Who Really Governs You?
A few weeks ago we had a terrific discussion on the site about our wish list of fundamental reforms to the federal government. Several of you rightly noted the need to recalibrate Washington by shifting the ever-growing power of the administrative state back to our elected officials. A lecture by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Moffit, transcribed in the newest digest from Heritage's Center for Policy Innovation (links to a PDF) underscores just how severe the problem has become:
Since president Obama took office in 2009, federal agencies issued 106 major regulations with an annual additional cost to the economy of $46 billion. In 2010, economists with the Small Business Administration estimated that the total cost of America’s regulatory burden reached $1.75 trillion— more than twice what Americans pay in individual income taxes.
...
In 2010 alone, Congress enacted 217 bills that became law, but that same year, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules covering a wide variety of economic activities.
A bit of anecdotal background: my first job in politics was working as a staffer in the House Government Affairs Committee of the Tennessee General Assembly, one of the responsibilities of which was serving as the committee of first jurisdiction on changes or additions to the state's rules and regulations. Watching elected officials attempt to vet thousands of pages of highly technical bureaucratic minutiae in a single 45-minute committee hearing was enough to make anyone question whether representative democracy could coexist with the administrative state.
Generally, more than 99 percent of the regulations would pass, unremarked upon, by voice vote. The only exceptions would be narrow areas where a few savvy lobbyists had decided to make a stand (the final year I engaged in this exercise featured a showdown between representatives of the state's optometrists and opticians, the Hatfields and McCoys of eye care). The vast majority of state legislators gave no thought to the process beyond what an annoyance it was. In effect, the sheer scope of regulatory power made the idea of legislative oversight risible. Given the opportunity to defer to regulators, legislators would take the opportunity nearly every time. That's why the responsibility has to be placed squarely at the feet of elected officials.
At a certain point, the depth of the bureaucracy's reach -- and the dim prospects for reform -- make this problem seem too daunting to be tackled. But allow me to make a very simple suggestion for those who seek to make a difference as citizens rather than as politicians or pundits: tell your friends about it.
I'm consistently amazed at how few individuals -- even among the politically informed -- are aware that so much government power exists independent of laws passed by the Congress or signed by the President. And we miss some golden opportunities. How much of the fight over the Obama Administration's contraception mandate, for example, featured reference to the fact that the policy grew out of HHS fiat, not a law of the Congress? Some, but not enough.
I'm optimistic enough to believe that the American electorate -- regardless of individual ideology -- will bridle at the growth of the administrative state if they learn more about it. We may be a nation polarized on substantive policy matters, but -- apart from the progressive elite -- I doubt there's much of an appetite anywhere on the political spectrum for centralizing power in institutions in which the voice of the governed is advisory at best and dross at worst.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Who Really Governs You?
Troy Senik, Ed.:
Generally, more than 99 percent of the regulations would pass, unremarked upon, by voice vote. ... The vast majority of state legislators gave no thought to the process beyond what an annoyance it was. In effect, the sheer scope of regulatory power made the idea of legislative oversight risible.
At a certain point, that scope -- and the dim prospects for reform -- make this problem seem too daunting to be tackled.
Troy,I agree with your assessment of the basic problem. But how could an elected body of mostly lawyers possibly handle the vast scope of the job? It sounds like they just rubberstamped everything anyway.
If government had a severe reduction in its reach, maybe it could work.
Dec '10
Re: Who Really Governs You?
Anarchy and barbarism are not the alternative to the administrative state. However, with cultural degradation on its current trend, if we eliminate government we may end up with just that. (I just watched the UK with Murray, I guess it shows.)
Re: Who Really Governs You?
I agree completely, Mark, and hope that my post can't be read to indicate otherwise. There is no mechanism that would make this process viable. The answer in this case is not "good government" but less government.
[Note: I've actually added a few sentences to the post to make my point clearer. Sharp eye, Mark.]
Mark Wilson
Troy,I agree with your assessment of the basic problem. But how could an elected body of mostly lawyers possibly handle the vast scope of the job? It sounds like they just rubberstamped everything anyway.
If government had a severe reduction in its reach, maybe it could work. · 6 minutes ago
Feb '12
Re: Who Really Governs You?
As a complement to this excellent post, Troy, I recommend reading Michael Malbin's fine book, Unelected Representatives (still freshly relevant, only moreso, after thirty years) concerning the giant role of the many thousand staff members in lawmaking. (Since few have heard of the book - it was published in 1981 - I will mention that it was praised in a book review by Elliott Abrams in Commentary (subscription required).)
Although Prof. Malbin does not say so in the book, it is clear that once the federal government expanded its regulatory powers far beyond what was permitted by the Constitution, true representative government became impossible. There is simply no way that our 535 official legislative representatives could deal directly and personally with even 1/50th of it. But if the federal government could be returned - even halfway - to the role it played prior to FDR (and, ideally, Wilson), we may have again a representative government that is worthy of the words "representative" and "government."
Edited on April 12, 2012 at 7:18pmMar '11
Re: Who Really Governs You?
Yes and no. Obviously reducing the number of cookie jars the state reaches its hands into is the highest priority.
