The Worst Use of Taxpayer Funds Ever?
Government, particularly at the federal level, is supposed to exist only to do the people’s business, the business that they cannot reasonably do for themselves: maintaining the military, conducting diplomacy with other nations. In the pursuit of government, it is sometimes necessary to establish various bureaus, which are populated by bureaucrats.
In a perfect world, a world envisioned by our Founders — though they harbored no delusions about the perfectibility of man — these bureaucrats would behave in a responsible, adult manner.
They would faithfully carry out their jobs with the aim of obeying not only the letter of the law but its spirit. As they are spending the hard-earned tax dollars of the public in the pursuit of their duties, they would take great care to ensure that those dollars were properly and wisely spent. They would understand the boundaries of their authority within the overall system, and would recoil in horror at the very thought of violating those boundaries.
Back to reality.
Perhaps the most egregious example of everything wrong with our federal bureaucracies resides with the Environmental Protection Agency. John Merline, writing in Investor’s Business Daily, tells a tale of EPA abuse of power and squandering of taxpayer monies that ought to cause the American public to demonstrate in righteous rage. I have never seen a more compelling argument for the immediate abolishment of a federal agency.
The EPA is using taxpayer money to encourage environmentalist groups to sue … the EPA. This has continued for decades.
The EPA has paid one of these groups to produce a do-it-yourself guide to suing the EPA.
The EPA frequently enters into consent decrees to settle the suits. Even when the EPA doesn’t hand out megadollar settlements — your money — to the litigious loons, it commonly pays their attorney’s fees.
Why would the EPA do something so obviously crazy?
High-level EPA bureaucrats commonly support the leftist environmentalist beliefs of these groups, as do a great many of the career employees of the agency. They look to serve the leftist groups, not their employers.
Generally speaking, Congress has not authorized the EPA to do most of the things such people live to do, things such as regulating and litigating energy producers, small businesses, and large corporations out of existence. But EPA bureaucrats tend not to like such small-minded, non-nuanced strictures, so they encourage their fellow travelers in the environmentalist movement to sue the EPA. The hope is that the courts can force the EPA to do what the EPA wanted to do in the first place. Rather than erecting a vigorous defense to frivolous environmentalist lawsuits, the EPA simply caves.
This will NEVER happen. While some good has come out of the EPA, their interlocking network of interested parties will sue that their dream agency continues to devour the American Dream. OH… and they’ll ask for the funds to sue…from the EPA itself!
Yes, it is indeed an appalling waste of money that the EPA should give the EDF anything at all (besides a slap on the back of the head), much less nearly 3 million dollars. But I would submit that the direct spending of at least 758 billion in Iraq has been a rather more appalling waste of taxpayer money. Where’s the outrage?
You must have missed all the “outrage” during the years 2002-2007. The nightly body counts that the press would breathlessly relate. The constant drumbeat of our surrender. The villification and demonization of our president and our troops even though most of the murdering mayhem was caused by the muslims themselves.
All that “outrage” went dead silent the day Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in.
lolly;
And they wanted to publish videos of the caskets being offloaded at Andrews AFB. They actually wanted to harass our military!
They have invented a substance lower than scum, and make a steady diet of it.
Lolly, appreciate the nod. I thought I was on my own on this thought. All throughout those years I heard the news against us, rolling ticker of casualties, and maligning of President Bush…which as you so pointed out came to a screeching halt when President Obama was sworn in. We are still losing folks over here. This year in Afghanistan is the worst in years so far…but not a peep from the MSM, Code Pink, or the other usual suspects.
How quickly you have put it out of mind that Congress overwhelmingly voted for the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s our elected representatives taking action, and appropriating the funds to do it.
By contrast, the EPA actions of this article are taken by unaccountable bureaucrats gaming the system – not by actions authorized by Congress. The EPA needs to be brought to heel, or abolished if its actions by legal commissars lead to bankrupting the country as a way to ‘protect the citizens by beggaring them’.
Iran will soon be a nuclear power. If Hussein had not been defeated, there is no doubt that he would have started a nuclear program in order to defend himself….agains Iran. Wasn’t there a war between them at one time? Just think of the potential consequenses of two idiots in the Middle East with nuclear weapons. If that doesn’t scare you, with the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons, then you are naive. Bush did the world a favor by reducing the complications. Can you assign a cost to that?
yes the EPA is wasteful to a point of crimenal missconduct. they should have been sissbanded years ago. and further some heads should roll for the things they have done to the tax paying public,
Sometimes it is better to start over from scratch. I agree – abolish the EPA and repeal every U.S. enviromental law, and start over.
