If a President removed departments and reorganized titles, it would quickly become impossible for congressional committees to know who to call to testify and exercise their oversight -- it would become basically impossible to discover how money was being spent and if the executive was enforcing laws.
While you're making a logical argument, allow me to point you to the content of the many replies I've received. They're all saying that government is essentially accountable to no one. You're saying they're accountable to Congress, and I say they're accountable to the President. Maybe it's a mix of both, but I'm still entirely confident that the course of action could yield the desired result.
Reducing the deficit without raising taxes will require decisions to be made, and most of the people in the Tea Party have a lot to lose from reductions in federal spending. Will the Tea Party support its candidates even if they must cut their benefits? That's the question.
The question has been raised and answered. The answer, inarguably, is 'yes'. Truly, the only thing the various factions have in common is 'less Federal government'. They aren't progressives, they're conservatives. They are not likely to advocate for special treatment for special circumstances. They're far and away more likely to press for things like a flat tax. Look it up.
You can't even bring yourself to say their name. Republicans.
That's because that label doesn't really mean anything. 'Republicans' as we've seen in the Bush era are essentially just jingoistic Democrats. You cite Lincoln, who was easily the least conservative Republican, well, ever. I'm thinking more like Regan, myself. But even his vision was co-opted by the NeoCons, who took the party in a completely different direction.
There are varying ideologies under that big Red tent, and they typically have all united under a single cause. This is changing. The Republican party is fracturing at it's base, if for no other reason than they simply cannot provide what they offer. Maybe they never intended to do so, but I think 2008 showed us what could have been, and it started something important.
The Tea Party will take over the GOP just in time to discover that its entire funding apparatus has been hollowed out.
'The Tea Party' isn't one group, but many. And the sentiment, as you're well aware if you've followed any of this discussion at all, began FAR before that term was ever coined. It makes a fine label, but there are a great many people who support the ideals of a truly conservative government. Few of them are bound to support Rove in any fashion.
The funding needed for these efforts will be provided by the individual people. Further, the proof will be in the pudding. People are angry, and their anger is getting them involved in a way that flashy commercials simply can't smooth over.
FWIW, I so zero evidence that any member or cadre of the Republican Party is anti-war, even the Tea Party.
Well, perhaps you should open your eyes a bit. There's still a strong NeoCon influence, to be sure, but the ideology that we simply cannot afford to continue in this manner is taking over. They might not be ideologically opposed to using weapons to get what we want, and perhaps this is what you're hoping to see in order to meet your criteria. Likewise, none of the current sentiment includes drenching anyone in pigs blood. However, bankrupting the United States in favor of endless Arab war is also not a position you're likely to see anywhere outside of the old Republican guard.
Things are changing. I'd be surprised you hadn't noticed, except you've apparently bought the media spin about all these people being morons fit to be mocked. Certainly some are. You'll find those in any group. But the undercurrent here is greater than that, and is indeed greater than those who 'started
You're really heavy on detail, but really light on substance.
Congress created the "Department of X" via a law. You are proposing the president eliminate said department, thus violating that law.
So if none of those employees show up for work, someone goes to jail? I'd be shocked to learn this was true. Besides, a reasonable number of these departments are created by Presidential fiat, without Congressional oversight at all. I have no doubt that laws allowing these positions to exist have been passed, but I see little in them requiring that they exist.
I've already said that I highly doubt the people would support such legislative and/or judicial prevention even if such laws did exist. You're ignoring that, which is your choice.
Once again, wrong. Impeachment is only step 1. The House of Representatives can impeach the president. Then the case moves to the Senate, where a trial is held. If 2/3rds of the senators vote to convict, he's out of office and replaced with the vice president.
Indeed. I said that already. However, the conviction would need to be within the bounds of the law, and I highly doubt that anything I've advocated would meet the definition of a 'crime' nor a 'misdemeanor'.
And again, again, I'm proposing that this happen with the support of the electorate. And I believe that this day is coming. Shortly.
Bullshit. If it was easy it would have already been done. People in power will use any powers they have. If it were so easy to fire people and otherwise shape the federal bureaucracy it would be done.
You're ignoring the single-party system that has been ruling every body of our government for the last several decades. Why?
