While I don't think it was an intended outcome, ObamaCare has had the effect of driving up insurance the most in red states and driving down the cost of insurance the most in blue states.

It's what you'd expect as an unintended consequence of partisan legislation written, passed, and voted for exclusively by people from one party. Though maybe only in hindsight would the expectation be on your radar.

Evidence supporting this claim:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca...5520e27f6b







This got me thinking ... in this age of political polarization where screw the other guy is more important than having something to offer yourself ... what does "warfare" legislation look like? This has to be something that has broad bipartisan populist support ... but where the ramifications are only felt later on a partisan basis. You're basically mining for lies built into the other team's system. And where the rubber meets the road on a government system built on lies is usually on the revenue collection side. Here's a brilliant example: We're going to make it illegal to place a toll road on an Interstate. If you got one you've got 30 days to take it down. That almost ONLY impacts deep blue metropolitan cores and states. And it hits them directly in the wallet. Immediately. And it would of course be hugely popular.

The tax bill that limits the tax deduction on state income tax and home mortgage does that pretty well. The move hits blue areas almost exclusively.

(07-22-2018 07:34 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  While I don't think it was an intended outcome, ObamaCare has had the effect of driving up insurance the most in red states and driving down the cost of insurance the most in blue states.

It's what you'd expect as an unintended consequence of partisan legislation written, passed, and voted for exclusively by people from one party. Though maybe only in hindsight would the expectation be on your radar.

Evidence supporting this claim:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca...5520e27f6b







This got me thinking ... in this age of political polarization where screw the other guy is more important than having something to offer yourself ... what does "warfare" legislation look like? This has to be something that has broad bipartisan populist support ... but where the ramifications are only felt later on a partisan basis. You're basically mining for lies built into the other team's system. And where the rubber meets the road on a government system built on lies is usually on the revenue collection side. Here's a brilliant example: We're going to make it illegal to place a toll road on an Interstate. If you got one you've got 30 days to take it down. That almost ONLY impacts deep blue metropolitan cores and states. And it hits them directly in the wallet. Immediately. And it would of course be hugely popular.

If you want to know what it looks like, try South Africa. Cape Town province is the only one not run by the ANC. There's some tribalism too as whites and "coloreds" are the strongest political faction. National Geographic of course blames climate change for them running out of water, but the national government has not offered any help.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018...er-cities/

(07-22-2018 07:34 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  While I don't think it was an intended outcome, ObamaCare has had the effect of driving up insurance the most in red states and driving down the cost of insurance the most in blue states.

It's what you'd expect as an unintended consequence of partisan legislation written, passed, and voted for exclusively by people from one party. Though maybe only in hindsight would the expectation be on your radar.

Evidence supporting this claim:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca...5520e27f6b







This got me thinking ... in this age of political polarization where screw the other guy is more important than having something to offer yourself ... what does "warfare" legislation look like? This has to be something that has broad bipartisan populist support ... but where the ramifications are only felt later on a partisan basis. You're basically mining for lies built into the other team's system. And where the rubber meets the road on a government system built on lies is usually on the revenue collection side. Here's a brilliant example: We're going to make it illegal to place a toll road on an Interstate. If you got one you've got 30 days to take it down. That almost ONLY impacts deep blue metropolitan cores and states. And it hits them directly in the wallet. Immediately. And it would of course be hugely popular.

Interesting that Arkansas and Louisiana are the only two Medicaid expansion states experiencing crazy increases in premiums. Not sure what Louisiana did, but Arkansas took the nuttiest route possible. Anyone so poor they qualified for Medicaid prior to the expansion remained on Medicaid. Anyone earning more than the state Medicaid level but below the expansion threshold was put on a private health insurance plan with coverage identical to Medicaid and paid for by Medicaid. If those citizens are being accounted for in the premiums, the increase makes a lot of sense because they aren't being accounted for in traditional expansion states.

Among the southern states with the lowest increases, I recognize a few of them as being among the states with the lower rates of people covered by any sort of health coverage.

What does party based political warfare look like?

When you weaponize agencies like the FBI to engage in politically motivated witch hunts.

When you weaponize agencies like the IRS to harass and delay organizations from the opposite party.

Maybe those.....

(07-24-2018 11:32 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  What does party based political warfare look like?

When you weaponize agencies like the FBI to engage in politically motivated witch hunts.

When you weaponize agencies like the IRS to harass and delay organizations from the opposite party.

Maybe those.....

So basically you are saying we've done it since the FBI was founded (see Hoover, J. Edgar) and tried to use the IRS that way at least since FDR though Nixon took it to the pinnacle.

Interestingly it was the career people who exposed those efforts by the political appointees. Oddly the current administration is trying to reduce the protections for the career people.

A new and bigger swamp!

(07-24-2018 11:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:32 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  What does party based political warfare look like?

When you weaponize agencies like the FBI to engage in politically motivated witch hunts.

When you weaponize agencies like the IRS to harass and delay organizations from the opposite party.

Maybe those.....

So basically you are saying we've done it since the FBI was founded (see Hoover, J. Edgar) and tried to use the IRS that way at least since FDR though Nixon took it to the pinnacle.

Interestingly it was the career people who exposed those efforts by the political appointees. Oddly the current administration is trying to reduce the protections for the career people.

A new and bigger swamp!