We could make the same arguement for most federal agencies and departments.
@Old Soldier. The problem with your proposal is you still have the left wing wackos in Washington to write the “new laws”. Until we cleanse Washington of socialists, we will continue getting socialist laws and worse.
Yeah – I guess I was assuming that.
Until we cleanse America of leftist, we will forever be fighting to save our nation.
Blotto,
A wise man once said that “Eternal vigilance is the price of Freedom”. Simply put, because evil (leftist) people exist, we must forever fight against them to remain free. There is no rest, only the battle.
This is not a rhetorical question, but sincere. What environmental laws would you put in place or would agreeable to you?
I think environmental law should be like any other civil law, meaning based on a “demonstrable harm” principle. As in, “If your sewage outlet is upstream of my fresh-water intake, you either change it or clean it up, or I, personally, will sue the pants off of you”. This should be handled by the courts as ordinary civil liability proceedings.
There should also be a “public nuisance” factor; i.e., if you have a sewage treatment farm, with tanks, you should be required to avoid runoff if there are heavy rains. (Translation; make sure your tanks are deep enough to avoid overflow.)
Also, anything definable as an “attractive nuisance” should be required to have adequate measures to keep people from getting hurt by it. Spider Robinson once cited a case where some kids went swimming in what they thought was a freshwater tank at an industrial site, only to find out the hard way that the water in it was full of lye. It was fenced after the fact; it should have been fenced, and had warning signs up, to begin with, purely on common-sense grounds. (But as Gerrold’s Law states, “It’s too bad that common sense… isn’t.”)
In any such case, what should not be allowed are any suits by third parties acting “in the name of the public good”. Period. We have learned the hard way that this is an open invitation to mischief-making by fanatics with political and/or social axes to grind. Put simply, no “class-action” suits”, no “environmental harm” suits, and absolutely no suits based on somebody-or-other’s theory that something might, somehow, conceivably, under very unusual conditions be harmful to a… lab rat. (Alar, CFCs, etc.) Anyone not directly “impacted” doesn’t get to play.
This, by the way, is exactly how most foreign countries environmental laws have always worked, notably in Europe. Which is why people like the Green Party in Germany have to organize protests, etc., to pressure the government to ban nuclear power and/or anything else they don’t like. They can’t just hire a lawyer and go shopping for a judge who is friendly to their agenda.
clear ether
eon
Depends on the meaning of “demonstrable” doesn’t it? That’s exactly how they’re grabbing the authority to regulate CO2 – they claim that the IPCC “proves” harm from CO2.
Give fanatics some bendable words, and you won’t recognize them in a few years.
As I said in the next-to-last paragraph, no lawsuits from third parties, or ones based on somebody-or-other’s “belief” that something “could be” harmful.
Meaning, no suits based on “theories”, or “computer models”, or “We Believe This Is A Threat To Holy Mother Gaia”. If it cannot be proven in the real world, you may not use it as a basis for legal action.
And if you are a third party who exists solely to impose your fantasy worldview on everybody else, sorry, you don’t get to play. Instead, you may register as a religious group for tax-exempt status- keeping in mind that the First Amendment prohibits the state from helping you “establish” your worldview in law, forcing everyone else to Live The Right Way Or Else- with you defining what’s “Right”.
The “junk science” law on the books now is a first step- but it doesn’t go far enough.
clear ether
eon
First thing I would do is institute a “loser pays” system in civil court. Second thing would be to remove the laws and regulations preventing individuals suing over environmental damage.
Let’s start with the DOD and all those parasitical braindead old pensioneers
One more way our government is deliberately destroying our country.
I’ve always wondered why a president could not simply eliminate the EPA through an executive order. Congress would probably never abolish it, even if it were run by Republicans. They’d be too afraid to. But what if a conservative president simply abolished it? Congress would probably be so stunned they would eveytually come around to de-funding the agency and, therefore, kill it. But only a president with real backbone would try it.
I’m not certain that a President would want to, since there ARE good reasons fpr the agency to exist, but he could certainly gut its personnel and budget.