I believe the States can provide the people what they need. Congress has systematically been weakening the States to prevent this, but it doesn't have to remain that way by any natural construction.
If you elected enough people who reject the idea of turtle fences and the like, you'd see it change in a hurry.
BUT IT WON'T END THE WAR. All of his replacements in the Republican party are pledged to continue it. And spread it to Iran, for that matter.
You ought to look into the Red Team's movements lately. You're thinking of McCains GOP, which is roughly half of what's relevant today.
Read this slowly
Why is you expect me to 'slowly' read your statements , and you're not even pausing for a moment to try and comprehend mine? Isn't that a tad tedious?
People like their wars and social security and medicare just fine, and when you propose something that reduces the deficit, it's a "death panel" or it "hurts seniors" or it "hurts the troops."
I gotcha. Let's not discuss any particular topics here. Let's just bash the Tea Party, because 'easy' is a more fun than 'thinking'! Woo hoooo!!!
Assume you're right and everyone in the Tea Party is a Nazi Closet Lesbian Racist Con-artist. They're changing what the Red Team does and says, permanently. You ought to take small breaks from your 'enlightened' bigotry and contemplate what the political road-map will look like going forward.
The judicial branch can forbid the actions in court rulings, since they're illegal.
You haven't demonstrated which laws would be violated in any of the above examples. Further, lots of things are illegal, like sodomy, which by the way occurred in the Oval Office itself, and no one cared.
The legislative branch can remove the president from office.
If, and only if, he commits a crime or otherwise meets the strict qualifications under the Constitution. They could impeach him, but he'd still be in office.
1A) Do you have any idea how much was left behind during the evacuation of Vietnam?
2A) Again with the 'some good' argument. If the people want that particular 'good', let them petition their State for it. That's the design, after all.
3A) I already addressed all these points. So long as the people actually want the change, they'll never, ever support the whiners crying in favor of porkulus. But you are correct that this could require an Executive with principles enough not to fear impeachment due to public opinion. I realize this would be rare in Washington, but it could in fact exist.
He could do that. Afghanistan and Iraq would collapse into civil war
Or he could not do that, and Afghanistan and Iraq would collapse into civil war. Point?
Until the people of themselves are ready to rebel, we have no business pouring money down that hole.
He could do that. Of course there are few agencies that anyone wants to completely destroy.
My greatest sadness regarding civics today is that everyone forgets about the other civil authorities that could handle these needs if the Federal government would just get the hell out of the way. We're designed to be a UNION of STATES. Look it up. Seriously.
You're aware that Congress has a number of powers to prevent this right?
Obama has demonstrated that he can ram a multi-thousand-page bill that no one has read, no one wants, and no one will be happy about right down the throats of Congress. I think it is you who is unclear about the balance of power up there. At any rate, nothing vetoed passes without monumental agreement, and that doesn't seem to exist. If it did, I suspect that people would be in favor of the reduction, rather than the bureaucracy.
It would be easy for Obama to end the war at the cost of his presidency, of course, but why bother when your replacement will be an ultra-hawk Republican who will simply re-escalate?
Because it is the principled thing to do? Because it would net trillions of dollars in savings? Because it wasn't sunny enough to play basketball that day???
Congress will attempt the fund the department through omnibus legislation.
If the people don't want porkulus, though, that becomes very difficult.
There is no evidence that people really want to eliminate the deficit. The deficit is a fundamentally popular institution and people would never vote someone out of office for increasing it.
Perhaps you've heard of this little group called the 'Tea Party'? Your comment would have be rather true five or so years ago, but to claim that the people don't actually want what they're actually campaigning for is a bit Platonic, is it not?
And deficit reformers, instead of actually trying to win the argument on the merits and win elections, propose ever more dictatorial powers for their great white hope, that one man who will, Cincinnatus-like, ride to the rescue of America, use untrammeled king-like authority to set the nation straight, and then disappear.
That's a bit of an odd set up, isn't it? "We can't reduce the deficit because only Castro could do it"?? Really?
You call for dictatorship, if only to deal with the immediate crisis, but that's how it always starts... Congress is the institution in our system that prevents dictatorship. If you take powers away from congress and hand them to the president, you break the system.
Now this right here is total BS. I'm only illustrating how the Executive has control over his own branch of government. I'm not discussing anything covered by Congressional powers at all.
