The fundamental challenge we're running into is that the real world has grown significantly in governable complexity and we've created an environment where *actual* experts are no longer trusted and every incentive we have is to tear down the experts that we *do* have who are telling us things we may not want to hear and replace them with cosplayers who *do* tell us what we want to hear, in an information environment where "do your own research" is seen as preferable to actual credentials signifying competency.
On this latter point, credentialing organizations deserve a large part of the blame for this as they made it their missions to pretend being professional sports teams and running their institutions like companies selling products - "The Customer Is ALWAYS Right!" - as opposed to serving as valid gatekeeping entities filtering out the kooks from the folks who know their stuff.
I'm expecting this to get MUCH worse before it gets any better. My only hope is that this fever snaps soon enough that we still have people around who remembers what a functional civil service was to help put some semblance of one back together.
Great comments on my pet peeve - Congress passing bills that leave the real lawmaking to bureaucrats. Presidents who sign such bills into law are equally to blame.
I do not believe you can show that many agency heads and commissioners, regardless of who appoints them, are experts in the field they are regulating. Chris Hanson who was selected to be NRC Director by Biden and later fired by Trump was a consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton and had a master's from Yale Divinity School and Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Studies from Valparaiso University. I would prefer RFKJr.
The Supreme Court has held that deference to the "expertise" of government bureaucracies is not automatic.
The solution to the dispute over executive powers should be meaningful congressional oversight and corrective legislation. Unfortunately, Congress has no expertise and hires very little of it into their staff of 30,000. Congressional hearings are nothing but a circus of insults, accusations, and making political points. Congress cannot even pass a balanced budget bill and stick to it.
I'm in 100% agreement with you that Congress should be making these laws.
One of the under-appreciated services that Congress has access to is its own Congressional Research Service[1]:
"The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a public policy research institute of the United States Congress. Operating within the Library of Congress, it works primarily and directly for members of Congress and their committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis. CRS is sometimes known as Congress's think tank due to its broad mandate of providing research and analysis on all matters relevant to national policymaking."
"CRS has roughly 600 employees, who have a wide variety of expertise and disciplines, including lawyers, economists, historians, political scientists, reference librarians, and scientists. In the 2023 fiscal year, it was appropriated a budget of roughly $133.6 million by Congress."
Something that might be a helpful reform is that when a bill is submitted for votes, the full transcript between CRS and the drafters becomes public as well. Legislators would not be required to consult with CRS when drafting their bills, but the lack of a CRS discussion might become a red flag that something hinky is in process and something is being pushed through without expert commentary or consideration.
You'd need to enact some safeguards as well, such as supermajorities required to tinker with CRS staffing and resources to try and keep it as independent and non-partisan as possible.
Yes, but it depends a lot on who influences the hiring for the CRS or any other government job. In my example above, I think Trump initially appointed Hanson to the NRC. He was influenced in that choice by someone who is not around for Trump's second administration. Different advisors make for different hires.
I like your suggestions about consulting with the CRS when drafting bills, but I feel it would be even more advantageous in the oversight arena. Bills should be as brief as possible to obtain the desired result. No single congress critter knows what is in a 1600-page bill. Oversight is where the effectiveness is determined.
Diversity on Congressional committees is also a good idea. Being from Texas doesn't give one an expert, objective view about oil refinery rules. More than likely, it would produce a view biased toward company profits and jobs for voters.
I might be mistaken but it appears from your link on the Epstein files that it's been less than two weeks (not 324 days) since the judge authorized release of the grand jury materials and that the Administration is in agreement. I hope the information is released soon but there are still misgivings about veracity of some of the accusations. Bill Shipley contends in one of his recent posts there will be no bombshells.
It's two different things, of course. YEs, the court should be involved in the release of the grand jury materials - but if POTUS wanted to release the gathered evidence as he stated he would, he could assumedly do so without the courts being involved.
The fundamental challenge we're running into is that the real world has grown significantly in governable complexity and we've created an environment where *actual* experts are no longer trusted and every incentive we have is to tear down the experts that we *do* have who are telling us things we may not want to hear and replace them with cosplayers who *do* tell us what we want to hear, in an information environment where "do your own research" is seen as preferable to actual credentials signifying competency.
