Chicago Business Daily

Why do Americans keep letting the Federal Govt increase the number of Bureaucracies to regulate our lives? I've lived in Japan and one of their biggest complaints is there are too many Bureaucrats and Bureaucracies that is why nothing can ever get done, because bureaucrats and not the elected officials chose which laws to enforce and how long it can be enforceable. I'm afraid that the bigger the Federal Govt becomes the harder it will be to regulate what Bureaucrats do, take the EPA for example.

Why do bureaucracies matter in foreign policy making? Any other reasons apart from mine? *People are social creatures and politics and conflict is inherent in organizations and inter-organizational interaction where discussions and decisions are made. Bureaucracies are important participants in foreign policy making. * Bureaucrats are needed for their power. We are not in some Paradoxical nature of Age of instantaneous information and mass communication, where policy makers can know everything to make decisions. They have monopoly on information, skills, expertise and knowledge. *Bureaucracies themselves are public organizations with interests, they are fundamental actors in FP; they formulate, implement, supervise, frame, dissemble issues. They are important actors that fight for money in the government budget.

Would you favor paying bureaucrats their full salary to sit at home? Here's how we can get rid of the bureaucracy. Offer a deal to the bureaucrats, where they will receive their full salary to do nothing and will be perfectly free to take any private sector job. They will receive their salary for a set number of years (however many years they worked in "public service"). When this offer is accepted, they would not be replaced. However, they would be barred from ever taking another government job under penalty of having to repay the salary they received during the years they were paid for not working. This proposal would be beneficial to the economy, as it would eliminate the bureaucratic jobs that harm the economy. It would also benefit the taxpayers in the long run, as eventually they would no longer have to pay for "public servants" that are a drain on the economy. This would also reduce the size of government, with the support of the bureaucrats. For people who are serious about shutting down the public sector, this plan is a workable way to achieve it.

What are the functions of Rulemaking, negotiated Rulemaking, and Bureaucrats as Policy makers? There are three different questions combined into one. I have a final exam in 3 hours and I have 3 more chapters the cram into my skull. The study guide for this chapter says I need to know the functions of each: Rulemaking Negotiated Rulemaking and Bureaucrats as policymakers The name of this chapter is "The Bureaucracy" Please help I am desperate I have to pass this test. I just found some information on a slide show from my teacher but i still need help really bad. Come on people.

I am doing an assignment on bureaucracy and i am not too sure why are bureaucrats critisized now days?

Bureaucrats are the cream of a society,Ministers are representatives of a society.How do they get along well? Bureaucracy and polity are just opposite poles in real life. Bureaucracy needs brain.Polity needs brawn. How Brain and Brawn is always Drawn.

Are there bureaucrats involved in mega churches? Like say Joel Osteen's, does he, or another church pay money out to the government? I know there is bureaucracy involved in some charities, but how about churches? I'm a noob to the politics in religion, so this question may come across naive to experts.

Bureaucracy and bureaucrats? Definitions..? *POINTS? Okay lol, I asked a very similar question like 5 minutes ago but same rules apply for this one, in simplest terms what are the meaning of these two terms, please no copy and paste. Oh and first good answer gets points whenever it lets me select for best answer! Thanks.

How much did the Census Dept. spend sending you a letter telling you another letter is on the way? Did you all get your letter yet where the bureaucrats at Census tell you that, by golly, you will be getting another letter from them? See how government bureaucracies waste money, leftists? Still think putting bureaucrats in charge of health care will "reduce costs"?

How much success do you think President Bush will have in reining in career bureaucrats at the CIA and the Sta Are there any advantages to having a bureaucracy that is somewhat independent of tight presidential and congressional control? How much success do you think President Bush will have in reining in career bureaucrats at the CIA and the State Department?

When James Madison wrote that a government that is "administered by men over men" must be obliged to "control? itself" he was referring to? a. the hierarchical structure of the Federal Government b. the defining characteristics of a bureaucracy c the fact that appointed bureaucrats must be controlled by elected officials d. the undemocratic nature of bureaucracies

What do you think about this slogan I made for bureaucracy? "We will not succeed without the need of bureaucracy" I mean, I know that it somewhat makes sense considering we would never be able to be a success without bureaucrats keeping our society in line and organized. Does it make any sense to you?

Bureaucrats? I don't fully understand this concept!? For politics, our study guide has this questions: Criticisms of bureaucrats are widespread. To what do you attribute this phenomenon? Is it fully deserved? Should citizens be concerned by it? In your opinion, do bureaucrats serve the public interest? How do you define public interest? I know public interest is the interest of society as a whole and the well-being thereof. People join interest groups to reflect these interests, and these groups can private or public interest groups. But what I don't understand is the bureaucracy... and why we should (or should not) be concerned. Can someone help explain this to me?

What do you think of these quotes, by Keyes? Alan Keyes on welfare: It is a concept that emphasizes human needs while neglecting human capacities. It stresses individual helplessness and weakness, undermining the sense of personal responsibility. It justifies ever greater concentrations of power in the hands of the state, leaving people each day more powerless to effect and improve their own condition. This bad concept leads to institutions and policies that disable individual initiative, motivation, and creativity. Faced with political and social structures that embody the assumption of individual impotence, individuals acquire the passive habits and expectations that go with it. Alan Keyes on bureaucracies: Bureaucracies are inherently antidemocratic. Bureaucrats derive their power from their position in the structure, not from their relations with the people they are supposed to serve. The people are not masters of the bureaucracy, but its clients. They receive its services, but only insofar as they conform to its authority. The bureaucracy is like a computer; it responds only to those who address it in the proper form. In this sense, a bureaucratic government program has a double meaning: The program serves its clients, but it also programs them. Alan Keyes on a constitutional amendment to limit borrowing and spending. We must take away the government’s credit card. With limits on both tax revenue and borrowing, the Federal government would finally be forced to get serious about spending cuts. That’s why a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, with barriers to both borrowing and spending, is the best way to secure budget discipline. Alan Keyes on how affirmative action turns back the clock I read American sagas (of the west) and I do not see people who went in search of material things. I see people who wrote down that what they sought was an escape from an old world which dictated their conscience and established their merit based on who their parents. That is one of the reasons I oppose this whole Affirmative Action business. We are not supposed to be judged based on what our ancestors did or suffered. We are supposed to be judged as individuals, based on what we are able to achieve. And when you tell me that somebody’s skin color or gender is going to determine their prospects in this world, that is turning the clock back hundreds of years. Back to a time before this nation declared that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator; not by their ancestry, not by their skin color, not by their gender, not by Congress, not by the Constitution, and not by the laws. Our rights come from God, not from the Constitution Keyes asked [a group of 5th grade students] where their rights came from. “The Bill of Rights?” one youngster asked. No, said Keyes. “Us?” No. “The government?” No. “Martin Luther King?” No, “but he understood where our rights came from,” Keyes said. “The Constitution?” No. Finally, a girl raised her hand, sat up straight, and said, “The rights come from God.” Keyes had his answer. Preferential affirmative action is patronizing. Preferential affirmative action patronizes American blacks, women, and others by presuming that they cannot succeed on their own. Preferential affirmative action does not advance civil rights in this country. It is merely another government patronage program that secures money and jobs for the few people who benefit from it, and breeds resentment in the many who do not. It divides us as a people.

How can I get seeds for WHITE-blossoming Selenicereus grandiflorus sent to me in England or Kenya, please? In the USA the natural habitat of this climbing cactus seems to be only on the east coast of Florida. It usually grows up trees. If there are seed-exchanging groups who could help me, I'd really appreciate it. Perhaps there is a member of a cactus specialty group who could respond. It would be very difficult for me to receive either seeds or cuttings in Kenya, because of the bureaucracy here. It would not be illegal to send or receive them here, but the bureaucrats would want to go through all sorts of red tape, if it were cuttings that were being sent. Indeed, if it were seeds and the bureaucrats detected them in the envelope, the red tape would start spooling out, too. However, if seeds or cuttings could be sent to my address in England, there would be no difficulties. Thanks for whatever help anyone can offer. I loved these flowers as a child in Florida and now for the first time I am in a region where I can grow a white garden and have these glorious blossoms -- in Kenya.

