Replies

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

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.

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.

But that's the whole problem; the underlying statutes grant far more power than is initially perceived and are written in such a way that they can be easily abused. GCA'68 assumed 12 guage shotguns would be legal, as the legislation mentions their suitability for sporting purposes. Under Clinton, treasury secretary Bensen was able to make some of those shotguns illegal simply by declaring, and publishing the ruling in the Federal Register, that they were not suitable for sporting purposes. Similarly, the proposed tax legislation allows a government "prebate" check to be sent to every household in the U.S., with the only limit on the amount of that handout being a number based on the "poverty level". But since the "poverty level" is based on a number that is itself subject to bureaucratic manipulation under other, pre-existing statutes, the proposed legislation gives far more power than it would initially seem.

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

In the case of Bensen's misdeeds, the challenges (which were many) were futile. In the case of the HIPAA regulations, the challenges (and the associated great deal of effort in those challenges) were futile. We "howled", as did many other businesses and organizations. The effort accomplished nothing, and the Bush administration decided to implement the same stupid, oppressive rules that were drafted by the Clinton administration. Government isn't anywhere near as responsive as you might believe unless there is a strong political advantage in their being so.

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.

Congress is not sufficiently concerned about delegating power to bureaucracies, since they know they can reclaim it if they desire to do so. But history shows that they are quite content to allow bureaucracies to misuse their delegated power when it serves their purposes, since it allows a "third party" to be blamed for the misdeed rather than the ones really responsible (and just because the current congress might not be in the mood to allow them to use it as an instrument of socialism is no guarantee that a future congress might be composed of far more leftist individuals who would be more than willing to allow them to do so). In truth, the real villain behind Bensen's shotgun ban was not the Clinton administration, but the Congress of 1968 which passed the legislation (providing essentially unchecked power to the treasury department in the relevant matter) in the first place.