The problem is that people don't actually vote for senators and representatives they respect any more, people who can -- they just vote for the person who has the highest propensity for giving them what they ask for.
Which is all I'm proposing. Let's elect someone who exhibits the leadership to give us what we want - smaller, less expensive government.
A) New people are more likely to do as they're told.
B) There's zero reason the Federal government needs to employ millions of people, and likewise zero expectation for the President to run each and every State and municipality.
1A) - See B
2A) Irrelevant, really. I could be making the same argument in favor of growing departments and making them do more. The Chief can exert a lot of influence.
3A) Congress has no Constitutional authority over how the executive branch is structured. E.g. 'czars'.
This is why government is often ineffective, and why both left and right wing parties want to streamline it.
You had me up until that last part. Unless you mean "steamline" as in, give the contracts to their friends and campaign contributers instead of whoever has it now.
I should have saved my earlier post for you, because perhaps you'll be able to explain it to me...
Let's take a concrete example or three. I'll propose some executive solutions to the problems, and you tell me why it won't work:
1) End the wars. President uses Commander-in-Chief authority to redeploy every single unit, or just the desired units, to the United States, effective immediately. Anyone not obeying the order will be brought up for court martial. Failing that, simply veto any spending bills until they run out of money.
2) End "Department of X". Dismiss and/or reassign every appointee, refuse to nominate any new candidates. Failing that, set their home office in ANWAR and refuse to reimburse any mileage, due to the economy, of course.
3) Eliminate the Deficit. Veto, veto, veto. Line-item-veto, even. Signing statements stating that funding starts out at zero dollars this year and increases to the figures on the bill one year after the bill is no longer valid, or one year after the Union no longer exists, which ever comes last. Failing that, refuse to even read any more bills until you get what you want on your desk.
Who would have the power to stop any of this? The next President, maybe, but that's about it. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the commander has to do any of these things, and no one has the power to force any of it to happen either. So long as the President made his intentions entirely clear to the people, and as long as they supported his behavior, I imagine that no one would have the political will to oppose it either.
So fire them. Hire someone that will do as you say. CEO's do it in the real world every single day. And if there are laws in your way, get those changed first. Failing that, line-item-veto any spending for their salaries and wait for them to quit. Failing even that, use your executive ability to set their schedules to nil, or require them to report to Alaska, etc.
It really isn't that hard.
People made this same argument towards Ron Paul's campaign promises, and they failed to see the same simplicity of it. There are literally THRONGS of people waiting to get that paycheck the cushy government jobs offer. Use some turnover to get the desired result, but failing that use the powers of scheduling and compensation to achieve the same result. You know, those "executive" powers?
The difference is one is a news site that you don't HAVE to comment on, or could comment on somewhere else, and the other is a video game forum that you don't HAVE to comment on, or could comment on somewhere else
Still not seeing the difference, from an empirical point of view.
I don’t mean to call out these particular commenters, and I’m happy to see our readers taking the time to engage in robust discussion on Reuters.com. But I’m beginning to think our discussion would be even more robust and insightful if those making comments signed their real names.
Blizzard suggests this very same thing and we see QQ of truly legendary proportions. That thread, here on slashdot, reached a hefty 833 coments.
Today, Reuters does this very same thing, and we get what, 47 thus far?
What's the difference? It was the end of humanity in that one circumstance, but is just mildly annoying in this one? Politics is somehow less charged than PvP balance?
Slashdot Mirror
If a President removed departments and reorganized titles, it would quickly become impossible for congressional committees to know who to call to testify and exercise their oversight -- it would become basically impossible to discover how money was being spent and if the executive was enforcing laws.
While you're making a logical argument, allow me to point you to the content of the many replies I've received. They're all saying that government is essentially accountable to no one. You're saying they're accountable to Congress, and I say they're accountable to the President. Maybe it's a mix of both, but I'm still entirely confident that the course of action could yield the desired result.
Reducing the deficit without raising taxes will require decisions to be made, and most of the people in the Tea Party have a lot to lose from reductions in federal spending. Will the Tea Party support its candidates even if they must cut their benefits? That's the question.