Has the bureaucracy grown to big and too powerful in the United States? Or, is a large and powerful bureaucracy needed to govern and protect such a populace and wealthy nation? What are some of the ways that bureaucrats have made positive contributions to life in the United States. Also, what are some concerns to have with actions taken by the bureaucracy.

What exactly is the UK supposed to gain from political union with Europe? So far we seem to have got a lot more bureaucracy and taxes. Interference in laws that worked perfectly well before. A lawyer’s fee bonanza and whiner’s paradise with "human rights" legislation. Politicians feel a lot more important when they are strutting about at all these EU meetings. But apart from Politicians, Lawyers and EU bureaucrats who else in the UK benefits? N.B. Political union. There may or may not be trading benefits, but that's not the question.

Why do many people think that government bureaucrats can pay taxes? When a government bureaucrat "pays taxes," he is simply engaging in an accounting trick. The bureaucracy obtains its income through taxes. Any "taxes" paid by a bureaucrat are not actually part of his paycheck from his employer (the government). Therefore, it is dishonest for the government to "tax" a bureaucrat. In the case of UN bureaucrats, they are a little bit more honest, as the supergovernment called the UN is answerable to nobody. The biggest mistake we ever made in this country was to pass so-called "civil service reform," which created a permanent bureaucratic class with a vested interest in raising taxes. When my home state of Pennsylvania failed to pass a state budget this year, we were subjected to endless propaganda from the media about how awful this was and were also subjected to the disgusting spectacle of watching the state government bureaucrats go to Harrisburg (our state capitol) to beg for their loot from the taxpayers. Under the old "spoils system," the bureaucracy would be removed every time the party in power changed. Whenever the Democrats were elected, they fired the Whigs or Republicans and hired Democrats (in these days, Democrats were a party that ideologically favored reduction in the size and scope of government). Whenever the Whigs or Republicans were elected, they fired the Democrats and hired Whigs or Republicans (the Whigs and Republicans in these days favored slightly more government than Democrats, particularly corporate welfare for the business tycoons who funded their party). However, in the 1880s, a permanent bureaucracy was created. The spark for this was the assassination of President Garfield by a "disgruntled office seeker." After the "reform" was passed in the 1880s, the bureaucracy became increasingly entrenched. Until we get rid of the permanent bureaucracy and return to the Jacksonian principle of rotation in office (Jackson succeeded in his fight against an entrenched bureaucracy that had wrecked Jefferson's presidency and entrenched itself during the early days of our country), we will never return to being the free country that our founders envisioned.

Which of the following is the BEST description of the power that the bureaucracy has in policymaking? (A) Bureaucrats do not have policymaking power; they generally just follow orders. (B) Bureaucrats have discretionary power to make policies and choose actions that are not spelled out in advance by laws. (C) Bureaucrats generally have more powers than members of Congress have in the policymaking process. (D) Bureaucrats formally have no policymaking powers, but their informal contacts with lobbyists give them access to members of Congress. (E) Agency heads have some policymaking power, but not as much as people that owrk for them do.

How did Andrew Jackson treat the federal bureaucracy? A. He respected the men whom previous presidents had appointed and left in place B. He got rid of entranced bureaucrats and replaced them with honest men without regard to partianship C. He distributed govt jobs to loyal party members D. He sold offices to the highest bidder

Why can't dems understand that millions of Americans are upset about more government bureaucracy? Want to know why people are screaming at town halls? They're tired of DC and unelected bureaucrats telling people how to live. Also, new taxes to fund TRILLIONS in new spending will bankrupt the treasury even more but dems don't seem to mind. They have to buy their votes somehow.

Why is the White House claiming that elected officials can't criticize unelected bureaucrats? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32818.html The White House is throwing a fit because Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri dared to criticize the unelected bureaucrat who advises Obama on counterterrorism issues. These unelected bureaucrats are paid outrageous salaries and are virtually guaranteed their jobs for life. I am increasingly convinced that the most important issue facing this country is the issue of democracy VS bureaucracy. The bureaucracy seems to think that it is above the people's representatives in Congress and is able to do whatever it wants. While I personally do not approve of the job Congress is doing, at least these people are elected. This is why I am also particularly outraged by the hysterical campaign against "earmarks," that is against the people's representatives spending tax dollars rather than unelected bureaucrats. Congress is the one branch of the government that is directly elected by the people, so therefore Congress should be "representing" the people rather than allowing unelected bureaucrats to usurp the powers of Congress. I've heard people talk about term limits for Congressmen, but what about term limits for the bureaucracy? Shouldn't these people eventually have to get a real job (although I doubt many of them could hold a real job)?

What do you think of this way to help alleviate our debt? Reducing the onerous tax burden is easy to accomplish. (a) Simply downside the bloated bureaucracy. (b) Then stop the use of taxpayer monies to fund retirement plans for anyone in government. They're free to fund their own retirement out of their own pocket. (c) Next, halt any further payment to current retirees from government based upon a defined benefit retirement plan with COLA increases. (d) Bring legal action against prior elected officials and bureaucrats for the incompetence and improper management of taxpayers monies, and (e) Bring legal actions against elected officials and bureaucrats who've received taxpayer funded retirement benefits for full restitution of 'back' principal plus a reasonable amount of interest. This idea isn't mine - it's just something I'm looking for reaction and discussion about. If you read this far, read Soverign's answer. Quite provocative.

Why do we keep expanding Government Bureaucracies knowing that big Government is incompetent? I lived in Japan for a few years studying Japanese and went to college for a few years. I noticed something in Japan that I am afraid is going to infect the USA if we aren't careful. That is the far outreaching hands of Government Bureaucrats. Japanese politicians tend to whips when it comes to correcting the tax office or trying to cut down on careless medical expenses because Bureaucrats will not allow it to happen. Japan is in a financial rut now, because it has a huge aging population and the younger population have to pay for their pensions (uhmm sounds familiar?) I fear that the IRS, the FDA and other agencies in the US are getting too powerful that it could be Japan one day when politicians are afraid to confront them or try to fix the system because they've given them too much power.

Who would be better at managing your health care, a profit driven CEO or a government bureaucrat? Anyone who believes in the illusion of "choice" with private insurance has never had a medical claim denied or been denied for a pre-existing condition. And we all know how efficient government bureaucracies are. Personally, I'm on the fence with this question. pdooma: The corporate HR gets a kickback from the insurers, that is why you only get a small selection. Samething with the 401k plan. If people had an actual "choice" there would be less profit involved for the company issuing the plan.

Will the next "Joe the Plumber" have his private medical records exposed by zealous Obama supporter? Does the ACLU ever feel it may be time to jump in on the whole healthcare debate----about forcing every citizen to get a chip inserted in their head so that the government healthcare bureaucracy can run more efficiently? Do they have any opinions regarding the whole idea of putting government in charge of every aspect of our lives, and keeping track of it all in databases that put bureaucrats in the ultimate driver seat to undo 250 years of evolving civil liberties?

Which of the following actions would Congress most likely use in performing legislative oversight? 1. hire and fire members of boards and committees 2. subpoena the president to explain an agency's actions 3. withhold the appropriations of money to the bureaucracy 4. influence the president to take action against a bureaucrat 5. reorganize executive agencies without presidential approval

What is the difference between Aristocracy and Bureaucracy? and the difference between an aristocrat and a bureaucrat. Thanks. please don't say look it up. I need a simple explanation.

Are you ready to let a bureaucrat make your healthcare decisions for you? bu⋅reau⋅crat  –noun 1. an official of a bureaucracy. 2. an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.