I seem to remember that Hoover had his "files" on just about everyone HE deemed to be potential adversary or competitor. That included BOTH sides of the aisle. That's a far cry from openly endorsing investigations into people based on false "proof" for the end means of ousting a sitting President (or to keep one from getting elected) or trumped up (pun intended) accusations.

Same goes for the IRS. The suspiciously convenient audit has been going on for years, but when you're holding up or denying political organizations merely based on their political affiliation knowing full well those same organizations are fund raising and campaigning for your opponent, that takes it to another level.

The status quo seeks to protect their status and power, that's why people voted for Trump.

(07-24-2018 01:36 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:32 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  What does party based political warfare look like?

When you weaponize agencies like the FBI to engage in politically motivated witch hunts.

When you weaponize agencies like the IRS to harass and delay organizations from the opposite party.

Maybe those.....

So basically you are saying we've done it since the FBI was founded (see Hoover, J. Edgar) and tried to use the IRS that way at least since FDR though Nixon took it to the pinnacle.

Interestingly it was the career people who exposed those efforts by the political appointees. Oddly the current administration is trying to reduce the protections for the career people.

A new and bigger swamp!

I seem to remember that Hoover had his "files" on just about everyone HE deemed to be potential adversary or competitor. That included BOTH sides of the aisle. That's a far cry from openly endorsing investigations into people based on false "proof" for the end means of ousting a sitting President (or to keep one from getting elected) or trumped up (pun intended) accusations.

Same goes for the IRS. The suspiciously convenient audit has been going on for years, but when you're holding up or denying political organizations merely based on their political affiliation knowing full well those same organizations are fund raising and campaigning for your opponent, that takes it to another level.

The status quo seeks to protect their status and power, that's why people voted for Trump.

I think trying to jail a political opponent via the IRS tops monkeying with "charitable" organizations operating in the political arena.

But again you are talking about actions of people who are not part of the civil service, not the people who attained their positions based on competitive hiring and promotion.

The erosion of the civil service has been underway for several decades and it is now being accelerated (depending on how the suits against the executive orders end up).

Personally I don't know how Hillary Clinton gets up and faces each day (though I'm happy she doesn't greet the morning looking in a bathroom mirror in the White House). Rejected by Democrats in favor of arguably the least qualified person to become president. Uses her clout to get the nomination to take his spot and then defeated by arguably the least qualified person to become president.

Even with all that. I suspect history will reveal that Bernie was able to soften her up with Russian help and Trump in agreement or not got help from Russia because Russia saw her as the worst outcome for their interests. Even with all that, but for Comey and the FBI, she might just have skated over the line.

You sound as though you feel alienated from your government, Citizen Georgia_Tech_Swagger.

I say that instead of party based political warfare perhaps the goal should be the drastic reduction in the size of government so that political parties cannot engage in party based political warfare.

Because political warfare is a demonstration of how much power they have and maybe more importantly, how much power you don't have.

In an era when government is already out of touch with the citizens and getting worse every day, don't give political parties any more power to make decisions that hurt normal Americans.

(07-24-2018 11:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:32 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  What does party based political warfare look like?
When you weaponize agencies like the FBI to engage in politically motivated witch hunts.
When you weaponize agencies like the IRS to harass and delay organizations from the opposite party.
Maybe those.....

So basically you are saying we've done it since the FBI was founded (see Hoover, J. Edgar) and tried to use the IRS that way at least since FDR though Nixon took it to the pinnacle.
Interestingly it was the career people who exposed those efforts by the political appointees. Oddly the current administration is trying to reduce the protections for the career people.
A new and bigger swamp!

Career people "exposed those efforts by the political appointees"? Really? That's not what I saw. I saw the career people circle the wagons and it was elected political representatives who exposed it. Maybe we are defining terms differently.

And the current administration "is trying to reduce the protections for career people"? Again, really? Again, that's not what I'm seeing. Perhaps you can enlighten me. And quite frankly, if that is what is happening, then in my opinion that is a good thing.

What I see is an entrenched bureaucracy staffed by an army of nameless, faceless, unaccountable career bureaucrats who are going to do whatever they damn well please, regardless of party in power, and get away with it because they are incredibly adept at passing the buck. And this administration is a direct threat to that entrenched bureaucracy, so they are fighting back, tooth and nail, with every means at their disposal.

There is no more irrelevant factoid than that some career bureaucrat is a democrat or republican. They are whatever party best advances their career. If you want to talk about people who "went to Washington to do good, but ended up doing well instead," that description is far more apt for career bureaucrats that for career politicians. And it's pretty apt for career politicians. Thee's a reason why the top three counties in the US for average household income, and 7 of the top 12, are in the DC metro area. And it's those people collectively stealing (yes, that's the right word) our tax dollars.

I personally believe that it is high time, if not well past time, for the congress to reassert itself and take back some of the power that it has willingly passed off to these nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats. But that requires a congress that is willing to take some accountability back home, and I don't see congress as willing to kick over its own rice bowls either.

(07-24-2018 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:32 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  What does party based political warfare look like?
When you weaponize agencies like the FBI to engage in politically motivated witch hunts.
When you weaponize agencies like the IRS to harass and delay organizations from the opposite party.
Maybe those.....

So basically you are saying we've done it since the FBI was founded (see Hoover, J. Edgar) and tried to use the IRS that way at least since FDR though Nixon took it to the pinnacle.
Interestingly it was the career people who exposed those efforts by the political appointees. Oddly the current administration is trying to reduce the protections for the career people.
A new and bigger swamp!

