Hacker News Reader

Comment by SllX | Hacker News Reader

Well there was once a Congress that passed the Missouri Compromise which institutionalized hyper-partisanship and another that was so ineffective its successor Congress literally fell apart when several States seceded from the Union and those States then went to War with the Union.

So, cut the hyperbole. Partisanship has always been a political reality. The EPA is capped to the powers that Congress gave it, and does not have the autonomy to expand that power at will because they’re subordinate to the President and the President cannot unilaterally and legally make laws on his own, nor can any of the agencies which answer to him.

View on HN

I fear what a lot of what outspoken "progressive" types (and yes, before anyone asks, also the MAGA crowd) want is a CCP-style political system as long as they're the ones in control. Concepts like separation of powers and rule of law are merely obstacles to smash through on their road to utopia.

Correct. Which is why both of those groups you listed along with many others need to continue to lose elections and fail to attain power because the endgame for them is eliminating the possibility that they ever lose an election again. Like the CCP has.

Few progressives want sprawling bureaucracy. Rather, that’s typically what we get out of social safety nets due to conservative sabotaging of the process and text.

Sprawling bureaucracy is a byproduct of what you get from investing the government with additional functions. Every office you open whether Civil Rights or Agriculture or Patent Office needs staff. If we had a single payer system, there would necessarily be an enormous bureaucracy attached to it, most likely an expansion of the existing Medicare/Medicaid bureaucracy.

You just don’t get one without the other, even if you cut the staff down to the bare minimum that can still efficiently manage government programs you still end up with a sprawling bureaucracy.

There’s a difference between sprawling bureaucracy and necessary bureaucracy. Are you really suggesting that all bureaucracy is inherently bad and defaults to wasteful sprawl?

Are you saying a “necessary” bureaucracy is necessarily not a sprawling bureaucracy?

In any case, if the function invested in the government is a misapplication of public money then the bureaucracy servicing it would also necessarily be unnecessary. If the function is necessary, that does not mean the bureaucracy servicing it isn’t sprawling. The military has what could be termed sprawl, but that’s a function of the broad scope of its missions and global reach.

But it would eliminate the massive health insurance bureaucracy that we currently have to deal with.

Correction: it would replace multiple competing staffs (“bureaucracies”) of private insurers with the ability to take losses and go out of business with one bureaucracy with a chain of command spearheaded by the POTUS backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. My example was not an invitation to discuss the merits and demerits of single payer healthcare in a different topic, but to point out that for every function you invest the Federal government with, you get a corresponding bureaucracy ultimately subordinate to basically one guy. Doesn’t matter what the function is, you’re expanding his staff.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com