Should we eliminate the Federal Department of Education? Wayne Allyn Root, Bob Barr's vice Presidential running mate states. *I support Freedom and Parental Choice in the Educational System- The constitution does not allow for federal government interference in the education of our children. As a matter of fact, the word "education" never appears once in the Constitution. We need to get federal government out of the education business. We need to give parents and students the freedom to pursue the education of their choice- just as my wife and I do by choosing to home-school our 4 children. I support giving parents control of the education of their own children, instead of government bureaucrats. I support utilization of school choice, vouchers or tax credits on the state and local level to increase education competition; encourage private, parochial and home-schooling; reward superior performance for educators; create magnet schools which give principals autonomy over budgets, hiring and firing; and streamline bureaucracy- giving our education dollars to teachers and kids, NOT bureaucrats and administrators. *I support the total elimination of the Department of Education on the federal level. The more we spend on education, the WORSE the results, the more damage we do to our children. In 2000, the Dept. of Education budget was $33 billion. Today it is $64 billion. Has education improved? Have drop-out rates improved? Have reading or math scores improved? We've doubled the budget- yet the results are worse than ever. What a great example of bureaucracy, hypocrisy and waste. Hey a billion here and a billion there- pretty soon we have some real money at stake! http://rootforamerica.com/home/wherestands.php

A major power that Congress has over the federal bureaucracy is? a. the authority to select high-level bureaucrats b. the authority to extend or limit appropriations c. the authority to fire bureaucrats for not executing policy passed by congress d. the power to find agency actions unconstitutional e. both a and c

The most effective method the President has to influence the bureaucracy is? A) totally cutting off their budget B) eliminating federal offices C) appointing top level administrators D) changing the jobs of the street level bureaucrats E) using executive agreements to force bureaucrats to do his bidding

BO-healthfare gov. take over will add a min. of 150,000 more bureaucrats? . To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." copied from Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls , Texas

Is the death of Edith Rodriguez a failing of socialized medicine and a glimpse of federal health care? According to an interview I heard, the root of the problem can be found in the bureaucracy of the hospital staff and 911 operators. They have all been indoctrinated on policies handed down to them by supervisors that were drawn up by bureaucrats. The emergency room staff and 911 operators do not have the freedom to exercise their judgment without risking dismissal from their jobs. Is this a glimpse of what we can expect from government healthcare?

Looking for information on this certain B&W painting? There's a black & white drawing (or painting, but I think graphite drawing) - possibly Depression era through 1950s post-war - a man standing in front of an office cubicle, and it's repeated back into the distance, same man, same cubicle, maybe a lady inside the cubicle. Something about The Bureaucrat or The Bureaucracy or The Office. Definite feeling of nihilism and man vs mechanisms of gov't. Anyone remember it? Artist? Title?

Should we go back to the Spoils System? Wasn't Andrew Jackson right when he said that we need rotation in the civil service so that they don't become corrupt? Shouldn't we repeal the awful Civil Service Reforms of the 1880s and go back to the Spoils System? Then the party in power could replace all the bureaucrats with their own partisans every time the government switched hands. At least we wouldn't have an entrenched and permanent bureaucracy class under the Spoils System.

Why must bureaucracy rule the world? Everyone bangs on about equality - but in my experience the world is 1% culture, and 99% number-crunching: even the Arts have been colonized by parasites obsessed with money and figures, number-crunchers who stick their stinking fingers into every pie, to quantify and split everything into profits and losses, data and statistics - maintaining the stats but destroying the soul. No, it is not true that we need these people for society's good - they only do the jobs to keep roofs over their heads and could easily be replaced. As children we are imaginative, at what point do we become robots? School children do not fantasize about becoming payroll managers or data input clerks - they dream of being singers, footballers or Hollywood stars! They do not have posters of Local Government officials on their walls - but of popstars or historical icons. Does this not tell us that boring grey-suited morons are not to admired? Does this not tell us that the dull and ignorant bureaucrats are second best? Who decided that bean-counters should be well paid? Why not discourage pen-pushing just like drug-dealing or house burglary? It causes more problems than the two combined - and for every criminal scumbag we can be sure there will be a pen-pushing solicitor working out ways to defend them. Even bureaucrats, when they get home from work, will watch films or sports, or even read books - do they not see, then, that it is the Arts, and the imaginative pleasures of life that are important, not their soulless bean-counting? Why should civil servants dictate school budgets? Why should efficiency count more than cultural worth? Why can it not be artists and poets who enjoy influence and freedom, while nit-picking statisticians are trampled in the dirt? It cannot be said that figures and bureaucracy have benefited the world - all our institutions are outdated and corrupt, and have led to financial collapse! Ever since Ancient times expression has been stifled and distrusted, and life has been sliced and segmented into graphs, charts and numbers. When people talk about the Holocaust, one of the most horrific elements is almost always acknowledged to have been the notorious efficiency with which it was administered - as with all horrendous dictatorships. Why, then, should this pedantry be admired when it appertains to thick, mumbling, monosyllabic clerks and tax inspectors? Why are people unable to attend drama school and arts classes due to prohibitive costs, whereas any oaf can clamber into admin? Why must hospital clerks often "earn" more than nurses - even though the clerks would ditch their jobs tomorrow if they won the lottery, while nurses are often loyally committed? Why must people who are educated and intelligent take instructions from bean-counters who have never even read a book? Why must vital care homes and dialysis units be closed down on the orders of bean-counters, when the great figures of humanity such as Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King have shown that it is quality, not quantity, that matters - and decency, thought and love, instead of cold efficiency, that make the most positive difference? Why must the world be strangled by bureaucracy?

What is a bureaucracy best characterized by? multiple choice? A. multiply-skilled personnel B. Specialization of job tasks C. any bureaucrat can do the job D. Devaluing expertise

Do you think the dealers were displaying naivety when they thought the gubment would deliver their rebate $$? in 10 days? Are they for real - anyone knows when dealing with gubment bureaucracy you wait, wait, wait a little more - after all we do not want the union bureaucrats missing their smoke and coffee breaks to fulfill promises do we? PJ: I do know how to spell it correctly - but thanks for the elitist input - your true colors are shining through. Endangered: truer words have never been typed - if the dealer was late paying them - oh boy.

What is a bureaucracy? What is a bureaucrat?

What is a bureaucracy characterized by? multiple choice? A. multiply-skilled personnel B. Specialization of job tasks C. any bureaucrat can do the job D. Devaluing expertise

Where on the political spectrum am I? I'm not sure in I'm a conservative or liberal or if I'd fit in more with republicans or democrats. I am against: illegal immigration, gun control, censorship, income tax, ridiculous taxes (there's a point when enough is enough), welfare of any kind (unless someone Truly is not capable of getting a job), affirmative action up to a point, Iran and North Korea in general, universal health care, death penalty, government wasting money on pointless bureaucracy, sycophantic bureaucrats in general. I am for: staying in Iraq, legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, abortion (just not for government paying for them), keeping social security, increasing minimum wage, the bill of rights.

In Hindi, Naukershahi means bureaucracy. What does Malikshahi mean in Hindi? In Hindi, Naukershahi means bureaucracy. What does Malikshahi mean in Hindi? Naukershah means a bureaucrat. What does Malikshah mean?

what is bureaucracy ? what is a bureaucracy and a bureaucrat? I kinda get it.. but not completely? a long detailed explanation would be nice? :)

Are people Routinely Required to Back their Words Up With Facts, Whereas a Bureaucrat (or Bureaucracy) is Not? A Clear Double Standard. I Used to Say, "Excuse me, but your Word is Not Good Enough". I Personally, Back Up my Words, Often From the Very Start, In Any Case, Willing and Able to Do So. rjs, the Question is Not Whether I'm a Perfectionist or Not, but of Basic Fairness. Thanks oklatonola, In the World Science, Hopefully an Idea Won't Get Very Far Without "Unequivocal Supportive Hard Evidence" to Back it Up. But, this is Not Always the Case, Often An Ulterior Motive Drives it Forward. In my Opinion, if Someone is Not Able to Back Up their Contentions With Fact(s), then it Might as Well Be Magic, e. g., "The Patient got Better, Because I Threw Snakes At a Mirror, Not From the Phases of the Moon". Thanks K.