Career people "exposed those efforts by the political appointees"? Really? That's not what I saw. I saw the career people circle the wagons and it was elected political representatives who exposed it. Maybe we are defining terms differently.

And the current administration "is trying to reduce the protections for career people"? Again, really? Again, that's not what I'm seeing. Perhaps you can enlighten me. And quite frankly, if that is what is happening, then in my opinion that is a good thing.

What I see is an entrenched bureaucracy staffed by an army of nameless, faceless, unaccountable career bureaucrats who are going to do whatever they damn well please, regardless of party in power, and get away with it because they are incredibly adept at passing the buck. And this administration is a direct threat to that entrenched bureaucracy, so they are fighting back, tooth and nail, with every means at their disposal.

There is no more irrelevant factoid than that some career bureaucrat is a democrat or republican. They are whatever party best advances their career. If you want to talk about people who "went to Washington to do good, but ended up doing well instead," that description is far more apt for career bureaucrats that for career politicians. And it's pretty apt for career politicians. Thee's a reason why the top three counties in the US for average household income, and 7 of the top 12, are in the DC metro area. And it's those people collectively stealing (yes, that's the right word) our tax dollars.

I personally believe that it is high time, if not well past time, for the congress to reassert itself and take back some of the power that it has willingly passed off to these nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats. But that requires a congress that is willing to take some accountability back home, and I don't see congress as willing to kick over its own rice bowls either.

Your understanding is all wrong.

Federal employment in the executive branch basically breaks down into three categories.
1. Positions appointed with the consent of the Senate
2. Positions appointed by the president or head of the agency or designated deputy.
3. Competitive positions (ie.civil service, which is often used to describe competitive positions that aren't technically civil service).

People in group 1 generally leave when the president leaves or they are appointed for a term of years. Whichever the case, the Senate has to approve their hiring.
People in group 2 could be political friends, might be hired as a favor, or might just be an employee who for whatever reason has found favor with someone up the food chain.
People in group 3 come from a competitive hiring system. It may mean taking the civil service exam, a law enforcement exam, or any number of other procedures. If you are best pals with the president, the speaker of the house, and president of the senate, none of that political goodwill can get you a competitive position unless you score high enough to be considered (generally top 3 scores among the candidates for the specific opening are all that are considered, some positions top 5).

Take Strozk and Page from the FBI. Now they might have started their career in the FBI via competitive employment but neither was in a competitive employment position at the time of their bad acts.

They were in group 2. They had been hired into or moved into non-competitive positions. Maybe they got the positions politically (ie. some political official wanted them hired) or maybe they just happened to have earned the favor or the political hired person who put them in that position (indirectly poltical).

They were exposed by the Office of Inspector General. Many if not most IG positions are competitive hired (FBI has some weird carve outs so can never be sure) and based on all that has emerged their texts came to light because more than one competitively hired person reported them to the IG.

The IRS official who was holding up the review of charitable organizations? Appointed. Not a competitive hire. The scheme was revealed when career competitive hires reported it.

Competitive hire (civil service) employees get their jobs based on merit and work under a maze of presidential appointees and general hacks who owe their position to someone saying bozo there would be a good fit at X agency. The competitive hire employees don't really care who is president because they know that if they don't break the law and they follow the law and the adopted regulations that they will still be there when this group is gone.

As to the President.

Two weeks ago he issued a pair executive orders. One declared that deputy US Marshalls would no longer be hired competitively. The US Marshall for a judical district if there is a vacancy can hire a kid from McDonalds who has a GED and has never been a law enforcement officer nor even held a gun.

By taking the deputy positions out of competitive employment the president eliminated the veteran's preference. One of the rewards for volunteering to serve your country is 5 points added to your score if you served during the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, Afghanistan or Iraq. You could also get 10 points for either a service-connected disability (which would likely preclude you from meeting the physical requirements to be a deputy marshal) or you earned a purple heart (which might not cause an issue).

The same day he issued an order removing all future hired administrative law judges from competitive hiring. (apply fill out lots of forms, pay your way to a scored interview, pay your way to a scored exam) and then the top 3 scores are up for a position.

The ALJ's are granted independence as long as they follow the law and stay out of trouble.

So today if a company appears before the Securities and Exchange Commission or the FCC or the FDA the ALJ that hears their case is competitively hired and will weigh the facts, the law and the regulations and issue a decision. The head of the FDA can't call up an ALJ say "Look Bayer shouldn't be fined for failing to disclose those side effects".

However the new hires won't be competitively hired, do not have to have any legal experience all other than passing the bar exam. A memo leaked from DOJ yesterday tells agency heads the agency will argue that failing to follow instructions is good cause to fire an ALJ. So the head of the FDA can call up the ALJ and tell them don't fine Bayer, don't fine Sinclair, don't fine Merrill-Lynch and then fire the ALJ for cause and the administration will back them up for the firing.

Anyone who thinks this is an improvement doesn't understand how it works.
If Wells Fargo defrauds little old ladies or GlaxoSmithKline ships a drug knowing it causes seizures in some people and doesn't disclose it, they can use their political clout to get the SEC or FDA to rule in their favor and then stand before a jury and say, "If what we did were bad, the SEC (or FDA) would have found we did wrong and fined us and ordered us to stop" even though they fixed the outcome in front of the SEC or FDA.

