Sunday, September 19, 2021
HomeRecommendedThe Dirty Dozen, Part V, What to Do About Government's Other Shoe

The Dirty Dozen, Part V, What to Do About Government’s Other Shoe

The solution to every problem begins with a unified theory                                                                                                  (Gregory House, M.D.).

The Problem:

The idea that the State apparatus looks down on the masses has a long, long heritage.

Over the last four episodes, I’ve tried to lay out a history as to how the civil service came to be, and in the process, explain why it thinks so highly of itself, and why it thinks so poorly of the people whose duty it is for them to serve…or manage, depending on your point of view.

This is what in government briefings is called “background.” None of it is really new to any of you.

Then there’s the Other Shoe

But while we are witnessing a top-down political attempt to exchange our republican form of government to authoritarian in the United States…

….what may be new to some of you is the knowledge that at the other end of the government spectrum, in the workaday bureaucracies which bear no deep political philosophy at all, just rice bowl concerns, breeds a cancer that can devour us all.

As we saw with the USSR, bureaucratism can trump all politics in the end.

It’s about this other shoe this series addresses, for it needs to be attended to as urgently as the political battle at the other end of the spectrum.

In fact, simultaneously, for I have tried to show how the kinds of systems Statism must use in order to manage large complex operations, namely bureaucracies, and the kinds of government systems bureaucracies naturally align themselves with, namely leftish, socialist statist systems, feed on another. The perfect storm.

The Stakes

Once we know the problem, we need to understand the stakes, for bureaucracies can kill, and kill totally, under the mistaken notion, that no matter how bad things get, or who is in charge, they will always be needed. This is the eternal threat to our survival from the bottom of the Statist system…

…while the Left, now in full bloom, marching to a sirens’ call for total world revolt (“This is our Time!”), not quite sure of the outcome but damned sure of the things to be laid waste, threatens our survival from the top.

A two-front war.

No wait, three fronts, because (for conservatives) there is also the Ruling Class wing of the Republican Party who doesn’t see this perfect storm as such a bad thing if only they could be in charge.

My Fix

If you read the blogs, or follow talking heads on TV, you already know everyone knows the problem to one extent or the other.

Many even say they know the fix, and have all kinds of political cures at the ready. But the bureaucratic shoe isn’t political. It’s clinical, as every businessman knows. “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee…” (Matt 5:29). The surgeon would prescribe the same thing….” for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” I.e., die.

True, the political ramifications are great, but national survival is the test by which we ultimately gauge “real politics” and “false politics,” not the next debt ceiling.  That is where we are now.

Clinically, this has to be our end game:

The only fix that will suit America is to return to the original recipe of its founding. And only conservatives can know this.

Disclaimer: What we have been talking about here is the size and scope of government, and reining it in. This does not begin to speak to the kind of men and women it will require to exercise the political will to accomplish this; part guile, part wisdom, part grit, all courage, with not one ounce of fear. We will speak to that at another time…and another, and another.

(A big h/t to the bureaucracy buster of our group, who goes only by RPH, for the outline presented here.)

The Five R’s of Reform and the Dirty Dozen

RSPS (Return “Service” to “Public Service”).

Demote the public civil service to a position beneath that of the private sector, as it was for 200 years. And this must be by law until custom and common sense can take over once again, in say, 20-30 years.

RIM/(Reduction in Mission)

Return government and its agencies to the scope of their original missions. Now, many will say that can’t be done, you simply can’t oversee a four  trillion dollar economy the same way you would an economy when Philadelphia, at 40,000, was the largest city in America.

True enough, but the first understanding has to be that the governments (all of them) are overseeing more than they ought, and that’s the problem. The solution is in adopting the right perspective. As a practical exercise (in other words, you can teach this in business school), it is better to imagine the blank slate of 1787 then march forward to the current situation, rather than inching back incrementally from where we are now assuming the status quo ante. It’s the status quo that’s killing us.

We need a new (old) template, with two salient questions: 1) Should it be done? And 2) Who, then, should do it?

RIF  (Reduction in Force)

…Our Dirty Dozen–


(Eliminate 1-5)

1: Dept of Energy, Return remaining functions to Interior

2: Dept of Education, There is no constitutional justification, just as there isn’t one for a Department of National Religion. The constitutional function of education belongs to the states, local governments and people. The only possible justifications for a national education policy is indoctrination and robbing the treasury.