He certainly could install an IG that was a rabid pit-bull to investigate the Agency for fraud, waste, mismanagement and abuse.
And he could direct how much of the money Congress authorizes for it is actually spent by the agency by appointing a new Comptroller over it.
As long as those two, and the Administrator, have clear Marching Orders from the White House about the limits of their agency’s scope, then these kinds of gratuitous abuses would wither and cease.
The other option is for the utilities to grow a pair, get organized, and when the Federally subsidized Eco-extremists start their shenanigans,simply shut the the plant down. Where’s the law compelling a private company to supply electricity to people?
Removing a few 10,000 MW coal power plants off the grid would certainly spell out some harsh facts of life for the voting public.
Look what it did for California a few years back…
Good that was done over 30 years ago is no excuse to keep that place open. Give enviromentalism over to the states. It SHOULD be a states rights issue and not a federal one.
No, there IS a legitimate Federal role in environmental protection.
That river that flows through your town my also flow through another few states, as does the air that you breathe blow in from somewhere else.
The problem is not with WHO does what is being done, but WHAT is being done.
And the EPA has gone so far off-mandate that I doubt it can even see what it is SUPPOSED to be from where it is now.
That’s why the Agency needs “fresh eyes”, “fresh people”, and a tightened budget.
You were on a roll ’til this post… As Bilgeman correctly states, such agency must be Federal for sake of jurisdiction.
‘Slim and trim’ are words I would use as to its needful actions.
Here we have a group that is self/politically motivated (punch in CCX) that have labeled CO2 as a pollutant… when there is not enough of it in the atmosphere to promote the regrowth of forests. Whom even have gone so far as to use our money to pay for huge electricity generating wind farms… and then ‘lay down’ when a suit is brought stopping the building of the transmission lines to get the power to the grid. Its been known for a few years now that deep isolated pockets of oil contain no biomass… so its a renewing element?
The list is long, and grows daily, The EPA just spent millions/billions of our money in china no less… on some ‘must have’ project, that serves us Americans? If we made all the cars electric, we’d have to build a new coal fired plant every three days so they could be plugged in. (Rush)
Love cannel needed an EPA… But now its turned onto a Monster (Steppenwolf)
… ‘Fresh eyes’ IS the remedy here, and not a lot of them at that!
You are abbsolutely right, Duke. I would not have agreed, but at least it would have made more sense, if they had called CO2 an “undesirable” gas, but a pollutant? That’s extreme. It’s politics, to promote the AGW alarmist agenda.
Nixon CREATED the EPA with an Executive order… I see no reason it couldn’t be DISBANDED the same way… it is an Executive branch Department…thus the chief Executive should be able to disband, or eliminate it at will.
You clearly have no idea how the government works.
Many bureaucrats of all governments seem to grow their agencys. This is how they climb up the ladder for higher wage growth. The more they butt into our lives, the more they claim they need to hire more bureaucrats and in turn need more supervisors to lead more bureaucrats. It never ends until there is no more money to pay for all this nonsense.
And the EPA send hundreds of thousands of dollars to, sit down first, communist China, to teach how to establish and enforce environmental law…the money we borrow from them hard at work…
Dismantling EPA is not only a fantasy but would wreak much economic damage on the economy. This is counter-intuitive but industry has factored compliance costs into their way of doing business. Unwinding that would create great uncertainty and competition issues.
The better way is for the president, with Congress, to rid the excesses and wrong-headed policies of EPA. Every environmenatl law was debated and then passed on a bi-partisan basis. The American people do not want to go backwards on environmental protection but they do want it implemented in an even-handed, efficient way.
A desire to close EPA’s doors is like tilting at windmills. Any candidate (like Bachmann) who proposes this stuff is not a serious candidate, but an idealogue. We don’t need another one of those.
Wrong.
It’s a matter of educating the public that the EPA and most other federal agencies rely on an overly elastic interpretation of what the federal grabbermint is empowered to do.
Eliminating those agencies will take some time, and US industries will have plenty of time to adjust their business plans accordingly. We’ll experience an economic boom reminiscent of the post-WWII era.
“Every environmenatl law was debated and then passed on a bi-partisan basis.”
It’s not the laws that were processed through Congress that are killing us. It’s the Executive Orders and circumventing the Constitution by the Obama Administration that need to be nullified.