Can buerocrats be successful politicians? Bureaucrat defined as an official of a bureaucracy, who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment are joining politics in India. Many ills of the country are because of their nexus with politicians in bad governance.

Why do LIBERALS distract senior citizens concerns by claiming "euthanasia" is not in the healthcare bill? I have yet to see anyone claim euthanasia is in the healthcare bill on either side... but the libs pretend the elderly are worried about euthanasia. Why do they keep bringing up EUTHANASIA? It is nothing more than a Straw Man Argument? For instance, unlike the current medical procedure, if a patient needed a liver transplant and he/she was elderly and a candidate, a younger candidate would be selected if he/she were a match. This "SELECTION" would be done by bureaucrats and not the current medical profession as it is set up now. This current selection isn't based on "cost" like under Obama's plan. Not for a second should you be fooled into thinking it is simply an "insurance" plan. So why are the liberals trying to distract everyone into believing that these dawdling old fools have bought a lie of euthanasia? They clearly know their current concerns, availably of organs, risk of surgery, etc., as these people live this and it isn't some conceptual undertaking on paper. The elderly despise bureaucrats and bureaucracy since they have enough experience in life to know they are grossly incompetent. However, the youth with the naivety in life and lack of experience thinks a bureaucrat is as creative, driven, concerned about their job as a capitalist driven company. IOW, if you understand escrow well, you probably wise enough to know that a bureaucrat doesn't have the "customer's" best interest in mind. See Straw Man argument to see what these slick shysters are doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man And so you think medicare will simply continue from now on while the rest of us are on this new health plan? If this plan is so good, why not put the seniors on it? Me thinks because we are going to steal from their plan until their plan goes broke and it's all one big Obama plan.

Why do many people equate "earmarks" with "pork"? They are 2 different things. An "Earmark" is a provision in a piece of legislation where Congress actually does its job and appropriates money to a specific purpose rather than allowing unelected bureaucrats to spend the money. "Pork" refers to wasteful spending within some Congressman's district in order to help him get re-elected. "Pork" has been common throughout America history and has become increasingly common in Post-New Deal America. In fact, the New Deal was itself, for the most part, a giant "pork" project. Money was allocated based on the prospects of that district's Democratic congressman (as a result, the Solid South, which would not vote for a Republican in those days, got little New Deal money even though it was the hardest hit area). Why are many people using these 2 terms interchangeably when they mean 2 completely different things? Earmarks, provided that they are not pork, are perfectly legitimate. Provided that the government is going to spend a specific amount of money, it is obviously better for elected representatives to spend the money rather than unelected bureaucrats (besides, most of the bureaucracies are not authorized by the Constitution anyways and I don't think the Constitution grants Congress the right to delegate its enumerated powers, even though it has delegated virtually all of them). By the way, isn't it a little bit delusional to expect anything other than massive waste and corruption from the massive government of post-New Deal America? Can anybody really expect to have a "good government" that spends a few trillion dollars every year? If the government had a much smaller budget (I would think somewhere around 5% of GDP might be reasonable; that would be around $700 billion; that should be able to adequately pay for the constitutional functions of the federal government), wouldn't it likely be alot less corrupt and alot less wasteful?

Economics question please help? Why are bureaucracies often less efficient at producing public goods than private companies are? I. Bureaucracies are shielded from incentives that help the market system achieve efficiency. II. Bureaucrats choose to serve their own interest, which may or may not coincide with economic efficiency, and in particular, may lead to more public spending than the median voter would want. III. Bureaucrats often fail to use cost-benefit analysis when making provisional decisions. A. I only B. II only C. I, II, and III D. I and II only

Who controls the American Bureaucracy? Who controls the American Bureaucracy? Please do not present any simple answers. I am well aware that the Congress controls the bureaucracy in a way through Congressional oversight and appropriations. I am also aware that the executive branch has some power; the president can make appointments, direct agencies. What I'm looking for is a well thought out response. Whom is the bureaucracy controlled most by? Can it really be controlled? After all, bureaucrats do enjoy tenure and an incredible amount of discretion when making decisions. Who should the bureaucracy be held accountable to? Best well thought out and planned response will receive the ten points. :D Answers that have only been copied and pasted from a website are not what i am looking for! Edit: The two answers I've received thus far are no good, so ten points are still up for grabs. I'm looking for an intellectual answer, not the first thing that pops into anyone's head. Edit #2: I don't want you to list random groups. First of all, the bureaucracy is primarily controlled by the legislature, not by the ACLU, or big business.... Please only answer if you understand the question. Edit #3: Lou, you make a good point. The elected officials are the ones who create policy, but the bureaucrats implement the policy with an exceptional amount of discretion. Policy has little meaning except in its implementation. Still, your answer is the best thus far. Edit #4 Roadkill: You're a bit over dramatic Sterling: You're a bit out in left field I'm not looking for conspiracy theories here people...has anyone actually studied bureaucratic politics?

Help me with this US Gov ANYONE?!? 1. Deregulation has resulted, at least in part, in each of the following EXCEPT a. environmental damage. b. the proliferation of government agencies. c. competitive airline fares. d. an expensive bailout of the savings and loan industry. e. less government oversight in some key areas. 2. Which of the following is TRUE about the federal bureaucracy? a. Most federal bureaucrats work in Washington, D.C. b. The state and local governments have far more employees than the federal bureaucracy. c. The size of the federal bureaucracy has grown dramatically over the past twenty years. d. Most Americans are dissatisfied with their encounters with bureaucrats. e. All of the above. 3. Members of Congress who informally band together in groups to promote and protect mutual interests (e.g., mushroom growers) from what are called a. subcommittees. b committees. c. caucuses. d. junkets. e. interest groups. 4. The ____ presides over the Senate, but the _____ is the highest-ranking Senator. a. vice president; president pro tempore b. president pro tempore; speaker of the house c. vice president; chairman of armed services committee d. President pro tempore; secretary of state e. vice president; minority leader

