conservatives for enforcement.

51 intelligence officials including some current ones.

Trump lawfare.

The rigged and showy select J6 committee. Cheney committed ethical violations and is being investigated for suborning perjury.

I could go on. The point is that thousands of democrats and media types destroyed very important protocols and norms, and in some cases violated the law, to get Trump. Those people should pay a price because we are all worse off because of them. The damage is irreparable.