New government

What are some essential duties of a federal government?

By that I mean, let's say tomorrow that the UK and US governments fell of the face of the Earth - and all the current politicans miraculously disappeared.

And you were called upon to reconstruct the 'government'.

For the US, I would keep the congress layout (but restrict any politician to two terms), the military, the CIA, the FBI, the FCC, the FDA, and the USPS (postal), and the National Park Service.



So what's left to trim? Here's a small sampling of federal agencies or commissions that could be trimmed:

* The U.S. Botanic Garden

* Accounting and Auditing Policy Committee (AAPC)

* Administrative Committee of the Federal Register

* Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

* American Battle Monuments Commission

* Appalachian Regional Commission

* Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)

* Arctic Research Commission

* Armed Forces Retirement Home

* Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee

* Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation

* Broadcasting Board of Governors

* Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

* Chief Financial Officers Council

* Chief Information Officers Council

* Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee

* Commission of Fine Arts

* Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

* Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

* Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States

* Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

* Delaware River Basin Commission

* Endangered Species Committee

* Export Administration Review Board

* Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB)

* Federal Executive Board

* Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

* Federal Financing Bank

* Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weed

* Federal Interagency Committee on Education

* Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer

* Federal Library and Information Center Committee

* Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation

* Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Commission

* Indian Arts and Crafts Board

* Information Security Oversight Office

* J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board

* James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation

* Japan-United States Friendship Commission

* Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries

* Marine Mammal Commission

* Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

* Migratory Bird Conservation Commission

* Mississippi River Commission

* Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation

* National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare

* National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

* National Council on Disability

* National Indian Gaming Commission

* National Invasive Species Council

* Northwest Power and Conservation Planning Council

* Panama Canal Commission

* President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency

* President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

* Regulatory Information Service Center

* Social Security Advisory Board

* Susquehanna River Basin Commission

* U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad

* United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

* United States Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

* Veterans Day National Committee

* White House Commission on Presidential Scholars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

* Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weed

---

B-but then who will manage our noxious and exotic weed? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

Here's a small sampling of federal agencies or commissions that could be trimmed:

---

I think we need the whole list. :sick: :eek2:

I've got news for you - that's not even close to the whole list.

Here's the whole list:

http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/alpha

Why this human tendency to subject ourselves to hierarchical structures of rule?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

B-but then who will manage our noxious and exotic weed? :eek:

---

Let me be the first to volunteer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

I've got news for you - that's not even close to the whole list.

Here's the whole list:

http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/alpha

---

You think you could do without the Federal Duck Stamp Office? Or the Nixon Presidential Materials?





And that Ethics Office is clearly a cover for something....

If you were called upon to construct a government, you wouldn't be putting together a list of committees, commissions, and councils. That's the government's job. :)

The Civil Rights department is pretty redundant now...

Well over half of those I have never even heard of. However, for the remainder, I know roughly what they are, and roughly what they do, which means that I also know who would be angered by their removal.

The problem is that every group with sufficient voice will be heard in any form of representational government. While I may not have any interest in issue A, there may well be a large number of angry people willing to make quite a noise for A, and a representational government can't then ignore that group and remain representational.

You might also be surprised at who is impacted by various groups. Noxious weeds would bring in a broad coalition of ranchers, farmers, landowners, environmentalists, recreational enthusiasts of various sorts, and state and local governments, because of the economic impacts of various types of invasives in different parts of the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Well over half of those I have never even heard of. However, for the remainder, I know roughly what they are, and roughly what they do, which means that I also know who would be angered by their removal.

The problem is that every group with sufficient voice will be heard in any form of representational government. While I may not have any interest in issue A, there may well be a large number of angry people willing to make quite a noise for A, and a representational government can't then ignore that group and remain representational.

You might also be surprised at who is impacted by various groups. Noxious weeds would bring in a broad coalition of ranchers, farmers, landowners, environmentalists, recreational enthusiasts of various sorts, and state and local governments, because of the economic impacts of various types of invasives in different parts of the country.

---

There's definitely a difference between being representational and pandering to every minority with a chip on their collective shoulder, though.


I fear that the latter is done far too often in the name of the former.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

There's definitely a difference between being representational and pandering to every minority with a chip on their collective shoulder, though.


I fear that the latter is done far too often in the name of the former.

---

Pandering to minorities is what EVERY government does. Find me an example of one that doesn't?

Every group of people DEMANDS!!! that the government take action on their behalf, or for their particular interests. Even the groups in the US that tend to be anti-government still feel that there is a role for the government: Enforcing THEIR views!

Therefore, any form of representational government will do just that: REPRESENT the views of the people vocal enough to push or pull the government in the direction they choose. In a severe dictatorship, the only difference is in the number of groups that have any sway on the direction of government. In the US, lots of groups have an impact, so lots of groups get something from it. This is government.

Worse still, most people who talk about waste in government are only talking about expenditures on OTHER peoples pet projects. They sure don't want their OWN projects deleted, just those they don't care about. Some would be willing to trade on of theirs for another one from somebody else, but that's actually a very rare position. Generally, whenever somebody takes this stance, it is because there is some other project that is so opposite to what they want that killing it off would be worth losing part of your own support just to stop it. That's not selfless, that's self-interest.

A saner approach would be to realize that you have things you want the government to do (perhaps roads, education, law enforcement, who knows), and recognize that other people have different views on what is important (if you don't recognize that other people are different from you, I think that is one indication of being a sociopath, but it isn't my field). Once you recognize that there are lots of different views, all as adamantly held as you hold your own, you should realize that this proliferation is inevitable.

The one thing you can attempt to do is publiscize the proliferation in an attempt to overwhelm that portion of the public that doesn't think it through. You can then make statements about "Starving the beast", which simplifies the problem down to nearly a binary choice: Reduce the total pool of cash which cuts all (cut all or cut none is the binary choice). Of course, this is just another form of getting a consensus to push a particular agenda. Furthermore, everybody STILL has their demands, so there will be pressure to "grow the pool just for this one thing." And on it goes.

There is no right or wrong here. This is what democracy is! The views of the people get some traction. The alternative is a dictatorship where only a very small minority have any traction, and the rest of the population is ignored. Take your pick.

Sometimes the simples solutions are best. It's time to revive our pro-communist and dictatorship parties. The less people whine, the better it is for the country.

Who wants to be Mao? :afrog:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Who wants to be Mao? :afrog:

---

(raises hand)