What’s at the heart of the SCHIP debate.? What’s at the heart of the SCHIP debate. Congress faces a critical question this week: Will U.S. health care be government-run, or will Americans be given the freedom to obtain their insurance plans and medical care from private firms? The next U.S. president will likely answer this question, but the resolution to the current debate about SCHIP — the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a state and federal government partnership for insuring poor children — that is roiling Washington, D.C., will preview the answer. Although health care is a crucial issue for the electorate; traditionally, presidential candidates have avoided any but the blandest generalities. Health care is the third rail of politics. Its complexity, size, and multiple, committed stakeholders scare away most would-be saviors. Yet, the underlying debate is simple: It is all about who will manage and control the health-care sector that comprises one-seventh of our economy. Will individual Americans have the freedom to make their own choices? Or, will we trust government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians to make those decisions for them? Our future health-care system will be shaped by how we answer these simple questions. Let’s be clear: The SCHIP battle is not about whether to insure poor children. The debate is about how to insure them: Via the government or private insurers? This debate has not only pitted Democrats against Republicans but has also sundered the Republican coalition. Some Democrats wanted SCHIP expanded by $50 billion dollars so that even families earning about $81,000 a year who have eligible children were included. (The 2005 U.S. median household income was $46,000.) A resolution with the Republicans who hold minority leadership roles led to a compromise, costing only $35 billion, which allowed coverage for those earning up to $60,000. A fundamental problem with this compromise is that the same amount of coverage for children within SCHIP costs $1,000 more per child than under private insurance. A group of forward-thinking Republicans led by U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and others has an entirely different idea of how to provide insurance: they want to cash out eligible people and enable them to use this money to buy health insurance from private insurers in a tax-protected way. Count the president in too. He has pledged to veto legislation that permits expansion of the present program. None of the combatants’ are supported by an unblemished array of evidence. The Democrats support the expansion of SCHIP by lauding the universal coverage and substantially lower costs of single-payer, government-run systems, like the U.K.’s and Canada’s. Yes; but costs are controlled by rationing health care to the sick. More than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S. Onerous waiting lists have caused illegal, for-profit health-service centers to proliferate in Canada. These rogue establishments are so well-accepted that the head of one became the president of the Canadian Medical Association. Nor do single-payer systems achieve equality of access or health status — the powerful, assertive, litigious, and connected go to the head of the line. In the U.S., the government-controlled Medicaid program has achieved its low costs per person by stringent limits on provider prices. As many as 40 percent of doctors refuse to see Medicaid enrollees, leading to reduced health care quality. Physicians who accept Medicaid often shift their un-reimbursed costs to the privately insured. A system totally paid by the government would shut down this escape hatch, exacerbating the current shortage of primary care doctors. But the group of Republicans who support private insurance acknowledge that they cannot laud health insurance as a model industry. The massive bureaucracies patients all-too-often encounter when they attempt to obtain the medical services they paid for are not merely frustrating, they sometimes kill. Free-market Republicans claim that the problem with the U.S. insurance firms arises from their lack of accountability. Agents, such as governments and employers, use our money to buy health plans. The agents’ incentives — simplicity and cost control — are not well aligned with our needs for responsiveness. Senators Richard Burr (R., N.C.), Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and others want to refigure the tax code so that we could buy health insurance with tax-sheltered money, a right currently reserved solely for our employers. If we purchased our own health insurance with tax-protected funds, we could keep these arrogant behemoths in check, just as we do in the other sectors of the American economy. The Swiss universal-coverage, consumer-driven system requires people, not employers or governments, to buy health insurance. (The poor primarily receive funds to purchase insurance just like everybody else.) This consumer control enables the Swiss to enjoy an excellent quality of care without the social inequality of single-payer countries at costs that are a third lower than ours. SCHIP is not merely a debate about yet another mystifying government program. It is all about free-market principles versus government mandates. Giving taxpayers the freedom to choose and buy their own health care would unleash powerful market forces that have been subdued by third-party bureaucracies for the last 60 years. In every area of our economy, market forces have transformed rare, costly products and services like cars and computers into common products and services. We can make health care cheaper, better, and more widely available, if Congress can muster the vision and courage to act.

Individual Freedom vs. Government Control? Individual Freedom vs. Government Control Congress faces a critical question this week: Will U.S. health care be government-run, or will Americans be given the freedom to obtain their insurance plans and medical care from private firms? The next U.S. president will likely answer this question, but the resolution to the current debate about SCHIP — the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a state and federal government partnership for insuring poor children — that is roiling Washington, D.C., will preview the answer. Although health care is a crucial issue for the electorate; traditionally, presidential candidates have avoided any but the blandest generalities. Health care is the third rail of politics. Its complexity, size, and multiple, committed stakeholders scare away most would-be saviors. Yet, the underlying debate is simple: It is all about who will manage and control the health-care sector that comprises one-seventh of our economy. Will individual Americans have the freedom to make their own choices? Or, will we trust government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians to make those decisions for them? Our future health-care system will be shaped by how we answer these simple questions. Let’s be clear: The SCHIP battle is not about whether to insure poor children. The debate is about how to insure them: Via the government or private insurers? This debate has not only pitted Democrats against Republicans but has also sundered the Republican coalition. Some Democrats wanted SCHIP expanded by $50 billion dollars so that even families earning about $81,000 a year who have eligible children were included. (The 2005 U.S. median household income was $46,000.) A resolution with the Republicans who hold minority leadership roles led to a compromise, costing only $35 billion, which allowed coverage for those earning up to $60,000. A fundamental problem with this compromise is that the same amount of coverage for children within SCHIP costs $1,000 more per child than under private insurance. A group of forward-thinking Republicans led by U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and others has an entirely different idea of how to provide insurance: they want to cash out eligible people and enable them to use this money to buy health insurance from private insurers in a tax-protected way. Count the president in too. He has pledged to veto legislation that permits expansion of the present program. None of the combatants’ are supported by an unblemished array of evidence. The Democrats support the expansion of SCHIP by lauding the universal coverage and substantially lower costs of single-payer, government-run systems, like the U.K.’s and Canada’s. Yes; but costs are controlled by rationing health care to the sick. More than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S. Onerous waiting lists have caused illegal, for-profit health-service centers to proliferate in Canada. These rogue establishments are so well-accepted that the head of one became the president of the Canadian Medical Association. Nor do single-payer systems achieve equality of access or health status — the powerful, assertive, litigious, and connected go to the head of the line. In the U.S., the government-controlled Medicaid program has achieved its low costs per person by stringent limits on provider prices. As many as 40 percent of doctors refuse to see Medicaid enrollees, leading to reduced health care quality. Physicians who accept Medicaid often shift their un-reimbursed costs to the privately insured. A system totally paid by the government would shut down this escape hatch, exacerbating the current shortage of primary care doctors. But the group of Republicans who support private insurance acknowledge that they cannot laud health insurance as a model industry. The massive bureaucracies patients all-too-often encounter when they attempt to obtain the medical services they paid for are not merely frustrating, they sometimes kill. Free-market Republicans claim that the problem with the U.S. insurance firms arises from their lack of accountability. Agents, such as governments and employers, use our money to buy health plans. The agents’ incentives — simplicity and cost control — are not well aligned with our needs for responsiveness. Senators Richard Burr (R., N.C.), Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and others want to refigure the tax code so that we could buy health insurance with tax-sheltered money, a right currently reserved solely for our employers. If we purchased our own health insurance with tax-protected funds, we could keep these arrogant behemoths in check, just as we do in the other sectors of the American economy. The Swiss universal-coverage, consumer-driven system requires people, not employers or governments, to buy health insurance. (The poor primarily receive funds to purchase insurance just like everybody else.) This consumer control enables the Swiss to enjoy an excellent quality of care without the social inequality of single-payer countries at costs that are a third lower than ours. SCHIP is not merely a debate about yet another mystifying government program. It is all about free-market principles versus government mandates. Giving taxpayers the freedom to choose and buy their own health care would unleash powerful market forces that have been subdued by third-party bureaucracies for the last 60 years. In every area of our economy, market forces have transformed rare, costly products and services like cars and computers into common products and services. We can make health care cheaper, better, and more widely available, if Congress can muster the vision and courage to act.

Should the West re-colonize Africa? Many African nations have a lot of potential, but their management and governance is often worse than woeful- with corrupt, self-interested and uncaring leaders and bureaucracies. Compared to Asia, Africa has done very poorly indeed since independence. In fact, it is the only continent to be substantially and empirically worse than compared to 50 years ago. All relevant indicators clearly show Africa to be far, far worse than at any time prior- with some exceptions. If specialist Western NGO's (Medicine sans Frontiers etc) and the UN with say Russian, ASEAN, Indian and Chinese help, could govern these countries for say 10-20 years, help build up stable governments, effective bureaucracies, public services and build necessary public infrastructure- and educate a generation of suitably public-minded bureaucrats, officials and politicians, many of these nations could actually start to stand on their own two feet. What are your thoughts? H Razor: the world's largest gold mine run by Freeport McMoran is in... Indonesia. 3rd largest Asian nation. Maybe the sad truth is Human Resources are just substandard in Africa?