Since environmentalism is a religion and not a science, the Environmental Protection Agency is the embodiment of our Federal Government’s assignment of environmentalism as the official religion of the United States of America. This is in direct violation of the Constitution. This is not to say that we shouldn’t keep our air quality and water healthful. You have won Michele Bachmann another vote by informing me that she wants to abolish this atrocity.
B-I-N-G-O
Thank you, Richard Nixon.
I’m not so willing to blame Nixon for an EPA that was eventually taken over and destroyed by liberals. When the EPA was first created most major cities had air that was unbreathable. Lake Erie was dead and a river (not lake – a river) caught fire due to pollution. Along the US-Canadian border the only rain was acid rain. Littler was so bad I used to see this Indian crying all the time.
Now that those problems have been fixed (I even saw that same Indian about a decade ago smiling at the cleanup) is when these people have completely lost their minds and clearly have an agenda to destroy this country’s quality of life. Most things just outlive their usefullness. This is just another example of one. Our biggest problem is refusing to end these outdated programs/groups.
No new regulations or limits unless explicitly authorized by Congress and signed by the president.
Nobody wants the 1960s levels of smog over LA, or pollution of our rivers and lakes, not even this conservative. Enough is, however, enough. We have certainly arrived at the point where insignificant incremental improvements require very significant costs. These costs aren’t borne by the EPA, so they too require strict supervision.
I hired a gardener. He spoke elequently of his worth, his plans to fix all problems, even to making it rain on time. We contracted for a four-year term.
The earth soured, seeds died without sprouting, but the gardener insisted it
was the fault of the preivous gardener. He went on extensive vacations, even when the garden was in dire need of weeding, watering and harvesting. He sold whatever produce the garden gave to enhance his next effort, which was to con another such as I to hire him. Now I learn that for the rest of his life, I must pay his salary, guard him and his family, while my garden is ruined, and my bank account is zero. I am truly sorry that I have allowed one slick con artist to delude me so, and put me and my children in bankruptcy. This story ends with a word of advice: “Don’t trust an empty suit.”
Yea! I know that guy! Reads you his instructions from his Blackberry. And had a manicure to die for.
This is awesome. Do I have permission to past on to others? Would you want your name attached?
Thank you,
Elleta
Make that ‘pass’.
Well written. My only critique is that I don’t think the gardener is so eloquent. And I find it weird that the eloquence is taken as conventional wisdom.
This is a perfect illustration of how the Washington felons keep everything “in house”.
They are using the government (We the People) for their personal ATM, and to establish kickbacks to their “in house” comrades.
The state of Florida has a “special fund” set aside for farmers to use in litigation with environmental issues.
They have so many money laundering schemes, it’s not possible to track them all down. And even when there is an agency or individual exposed and caught, they have the courts and arbitrators appointed with more cronies.
There are several other articles here on PJM that expose corruption, both personal and agency wide. One is about the blatant scofflaw John Kerry.
These people are parasites of the first magnitude. They need to be treated as the disease they are.
The fact that the EPA is doing their job poorly is not an indication that the work is pointless or useless. It just means that we need to find better ways to control the bureaucracy. Let’s start by changing the name to the Department of Natural Resources. We need to strike a balance between protecting the environment and exploiting our natural resources. An organization with a name such as the Environmental Protection Agency can not do that.
Second, get the most of the damned lawyers out of there and put some real business people, real engineers, and real scientists in there. When an organization gets too infested with one type of professional, they quickly lose sight of what they were supposed to be doing in the first place. This disease has hit many federal agencies. These days it seems the lawyers are running a disproportionate number of things in lieu of those who might actually know what is going on.
Third, there needs to be a balance and a tension, both within and outside an agency of this sort: The EPA, as it stands today, has none. The money you lay out to comply with their regulations isn’t their concern. This needs to end. Keeping the environment clean is not without cost. We need to weigh the short term and long term costs, and have an open discussion of what is worth pursuing. The EPA is not equipped to do that.
What does this mean? It means we have to rebuild an agency. It would surprise me if the EPA is the only such example. We have others that deserve at least as much of your scorn as they do. The FCC is one of them. The DHS is another. The list could be very long…
There are probably 3 to 5 federal cabinet-level agencies that could be collapsed into a “Department of Natural Resources”. For example you could easily collapse the Department of the Interior, Energy Department, USDA, and EPA into a new DNR, make it much more pyramidal (e.g. a lot less GS-13s and above), replacing lawyers with more actual engineers and scientists.
