|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/2/2013 3:52:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Something else written by the author here:
quote:
In summary, Congress has become a
major player in the administrative state
precisely by surrendering its constitutional
purpose and ceasing to defend
limited government. As a result, the
administrative state has grown dramatically
since 1965, and it only continues
to defend and expand its turf. Political
opposition occasionally arises in the
White House or in Congress, but thus far
with little effect.
He seems to be portraying Congress as some sort independent entity, as if it's supposed to be untouched by politics and that their role to defend limited government is specifically defined and outlined.
The thing is, neither party defends limited government as a matter of ideology or based on Constitutional principles. Conservatives often claim to want "limited government," but only in the areas of taxes, social programs, and regulations on business and commerce. But when it comes to national defense, the intelligence community, and law enforcement apparatus, they reverse their principles and suddenly want an all-powerful central government. But I don't see how they can have it both ways. You can't advocate an all-powerful central government in one department and not expect it to apply to other departments too.
That's always been the fatal flaw for those who demand "limited government," since they don't really want limited government, not as a matter of ideology or principle, since they do not support that principle consistently across the board.
Therein lies the rub, though. While some see "limited" government in some areas and "unlimited" government in other areas, there can be an argument made that the "unlimited" parts of government can be those parts that have their authorities from the Constitution. Taxes will take care of themselves, and no one is really opposed to paying taxes for those things they see as right. While everyone has the right to his or her opinion as to what the US government is allowed to do, there is a test for that. If it's an authority granted by the US Constitution, and the US Government chooses to use that authority, it will have to be paid for by taxes, regardless of whether or not you want the Feds to be using their authority in that manner. So, as long as a person is accepting of the Fed's actions as Constitutionally authorized, that person will, generally, accept that taxes will have to be raised to pay for it. It's when the Government is seen as acting outside the authorities granted in the Constitution, that most people start to balk at paying taxes, or having their taxes raised.
quote:
I agree with the author's criticisms of Congress, although I would say the problems are within the major political parties which are also centralized with their national committees on top of their respective hierarchies. It should be no surprise that they operate the federal government in the same way they operate their own parties. On paper, Congress may have the most power, but as individual politicians, each member has the least power when compared to the bigger fish in Washington. Members of the House have to run for re-election every 2 years, so they're in the most vulnerable position, as politicians. The only ones with any sort of power are those with a lot of tenure, who have been in for 15-20+ years and become senior members on key committees.
It's really kind of astonishing that Congress is able to get anything done at all, what with 535 different personalities from different walks of life, different regions of the country, different political parties, different ideologies - and all of them ostensibly politically ambitious and savvy enough to get there in the first place, and no doubt with big egos and a puffed-up sense of self-importance, too.
I think that Congress could do a better job. I think just about everyone agrees on that, even Congress itself. But if Congress is doing a crappy job, what does that say about the people who elect them? If Congress is failing its Constitutional purpose (as the author sees it), then why shouldn't anyone expect the same from those portions of government which are unelected by the people?
We, the People, elect Congress. It's the one branch of government where the People have the most direct control, and this is what we do with it? These are the people we elect? If we can't do much with what little power we have to change our government, then not much is going to change.
We also elect the President, but that's just one person we elect to be in charge of the entire Executive Branch of government, but how can one person run that humongous organization all by himself? It might have been easier when government was smaller, but now, they need to have whole departments within the EOP just to help the President run the government.
Marini wrote:quote:
In America, the administrative state traces its origins to the Progressive movement. Inspired by the theories of the German political philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Progressives like Woodrow Wilson believed that the erection of the modern state marked an “end of History,” a point at which there is no longer any need for conflict over fundamental principles. Politics at this point would give way to administration, and administration becomes the domain not of partisans, but of neutral and highly-trained experts.
That places the beginnings of the administrative state around 1920. It wasn't until 1965 or so, that Congress started to "join in the fun," and the administrative state really started to grow very quickly. The way I read it, up until the mid-1960's, Congress had resisted the Administrative State and was more aligned with "limited government."
Even though Joether doesn't get it, Marini's example of Obamacare is spot on. The Administrative State removes things from the shoulders of Congress, so to insulate it from the voters, to an extent. Unelected officials are starting to call the shots. The EPA can make standards and rules that can have massive impacts on our daily lives, and we didn't elect them, so we can't get rid of them. We have so many Departments that are full of appointments that our elected officials are barely in control anymore.
This is what I think Marini meant with this article.
|
|
|
|