(07-24-2018 03:31 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You sound as though you feel alienated from your government, Citizen Georgia_Tech_Swagger.

I say that instead of party based political warfare perhaps the goal should be the drastic reduction in the size of government so that political parties cannot engage in party based political warfare.

Because political warfare is a demonstration of how much power they have and maybe more importantly, how much power you don't have.

In an era when government is already out of touch with the citizens and getting worse every day, don't give political parties any more power to make decisions that hurt normal Americans.

More than that, any government that operates on the spoils go to the victor mentality loses its legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. Inevitably this leads to civil insurrection.

The consent of the governed is the only legitimacy for a free society. That's why effective government is supposed to lead from the middle and by some form of bipartisan consensus when possible. They won't ever do that again until they are answerable to the people for their campaigns instead of to corporate interests funneled through PAC contributions.

(07-24-2018 06:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:32 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  What does party based political warfare look like?
When you weaponize agencies like the FBI to engage in politically motivated witch hunts.
When you weaponize agencies like the IRS to harass and delay organizations from the opposite party.
Maybe those.....

So basically you are saying we've done it since the FBI was founded (see Hoover, J. Edgar) and tried to use the IRS that way at least since FDR though Nixon took it to the pinnacle.
Interestingly it was the career people who exposed those efforts by the political appointees. Oddly the current administration is trying to reduce the protections for the career people.
A new and bigger swamp!

Career people "exposed those efforts by the political appointees"? Really? That's not what I saw. I saw the career people circle the wagons and it was elected political representatives who exposed it. Maybe we are defining terms differently.

And the current administration "is trying to reduce the protections for career people"? Again, really? Again, that's not what I'm seeing. Perhaps you can enlighten me. And quite frankly, if that is what is happening, then in my opinion that is a good thing.

What I see is an entrenched bureaucracy staffed by an army of nameless, faceless, unaccountable career bureaucrats who are going to do whatever they damn well please, regardless of party in power, and get away with it because they are incredibly adept at passing the buck. And this administration is a direct threat to that entrenched bureaucracy, so they are fighting back, tooth and nail, with every means at their disposal.

There is no more irrelevant factoid than that some career bureaucrat is a democrat or republican. They are whatever party best advances their career. If you want to talk about people who "went to Washington to do good, but ended up doing well instead," that description is far more apt for career bureaucrats that for career politicians. And it's pretty apt for career politicians. Thee's a reason why the top three counties in the US for average household income, and 7 of the top 12, are in the DC metro area. And it's those people collectively stealing (yes, that's the right word) our tax dollars.

I personally believe that it is high time, if not well past time, for the congress to reassert itself and take back some of the power that it has willingly passed off to these nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats. But that requires a congress that is willing to take some accountability back home, and I don't see congress as willing to kick over its own rice bowls either.

Your understanding is all wrong.

Federal employment in the executive branch basically breaks down into three categories.
1. Positions appointed with the consent of the Senate
2. Positions appointed by the president or head of the agency or designated deputy.
3. Competitive positions (ie.civil service, which is often used to describe competitive positions that aren't technically civil service).

People in group 1 generally leave when the president leaves or they are appointed for a term of years. Whichever the case, the Senate has to approve their hiring.
People in group 2 could be political friends, might be hired as a favor, or might just be an employee who for whatever reason has found favor with someone up the food chain.
People in group 3 come from a competitive hiring system. It may mean taking the civil service exam, a law enforcement exam, or any number of other procedures. If you are best pals with the president, the speaker of the house, and president of the senate, none of that political goodwill can get you a competitive position unless you score high enough to be considered (generally top 3 scores among the candidates for the specific opening are all that are considered, some positions top 5).

Take Strozk and Page from the FBI. Now they might have started their career in the FBI via competitive employment but neither was in a competitive employment position at the time of their bad acts.

They were in group 2. They had been hired into or moved into non-competitive positions. Maybe they got the positions politically (ie. some political official wanted them hired) or maybe they just happened to have earned the favor or the political hired person who put them in that position (indirectly poltical).

They were exposed by the Office of Inspector General. Many if not most IG positions are competitive hired (FBI has some weird carve outs so can never be sure) and based on all that has emerged their texts came to light because more than one competitively hired person reported them to the IG.

The IRS official who was holding up the review of charitable organizations? Appointed. Not a competitive hire. The scheme was revealed when career competitive hires reported it.

Competitive hire (civil service) employees get their jobs based on merit and work under a maze of presidential appointees and general hacks who owe their position to someone saying bozo there would be a good fit at X agency. The competitive hire employees don't really care who is president because they know that if they don't break the law and they follow the law and the adopted regulations that they will still be there when this group is gone.

As to the President.

Two weeks ago he issued a pair executive orders. One declared that deputy US Marshalls would no longer be hired competitively. The US Marshall for a judical district if there is a vacancy can hire a kid from McDonalds who has a GED and has never been a law enforcement officer nor even held a gun.

By taking the deputy positions out of competitive employment the president eliminated the veteran's preference. One of the rewards for volunteering to serve your country is 5 points added to your score if you served during the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, Afghanistan or Iraq. You could also get 10 points for either a service-connected disability (which would likely preclude you from meeting the physical requirements to be a deputy marshal) or you earned a purple heart (which might not cause an issue).