The question has been raised and answered. The answer, inarguably, is 'yes'. Truly, the only thing the various factions have in common is 'less Federal government'. They aren't progressives, they're conservatives. They are not likely to advocate for special treatment for special circumstances. They're far and away more likely to press for things like a flat tax. Look it up.
You can't even bring yourself to say their name. Republicans.
That's because that label doesn't really mean anything. 'Republicans' as we've seen in the Bush era are essentially just jingoistic Democrats. You cite Lincoln, who was easily the least conservative Republican, well, ever. I'm thinking more like Regan, myself. But even his vision was co-opted by the NeoCons, who took the party in a completely different direction.
There are varying ideologies under that big Red tent, and they typically have all united under a single cause. This is changing. The Republican party is fracturing at it's base, if for no other reason than they simply cannot provide what they offer. Maybe they never intended to do so, but I think 2008 showed us what could have been, and it started something important.
The Tea Party will take over the GOP just in time to discover that its entire funding apparatus has been hollowed out.
'The Tea Party' isn't one group, but many. And the sentiment, as you're well aware if you've followed any of this discussion at all, began FAR before that term was ever coined. It makes a fine label, but there are a great many people who support the ideals of a truly conservative government. Few of them are bound to support Rove in any fashion.
The funding needed for these efforts will be provided by the individual people. Further, the proof will be in the pudding. People are angry, and their anger is getting them involved in a way that flashy commercials simply can't smooth over.
FWIW, I so zero evidence that any member or cadre of the Republican Party is anti-war, even the Tea Party.
Well, perhaps you should open your eyes a bit. There's still a strong NeoCon influence, to be sure, but the ideology that we simply cannot afford to continue in this manner is taking over. They might not be ideologically opposed to using weapons to get what we want, and perhaps this is what you're hoping to see in order to meet your criteria. Likewise, none of the current sentiment includes drenching anyone in pigs blood. However, bankrupting the United States in favor of endless Arab war is also not a position you're likely to see anywhere outside of the old Republican guard.
Things are changing. I'd be surprised you hadn't noticed, except you've apparently bought the media spin about all these people being morons fit to be mocked. Certainly some are. You'll find those in any group. But the undercurrent here is greater than that, and is indeed greater than those who 'started
Ha! Have you ever actually managed anyone? I have and what you just said is complete nonsense.
If so I'm certain you've experienced first hand the 'honeymoon period'. Otherwise, you can always google it.
Perhaps but the fact is that they do employ that many people and that isn't likely to change.
Don't change the subject. We're discussing the mechanisms to make it happen, not necessarily the likelihood of someone utilizing the mechanisms.
You're really heavy on detail, but really light on substance.
Congress created the "Department of X" via a law. You are proposing the president eliminate said department, thus violating that law.
So if none of those employees show up for work, someone goes to jail? I'd be shocked to learn this was true. Besides, a reasonable number of these departments are created by Presidential fiat, without Congressional oversight at all. I have no doubt that laws allowing these positions to exist have been passed, but I see little in them requiring that they exist.
I've already said that I highly doubt the people would support such legislative and/or judicial prevention even if such laws did exist. You're ignoring that, which is your choice.
Once again, wrong. Impeachment is only step 1. The House of Representatives can impeach the president. Then the case moves to the Senate, where a trial is held. If 2/3rds of the senators vote to convict, he's out of office and replaced with the vice president.
Indeed. I said that already. However, the conviction would need to be within the bounds of the law, and I highly doubt that anything I've advocated would meet the definition of a 'crime' nor a 'misdemeanor'.
And again, again, I'm proposing that this happen with the support of the electorate. And I believe that this day is coming. Shortly.
Bullshit. If it was easy it would have already been done. People in power will use any powers they have. If it were so easy to fire people and otherwise shape the federal bureaucracy it would be done.
You're ignoring the single-party system that has been ruling every body of our government for the last several decades. Why?
I believe the States can provide the people what they need. Congress has systematically been weakening the States to prevent this, but it doesn't have to remain that way by any natural construction.
If you elected enough people who reject the idea of turtle fences and the like, you'd see it change in a hurry.
BUT IT WON'T END THE WAR. All of his replacements in the Republican party are pledged to continue it. And spread it to Iran, for that matter.