3. Dept of Agriculture; Return remaining functions to Interior

4. Dept of Health and Human Services Return; remaining functions to agency status, etc.                                                       

5. Dept of Housing and Urban Development Eliminate        

(Down-size and Reduce mission, 6-12)

Most regulatory agencies serve a public purpose of fact-finding. E.g., at EPA we will also need people to test for water and air quality and this was its early primary mission; to find out stuff and report back to lawmakers. These should be their primary functions once again.

For by the mid-to-late 1970’s most began expanding their missions by turning their emphasis over to writing regulations (lots of lawyers) and enforcing them.

(Case in point: In 1971 I left a state environmental agency that had one attorney and one clerk…me. When I returned to visit in 1974 they had more attorneys than the old division of natural resources had entire staff in 1970. All of those jobs were forced upon the state by federal law.)

To accomplish this they had to broaden the Administrative Procedures Act of 1967 to allow these agencies to assume a quasi-legislative function, i.e, allowing the agencies to by-pass an increasingly lazy Congress, who, like it was once said of the Saudis in 1921, “…think it is noble to sit around and make decision, but think it ignoble to do the kind of work that would make what they decide meaningful.” (I paraphrase.)

Later, these agencies were even allowed to by-pass the due process clause of the 14th Amendment by issuing fines without resort to courts by the defendants.

This needs to be revised and repealed.

This is where the cancer of regulatory bureaucracies can be located, not to mention their high costs, since entry level GS-10 attorneys start at $48,000 while GS-6 field agents start at $32,000. Check what they earn after 10 years.

With this in mind, I’ll conclude the Dirty Dozen:

6. Environmental Protection Agency

7. Equal Employment Opportunity  Commission

8. Federal Communications Commission

9. The Federal Reserve (notice I didn’t say eliminate)

10. Food and Drug Administration

11. The NLRB (even in their best years this was a bad idea

12. OSHA

RIP (Reduction in Pay)…

Government employees earn twice as much as private sector employees, see here, but in truth it’s a little skewed. In any small town, going back to the 60s, the best job in town was with the post office, which is why Vietnam vets got preferential hiring. Side-by-side, the disparity is more like 30%-40% at the professional end, based on the growth, as mentioned above, of the GS-10 thru GS-13 levels of managers (with advanced degrees) and attorneys on the regulatory side of the building.

Take 20 years to reduce this 200% disparity to 80%…in favor of the private sector, and what you will find is no self-respecting lawyer or scientist will even want those jobs anymore. In fact, they won’t want to go to law school anymore. (Check one off for culture.)

RIB (Reduction in Benefits) -2 bureaucratic generations and

RUPP (Render unions Politically Powerless)

About public sector unions, as we have seen in Wisconsin:

It was never a good idea to allow them to exist in the first place. FDR had that right.

So the best fix (really) is to A) de-certify them, absolutely. Ban them. Absolutely. Let Europe try and match that!

But, if we need a little courage, sort of like using nicotine strips, B) we can always make it illegal for unions to contribute to political campaigns.

Then, knowing they will lie, cheat and steal to circumvent that rule, we can, as Wisconsin has proved to be so important to unions, C) require them to collect dues themselves. No more payroll withholding.

I like Door #1, but all hurt, and all will work.

Finally, establish, by law, there will be no expenditure of public funds to bail out any under-funded pension funds.

Honorable mention:

Honorable Mention for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but only after a full investigation and all the perps have been hauled off to jail, including co-conspirators in Congress or found hiding out in luxurious retirement.

Now everyone has their special complaints about government spending; ICE, Planned Parenthood, NEA (Arts), Corporation for Public Broadcasting (NPR, PBS). I’m sure everyone has a pet agency. I’d like to see the FBI reduced to its original mission of the 1930s-40s, take over the domestic end of the DEA function, and return the bulk of law enforcement to the states. All the Bull Connors and Jim Clarks are feds now.

Finally, about schools, since they are in the news all the time: Like front line cops and soldiers, they deserve special treatment, for as we have seen in Wisconsin, they have jumped the shark as state employees, having long since abandoned even trying to learn how to teach swimming since the formation of the Department of Education in 1980. (Jimmy Carter) Schools are also at the front lines; the front line of federal indoctrination of our children, and their continued dumbing down, not just K-thru-12, not just college, but well into law school we’re sadly learning. They require a chapter, and a cure, all their own.