Would Obama-Care Bill be Repealed Prior to Implementation? Obama-Care is a national Healthcare bill that 7 out of 10 Americans say they do not want. They feel it will add to the deficit, increase their insurance premiums, and increase their taxes, while providing them with rationed care decided on by Federal bureaucrats and not their doctors. It's possible that due to vote selling in the Senate Obama-Care may actually become the law of the land by the end of 2009. But 11 months later, there's an election that could seriously change the composition of the Congress. And in January 2011 a new Congress and Senate is seated with the power to repeal Obama-Care, a bill that 7 out of 10 Americans say they do not want. My question is: "Will Obama-Care be repealed Before it's Implemented?" Any bill that runs 2000 pages and is as comprehensive and complex as Obama-Care takes some ramp-up time to get into the implementation phase. This bill could take about a year. But by that time, it could be off the books, gone, repealed, in accordance with the wishes of the American people as expressed through their newly elected members of Congress. So, what will be achieved is a very costly Chinese Fire Drill. Huge government bureaucracies will be erected, and then taken down. A lot of money will be spent, and no healthcare will be provided. Wouldn't it be better to avoid the Chinese Fire Drill. Respect the wishes of the American people and get on to some government business that is more productive than Obama-Care, or maybe just cancel the Christmas Eve vote and go home for Christmas vacation? Just a thought. To kch05: Your insights are inconvenient truths, but much appreciated. When making strategic decisions, all facts are friendly. Please add to your answer if you have time. Let me know: 1) If the 2010 election is a sweep that vastly changes the House and Senate -- what about a veto over-ride? 2) Even without outright repeal, couldn't Obama-Care be nullified by refusal to appropriate funding for it? and 3) If Obama is gone in 2012, how much of Obama-Care will actually be implemented by the time a new and better President pulls up up root and branch like a noxious weed and puts it in the chipper so it can go to the dump where it belongs? The marxists better get whatever cash they can out of the Obama-Care bill real fast because one way or another it won't be there for long. People Against Marxism (PAM) will rise up and defend this nation. Her strength is not equal to her need for protection right now, but that why the Knights of the Republic (KOR) are called for and will come forward!

Why NOT MAKE the "stimulus bill" a KAZILLION dollars; why STOP at a TRILLION DOLLARS? All Americans who work for a living, or who plan to work for a living sometime in the next century, are about to be stuck with a trillion-dollar bill to fund yet more oppressive government bureaucracies. Or as I call it, a trillion dollars and change. The stimulus bill isn't as bad as we had expected -- it's much worse. Instead of merely creating useless, make-work jobs digging ditches -- or "shovel-ready," in the Democrats' felicitous phrase -- the "stimulus" bill will create an endless army of government bureaucrats aggressively intervening in our lives. Instead of digging ditches, American taxpayers will be digging our own graves.

Why is Obama so intolerant? Favors infanticide (his Illinois Senate vote), opposes free speech (via the Fairness Doctrine), threatens any TV station who askes difficult (but legit) questions with losing their licenses when he is elected, And he wants to tax away my freedom to make my own little corner of America a better place, instead seizing my money and wasting on useless bureaucracy that never helps anyone except bureaucrats. How intolerant.

Bureaucracy and bureaucrats? Definitions..? *POINTS? Okay lol, I asked a very similar question like 5 minutes ago but same rules apply for this one, in simplest terms what are the meaning of these two terms, please no copy and paste. Oh and first good answer gets points whenever it lets me select for best answer! Thanks.

Does Heaven have bureaucracy? I know Heaven will be perfect, but people have to live somewhere. And you can't just simply walk into somebody else's house, so there will be a need for certain rules and regulations. Indoor plumbing. Where do you complain when your hot water isn't working? How will people know when and where to attend, when Jesus gives harp classes? I mean, certain things will have to be managed. Who does that? And is Heaven perfect for the bureaucrats as well?

Help me with this government hw please? 1. This department is responsible for the overall foreign policy of the United States. (1 point) Department of Justice Department of Defense Department of the Interior Department of State 2. These have the power to make rules for large industries and businesses that affect the public. (1 point) regulatory commissions bureaucrats civil servants government corporations 3. This describes the practice of victorious politicians rewarding their followers with government jobs. (1 point) the iron triangle the spoils system the federal bureaucracy the civil service system 4. This item limits federal employees' involvement in election campaigns. (1 point) Pendleton Act Federal Job Information Centers Civil Service Commission Hatch Act 5. The major power Congress has over the bureaucracy is the (1 point) power of the purse. contact with the president. power of the people. contact with other lawmakers. 6. To reduce the power of regulatory agencies is to (1 point) participate in the iron triangle. deregulate. benefit the spoils system. use procurement tactics. 7. Businesses the federal government runs are called (1 point) bureaucrat management systems. civil service companies. government corporations. regulatory commissions. 8. This created the civil service system. (1 point) spoils system deregulation Civil Service Commission Pendleton Act 9. Citizens who report wrongdoings by federal agencies are called (1 point) deregulators. whistleblowers. civil servants. bureaucrats. 10. When agencies, congressional committees, and client groups work together it is called (1 point) liaison officers. civil service. injunction. an iron triangle.

Ever use Y/A 'search for questions'? Believe 'blank' results @ EU tyranny/dictatorship/bureaucracy, etc? Do you ever use Y/A toolbar's 'search for questions'? Do U believe 'blank' results @ EU tyranny/dictatorship/bureaucracy etc? I used several wordings, inc 'tyrannical bureaucrats' ?? & 'dictatorial bureaucrats' ??? & 'faceless bureaucrats' ???? Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous, was high up in UNESCO & persuaded them to use Brave New World as model for 24x7 media brainwashing Govts create & exploit crises to take away civil liberties, step by step, in the name of 'security' & set up arms amnesties so no-one can resist cops/army etc Time to t/u t/u t/u ... Tool up, toughen up & train up: Rambo-style arms caches hid where you can get 'em & oppressors of the weak can't, yes? Bible says, "Defend the weak" Romans 13 duly authorised Govts deter evil & reward good "Woe to those who call good evil & evil good" Dictators - as Beast/Antichrist - are our enemy, not our friend Daniel 7 shows, 3 times, EU will 'crush, devour & trample' victims till 'the Ancient of Days' crushes it & Rev shows Beast makes war on saints - war is 2-way, so God wants us to fight back, as we did Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin & Amin, IRA, etc & will Al Q/Hamas/Hizbo/Ah'm-in-a-jihad etc too What say you? Do see other perespectives @ the versions of this question set up @ 30-60 mins ago, variously, @ R&S, P&S & Politics/Govt sections of Y/A Right back to link >>>>>>>>>>>>> Would ya believe Politico/Govt fans still asleep 2 hours after this:- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aq7W5WCh3RfNdezQrw9SKtKrDH1G;_ylv=3?qid=20090915010656AAWSdIE LOL Polls/Surveys wayfs & strays here? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aht5hCY_SouMpG8UbR_JeXPsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090915005104AA19Ajx No .. 'wayfs' not a typo .. I actually forgot ... thru groovin' to da great song @ ... http://www.AllWorship.com ... how to spell 'waifs' LOL As 4 mindin' ya P's & Q's @ R&S: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Agu57hFaV00PGF8pAivPfOLsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090915005418AAPPIVC LOL Hi CM I just gotta go for a 'Jimmy Riddle' LOL OOPS I forgot to link the most fun bit:- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsYLh61QR3K.p1CCN7MzynLsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090915035404AAe6mGu Enjoy