You ought to look into the Red Team's movements lately. You're thinking of McCains GOP, which is roughly half of what's relevant today.
Read this slowly
Why is you expect me to 'slowly' read your statements , and you're not even pausing for a moment to try and comprehend mine? Isn't that a tad tedious?
People like their wars and social security and medicare just fine, and when you propose something that reduces the deficit, it's a "death panel" or it "hurts seniors" or it "hurts the troops."
I gotcha. Let's not discuss any particular topics here. Let's just bash the Tea Party, because 'easy' is a more fun than 'thinking'! Woo hoooo!!!
Assume you're right and everyone in the Tea Party is a Nazi Closet Lesbian Racist Con-artist. They're changing what the Red Team does and says, permanently. You ought to take small breaks from your 'enlightened' bigotry and contemplate what the political road-map will look like going forward.
The judicial branch can forbid the actions in court rulings, since they're illegal.
You haven't demonstrated which laws would be violated in any of the above examples. Further, lots of things are illegal, like sodomy, which by the way occurred in the Oval Office itself, and no one cared.
The legislative branch can remove the president from office.
If, and only if, he commits a crime or otherwise meets the strict qualifications under the Constitution. They could impeach him, but he'd still be in office.
Thank you for the clarification. Signing statements would likely still work, though, unless those were likewise removed.
1A) Do you have any idea how much was left behind during the evacuation of Vietnam?
2A) Again with the 'some good' argument. If the people want that particular 'good', let them petition their State for it. That's the design, after all.
3A) I already addressed all these points. So long as the people actually want the change, they'll never, ever support the whiners crying in favor of porkulus. But you are correct that this could require an Executive with principles enough not to fear impeachment due to public opinion. I realize this would be rare in Washington, but it could in fact exist.
He could do that. Afghanistan and Iraq would collapse into civil war
Or he could not do that, and Afghanistan and Iraq would collapse into civil war. Point?
Until the people of themselves are ready to rebel, we have no business pouring money down that hole.
He could do that. Of course there are few agencies that anyone wants to completely destroy.
My greatest sadness regarding civics today is that everyone forgets about the other civil authorities that could handle these needs if the Federal government would just get the hell out of the way. We're designed to be a UNION of STATES. Look it up. Seriously.
You're aware that Congress has a number of powers to prevent this right?
Obama has demonstrated that he can ram a multi-thousand-page bill that no one has read, no one wants, and no one will be happy about right down the throats of Congress. I think it is you who is unclear about the balance of power up there. At any rate, nothing vetoed passes without monumental agreement, and that doesn't seem to exist. If it did, I suspect that people would be in favor of the reduction, rather than the bureaucracy.
It would be easy for Obama to end the war at the cost of his presidency, of course, but why bother when your replacement will be an ultra-hawk Republican who will simply re-escalate?
Because it is the principled thing to do? Because it would net trillions of dollars in savings? Because it wasn't sunny enough to play basketball that day???
Congress will attempt the fund the department through omnibus legislation.
If the people don't want porkulus, though, that becomes very difficult.
There is no evidence that people really want to eliminate the deficit. The deficit is a fundamentally popular institution and people would never vote someone out of office for increasing it.
Perhaps you've heard of this little group called the 'Tea Party'? Your comment would have be rather true five or so years ago, but to claim that the people don't actually want what they're actually campaigning for is a bit Platonic, is it not?
And deficit reformers, instead of actually trying to win the argument on the merits and win elections, propose ever more dictatorial powers for their great white hope, that one man who will, Cincinnatus-like, ride to the rescue of America, use untrammeled king-like authority to set the nation straight, and then disappear.
That's a bit of an odd set up, isn't it? "We can't reduce the deficit because only Castro could do it"?? Really?
You call for dictatorship, if only to deal with the immediate crisis, but that's how it always starts... Congress is the institution in our system that prevents dictatorship. If you take powers away from congress and hand them to the president, you break the system.
Now this right here is total BS. I'm only illustrating how the Executive has control over his own branch of government. I'm not discussing anything covered by Congressional powers at all.
The problem is that people don't actually vote for senators and representatives they respect any more, people who can -- they just vote for the person who has the highest propensity for giving them what they ask for.
Which is all I'm proposing. Let's elect someone who exhibits the leadership to give us what we want - smaller, less expensive government.