But not here, for it’s a horrible death to be talked to death.

There you have it, a completely re-framed government. Until the end of the Wilson era, the public budget was only 10% of GDP, but inside the federal budget, federal employment (civil servants) was a much smaller part of the overall cost of government. We can achieve that again. It only requires the political will and a top to bottom understanding of the stakes.

I’ll be happy with that.

vassarbushmills
Citizen With Bark On

25 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

25 COMMENTS

  1. This is it. And Rand Paul thought he was doing a cute trick with his lousy $500 billion and a couple of departments! 🙂
    Seriously, it starts here; it starts now. And we are waiting for The Speech.

  2. Here is my suggestion. We reduce the number of cabinet level departments from 15 down to 5. We acknowledge that the 10th Amendment is effective now instead of some historic relic of the past. My 5 are different from your idea in one cabinet I keep that may disappoint you.

    State
    Treasury
    Defense
    Justice
    Health and Human Services

    • Yeah, Pilgrim, we probably need to have some serious discussions on HHS. On the ‘H’ part, we probably need a CDC, except one that doesn’t think keeping a firearm in the home is a disease, and one where it’s people actually get fired when they totally botch things like H1N1 virus. On the ‘HS’ part, and keeping in mind your 10th Amend. stance, I don’t think there is anything the Feds can do for humans within a State that a State couldn’t do.

      • Well about the 10th Amendment, all I can say is the 1935 Social Security Act became law a long time after the 10th amendment to the Constitution. I do not like the over reach from the original law, but I just do not see a majority ever repealing this law in my lifetime.

        • Pilgrim, we actually may be getting a break in habits and patterns on SS. I don’t know your age, but I’m in the 40’s group. A lot of folks my age and older just aren’t counting on having SS around when we get to be 65. Law or no law, we just aren’t willing to leave ourselves totally at the mercy of gov’t. (Yeah, the fact that gov’t isn’t always trustworthy is hitting this age group dead in the face).

          How widespread is this kind of response? I don’t know. I wish that I did, because the data could prove very valuable in reviewing our options. Even if it is shift in trends of 15 -20% of the population 40+ years, that could open up plenty of options.

      • If we adopted Milton Friedman’s negative income tax, we could fire most of HHS’s employees that “qualify” and monitor the poor and just mail checks. Boehner said a month or so ago that he knew that real cuts would require firing people. Let’s see if he means it. And yes Pil’, social security is unconstitutional as per the original meaning, but is now so entrenched over time, that it would only be eliminated post-debt crisis collapse. And yes VB, we need to change the laws that let bureaucrats make so much law via regulations. We also need to change the whole budgetary process with page limits on proposed bills and make it harder to promulgate regulations and/or make it much easier to challenge proposed regs or existing regs. more later

        • The Interior Department is where some of the greatest damage is occurring with respect to our nation being able to live well and prosper. It was the first new additional department that was created after all of the new land got grabbed up during Pres. Polk’s tenure. Since that time all of that land has become several different sovereign states, and the department has transformed into the place for the environuts go to keep adding all kinds of critters to the endangered species list. This placing of animals as being more important than humans has got to stop.

          • Yeah, when VB said transfer those remaining functions of DOE and DOA to Interior, I thought he must be bitterly clinging to his old Pete Seeger records. 🙂 Either that or there wouldn’t be enough ‘remaining functions’ after the hacking to worry about.

          • pilgrim, it isn’t all just about the bunnies and birdies and saving nature. I used to think that it was until I started doing some research on urbanization, especially where ICLEI is concerned. I made a similar comment somewhere else last night, but I’ll make it here as well.

            Urbanization allows gov’t to control property values and restrict business permits (especially small business, so read major regulation of commerce into this one and a lot of redistribution of the wealth, gov’t style). It aids in the development of forced public transportation usage (read expansion of unions bleeding us dry into this one). Plus, it gives greater control to environmentalists (read taxes galore on this one)

            https://www.iclei.org/

            It’s a pretty significant threat all the way around.