The same day he issued an order removing all future hired administrative law judges from competitive hiring. (apply fill out lots of forms, pay your way to a scored interview, pay your way to a scored exam) and then the top 3 scores are up for a position.

The ALJ's are granted independence as long as they follow the law and stay out of trouble.

So today if a company appears before the Securities and Exchange Commission or the FCC or the FDA the ALJ that hears their case is competitively hired and will weigh the facts, the law and the regulations and issue a decision. The head of the FDA can't call up an ALJ say "Look Bayer shouldn't be fined for failing to disclose those side effects".

However the new hires won't be competitively hired, do not have to have any legal experience all other than passing the bar exam. A memo leaked from DOJ yesterday tells agency heads the agency will argue that failing to follow instructions is good cause to fire an ALJ. So the head of the FDA can call up the ALJ and tell them don't fine Bayer, don't fine Sinclair, don't fine Merrill-Lynch and then fire the ALJ for cause and the administration will back them up for the firing.

Anyone who thinks this is an improvement doesn't understand how it works.
If Wells Fargo defrauds little old ladies or GlaxoSmithKline ships a drug knowing it causes seizures in some people and doesn't disclose it, they can use their political clout to get the SEC or FDA to rule in their favor and then stand before a jury and say, "If what we did were bad, the SEC (or FDA) would have found we did wrong and fined us and ordered us to stop" even though they fixed the outcome in front of the SEC or FDA.

Actually you are a tad wrong with the ALJ judges issue. The Supreme Court this term ruled that ALJs are not 'competitive hires' within the Executive Branch but are constitutional Officers, and need to be appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

7-2

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-130

I dont think Trump ordered the 7 justices to rule this way. So at least take one of those items off the 'administration is reducing protections' and add it to 'Kagan is reducing protections'.

(07-24-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:31 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You sound as though you feel alienated from your government, Citizen Georgia_Tech_Swagger.

I say that instead of party based political warfare perhaps the goal should be the drastic reduction in the size of government so that political parties cannot engage in party based political warfare.

Because political warfare is a demonstration of how much power they have and maybe more importantly, how much power you don't have.

In an era when government is already out of touch with the citizens and getting worse every day, don't give political parties any more power to make decisions that hurt normal Americans.

More than that, any government that operates on the spoils go to the victor mentality loses its legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. Inevitably this leads to civil insurrection.

The consent of the governed is the only legitimacy for a free society. That's why effective government is supposed to lead from the middle and by some form of bipartisan consensus when possible. They won't ever do that again until they are answerable to the people for their campaigns instead of to corporate interests funneled through PAC contributions.

When you change the language of a campaign from comparing personality and policy to describing your opponents as an enemy of the state, the opportunity for leading from the middle is gone because your supporters see you as a traitor and the other side doesn't trust you.

(07-25-2018 09:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:31 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You sound as though you feel alienated from your government, Citizen Georgia_Tech_Swagger.

I say that instead of party based political warfare perhaps the goal should be the drastic reduction in the size of government so that political parties cannot engage in party based political warfare.

Because political warfare is a demonstration of how much power they have and maybe more importantly, how much power you don't have.

In an era when government is already out of touch with the citizens and getting worse every day, don't give political parties any more power to make decisions that hurt normal Americans.

More than that, any government that operates on the spoils go to the victor mentality loses its legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. Inevitably this leads to civil insurrection.

The consent of the governed is the only legitimacy for a free society. That's why effective government is supposed to lead from the middle and by some form of bipartisan consensus when possible. They won't ever do that again until they are answerable to the people for their campaigns instead of to corporate interests funneled through PAC contributions.

When you change the language of a campaign from comparing personality and policy to describing your opponents as an enemy of the state, the opportunity for leading from the middle is gone because your supporters see you as a traitor and the other side doesn't trust you.

Kind of like this as an example?
Corey Booker states 'Anyone Not Opposing Kavanaugh is Complicit in Evil'

(07-25-2018 10:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 09:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:31 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You sound as though you feel alienated from your government, Citizen Georgia_Tech_Swagger.

I say that instead of party based political warfare perhaps the goal should be the drastic reduction in the size of government so that political parties cannot engage in party based political warfare.

Because political warfare is a demonstration of how much power they have and maybe more importantly, how much power you don't have.

In an era when government is already out of touch with the citizens and getting worse every day, don't give political parties any more power to make decisions that hurt normal Americans.

More than that, any government that operates on the spoils go to the victor mentality loses its legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. Inevitably this leads to civil insurrection.

The consent of the governed is the only legitimacy for a free society. That's why effective government is supposed to lead from the middle and by some form of bipartisan consensus when possible. They won't ever do that again until they are answerable to the people for their campaigns instead of to corporate interests funneled through PAC contributions.

When you change the language of a campaign from comparing personality and policy to describing your opponents as an enemy of the state, the opportunity for leading from the middle is gone because your supporters see you as a traitor and the other side doesn't trust you.

Kind of like this as an example?
Corey Booker states 'Anyone Not Opposing Kavanaugh is Complicit in Evil'

Yeah or calling people Nazis or Communists or Socialists when none of those people believe in fascism or state control of the means of production.