bureaucracy....poli sci hw please.........God! i really need help here people!!? okay so for my poli sci hw i need to summarize this bit here AND say how exactly it relates to bureaucracy. i can do hte bureaucracy bit, it's the summarizing i need help with. so if you all don't mind could you help me out here? please no "do your own homework" comments, it is 3:18 am and i ahve tons more homework to do and this is all due in less than 12 hours, and i still need to rest!!!!!!! please, i need this article that i did copy and paste (just like my teacher told me too) summarized and in no way do i inted to claim this article as my own. in fact i have to print the article out s she can compare it to my summary so please help me out here people.i'm asking this question twice to see if i cn get more help that way and to increase my chances of getting into the right category so i can get real answers. anyhow, here is the article: __________________________________________________________ Government employees tend to be easy fodder for mockery. That is particularly true when the ribbing suits the needs of political candidates trying to appear vigilant about the growth of government. In her quest to become governor of California, for example, Republican Meg Whitman has repeatedly teed off on those who get their paychecks from the public. The former businesswoman derided bureaucrats who "rarely have the desire to think things through." She lamented the employment of "mid-level bureaucrats" as though they were buffing their nails at the DMV while the rest of us stewed in line. She criticized "a selfish and arrogant bureaucracy, unwilling to give even an inch even in the toughest of economic times." All that irked many bureaucrats, mid-level and otherwise, because they have in fact agreed to concessions to save the state billions this year. But they got a certain revenge last week, as Californians tried to outsmart an elusive flu virus. On whom were Californians relying? Government workers. :: Public health agencies tend to operate in the shadows of public opinion. Their services to the poor and uninsured go to a fraction of the population, and the rest may find their roles hard to pinpoint. In many cases, that is because their first weapon is prevention, and what they prevent is by definition invisible to the outside world. "It is really hard for us to tell our story," said Dr. Helene Calvet, the city health officer in Long Beach. "We are not good at self-promotion." Many of those concerned about the H1N1 virus now circulating through California have been dealing solely with private doctors, but public health doctors still are making many of the decisions that affect them. A federal declaration, made earlier this year, put local and state health agencies in charge of fighting the pandemic. Since last spring, those agencies have worked with local hospitals and physicians on how best to confront the virus. They have been trying to educate schools and employers -- and the public -- about what is already here and what may be coming. They are also a key conduit for the dispersal of vaccine as it slowly arrives. In some areas, public health officials are holding clinics themselves to inoculate high-risk residents. In other locales, including Long Beach, health officials are forwarding their cache of vaccine to local doctors. They are fighting at diminished strength. Health agencies have been hammered by California's perennial financial problems, and a budget mechanism that was meant to stabilize the money they receive is making matters worse. In 1991, as California confronted its last notable recession, funding for local health programs became tied to receipts from car license fees and sales taxes. Unfortunately for the doctors and nurses, both have nose-dived in this recession. The most recent report from the state Department of Finance said sales tax receipts were running more than $300 million behind estimates for the year, and car fees were $77 million below estimates. On the ground, that has meant shrinking public health departments. "We are definitely challenged," said Dr. Edward Moreno, the health officer for Fresno County and the president of a statewide organization of local health officials. "Our capacity to mobilize forces to respond to a pandemic is reduced." Dr. Jonathan Fielding, Los Angeles County's public health officer, said his department, too, is smaller than it once was, but he hopes the pandemic will heighten appreciation for undervalued government agencies. In defiance of stereotypes, he notes, county workers are volunteering to help out at the flu vaccine clinics, which began Friday. More than five dozen are already scheduled, many on nights and weekends. "This is an 'all hands on deck' enterprise," he said. "The largest undertaking this department has ever had." In Long Beach, the city health department has held round-robin meetings with hospitals, doctors, businesses and the school district to figure out their joint response. oops, wrong section. i guess it can't hurt if you guys help me out too.

bureaucracy........................................................poli sci help please...? okay so for my poli sci hw i need to summarize this bit here AND say how exactly it relates to bureaucracy. i can do hte bureaucracy bit, it's the summarizing i need help with. so if you all don't mind could you help me out here? please no "do your own homework" comments, it is 3:18 am and i ahve tons more homework to do and this is all due in less than 12 hours, and i still need to rest!!!!!!! please, i need this article that i did copy and paste (just like my teacher told me too) summarized and in no way do i inted to claim this article as my own. in fact i have to print the article out s she can compare it to my summary so please help me out here people.i'm asking this question twice to see if i cn get more help that way and to increase my chances of getting into the right category so i can get real answers. anyhow, here is the article: __________________________________________________________ Government employees tend to be easy fodder for mockery. That is particularly true when the ribbing suits the needs of political candidates trying to appear vigilant about the growth of government. In her quest to become governor of California, for example, Republican Meg Whitman has repeatedly teed off on those who get their paychecks from the public. The former businesswoman derided bureaucrats who "rarely have the desire to think things through." She lamented the employment of "mid-level bureaucrats" as though they were buffing their nails at the DMV while the rest of us stewed in line. She criticized "a selfish and arrogant bureaucracy, unwilling to give even an inch even in the toughest of economic times." All that irked many bureaucrats, mid-level and otherwise, because they have in fact agreed to concessions to save the state billions this year. But they got a certain revenge last week, as Californians tried to outsmart an elusive flu virus. On whom were Californians relying? Government workers. :: Public health agencies tend to operate in the shadows of public opinion. Their services to the poor and uninsured go to a fraction of the population, and the rest may find their roles hard to pinpoint. In many cases, that is because their first weapon is prevention, and what they prevent is by definition invisible to the outside world. "It is really hard for us to tell our story," said Dr. Helene Calvet, the city health officer in Long Beach. "We are not good at self-promotion." Many of those concerned about the H1N1 virus now circulating through California have been dealing solely with private doctors, but public health doctors still are making many of the decisions that affect them. A federal declaration, made earlier this year, put local and state health agencies in charge of fighting the pandemic. Since last spring, those agencies have worked with local hospitals and physicians on how best to confront the virus. They have been trying to educate schools and employers -- and the public -- about what is already here and what may be coming. They are also a key conduit for the dispersal of vaccine as it slowly arrives. In some areas, public health officials are holding clinics themselves to inoculate high-risk residents. In other locales, including Long Beach, health officials are forwarding their cache of vaccine to local doctors. They are fighting at diminished strength. Health agencies have been hammered by California's perennial financial problems, and a budget mechanism that was meant to stabilize the money they receive is making matters worse. In 1991, as California confronted its last notable recession, funding for local health programs became tied to receipts from car license fees and sales taxes. Unfortunately for the doctors and nurses, both have nose-dived in this recession. The most recent report from the state Department of Finance said sales tax receipts were running more than $300 million behind estimates for the year, and car fees were $77 million below estimates. On the ground, that has meant shrinking public health departments. "We are definitely challenged," said Dr. Edward Moreno, the health officer for Fresno County and the president of a statewide organization of local health officials. "Our capacity to mobilize forces to respond to a pandemic is reduced." Dr. Jonathan Fielding, Los Angeles County's public health officer, said his department, too, is smaller than it once was, but he hopes the pandemic will heighten appreciation for undervalued government agencies. In defiance of stereotypes, he notes, county workers are volunteering to help out at the flu vaccine clinics, which began Friday. More than five dozen are already scheduled, many on nights and weekends. "This is an 'all hands on deck' enterprise," he said. "The largest undertaking this department has ever had." In Long Beach, the city health department has held round-robin meetings with hospitals, doctors, businesses and the school district to figure out their joint response.

Bureaucracy? What are the advantages of bureaucrats over the Presidents as they interact in the policy-making process? What are the titles of leaders in different bureaucratic agencies? What happens when people leave certain positions in the bureaucracy?