          • In retrospect, you’re right PIl. I was thinking of the old Teddy Roosevelt vision, NatlPkService, and Goid knows, the Commiss of Indian Affairs…that’s the only place you can get a decent smoke at a fair price…and out west the BLM is as hated as the ATF. Yes, reduce them to agency status.

            (Problem is, I promised Herman Cain a Dirty Dozen, not a dirty 3 liters. I’ll let you guys fill in the blanks.) I your top five are just fine.

  3. Excellent dispatch vassar. I read an interesting article this morning from AT where the author argues against the Balanced Budget Amendment. Hatch and Cornyn are proposing a 20% of GDP cap, while Mike Lee is proposing an 18% of GDP cap. The author argues that the Amendment itself is unconstitutional, and would actually do harm to what the Constitution already states. He has listed for elimination most of the departments you have, but he goes even further. The BBA does nothing to eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional departments. It caps the amount of spending, but does nothing to shrink the federal government.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/why_the_balanced_budget_amendm.html

    • I went there and saw the author’s first name – Zibgniew – and thought “Oh, No! Not Mika’s dad!” but this is another Zbig and it is clear from reading his piece that if your first instinct is to look inside the beltway for a ‘common sense solution’, you have not yet been …….born again.

  4. Great read and excellent points. Okay, vassar, comments and questions

    1. On the grit, courage, guile, but never fear part of this…I get that completely. We may have to tread lightly in some place, stride boldly forward in others, and pray that we’ll have the wisdom to know which is needed and when it is needed.

    2. Any thoughts on how this reduction/elimination would be prioritized?

    Here’s my reasoning behind the question: We have some functions that realistically present a greater risk and threat than others do, urbanization being one of them. As of now, our government is structured in such a way that branches of urbanization have been embedded in other agencies, such as Homeland Security, DOT, EPA, etc. So even if we wipe out an agency, such as Dept of Housing and Urban Development, we may not remove the risks if we don’t take out the branches.

    3. We have a lot of citizens who are dependent on these agencies who could basically be left out in the cold, perhaps quite literally, if we take these changes on. So what are we willing to do help them adjust to the change?

    • I’m aware of your concerns, LH, and I think we both understand the scope and size of the undertaking. About the guile part, we have some experience, and even offer it on the market, for un-doing a bureaucracy, even in the private sector, must be carried out like a clandestine operation. All parts must be functioning on all cylinders to make it work, for “wrecking” is a great fear. The amorality of Wikileaks and conspirators prove that, as do kindergarten teachers in WI.

      • VB, thanks. I know that I must come across as being the utmost of a pessimist at times, but I’m first a realist, and then when I get a good idea of where things stand and what we’re up against…well, the truth is that I can step outside that box in a heartbeat coming up with ideas, possibilities, options, alternative, etc on a very practical level. And I genuinely love that part of it. It’s one of my greatest strengths.

        But the reality part has to come first or the options aren’t valid. I hope that makes sense.

        And the people are MY people, Vassar. I won’t just leave them to stand alone. That’s how it is.

        • That seems to be Group-think around here, LH. It was at the other place, or so we thought. All this, or at least enough to stave off the devil, is doable. Takes no more than a few stalwart people…and God willing, only a few years. It will be a long road back, but all that is required is a few to set those noses squarely in the wind, if you know what I mean.

          • Yeah, I do know what you mean.

            Can I throw an idea out here? Urbanization does present a very real threat, especially to small business owners. But that threat has been concealed behind the cloak of environmentalism for a long time.

            However, if a pro-business candidate running for office chose to take on this particular subject, to begin to reveal the truth in the minds of the public, it could go a long way to establishing confidence in said candidate, especially from small business owners. It’s the American Dream in a nutshell…protecting it and preserving it.

            Just saying, VB. But I have to go to work now. And thanks.

    • The EPA who were among the first responders after 9/11 are needed to find out stuff about the air quality for the search and rescue guys. You do not need them until you really need them. They should not be at the cabinet level, and they should not have regulators creating new laws.

        • This might be our, as Michelle Malkin likes to say, when the ‘fit hits the shan’ moment; our ‘When in the course of human events’ moment ; our ‘learnable’ moment. I think, as VB said, we start with the question “Does it need doing?” and then Who does it? And proceeds to the details. But we can use the EPA as a case study on 1. Things getting hijacked 2. Letting your emotions instead of your head guide your position 3. The capability of men for selfish bad.
          We need to talk about this. This is a variation on the socon vs. ficon theme.