On this latter point, credentialing organizations deserve a large part of the blame for this as they made it their missions to pretend being professional sports teams and running their institutions like companies selling products - "The Customer Is ALWAYS Right!" - as opposed to serving as valid gatekeeping entities filtering out the kooks from the folks who know their stuff.
I'm expecting this to get MUCH worse before it gets any better. My only hope is that this fever snaps soon enough that we still have people around who remembers what a functional civil service was to help put some semblance of one back together.
Great comments on my pet peeve - Congress passing bills that leave the real lawmaking to bureaucrats. Presidents who sign such bills into law are equally to blame.
I do not believe you can show that many agency heads and commissioners, regardless of who appoints them, are experts in the field they are regulating. Chris Hanson who was selected to be NRC Director by Biden and later fired by Trump was a consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton and had a master's from Yale Divinity School and Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Studies from Valparaiso University. I would prefer RFKJr.
The Supreme Court has held that deference to the "expertise" of government bureaucracies is not automatic.
The solution to the dispute over executive powers should be meaningful congressional oversight and corrective legislation. Unfortunately, Congress has no expertise and hires very little of it into their staff of 30,000. Congressional hearings are nothing but a circus of insults, accusations, and making political points. Congress cannot even pass a balanced budget bill and stick to it.
I'm in 100% agreement with you that Congress should be making these laws.
One of the under-appreciated services that Congress has access to is its own Congressional Research Service[1]:
"The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a public policy research institute of the United States Congress. Operating within the Library of Congress, it works primarily and directly for members of Congress and their committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis. CRS is sometimes known as Congress's think tank due to its broad mandate of providing research and analysis on all matters relevant to national policymaking."
"CRS has roughly 600 employees, who have a wide variety of expertise and disciplines, including lawyers, economists, historians, political scientists, reference librarians, and scientists. In the 2023 fiscal year, it was appropriated a budget of roughly $133.6 million by Congress."
Something that might be a helpful reform is that when a bill is submitted for votes, the full transcript between CRS and the drafters becomes public as well. Legislators would not be required to consult with CRS when drafting their bills, but the lack of a CRS discussion might become a red flag that something hinky is in process and something is being pushed through without expert commentary or consideration.
You'd need to enact some safeguards as well, such as supermajorities required to tinker with CRS staffing and resources to try and keep it as independent and non-partisan as possible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service
Yes, but it depends a lot on who influences the hiring for the CRS or any other government job. In my example above, I think Trump initially appointed Hanson to the NRC. He was influenced in that choice by someone who is not around for Trump's second administration. Different advisors make for different hires.
I like your suggestions about consulting with the CRS when drafting bills, but I feel it would be even more advantageous in the oversight arena. Bills should be as brief as possible to obtain the desired result. No single congress critter knows what is in a 1600-page bill. Oversight is where the effectiveness is determined.
Diversity on Congressional committees is also a good idea. Being from Texas doesn't give one an expert, objective view about oil refinery rules. More than likely, it would produce a view biased toward company profits and jobs for voters.
Nice to agree with you, Curtis!😃
I might be mistaken but it appears from your link on the Epstein files that it's been less than two weeks (not 324 days) since the judge authorized release of the grand jury materials and that the Administration is in agreement. I hope the information is released soon but there are still misgivings about veracity of some of the accusations. Bill Shipley contends in one of his recent posts there will be no bombshells.
https://open.substack.com/pub/shipwreckedcrew/p/there-will-be-no-bombshells-about?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
The 324 days is likely a reference to Trump stating he'd release them and the number of days he's been in office.
Agreed but I do think the court should be involved.
It's two different things, of course. YEs, the court should be involved in the release of the grand jury materials - but if POTUS wanted to release the gathered evidence as he stated he would, he could assumedly do so without the courts being involved.
Maybe, but would it be unfounded accusations and malicious innuendos rejected by the prosecutors?
No, it'd be evidence gathered during the investigation(s) - pictures, documents, etc....
If it is information presented to the grand jury and the judge has reviewed the documents and okays publication, the DOJ should release it.