‘We have met the enemy, and they is us.’ – Pogo
This is the message delivered by federal bureaucracies, including the EPA,
and while reforming and/or eliminating the bureaucracies is necessary, it
is not sufficient; The US public must somehow develop enough self-control
to resist the impulse to go bankrupt trying to build a staircase to heaven.
Can anybody name a single good thing that has come out of our federal government in the last 100 years? Anyone?
The Aqueduct?
wait – that was the Romans
Victory over the Germans and Japanese (and their various allies) in World War II?
Surviving the Cold War?
GPS, Satellite TV, the M1A1 rifle.
Can’t think of anything outside the DOD.
World War Two- courtesy of the armed forces and American industrial strength which no longer exists, because our “best and brightest” are repulsed by the very idea.
The space program- Never mind “spinoffs”, putting men on the Moon was worth doing for its own sake. Unfortunately, that too required industry- which our “best and brightest” revile.
Winning the Cold War and collapsing Communism (for the most part)- again, our armed forces and industry, with our “enlightened elite’” trying to thwart them every way they could.
It isn’t the government that’s the problem- government is an effective tool if wielded properly. The problem is that we have for far too long a time allowed that instrument to remain in the hands of people whose worldview is inimical to, not only America and her allies, but reality as a whole.
A Thompson sub-machine gun is a devastatingly effective instrument for controlling a bad situation, when in the hands of a responsible person who knows how to use it correctly. (Hint; Aim low and fire short bursts. Been there, done that.)
It is much less effective in the hands of someone ignorant of weapons, especially if they view those they are supposed to be protecting as the main threat. It’s the equivalent of handing the bloody thing to a chimpanzee.
As Jefferson said, government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Which means the most important thing about it is choosing wisely when deciding who you want wielding it on your behalf.
clear ether
eon
WW ll Victory, thanks to 20 million odd dead Russians & about a million dead UKers too. Just think, if we had been there in 1939 instead of waiting for them to attack us, we could have stopped the Holocaust and denied Eastern Europe to Stalin.
True, but the Russians and British will point out that while we were late to the ball, we started supplying them with the tools they needed about one week after the Germans crossed the Polish (and later Russian) borders.
Russian determination and British (Commonwealth) courage were definitely necessary- but weapons and everything else marked “Made in U.S.A.” certainly helped. As the old saying goes, amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics.
cheers
eon
The Russians made almost all the tanks, aircraft small arms and cannons they used. Our greatest contribution to them was trucks, jeeps, half tracks, locomotives and food.
There’s a good reason why responsible regulation is needed, and it can be described in a phrase: cost shifting. When one considers the cost of doing business, we count the usual capital costs (land, buildings, machinery), labor, taxes, etc. Some however will attempt to externalize or shift those costs to others – by using cheaper equipment that generates more smog, to dump untreated wastes in the nearest river, rather than dispose of it properly. Others pay the cost in a despoiled environment, increased health care, and lower quality of life.
Sometimes folks will do the right thing without being pushed to do so, others need a level of persuasion. Best of all is when they can be shown it’s in their *own* interest to do that right thing – when they can save money by wasting less, when they can “monetize” what they once saw as refuse.
That said, there are always balances involved and the question of “who pays”. But what we’re dealing with here is the power to regulate becoming the power to abuse, arbitrary and selective enforcement, exceeding one’s area of responsibility, and finally crony capitalism, and outright corruption. And all of that is detrimental to personal freedom and the rule of law.
15-20 years ago, a pair (I think they’re married) of country-club-Socialist lawyers from Santa Monica formed a group calling themselves the “County Busriders Union” and sued the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transport Agency (which runs our buses and light rail). They settled out of court with the agency, and part of the settlement was that they be paid a retainer to watch the agency they’d just sued, for a decade, and sue them again if they believed the agency had done anything racist. At the end of the period in question I think the retainer went away, and I don’t believe they’ve succeeded in getting another one, but they continue to sue the MTA over just about anything. Their big issue is that they hate the light rail and want the city to only spend money on buses, because supposedly, according to studies they’ve done, light rail ridership is largely white, while bus ridership is mostly black and Hispanic. Having ridden public transport in Los Angeles for years, I can testify that anyone who says this hasn’t ever really riddent the train or the bus here in LA.
