GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Bush and the bureaucracy: a crusade for control

• 9091
  

  Uber,

  Thanks for clarifying your stance. As for the un-elected (federal) judiciary (since some state judges are elected): A big reason the Constitution requires that Supreme Court justices be appointed, not elected, is to protect Minority Rights.

  If judges can be voted out of office, the last bulwark against Majority Tyranny is gone. Whatever political group with the most power can basically decide what the Bill of Rights mean, by voting out judges they disagree with.

  This was a HUGE concern of the Founding Fathers (see SHays rebellion, etc.). The big minority of their day was property holders, who were threatened by the majority.

  If you value the Bill of Rights, you should want it to be protected by appointed judges. Not politicans, who will sacrifice it to please voters. For example, how many politicans would defend the 4th amendment, against unreasonable searches? That's one you should care about as a Libertarian!

  But guess what: Protecting Criminals from unreasonable searches don't win votes. Putting Criminals behind bars does. If we could elect judges, it wouldn't be long until the 4th amendment and others was a thing of the past.

  Art Posted April 5, 2005 3:58 PM
• 9089
  

  Uber, you didn't do your due diligence. Michael Schiavo's children with his companion are both younger than 3 years old AND the Schindlers encouraged him to start dating again, only getting angry and accusing him of trying to kill Terri after the court awarded the Schiavos money. Stop and think before you slander someone's name.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 5, 2005 2:52 PM
• 9082
  

  Art,

  I am consistent. The question to me wasn't "Why is the government getting involved?" but "What were Terri's wishes?"

  It seemed to me that Judge Greer made a suspect initial decision on highly selective evidence (for whatever reason) and then the subsequent courts ruled on procedural/precedence compliance in all the reviews thereafter.

  The question of what TERRI wanted was not again allowed to be reviewed. If these were her wishes, then they should have been followed. That said, protect me from having someone that wants me dead speaking "on my behalf" about what I wanted - not my idea of a viable advocate.

  If the woman wanted what her so-called husband "remembered" 7 years after the fact while living with a new family, my question is why did he allow the tube to be placed in the first place? I just think HIS due process was well served by the courts and hers was never considered. Again, protect me from similar judiciary "support."

  Good came from it though - there are millions of new living wills that hopefully will eliminate another national spectacle of this nature and ENSURE that people's wishes are followed without government intervention.

  The whole situation stinks. But my initial question remains for anyone that would like to respond - we can vote the bums out of the executive and legislative branches. The judiciary is systematically eliminating all of the Bill of Rights as most just sit on their hands and allow it. So just WHAT protects us from a power-drunk judiciary that effectively thumbs its nose at the other two branches, as they cower and quake in their boots at edicts from the bench?

  Uber Libertarian Posted April 5, 2005 1:57 PM
• 9052
  

  Uber Libertarian,

  I have two points for you. First: Republican- and Democrat-appointed, Federal and State judges, all ruled the same way on the Schiavo case. You know why? Because the law was clear: in almost every state, people's end-of-life wishes regarding life support are respected.

  Also: You call yourself an Uber Libertarian. Last time I checked, Libertarians don't like the government telling them what they can or cannot do. They certainly don't want the government denying them the right to die with dignity, under their own terms. Any Libertarian worth his salt would stand up for Schiavo's right to end her life under these conditions. Which, by the way, is what the LAW supports.

  Come on, Uber, at least try to be ideogically consistent with yourself!

  Art Posted April 2, 2005 3:59 AM
• 9021
  

  Compliance Officer,

  Listen to yourself! As a libertarian, I'm no fan of government interference - quit taxing the crap out of me to fund welfare, pornographic "art" and the money pit that our public, so-called education has become. But the government we have IS "by the people, for the people and of the people-not for the church, of the church and by the church." Yes, believers overwhelmingly supported the re-election of GW Bush over JF Kerry. The environmentalists overwhelmingly supported the other side. THE PEOPLE spoke and we have what we have. The problem is that the left that want government control of everything are never happy unless they win - witness the court case after court case for the Governorship of Washington until they got their way - and they worship the god of law every bit as stridently. They cannot admit to a higher deity so they transpose their allegiance to law. Those other societies you refer to were empowered by judiciaries that supported them. That is NOT a problem in the current courts vs the administration.

  We have an out-of-control Judiciary that absolutely disdains and thumbs its collective noses at the legislative and executive branches. With the other two, we can vote the bums out. But the legislative and executive branches are the ONLY hope we have of reigning in these non-elected, elitist, power-drunk judges.

