" ... But then came the third: the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” Bannon explained that officials who seem to hate what their agencies do — one thinks especially of Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who has sued it repeatedly to the benefit of oil and gas companies — were “selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction.”
Thus did Bannon invoke the trendy lefty term “deconstruct” as a synonym for “destroy.”
This is a huge deal. It reflects a long-standing critique on the right not just of the Obama and Clinton years but of the entire thrust of U.S. government since the Progressive Era and the New Deal. Critics of the administrative state — “the vast administrative apparatus that does so much to dictate the way we live now,” as Scott Johnson, a conservative lawyer and co-founder of the Power Line blog, put it in 2014 — see it as unconstitutional because regulatory agencies make and enforce rules based on authority they claim was illegitimately ceded by Congress.
That’s the theory. In practice, this is a war on a century’s worth of work to keep our air and water clean; our food, drugs and workplaces safe; the rights of employees protected; and the marketplace fair and unrigged." Washpost
----------------
Well, this is interesting, and I think correct in the appreciation of just what it is that Bannon and company seek as a reward for their efforts.
It should be noted that Trump's expected budget proposal will not seek to reduce the benefits involved in Medicare and Social Security. These were campaign promises and he evidently will honor them. In any event SS is not insolvent and does not contribute to the present federal budget deficit.
What Bannon seems to propose is a roll-back of federal function to levels that he thinks reflect the amount of power ceded by the original states when they ratified the constitution.
Would this be such a bad thing?
For the Progressive Left it is a HORROR! The Left is wedded to the idea tht the federal government should administer our lives.
It will be interesting to learn if the majority of Americans share the love the "administrative state" as much as the Left does. pl
FEDERALISM underlies governance in the United States. Trump employed Dr. Sam Clovis in his campaign. An expert on FEDERALISM. Trump if he tackles FEDERALISM issues and policy could become a great President IMO!
And the Congressional Budget Office Congress should establish a permanent Joint Committee on FEDERALISM reviewing each bill for FEDERALISM impacts.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 27 February 2017 at 10:28 AM
Yes let's go back to smoggy cities and a dead Lake Erie. And take away health coverage from those who need it. And give Trump's rich pals a tax break. That's Making America Great Again.
Posted by: bks | 27 February 2017 at 10:32 AM
Sir:
I am not at all uncomfortable with the idea of the Administrative State being downsized.
But I think that a lot of my fellow guv'mint workers had better get used to the idea that they are not "guaranteed" a job for life. This goes for all levels and all departments of government.
I am hoping for enough political argument to occur that I will be able to complete my 2.75 years until I can retire.
But, the truth is, if this thing gets any kind of traction, my retirement might well be pretty sorry. SS and a Gov't pension are sorta-kinda one of the problems that might get looked at really hard in the readjustment.
It would kinda suck for me personally, but my kids would probably be better for it.
Posted by: Degringolade | 27 February 2017 at 10:52 AM
bks,
Yes the great non-bailed out Ford Motor Company will start making gas guzzling behemoths and dump toxic sludge into the burning river that is the Cuyahoga because secularism forbid the Governor of Ohio and the elected legislature prevent that from happening. It's not like Ohio could pass a law or anything. Though I'm sure the first priority for Governor Kasich will be to tell everyone what bathroom they should be using.
Posted by: Fred | 27 February 2017 at 10:57 AM
There is a bilateral forum that meets twice a year, if I recall correctly, in regards to the Great Lakes, between the United States and Canada.
The forum consist of delegates from each state or province that has access to the Great Lakes and discusses the issues pertaining to the joint usage of the Great Lakes as well as their condition etc.
What impact, if any, would this "New Federalism" have on the composition of this forum and it agenda?
Can you comment?
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 27 February 2017 at 11:21 AM
Your kids will not be the better for it, they'l be stuck taking care of you. Then later it will be their turn on the chopping block. The real solution is to increase tax rates on the top 1%. Trump himself still owes a billion. There is somewhere around $10 trillion stashed in offshore bank accounts. The "makers vs. takers" thing is baloney.
Putting government workers back out on the jobs market won't do anything except increase the competition for jobs, therefore it lowers all wages. There will be less high-paying jobs, not more. Simple economics.
Insofar as the "administrative state" can be interpreted as too many regulations, this is not unusual. Regulations come and go, all the time. But deregulating the financial system is nonsense, we will be bailing them out again.
Cutting the rest of gov't to put $54 billion into Defense won't create jobs either. More likely economic discontent, leading to another war.
When that big iceberg breaks off Antarctica, we may "deconstruct" the oil and gas industries instead.
Posted by: Lee A. Arnold | 27 February 2017 at 11:50 AM
So, who does Bannon really work for? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage
Posted by: Origin | 27 February 2017 at 12:28 PM
WRC
Welcome back. Missed your voice!!
Posted by: steve g | 27 February 2017 at 12:47 PM
Three posts in and we've already got someone claiming a parade of horribles awaits us if even one of the thousands of GS-9 bureaucrats employed to regulate our lives is let go.