What else would you call someone who wishes to a great deal in a redistributionist-centric philosophy? That philosophy is so anti-capitalist that it truly could be labeled as a vein of socialist thought, even when dealing with a regime of heavy taxation and layers of social policy implemented at a centralized core. There is good reason why the Nordic countries are labeled Socialist and the UK pre-Thatcher as well.

One does not necessarily have to believe in full-out state control of the means of production to engender the 'Socialist' moniker.

(07-25-2018 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What else would you call someone who wishes to a great deal in a redistributionist-centric philosophy? That philosophy is so anti-capitalist that it truly could be labeled as a vein of socialist thought, even when dealing with a regime of heavy taxation and layers of social policy implemented at a centralized core. There is good reason why the Nordic countries are labeled Socialist and the UK pre-Thatcher as well.

One does not necessarily have to believe in full-out state control of the means of production to engender the 'Socialist' moniker.

No you can have anti-capitalist policies like the city that abuts my suburban community. They offered to give Bass Pro an abatement of city property tax and a turnback of city sales tax to locate there. Never mind they already had a smaller national chain in the city offering basically the same inventory that got no break or that there was a nice sized locally owned store with similar products offered no breaks.

Crony capitalism is not capitalism.
Differing tax burdens for competitors in the marketplace is not capitalism either.

If you abandon the classic definition of socialism you get big fuzzy nothing that means nothing.

Public schools and colleges? Workforce education? Highways? Airports? Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment insurance? Worker's compensation? Police? Fire? Ambulance? Local Health Department? Federal bank insurance?

All those are redistributionists you turn the word socialist into a meaningless word that two people talking and using the word are unable to communicate effectively because they are each defining it a different way.

The Nordic countries are not socialist. They for political reasons hijacked the word to address the post-war instability they were experiencing. People with food and shelter who don't have to worry about their kid dying in a preventable manner don't overthrow governments.

Even post-Thatcher, the UK is a rarity. They have an actual SOCIALIST health care system, the government owns the hospitals and most clinics and most doctors, nurses, and techs are employees of the government.

The post-war UK had severe lack of capital (but they paid off the US loans early) and had acquired Jaguar, BP, British Oil, British Aerospace, and British Steel and started British Telecom and British Airways. All of which she sold off.

She also had her version the Homestead Act, selling much of the government owned housing (lot of townhouse construction) to the people living in the housing units for roughly $20,000 US creating a surge of people rising out of poverty as most of the properties were worth 10x that a decade later and nearly all residents qualified to borrow because they were handed a great deal of equity with the deed. Thatcher redistributed tax purchased to the residents at below market value. That's about as redistributionist as it gets.

(07-24-2018 06:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:32 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  What does party based political warfare look like?
When you weaponize agencies like the FBI to engage in politically motivated witch hunts.
When you weaponize agencies like the IRS to harass and delay organizations from the opposite party.
Maybe those.....

So basically you are saying we've done it since the FBI was founded (see Hoover, J. Edgar) and tried to use the IRS that way at least since FDR though Nixon took it to the pinnacle.
Interestingly it was the career people who exposed those efforts by the political appointees. Oddly the current administration is trying to reduce the protections for the career people.
A new and bigger swamp!

Career people "exposed those efforts by the political appointees"? Really? That's not what I saw. I saw the career people circle the wagons and it was elected political representatives who exposed it. Maybe we are defining terms differently.
And the current administration "is trying to reduce the protections for career people"? Again, really? Again, that's not what I'm seeing. Perhaps you can enlighten me. And quite frankly, if that is what is happening, then in my opinion that is a good thing.
What I see is an entrenched bureaucracy staffed by an army of nameless, faceless, unaccountable career bureaucrats who are going to do whatever they damn well please, regardless of party in power, and get away with it because they are incredibly adept at passing the buck. And this administration is a direct threat to that entrenched bureaucracy, so they are fighting back, tooth and nail, with every means at their disposal.
There is no more irrelevant factoid than that some career bureaucrat is a democrat or republican. They are whatever party best advances their career. If you want to talk about people who "went to Washington to do good, but ended up doing well instead," that description is far more apt for career bureaucrats that for career politicians. And it's pretty apt for career politicians. Thee's a reason why the top three counties in the US for average household income, and 7 of the top 12, are in the DC metro area. And it's those people collectively stealing (yes, that's the right word) our tax dollars.
I personally believe that it is high time, if not well past time, for the congress to reassert itself and take back some of the power that it has willingly passed off to these nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats. But that requires a congress that is willing to take some accountability back home, and I don't see congress as willing to kick over its own rice bowls either.