However, the point of my story is that these people were paid to sue the bus company, not after the fact, but on *retainer*. The world has gone insane…
Put Mark Levin in charge of the EPA and all would be right again!
Putting a toxic waste product like him in charge of the EPA, that makes a lot of sense
Now Levin would be an ‘Industrial Strength’ cleaner. Though you’d have to watch him.. he would do the pile of laundry.
Abolishing the EPA is a fine example of profits over health and cleanliness. Those who insist that abolishing the EPA won’t harm people or the environment are liars like those who insist abolishing the police won’t cause crime to increase. There are bad police departments and bad aspects to the EPA, so fix them! But only someone who so greedy and selfish that he is okay with fouling the air and water we all need to live for profit can take such tripe seriously.
Of course you can’t ‘abolish’ the EPA… sounds cool to say, But… companies spend big money off their bottom line to NOT pollute. With no oversite, they will increase their bottom line margins, hands down… everytime.
Rename… Completely restructure the agency and place it’s objectives back to a level of reality. Pollution is readily detected and traced by satellite. You catch ‘em… make them never ever want to do it again.
The currant EPA ‘models’ are absolute and in parts, juxtaposed.
I once argued with a gone ‘green’ guy… bottom line after 20 minutes?
Humans were a virus to the earth and need be treated as such… excluding the ‘care takers’ i.e. ‘Them’.
I said a few years ago:
… take the EPA’s stranglehold off America! We have more oil in the Bakken formation and ANWR than exists in the mid east.. two resent discoveries point to oil as being an element… not bio! And so a renewable resource!
So abolish the un-Constitutional EPA and open the fields.. force oil below 15 a barrel.. the entire western worlds economy will skyrocket. And maybe the blurred rational of protecting some bird, that is seasonally hunted, will not outweigh and block, the connecting of billions of dollars of ‘green’ wind farm energy into the grid.
In addition, with the cut in the out pouring of money to the mid-east, we’d no longer be buying C4 and AK 47′s for the enemy to kill us with… Downside? Construction may suffer by the slowdown in mosque building.
Job loss? NAW, they could go work the rigs, I worked them for years… its a learn/promotion as you go job. And pays good!
The department of energy was created in the 70′s to end America’s dependence on imported oil. It was 30% at the time… now it’s 70% WTF? Fire the whole agency! Another saving in billions of dollars! Cut enough and we could have an all volunteer tax…. if the government has an idea, those that like it and can afford to… can donate to it. Right now… we have the equivalent of Lawrence Welk running the city planning division…’Let there be bubbles’
They’ve had my scorn and my anger for years and I’ve expressed that view many times to the elected officials in my home state of North Carolina but they continue to produce outrageous, damaging, congressionally unapproved regulations that have direct, harmful effects on an already fragile economy and do so without hesitation. It’s infuriating, frustrating and incomprehensible that these so called representatives of the people expressing such grave concern over the disaster that is the Obama economy, do nothing with regard to these EPA pronouncements and so much of the other government agency activities that the Congress chooses to ignore like the rogue NLRB for example.
So, short of armed revolt what does one do. Vote you say! Of course and when the next useless bag full of false promises is elected then what? Wait for the next election cycle? This is becoming dangerously unworkable.
It’s more than a racket than just that. EPA/federal gov pays the court/lawyer fees for these environmental groups to sue them, no matter if they win or not. Because there’s not a limit on the cost (i.e. make them only get paid for what a government lawyer would get paid), the groups hire high-powered law firms. That’s not even mentioning the fact that EPA will decide to “lose” lawsuits that it could have won by merit – simply because they wanted the outcome anyway. If you want to see a good case of this, look at the Numeric Nutrient Criteria that forced upon Florida recently, which limits all nitrogen and phosphorus in water discharges. When that one goes to the other agriculture states, they are totally screwed.
There are a large number of governmental agencies which are run by presidential appointees. These appointees must be approved of by congress. What happens when the Congress and the President are all on the same party line is that the vast bureaucratic ship of state turns towards a direction that looks a lot like a centralization of power and a primary dominion. These are things which the founders of America sought to avoid.
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/09/appointed-bureaucracy.html
Hello, Neat post. There is a problem along with your web site in internet explorer, would check this? IE still is the marketplace chief and a huge part of other people will pass over your magnificent writing due to this problem.