  Uber Libertarian Posted March 31, 2005 10:25 AM
• 8960
  

  It does not matter how they say they want things, their (Bush administrators) actions prove otherwise. If one compares the debacle of Enron to what's going in goverment, I believe you would find striking similarities, if you compare what they are trying to Marshal Law, you would find striking similarities. They control or influence all national discourse--I believe there is a very striking similarity to another form of genocidal government that we believe is long past us; not so. In the name of religion the Bush people have forgotten about the preamble to the US Constitution-government by the people, for the people and of the people-not for the church, of the church and by the church.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 28, 2005 10:52 AM
• 8958
  

  There are so many things to say about this article, but so little space. Two points immediately come to mind:

  1. Nothing motivates a worker more than to see their boss put in an honest day's work. The federal government is saturated with managers who gained their positions through the agency bureaucracy even though they have few of the necessary skills and are marginal performers at best. Until the poor managerial performers are weeded out and those responsible for promoting them are held accountable, (criminally accountable if need be) nothing will change.

  2. In many federal agencies, the IG's are too much the puppets of agency senior executives and have little objectivity. A good example of this is the Department of Labor. The DOL-OIG is has received countless complaints of violations of federal law by the representatives of DOL-OWCP. It has also been brought to their attention that numerous medical practitioners are charging the government for work they didn't do through DOL-OWCP.

  DOL-OIG refuses to investigate the complaints or provide a satisfactory explanation to complainants. They seem to have a standardized response to complaints. They find nothing wrong. But, when queried, it becomes clear that they haven't investigated at all. They won't explain how federal law allows DOL-OWCP to do many of the unusual things that they do. They WON'T explain what justifies acts that some might view as felonies.

  What good is an OIG that is more interested in agency politics than enforcing federal law?

  Robert M. Posted March 28, 2005 8:39 AM
• 8955
  

  What an interesting article highlighting what has been going on for over 4 years. The federal government used to be filled with Political cronies and incompetence. That was changed over a hundred years ago into a professional, independent, non-partisan Civil Service that runs this government-- gets the checks out on time, protects the environment, regulates industry, trucking-- licenses patents and protects consumers, protects the homeland regardless of who is in the White House. And does thousands of other things which aren't appreciated until lost.

  Now we have an administration that doesn't really appreciate the importance of an independent civil service but wishes to outsource as much of government as possible, and pay civil servants for performance by defining performance in accordance with its own political ambitions. You play with fire-you get burned.

  Well, my Grandfather always used to say you get what you pay for. The Pendleton Act was put into place for a very good reason-- this administration wants to go back to the Spoils System-- ok. Americans who voted for this administration on single issue reasons or for some philosophical/religious/moralistic rationales will get hit in the face by the reality of this administration destroying the federal civil service-- you get what you pay for!

  The beauty of America is that after all this damage is done by this particular administration, Congress can go right back and enact the Pendleton Act, Part II-- and the Clean Water-Air Acts, enact Safety in the Workplace Standards, rebuild labor laws, and G-d help us rebuild the social security system, etc... etc...

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 28, 2005 8:14 AM
• 8953
  

  What a bunch of GARBAGE. The Bush White House will never care about where the money is going as long as it goes to his friends at Haliburton and Rummy over at the DOD. They are not accounting for billions of dollars and have not been for years. The only part of this report that even sounds correct is when they talk about getting rid of Civil Servants. I have been through the Reagan ideas, the Bush 41 ideas, which were vague at best, the Clintons and now Bush 43. All they want to do is lie, cheat and steal from the taxpayers and point fingers at the workers (that is us folks) and tell everyone how bad we are. Well, guess what? I am going to give them their chance to show everyone how great they are, I am retiring. Let my supervisor do the work (never happen) until a replacement is hired. Bush wants that to happen in a couple of days, there should not be problem, Right!!! The taxpayer will never know what these men have done with billions of dollars because they have Republican think tanks like Heritage Foundation telling so much garbage to the public it is almost impossible to sort out any truth there might be. Don't forget the Heritage Foundation was bankrolled by Joe Coors (he hates Unions) and the taxpayer will never get a fair shake from that organization. Civil Service employees should retire as fast as they can and let these new genius' do the work - NOT going to happen folks.

  Shameful people

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 28, 2005 7:51 AM
• 8951
  

  Did Mr. Bloch reduce the caseload by properly investigating the issues and reaching a valid conclusion? Or did he reduce the backlog by simply closing the cases without a full and indepth investigation? We'll learn the truth once this administration is gone -- if the files are available.

  Steve Johnson Posted March 28, 2005 6:35 AM