Your understanding is all wrong.
Federal employment in the executive branch basically breaks down into three categories.
1. Positions appointed with the consent of the Senate
2. Positions appointed by the president or head of the agency or designated deputy.
3. Competitive positions (ie.civil service, which is often used to describe competitive positions that aren't technically civil service).
People in group 1 generally leave when the president leaves or they are appointed for a term of years. Whichever the case, the Senate has to approve their hiring.
People in group 2 could be political friends, might be hired as a favor, or might just be an employee who for whatever reason has found favor with someone up the food chain.
People in group 3 come from a competitive hiring system. It may mean taking the civil service exam, a law enforcement exam, or any number of other procedures. If you are best pals with the president, the speaker of the house, and president of the senate, none of that political goodwill can get you a competitive position unless you score high enough to be considered (generally top 3 scores among the candidates for the specific opening are all that are considered, some positions top 5).
Take Strozk and Page from the FBI. Now they might have started their career in the FBI via competitive employment but neither was in a competitive employment position at the time of their bad acts.
They were in group 2. They had been hired into or moved into non-competitive positions. Maybe they got the positions politically (ie. some political official wanted them hired) or maybe they just happened to have earned the favor or the political hired person who put them in that position (indirectly poltical).
They were exposed by the Office of Inspector General. Many if not most IG positions are competitive hired (FBI has some weird carve outs so can never be sure) and based on all that has emerged their texts came to light because more than one competitively hired person reported them to the IG.
The IRS official who was holding up the review of charitable organizations? Appointed. Not a competitive hire. The scheme was revealed when career competitive hires reported it.
Competitive hire (civil service) employees get their jobs based on merit and work under a maze of presidential appointees and general hacks who owe their position to someone saying bozo there would be a good fit at X agency. The competitive hire employees don't really care who is president because they know that if they don't break the law and they follow the law and the adopted regulations that they will still be there when this group is gone.
As to the President.
Two weeks ago he issued a pair executive orders. One declared that deputy US Marshalls would no longer be hired competitively. The US Marshall for a judical district if there is a vacancy can hire a kid from McDonalds who has a GED and has never been a law enforcement officer nor even held a gun.
By taking the deputy positions out of competitive employment the president eliminated the veteran's preference. One of the rewards for volunteering to serve your country is 5 points added to your score if you served during the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, Afghanistan or Iraq. You could also get 10 points for either a service-connected disability (which would likely preclude you from meeting the physical requirements to be a deputy marshal) or you earned a purple heart (which might not cause an issue).
The same day he issued an order removing all future hired administrative law judges from competitive hiring. (apply fill out lots of forms, pay your way to a scored interview, pay your way to a scored exam) and then the top 3 scores are up for a position.
The ALJ's are granted independence as long as they follow the law and stay out of trouble.
So today if a company appears before the Securities and Exchange Commission or the FCC or the FDA the ALJ that hears their case is competitively hired and will weigh the facts, the law and the regulations and issue a decision. The head of the FDA can't call up an ALJ say "Look Bayer shouldn't be fined for failing to disclose those side effects".
However the new hires won't be competitively hired, do not have to have any legal experience all other than passing the bar exam. A memo leaked from DOJ yesterday tells agency heads the agency will argue that failing to follow instructions is good cause to fire an ALJ. So the head of the FDA can call up the ALJ and tell them don't fine Bayer, don't fine Sinclair, don't fine Merrill-Lynch and then fire the ALJ for cause and the administration will back them up for the firing.
Anyone who thinks this is an improvement doesn't understand how it works.
If Wells Fargo defrauds little old ladies or GlaxoSmithKline ships a drug knowing it causes seizures in some people and doesn't disclose it, they can use their political clout to get the SEC or FDA to rule in their favor and then stand before a jury and say, "If what we did were bad, the SEC (or FDA) would have found we did wrong and fined us and ordered us to stop" even though they fixed the outcome in front of the SEC or FDA.

You’re telling me what the rules say. I’m telling you how things work. An ALJ who rules against the agency with any consistency is going nowhere career-wise. You may be employed by such an agency—your post certainly suggests great familiarity with the written rules—and you may wish to serve as an apologist for them. I have worked in/for/around several, both state and federal, but I have no wish to be an apologist.

As I have said before, bureaucrats know four levels of classified information—the usual confidential, secret, and top secret, plus embarrassing to the agency. And there’s only one of those hills they will die to defend. Do I have a low opinion of career bureaucrats, particularly federal? Yep.

(07-25-2018 05:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 11:32 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  What does party based political warfare look like?
When you weaponize agencies like the FBI to engage in politically motivated witch hunts.
When you weaponize agencies like the IRS to harass and delay organizations from the opposite party.
Maybe those.....

So basically you are saying we've done it since the FBI was founded (see Hoover, J. Edgar) and tried to use the IRS that way at least since FDR though Nixon took it to the pinnacle.
Interestingly it was the career people who exposed those efforts by the political appointees. Oddly the current administration is trying to reduce the protections for the career people.
A new and bigger swamp!

Career people "exposed those efforts by the political appointees"? Really? That's not what I saw. I saw the career people circle the wagons and it was elected political representatives who exposed it. Maybe we are defining terms differently.
And the current administration "is trying to reduce the protections for career people"? Again, really? Again, that's not what I'm seeing. Perhaps you can enlighten me. And quite frankly, if that is what is happening, then in my opinion that is a good thing.
What I see is an entrenched bureaucracy staffed by an army of nameless, faceless, unaccountable career bureaucrats who are going to do whatever they damn well please, regardless of party in power, and get away with it because they are incredibly adept at passing the buck. And this administration is a direct threat to that entrenched bureaucracy, so they are fighting back, tooth and nail, with every means at their disposal.
There is no more irrelevant factoid than that some career bureaucrat is a democrat or republican. They are whatever party best advances their career. If you want to talk about people who "went to Washington to do good, but ended up doing well instead," that description is far more apt for career bureaucrats that for career politicians. And it's pretty apt for career politicians. Thee's a reason why the top three counties in the US for average household income, and 7 of the top 12, are in the DC metro area. And it's those people collectively stealing (yes, that's the right word) our tax dollars.
I personally believe that it is high time, if not well past time, for the congress to reassert itself and take back some of the power that it has willingly passed off to these nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats. But that requires a congress that is willing to take some accountability back home, and I don't see congress as willing to kick over its own rice bowls either.