A few quick points:
A) New people are more likely to do as they're told.
B) There's zero reason the Federal government needs to employ millions of people, and likewise zero expectation for the President to run each and every State and municipality.
1A) - See B
2A) Irrelevant, really. I could be making the same argument in favor of growing departments and making them do more. The Chief can exert a lot of influence.
3A) Congress has no Constitutional authority over how the executive branch is structured. E.g. 'czars'.
Grow the fuck up.
Okay. I'll start by following your example, and will endeavor to make better strawman arguments.
Did you buy that UID on ebay, or did you have something meaningful to say?
I don't normally feed trolls such as yourself, but god damn it, you've clearly been around long enough to know better.
Or you just pay out the contract...
This is why government is often ineffective, and why both left and right wing parties want to streamline it.
You had me up until that last part. Unless you mean "steamline" as in, give the contracts to their friends and campaign contributers instead of whoever has it now.
tracert is your friend
Last hop is through some ISP called 'Wild Blue'.
Now what?
I should have saved my earlier post for you, because perhaps you'll be able to explain it to me...
Let's take a concrete example or three. I'll propose some executive solutions to the problems, and you tell me why it won't work:
1) End the wars. President uses Commander-in-Chief authority to redeploy every single unit, or just the desired units, to the United States, effective immediately. Anyone not obeying the order will be brought up for court martial. Failing that, simply veto any spending bills until they run out of money.
2) End "Department of X". Dismiss and/or reassign every appointee, refuse to nominate any new candidates. Failing that, set their home office in ANWAR and refuse to reimburse any mileage, due to the economy, of course.
3) Eliminate the Deficit. Veto, veto, veto. Line-item-veto, even. Signing statements stating that funding starts out at zero dollars this year and increases to the figures on the bill one year after the bill is no longer valid, or one year after the Union no longer exists, which ever comes last. Failing that, refuse to even read any more bills until you get what you want on your desk.
Who would have the power to stop any of this? The next President, maybe, but that's about it. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the commander has to do any of these things, and no one has the power to force any of it to happen either. So long as the President made his intentions entirely clear to the people, and as long as they supported his behavior, I imagine that no one would have the political will to oppose it either.
So fire them. Hire someone that will do as you say. CEO's do it in the real world every single day. And if there are laws in your way, get those changed first. Failing that, line-item-veto any spending for their salaries and wait for them to quit. Failing even that, use your executive ability to set their schedules to nil, or require them to report to Alaska, etc.
It really isn't that hard.
People made this same argument towards Ron Paul's campaign promises, and they failed to see the same simplicity of it. There are literally THRONGS of people waiting to get that paycheck the cushy government jobs offer. Use some turnover to get the desired result, but failing that use the powers of scheduling and compensation to achieve the same result. You know, those "executive" powers?
Agreed. NOBODY uses WINDOWS anymore. Especially not those with poor security habits.
Or "30 percent logged into a site requiring a password over public WiFi" -- which is perfectly fine if the site has the right SSL cert.
This! Further, if the site doesn't have such, do you really even care if it gets hacked?
In short, your bank isn't going to allow you to be stupid with your password, and nobody reads your MySpace blog anymore anyway.
Forgive the layman here, but why can't Android simply switch Java platforms as well? Open is Open, no?
Well that's venom sure, but misdirected at best. Thanks for trying, though!
The difference is one is a news site that you don't HAVE to comment on, or could comment on somewhere else, and the other is a video game forum that you don't HAVE to comment on, or could comment on somewhere else
Still not seeing the difference, from an empirical point of view.
For example, if I see something interesting and want to comment I'm more likely to go Elitist Jerks...
I'm still not seeing any difference.
I don’t mean to call out these particular commenters, and I’m happy to see our readers taking the time to engage in robust discussion on Reuters.com. But I’m beginning to think our discussion would be even more robust and insightful if those making comments signed their real names.
Blizzard suggests this very same thing and we see QQ of truly legendary proportions. That thread, here on slashdot, reached a hefty 833 coments.
Today, Reuters does this very same thing, and we get what, 47 thus far?
What's the difference? It was the end of humanity in that one circumstance, but is just mildly annoying in this one? Politics is somehow less charged than PvP balance?