Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Time to Pounce, Republicans!
Donald Trump is officially certified as the winner of the Electoral College. For the first time since 1988, no Democrat objected to a Republican election win. Clearly they are demoralized. The time is right, and it won’t last long. Sink your claws into your favorite issue and start writing, talking and posting about it. Pounce on your Congressvole and make sure he/she/it doesn’t obstruct what needs to be done. We have a huge mess to clean up.
One of the best things about DOGE is that it expires automatically. That’s enough to make me forgive the canine acronym. All agencies should have a built-in review date after which they either prove their worth or self-destruct. I would like to see a third House that would review all laws and recertify or eliminate them after a decade or two. I know those things are impossible, but I can dream. I would love to have Jim Geraghty’s delightfully funny book, The Weed Agency, go back to being fiction.
Published in General
I think that the way the separation of powers in the Constitution works is this.
Agencies are created, funded, and eliminated by Congress. They exist for the sole purpose of executing laws created by Congress. Congress only eliminates an agency when it repeals the statutes and appropriations that authorize it to act and spend money (or reassigns all its functions.)
Your and many other comments currently circulating about reforming Government are perhaps based on confusing the powers of the President with those of the executives of a private company, who do perform the kinds of functions you are thinking of.
At least so far, it fortunately seems that only one district has an “it” for their congressvole.
A big part of the problem is that Congress sometimes punts on details or controversial provisions and leaves it to the agency to decide what the law means. That implicit deference was echoed in the Chevron decision in 1984. The current SCOTUS recognized that was out-of-whack and had created virtually runaway administrative power.
Congress has always had the power to defund agency overreach but rarely does so. Budgets just keep growing. If the Trump administration presents proposed budgets that pare back specifically identified spending and thus puts the onus on Congress to put items back in (making some specifics more transparent) we might see a new paradigm, a new mindset that can put us back on the right path even without extensive repeals.
We have to start somewhere and Congress would be an impossible place for any success in restraining the budget.
Doug I admire your enthusiasm, however as a resident of Maryland they have not even given me the curtsy of a “go away” email reply to any of the previous complaints I have sent to them. I don’t even rate a blow off message from the summer intern stuck doing constituent complains.
They know my affiliation and treat me accordingly.
Or is it a reference to the republican limited governments of Italian city states like Venice and Florence?
;-)
A Weed Agency reference. I blurbed Weed Agency this week on Epoch Times. What are the odds we would both be thinking of it?
A delightful book. Painfully accurate.
I have a signed copy by the author. One of the few pluses to living around the DC area…
I got mine signed on an elevator on the Post-Election NR Cruise after the first Trump win.
Thanks to my experience as a CompuServe content provider as well as a Gummint contractor, I lived most of the book, and I think “hilariously accurate” sums it up.
Darn you just devalued my copy from Jim. 😉
So does neutral observer. Must be from the same cruise . . .
I remember reading or hearing someone suggest that all laws and regulations have an expiration date. This would force Congress to 1) reduce the overall number so they don’t spend 24/7 reviewing and approving (or not voting for) laws and regs, and 2) provides cover for politicians too timid to take a stand (they can simply let something expire) . . .
Dang, wish I had known NO was there. My daughter Valerie persuaded me to take the cruise, and I enjoyed it greatly thanks to her. I am generally too reticent to go around introducing myself or buttonholing people, and she continually did the “My dad wants to meet you!” dance. We had a very pleasant chat with John Yoo, who lit up when Valerie mentioned that she was a champion debater. Fascinating man, and a real master at putting people at ease.
I think it was from a RAH novel, the suggestion that we amend the Constitution and create a third House who would review all laws after a set period. I like the idea of automatically sunsetting all laws if they are not re-examined, to see if the times have changed to make them inappropriate, or if they actually, ya know, worked.
Yoo is a riot! We said “hi” to him one time when he brought his mom along for the cruise. We’d often see him in the casino, probably trying to win some cash to buy McRibs when the ship docked . . .
Congress has always been willing to trim DoD programs by reducing or clawing back monies. If only they would do the same to executive departments that trample on our rights.
What are the odds that Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy have read it? One can hope.
We were on the same cruise! Nieuw Amsterdam.
Dang, another missed opportunity. I’m going to have to do something about meeting people in the real world, before I get too old to want to stir out of the house (which will happen some time next week, probably).
Red,
I think maybe you did not think this idea through carefully before you wrote it, because it reminds me of the Parable of the Foolish Head Gardener.
I will try to find a copy of the parable in my files.
If you read it and you happen to decide that it applies, you may want to tweak the above idea.
I look forward to the improved version.
We had a ricochet meetup going on and didn’t know it. “Fred C Dobbs” and Erika, GLDIII and Linda, Stad and NO, two Herrings, Charles CW Cooke, James Lileks, and you two. (And I suspect another couple but won’t give out real names) You would be a lot more comfortable going now that we ricochet folks join up.
I have lived the real version. I made a new name plate after one frustrating Friday. They grew the executive branch agencies into monsters to devour us while shrinking the military that defends us.
L
I will add you to the list of folks I will notify the next time I sniff out a NR cruise before it goes public. Age doesn’t matter since the ship will feed you, do your dishes, make your bed, clean your room, and chauffeur you from place to place. For $50-$60, it will do all your laundry so you can get by with one checked bag. Geraghty usually cruises and is fun to talk to. Ditto all ricochet folks, too.
Chortling Out Loud!
It seems I don’t need to find the Parable of the Foolish Head Gardener (which is sometimes called the Parable of the Enthusiastic Director of Lawnboy Disciplinary Operations, 2nd Let’s-Just-Drain-Their-Lawnmower-Gas-Tanks-That’ll-Teach-‘Em Regiment) after all.
The real power in Congress lies with career staffers. They are part of the “deep state.”
Yes, yes, yes! That’s where cuts need to be made.
I caught him at CPAC at the National Harbor literally before the world closed down for the WuFlu hoax.
Perhaps being director of Eliminations, especially if you choose your targets would be more emotionally satisfying.
Ok I’ll stop now before I get wack for dragging the post too far off topic.
@Reticulator,
The sole purpose of career staffers is to do the research and other detailed administrative work required by the legislator to make informed decisions in support of the legislator’s goals.
Are you saying that more of them are retained than needed to do that job?
If so*, then yes, absolutely!
Headcount reductions are called for, to save a few bucks on staff salaries and other per-employee costs.
* * *
*Note:
If not, then to me this seems like a bad idea. Like removing a lung and a half, to cure a brain tumor that is causing self-destructive violent episodes.
It would do nothing to fix the problem in the brain.
And it would reduce the ability of the brain, which needs oxygen from the lungs, to do its job even more.