Your understanding is all wrong.
Federal employment in the executive branch basically breaks down into three categories.
1. Positions appointed with the consent of the Senate
2. Positions appointed by the president or head of the agency or designated deputy.
3. Competitive positions (ie.civil service, which is often used to describe competitive positions that aren't technically civil service).
People in group 1 generally leave when the president leaves or they are appointed for a term of years. Whichever the case, the Senate has to approve their hiring.
People in group 2 could be political friends, might be hired as a favor, or might just be an employee who for whatever reason has found favor with someone up the food chain.
People in group 3 come from a competitive hiring system. It may mean taking the civil service exam, a law enforcement exam, or any number of other procedures. If you are best pals with the president, the speaker of the house, and president of the senate, none of that political goodwill can get you a competitive position unless you score high enough to be considered (generally top 3 scores among the candidates for the specific opening are all that are considered, some positions top 5).
Take Strozk and Page from the FBI. Now they might have started their career in the FBI via competitive employment but neither was in a competitive employment position at the time of their bad acts.
They were in group 2. They had been hired into or moved into non-competitive positions. Maybe they got the positions politically (ie. some political official wanted them hired) or maybe they just happened to have earned the favor or the political hired person who put them in that position (indirectly poltical).
They were exposed by the Office of Inspector General. Many if not most IG positions are competitive hired (FBI has some weird carve outs so can never be sure) and based on all that has emerged their texts came to light because more than one competitively hired person reported them to the IG.
The IRS official who was holding up the review of charitable organizations? Appointed. Not a competitive hire. The scheme was revealed when career competitive hires reported it.
Competitive hire (civil service) employees get their jobs based on merit and work under a maze of presidential appointees and general hacks who owe their position to someone saying bozo there would be a good fit at X agency. The competitive hire employees don't really care who is president because they know that if they don't break the law and they follow the law and the adopted regulations that they will still be there when this group is gone.
As to the President.
Two weeks ago he issued a pair executive orders. One declared that deputy US Marshalls would no longer be hired competitively. The US Marshall for a judical district if there is a vacancy can hire a kid from McDonalds who has a GED and has never been a law enforcement officer nor even held a gun.
By taking the deputy positions out of competitive employment the president eliminated the veteran's preference. One of the rewards for volunteering to serve your country is 5 points added to your score if you served during the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, Afghanistan or Iraq. You could also get 10 points for either a service-connected disability (which would likely preclude you from meeting the physical requirements to be a deputy marshal) or you earned a purple heart (which might not cause an issue).
The same day he issued an order removing all future hired administrative law judges from competitive hiring. (apply fill out lots of forms, pay your way to a scored interview, pay your way to a scored exam) and then the top 3 scores are up for a position.
The ALJ's are granted independence as long as they follow the law and stay out of trouble.
So today if a company appears before the Securities and Exchange Commission or the FCC or the FDA the ALJ that hears their case is competitively hired and will weigh the facts, the law and the regulations and issue a decision. The head of the FDA can't call up an ALJ say "Look Bayer shouldn't be fined for failing to disclose those side effects".
However the new hires won't be competitively hired, do not have to have any legal experience all other than passing the bar exam. A memo leaked from DOJ yesterday tells agency heads the agency will argue that failing to follow instructions is good cause to fire an ALJ. So the head of the FDA can call up the ALJ and tell them don't fine Bayer, don't fine Sinclair, don't fine Merrill-Lynch and then fire the ALJ for cause and the administration will back them up for the firing.
Anyone who thinks this is an improvement doesn't understand how it works.
If Wells Fargo defrauds little old ladies or GlaxoSmithKline ships a drug knowing it causes seizures in some people and doesn't disclose it, they can use their political clout to get the SEC or FDA to rule in their favor and then stand before a jury and say, "If what we did were bad, the SEC (or FDA) would have found we did wrong and fined us and ordered us to stop" even though they fixed the outcome in front of the SEC or FDA.

You’re telling me what the rules say. I’m telling you how things work. An ALJ who rules against the agency with any consistency is going nowhere career-wise. You may be employed by such an agency—your post certainly suggests great familiarity with the written rules—and you may wish to serve as an apologist for them. I have worked in/for/around several, both state and federal, but I have no wish to be an apologist.

As I have said before, bureaucrats know four levels of classified information—the usual confidential, secret, and top secret, plus embarrassing to the agency. And there’s only one of those hills they will die to defend. Do I have a low opinion of career bureaucrats, particularly federal? Yep.

The point of the ALJ system is to have an adjudicator deal with an agency vs public conflict without going to court. I've appeared before environmental law, tax law, and disability ALJs.

The ALJ is job secure as long as they do their work and they determine cases in line with the regulations and statutes.

If they are not policy compliant they can be fired.

But the point of creating the system is to resolve those conflicts applying the law the way the US District Court would resolve them without flooding the world with a couple thousand more appointed for life judges, removable only by impeachment and to avoid every aggrieved citizen needing to hire a full blown legal team.

If the ALJ becomes a functionary rubber stamping the decisions of the agency that's a sham trial in a kangaroo court and you've sent hundreds of thousands of disputes to the District Courts.