    • About the czars, their solution is contained above, starve ’em out. But in truth, the Congress has no power over those kinds of congressional appointments, only the purse to fund them. In truth, they are also probably unconstitutional. But then again, most everything is these days.

  1. This is it. And Rand Paul thought he was doing a cute trick with his lousy $500 billion and a couple of departments! 🙂
    Seriously, it starts here; it starts now. And we are waiting for The Speech.

  2. Here is my suggestion. We reduce the number of cabinet level departments from 15 down to 5. We acknowledge that the 10th Amendment is effective now instead of some historic relic of the past. My 5 are different from your idea in one cabinet I keep that may disappoint you.

    State
    Treasury
    Defense
    Justice
    Health and Human Services

    • Yeah, Pilgrim, we probably need to have some serious discussions on HHS. On the ‘H’ part, we probably need a CDC, except one that doesn’t think keeping a firearm in the home is a disease, and one where it’s people actually get fired when they totally botch things like H1N1 virus. On the ‘HS’ part, and keeping in mind your 10th Amend. stance, I don’t think there is anything the Feds can do for humans within a State that a State couldn’t do.

      • Well about the 10th Amendment, all I can say is the 1935 Social Security Act became law a long time after the 10th amendment to the Constitution. I do not like the over reach from the original law, but I just do not see a majority ever repealing this law in my lifetime.

        • Pilgrim, we actually may be getting a break in habits and patterns on SS. I don’t know your age, but I’m in the 40’s group. A lot of folks my age and older just aren’t counting on having SS around when we get to be 65. Law or no law, we just aren’t willing to leave ourselves totally at the mercy of gov’t. (Yeah, the fact that gov’t isn’t always trustworthy is hitting this age group dead in the face).

          How widespread is this kind of response? I don’t know. I wish that I did, because the data could prove very valuable in reviewing our options. Even if it is shift in trends of 15 -20% of the population 40+ years, that could open up plenty of options.

      • If we adopted Milton Friedman’s negative income tax, we could fire most of HHS’s employees that “qualify” and monitor the poor and just mail checks. Boehner said a month or so ago that he knew that real cuts would require firing people. Let’s see if he means it. And yes Pil’, social security is unconstitutional as per the original meaning, but is now so entrenched over time, that it would only be eliminated post-debt crisis collapse. And yes VB, we need to change the laws that let bureaucrats make so much law via regulations. We also need to change the whole budgetary process with page limits on proposed bills and make it harder to promulgate regulations and/or make it much easier to challenge proposed regs or existing regs. more later

        • The Interior Department is where some of the greatest damage is occurring with respect to our nation being able to live well and prosper. It was the first new additional department that was created after all of the new land got grabbed up during Pres. Polk’s tenure. Since that time all of that land has become several different sovereign states, and the department has transformed into the place for the environuts go to keep adding all kinds of critters to the endangered species list. This placing of animals as being more important than humans has got to stop.

          • Yeah, when VB said transfer those remaining functions of DOE and DOA to Interior, I thought he must be bitterly clinging to his old Pete Seeger records. 🙂 Either that or there wouldn’t be enough ‘remaining functions’ after the hacking to worry about.

          • pilgrim, it isn’t all just about the bunnies and birdies and saving nature. I used to think that it was until I started doing some research on urbanization, especially where ICLEI is concerned. I made a similar comment somewhere else last night, but I’ll make it here as well.

            Urbanization allows gov’t to control property values and restrict business permits (especially small business, so read major regulation of commerce into this one and a lot of redistribution of the wealth, gov’t style). It aids in the development of forced public transportation usage (read expansion of unions bleeding us dry into this one). Plus, it gives greater control to environmentalists (read taxes galore on this one)

            https://www.iclei.org/

            It’s a pretty significant threat all the way around.

          • In retrospect, you’re right PIl. I was thinking of the old Teddy Roosevelt vision, NatlPkService, and Goid knows, the Commiss of Indian Affairs…that’s the only place you can get a decent smoke at a fair price…and out west the BLM is as hated as the ATF. Yes, reduce them to agency status.

            (Problem is, I promised Herman Cain a Dirty Dozen, not a dirty 3 liters. I’ll let you guys fill in the blanks.) I your top five are just fine.

