Replies

Doesn't really matter, one court case seeking administrative remedy in the nature of an injuction, and removal of obvious erroneous number and it replacement with proper statistical value is all it takes to put the crunch on your concocted scenario.

Unfortunately, the courts are an inadequate guarantor of liberty. First, the federal government can't be sued unless it gives you permission to sue it, and second (as a practical example), the exact same types of abuses of administrative authority that have occurred in the past have not been able to be corrected through the courts (once again, Bensen's banning of some shotguns is a great example of this failing of the system).

Your scenarios are merely speculative and have little to recomend them or even suggest a rational basis in view of historical processes and modes in the publication and implementation of statute sensitive statistics

Of course the scenario is only speculative; since the particular power (the handouts, not the ability to manipulate the poverty level) being described has not yet been given to the bureaucracy. But if it does, I have no doubt that it will ultimately be abused. Perhaps that makes me paranoid (or more accurately, just pessimistic), but the continual abuse of government power that has been seen in the past is strongly suggestive that any such future powers granted to the bureaucracy will be equally abused if given enough time. I would prefer to simply not give that power to government in the first place, at least not without more significant checks on that power than are already in place or have been proposed.

Now if Congress were to enact such a gross change in methodology to specifcally implement such shenannigans that would be another matter another matter, but we are subject to that right now so your imaginative worries mean nothing through extension onto a new statute. The statutes are subject to legislative change now an can modify the current law to achieve severe magnitude changes in tax law now without risking the least in challenges before the courts

That, too, concerns me, but not as much as placing that power in the hands of an unelected bureaucracy. If provided with the choice, I would certainly prefer to limit government (at the federal level at least) to those items explicitly granted in the Constitution (the enumeration in article 1, secion 8, etc.). But since only I and a few other "tin-foil paranoids" are the only ones who still believe the federal government should be limited that way, I am stuck with accepting the status-quo of Congressional power. But that isn't an excuse for granting a bureaucracy similar unchecked power.

But that isn't an excuse for granting a bureaucracy similar unchecked power.

Bureaucracy, contrary to the unimformed opinion of some, is not granted such power. It is true the bureaucracy can propose regulations within the scope of statute. However they are severely limited to stay with the underlying statute upon which they must rely. All proposals are subject to extensive interdepartmental and department reviews, Congressional review, and ultimately subject to Court challenge of authority and scope of all regulations.

If no one challenges, obviously a regulation will stand, but in the gross instances you have served up challenge would be certain and swift from political factions, business and financial organizations, individuals and howls all across the spectum.

Congress for one does not simply ignore what going on, the may not act to thwart any particular proposed regulation coming up from the bureaucracy, but that is because they are essentially in unanimous agreement that the regulation is within their intent not for lack of concern.

Contrary to some apparent rumor you may have heard, even Congress is jeolous of its authority and perogative to challenge the proposals of upstart bureaucrats or executives. If a regulation does not meet intent and expectations of Congress, Congress & even Presidents have and very swiftly do act to slap down the proposals of uppity bureaucrats.