"A slave is one who waits for another to free him." Haven't had to dust off that one in a while.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 February 2017 at 12:56 PM
If you want a deconstructed state, go live in Northern Mexico.
Posted by: r whitman | 27 February 2017 at 02:02 PM
Apparently the Trump/Bannon administration is following the Howe/Strauss
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-26/welcome-next-awakening-author-steve-bannons-worldview-explains-path-ahead
notion outlined in the "Fourth Turning". Creative destruction of dysfunctional institutions, as they have failed to reform themselves. Are they then simply eliminated or is their function circumvented with a new leaner institution?
Posted by: annamissed | 27 February 2017 at 02:16 PM
Both countries have ratified Interstate and intrastate compacts for their participating provinces and states. Thus, they act as delegates of federal power for the border.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 27 February 2017 at 02:22 PM
r Whitman
That seems a trivial remark. Trump is nor proposing to de-construct DHS or the FBI. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 February 2017 at 02:23 PM
Much of the federal power under the so-called CWA Clean Water Act] really the Federal Water pollution Control Act of 1972 has been delegated to the States. Best example-Flint, Michigan!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 27 February 2017 at 02:25 PM
Plse don't confuse the Administrative State with either the Commerce Clause of the Constitution or the Supremacy Clause! Many federal entities just hand out money and are not regulators.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 27 February 2017 at 02:28 PM
BTW the FBI has almost 40,000 FTE but less than 13,000 are Gold Badge Agents.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 27 February 2017 at 02:31 PM
President Clinton reduced federal civil service ranks by 400,000 FTE.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 27 February 2017 at 02:34 PM
Can a state withdraw from that compact?
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 27 February 2017 at 02:39 PM
No state or individual should have to incur costs externalized by the behavior of other states or persons. An easy example of this is pollution, but there are many other policies which can effectively shift burdens to other states.
For example, I live in Minnesota and one problem we have is that we attract people from other states because we have one of the more generous welfare states in the country. If there isn't some parity--which will almost have to be federally mandated, we will continue to be a gathering place for welfare recipients. It's just one example of a need for some federal intervention in affairs that originally were delegated to the states.
We have a very good standard of living here, including a low unemployment rate and a vigorous Pollution Control Agency. We shouldn't have to incur additional costs that externalized by the policies of other states.
Posted by: Steve Nichols | 27 February 2017 at 02:51 PM
Tyler, Mr. Cumming, Mr Arnold:
I have a feeling that we will all be surprised by how things turn out on this whole deal.
I wish I had your certainty, but change is not always what it is thought to be, or does change necessarily benefit those who seek it most earnestly.
What I think is that change is coming. It looks to me that we are moving into a time of suckage. This sure as hell doesn't look like a "win" to me.
But in another way I can agree with Tyler's sentiments about the histrionics. Most of the folks who squeal about the changes start flogging the "we are going backwards" horse. I don't think that we will return to smoggy cities and a dead Lake Erie anytime soon. The factories that accomplished that are over in China killing their environment. Tax structure will be useless without spending reform.
Nope, we are going to an unknown, different place. We aren't going back.
Posted by: Degringolade | 27 February 2017 at 03:05 PM
Let's bring Jobs back to America and Let's Dismantle The EPA are not a good combination of policy proposals.
The government is bloated, inefficient, full of redundancies, huge corporations are too, but let's never mention that. The parts of the state that actually matter are constantly under political attack and operate with less than they should, like the EPA and the IRS. Regulatory capture ensures that the justice department and sec ignored the crimes of big banks, while agencies that wished to take the fight had resources redirected around them.
Meanwhile, spending on dubious wars is fine. Small dandruff flake sized pieces of those budgets could pay for lots of things beneficial to the American people. They won't even allow a proper audit, the corruption is comical.
As for federalism, it's a dilemma. Big outside money buys small state elections with such ease that all it took was the combo of democrats being a sclerotic party of finance and republicans dumping in money and doing a little campaigning to win a huge majority of the important elected positions at the state level. Is that really representative of what people want? When neither party actually offers solutions to the state's problems, what next?
Posted by: Ante | 27 February 2017 at 03:18 PM
I meant that the deconstructed state Bannon proposes already exists. He should go there. Trump has not proposed deconstructing anything. His only proposal is to cut some money from the EPA and State Dept. and get rid of some inconsequential federal rules.
Posted by: r whitman | 27 February 2017 at 03:32 PM
WRC,
I know it is news to many but Flint had a water treatment system prior to 1972.
Posted by: Fred | 27 February 2017 at 03:33 PM
The right gives lip service to loving the Constitution when in fact what they really admire is the Articles of Confederation. The right hates the Constitution.
Posted by: Matt | 27 February 2017 at 04:21 PM
Whitman,
Head to Sweden if you want your socialist utopia.
Look out for grenades tho.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 February 2017 at 05:11 PM