  3. Excellent dispatch vassar. I read an interesting article this morning from AT where the author argues against the Balanced Budget Amendment. Hatch and Cornyn are proposing a 20% of GDP cap, while Mike Lee is proposing an 18% of GDP cap. The author argues that the Amendment itself is unconstitutional, and would actually do harm to what the Constitution already states. He has listed for elimination most of the departments you have, but he goes even further. The BBA does nothing to eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional departments. It caps the amount of spending, but does nothing to shrink the federal government.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/why_the_balanced_budget_amendm.html

    • I went there and saw the author’s first name – Zibgniew – and thought “Oh, No! Not Mika’s dad!” but this is another Zbig and it is clear from reading his piece that if your first instinct is to look inside the beltway for a ‘common sense solution’, you have not yet been …….born again.

  4. Great read and excellent points. Okay, vassar, comments and questions

    1. On the grit, courage, guile, but never fear part of this…I get that completely. We may have to tread lightly in some place, stride boldly forward in others, and pray that we’ll have the wisdom to know which is needed and when it is needed.

    2. Any thoughts on how this reduction/elimination would be prioritized?

    Here’s my reasoning behind the question: We have some functions that realistically present a greater risk and threat than others do, urbanization being one of them. As of now, our government is structured in such a way that branches of urbanization have been embedded in other agencies, such as Homeland Security, DOT, EPA, etc. So even if we wipe out an agency, such as Dept of Housing and Urban Development, we may not remove the risks if we don’t take out the branches.

    3. We have a lot of citizens who are dependent on these agencies who could basically be left out in the cold, perhaps quite literally, if we take these changes on. So what are we willing to do help them adjust to the change?

    • I’m aware of your concerns, LH, and I think we both understand the scope and size of the undertaking. About the guile part, we have some experience, and even offer it on the market, for un-doing a bureaucracy, even in the private sector, must be carried out like a clandestine operation. All parts must be functioning on all cylinders to make it work, for “wrecking” is a great fear. The amorality of Wikileaks and conspirators prove that, as do kindergarten teachers in WI.

      • VB, thanks. I know that I must come across as being the utmost of a pessimist at times, but I’m first a realist, and then when I get a good idea of where things stand and what we’re up against…well, the truth is that I can step outside that box in a heartbeat coming up with ideas, possibilities, options, alternative, etc on a very practical level. And I genuinely love that part of it. It’s one of my greatest strengths.

        But the reality part has to come first or the options aren’t valid. I hope that makes sense.

        And the people are MY people, Vassar. I won’t just leave them to stand alone. That’s how it is.

        • That seems to be Group-think around here, LH. It was at the other place, or so we thought. All this, or at least enough to stave off the devil, is doable. Takes no more than a few stalwart people…and God willing, only a few years. It will be a long road back, but all that is required is a few to set those noses squarely in the wind, if you know what I mean.

          • Yeah, I do know what you mean.

            Can I throw an idea out here? Urbanization does present a very real threat, especially to small business owners. But that threat has been concealed behind the cloak of environmentalism for a long time.

            However, if a pro-business candidate running for office chose to take on this particular subject, to begin to reveal the truth in the minds of the public, it could go a long way to establishing confidence in said candidate, especially from small business owners. It’s the American Dream in a nutshell…protecting it and preserving it.

            Just saying, VB. But I have to go to work now. And thanks.

    • The EPA who were among the first responders after 9/11 are needed to find out stuff about the air quality for the search and rescue guys. You do not need them until you really need them. They should not be at the cabinet level, and they should not have regulators creating new laws.

        • This might be our, as Michelle Malkin likes to say, when the ‘fit hits the shan’ moment; our ‘When in the course of human events’ moment ; our ‘learnable’ moment. I think, as VB said, we start with the question “Does it need doing?” and then Who does it? And proceeds to the details. But we can use the EPA as a case study on 1. Things getting hijacked 2. Letting your emotions instead of your head guide your position 3. The capability of men for selfish bad.
          We need to talk about this. This is a variation on the socon vs. ficon theme.

    • About the czars, their solution is contained above, starve ’em out. But in truth, the Congress has no power over those kinds of congressional appointments, only the purse to fund them. In truth, they are also probably unconstitutional. But then again, most everything is these days.

Must Read