But, as Prawn noted above, unless you think the government should get out of building highways and bridges, or should stop regulating airspace and radio spectrum apportionment, there will always be a need for experts who are much more knowledgeable than elected officials on technical issues.
A small government can still be a bad government.
Re: Who Really Governs You?
You won't find any objection to that point from me, Mendel, nor I suspect from most of our members. I think the point is that there are areas where the necessity of government requires dealing with the frustrations and inefficiencies of the bureaucratic process, but, failing such necessity, it's better to get the government to either (a) mind its own business or (b) at least put the onus for decision-making on elected officials instead of unaccountable administrators.
Mendel
Yes and no. Obviously reducing the number of cookie jars the state reaches its hands into is the highest priority.
But, as Prawn noted above, unless you think the government should get out of building highways and bridges, or should stop regulating airspace and radio spectrum apportionment, there will always be a need for experts who are much more knowledgeable than elected officials on technical issues.
A small government can still be a bad government. · 2 minutes ago
Feb '12
Re: Who Really Governs You?
Troy Senik, Ed.: I agree completely, Mark, and hope that my post can't be read to indicate otherwise. There is no mechanism that would make this process viable. The answer in this case is not "good government" but less government.
Mark Wilson
Troy,I agree with your assessment of the basic problem. But how could an elected body of mostly lawyers possibly handle the vast scope of the job? It sounds like they just rubberstamped everything anyway.
If government had a severe reduction in its reach, maybe it could work.
I agree fully with both of you. One of the problems is that "administrative" or "regulatory" state sounds innocent. What's wrong with administering or regulating? But hiding behind that phrase is a great deal of German philosophy and social science that explicitly rejects limited government and the protection of individual rights, in favor of concentration of power in the hands of the few, removed from responsibility to the people and therefore supposedly disinterested. In a way, it's nothing more than a revival of aristocratic rule, something which most human beings seem to prefer today and historically.
Conservatives need more accurate words to describe the "administrative/regulatory" state.
Mar '11
Re: Who Really Governs You?
I certainly agree, and I think your anecdote is the best way to deal with the issue. Most Americans still have no idea how utterly absurd the sausage-making process is, and some real-life examples (like yours from Tennessee) might open some eyes to the reality behind our grade-school illusion of lawmaking.
Re: Who Really Governs You?
In private conversation I'm apt to refer to it as the "Non-consensual State." Given the other contexts in which the first part of that phrase is usually employed, it seems to drive the point home.
Leporello
Conservatives need more accurate words to describe the "administrative/regulatory" state. · 3 minutes ago
Feb '12
Re: Who Really Governs You?
Troy Senik, Ed.: In private conversation I'm apt to refer to it as the "Non-consensual State." Given the other contexts in which the first part of that phrase is usually employed, it seems to drive the point home.
Leporello
Conservatives need more accurate words to describe the "administrative/regulatory" state. · 3 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
1 minute ago
Yes, that might work. Or perhaps the "unrepresentative state" or "permanently unelected state." Government of the unelected, by the unelected, for the unelected.
I think of it as "the tyrannical state," but the use of the word tyranny is generally too strong for persuading people who aren't aware of the facts on this topic. "Apparatchik state" is probably too strong, too, although not misplaced.
Jan '11
Re: Who Really Governs You?
So, bring back the Articles of Confederation, then?
Feb '12
Re: Who Really Governs You?
Most people are not aware, as Troy said, of just how much of the country is run by unelected- and mostly untouchable (thanks to the Supreme Court) - bureaucrats in administrative agencies. But another point is crucial as well: a single administrative agency proposes and approves rules; enforces those rules; and judges those rules. Whereas the Constitution carefully divides and balances the three powers of government, administrative agencies concentrate all three together.
Nor is due process observed in the enforcement and judging (unless one has the money, time, energy, and imprudence to appeal to the normal courts - although even then those courts will usually show deference to the agency's interpretation). I have heard left-wing attorneys complain about the lack of due process. They never imagined that a government agency could subpoena information, take testimony, and impose a penalty without the typical protections granted in our civil and criminal courts.
Imagine it.
May '11
Re: Who Really Governs You?
I tried to confirm this on the net but failed, but I had heard a presedential historian once say that while Reagan was President he set a limit on the number of pages in the federal register and although the federal agencies tried to print smaller words they eventually decreased the number of new regulations. I was told that Bush senior thought that was stupid and rescended the rule but later reinstated it when the size of the register ballooned. I believe it has been growing with no effort to stop it since Clinton was elected.
Jun '10
Re: Who Really Governs You?
Tennessee, the state which made offending others illegal. It seems to me that prosecution for violating some ridiculous and obscure rule, that is, making a citizen a criminal, may be the only way to wake someone up to how really out of hand things have gotten. A rude form of education to say the least.
We need experts, we need administrators, we need politicians, but how do we control them? How do we keep them in line?
Jul '11
Re: Who Really Governs You?
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I think if they made tax filing deadline day and election day the same day or within the same week you would raise the awareness of the public of the waste that is the administrative state.
May '11
Re: Who Really Governs You?
GP, I was going to say that most people like filing their taxes because they get money back, but realized that those people file early unless they are really stupid, which most people who get money back are(I guess I repeat myself) so anyway I think your idea is a good one.