What should Freedom Lovers Do ?? How can one combine professional life with the advancement of liberty? Of course it is presumptuous to offer a definitive answer since all jobs and careers in the market economy are subject to the forces of the division of labor. Because a person focuses on one task doesn't mean that he or she isn't great at many tasks; it means only that the highest productive gains for everyone come from dividing tasks up among many people of a wide range of talents. So it is with the freedom movement. The more of us there are, the more we do well to specialize, to cooperate through exchange, to boost our impact by dividing the labor. There is no way to know in advance what is right for any person in particular. There are so many wonderful paths from which to choose (and which I will discuss below). But this much we can know. The usual answer—go into government—is wrongheaded. Too many good minds have been corrupted and lost by following this fateful course. If often happens that an ideological movement will make great strides through education and organization and cultural influence, only to take the illogical leap of believing that politics and political influence, which usually means taking jobs within the bureaucracy, is the next rung on the ladder to success. This is like trying to fight a fire with matches and gasoline. This is what happened to the Christian right in the 1980s. They got involved in politics in order to throw off the yoke of the state. Twenty years later, many of these people are working in the Department of Education or for the White House, doing the prep work to amend the Constitution or invade some foreign country. This is a disastrous waste of intellectual capital. It is particularly important that believers in liberty not take this course. Government work has been the chosen career path of socialists, social reformers, and Keynesians for at least a century. It is the natural home to them because their ambition is to control society through government. It works for them but it does not work for us. In the first half of the 20th century, libertarians knew how to oppose statism. They went into business and journalism. They wrote books. They agitated within the cultural arena. They developed fortunes to help fund newspapers, schools, foundations, and public education organizations. They expanded their commercial ventures to serve as a bulwark against central planning. They became teachers and, when possible, professors. They cultivated wonderful families and focused on the education of their children. It is a long struggle but it is the way the struggle for liberty has always taken place. But somewhere along the way, some people, enticed by the prospect of a fast track to reform, rethought this idea. Perhaps we should try the same technique that the left did. We should get our people in power and displace their people, and then we can bring about change toward liberty. In fact, isn't this the most important goal of all? So long as the left controls the state, it will expand in ways that are incompatible with freedom. We need to take back the state. So goes the logic. What is wrong with it? The state's only function is as an apparatus of coercion and compulsion. That is its distinguishing mark. It is what makes the state the state. To the same extent that the state responds well to arguments that it should be larger and more powerful, it is institutionally hostile to anyone who says that it should be less powerful and less coercive. That is not to say that some work from the "inside" cannot do some good, some of the time. But it is far more likely that the state will convert the libertarian than for the libertarian to convert the state. We've all seen this a thousand times. It rarely takes more than a few months for a libertarian intellectual headed for the Beltway to "mature" and realize that his or her old ideals were rather childish and insufficiently real world. A politician promising to defang Washington later becomes the leading expert in applying tooth enamel. Once that fateful step is taken, there are no limits. I know a bureaucrat who helped run martial law in Iraq who once swore fidelity to Rothbardian political economy. The reason has to do with ambition, which is not normally a bad impulse. The culture of Washington, however, requires that ambition work itself out by paying maximum deference to the powers that be. At first, this is easy to justify: how else can the state be converted except by being friendly to it? The state is our enemy, but for now, we must pretend to be its pal. In time, the dreams are displaced by the daily need to curry favor. Eventually the person becomes precisely the kind of person he or she once despised. (For Lord of the Rings fans, it's like being asked to carry the ring for a while; you don't want to give it up.) I've known people who have gone this route and one day took an honest look in the mirror, and didn't like what they saw. They have said to me that they were mistaken to think it could work. They didn't recognize the subtle ways in which they themselves were being drawn in. They recognize the futility of politely asking the state, day after day, to permit a bit more liberty here and there. Ultimately you must frame your arguments in terms of what is good for the state, and the reality is that liberty is not usually good for the state. Hence, the rhetoric and finally the goal begin to change. The state is open to persuasion, to be sure, but it usually acts out of fear, not friendship. If the bureaucrats and politicians fear backlash, they will not increase taxes or regulations. If they sense a high enough degree of public outrage, they will even repeal controls and programs. An example is the end of alcohol prohibition or the repeal of the 55 mph speed limit. These were pulled back because politicians and bureaucrats sensed too high a cost from continued enforcement. The problem of strategy was something that fascinated Murray Rothbard, who wrote several important articles on the need for never compromising the long-run goal for short-term gain through the political process. That doesn't mean we should not welcome a 1 percent tax cut or repeal a section of some law. But we should never allow ourselves to be sucked into the trade-off racket: e.g., repeal this bad tax to impose this better tax. That would be using a means (a tax) that contradicts the goal (elimination of taxation). The Rothbardian approach to a pro-freedom strategy comes down to the following four affirmations: 1) the victory of liberty is the highest political end; 2) the proper groundwork for this goal is a moral passion for justice; 3) the end should be pursued by the speediest and most efficacious possible means; and 4) the means taken must never contradict the goal—"whether by advocating gradualism, by employing or advocating any aggression against liberty, by advocating planned programs, by failing to seize any opportunities to reduce State power, or by ever increasing it in any area." Libertarians are not the first people who have confronted the question of strategy for social advance and cultural and political change. After the Civil War, a large part of the population of the South, namely former slaves, found themselves in a perilous situation. They had a crying need to advance socially within society, but lacked education, skill, and capital. They also bore the burden of pushing social change that permitted them to be regarded as full citizens who made the most of their new freedom. In many ways, they found themselves in a position somewhat like new immigrants but with an additional burden of throwing off an old social status for a new one. The Reconstruction period of Union-run martial law invited many blacks to participate in politics as a primary goal. This proved to be a terrible temptation for many, as the former Virginia slave Booker T. Washington said. "During the whole of the Reconstruction period our people throughout the South looked to the Federal Government for everything, very much as a child looks to its mother." He rejected this political model because "the general political agitation drew the attention of our people away from the more fundamental matters of perfecting themselves in the industries at their doors and in securing property." Washington wrote that "the temptations to enter political life were so alluring that I came very near yielding to them at one time" but he resisted this in favor of "the laying of the foundation of the race through a generous education of the hand, head and heart." Later when he visited DC, he knew that he had been right. "A large proportion of these people had been drawn to Washington because they felt that they could lead a life of ease there," he wrote. "Others had secured minor government positions, and still another large class was there in the hope of securing Federal positions." As it was in the 1870s it is today. The state chews up and either eats or spits out those with a passion for liberty. The extent to which W.E.B DuBois's Marxian push for political agitation has prevailed over Washington's push for commercial advance has been tragic for black Americans and for the whole of American society. Many obtained political power, but not liberty classically understood. We can learn from this. The thousands of young people who are discovering the ideas of liberty for the first time ought to stay away from the Beltway and all its allures. Instead, they should pursue their love and passion through arts, commerce, education, and even the ministry. These are fields that offer genuine promise with a high return. When a libertarian tells me that he is doing some good as a procurement officer at HUD, I don't doubt his word. But how much more would he do by quitting his job and writing an expose on the entire bureaucratic racket? One well-placed blast against such an agency can bring about more reform, and do more good, than decades of attempted subversion from within. Are there politicians who do some good? Certainly, and the name Ron Paul is the first that comes to mind. But the good he does is not as a legislator as such but as an educator with a prominent platform from which to speak. Every no vote is a lesson to the multitudes. We need more Ron Pauls. But Ron is the first to say that, more importantly, we need more professors, business owners, fathers and mothers, religious leaders, and entrepreneurs. The party of liberty loves commerce and culture, not the state. Commerce and culture is our home and our launching ground for social reform and revolution

Why won't they just assimilate? Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Reform Act of 1965 has created a situation in which 85 percent of our immigrants hail from the Third World and Asia, this portends the destruction of the western civilization that has given us everything we hold dear, from our freedom to our prosperity. With Moslems and Mexicans on the march from Maine to Monterey, this should be obvious. Yet, the gravity of this situation still eludes many, sedated as they are with bread and circuses. So let’s discuss assimilation. Assimilation is not a process magically initiated upon setting foot on American terra firma. Rather, it only occurs when one or both of two conditions are met: The foreign elements must have a desire to assimilate or the host nation must place pressure on them to do so. Unfortunately, neither is the case today because both immigrants and native-born Americans are far different than they once were. I’ve pointed out that a nation allows its stabilizing majority to disappear at its own peril (unprecedented Third World immigration has reduced America’s European-heritage population from almost 90 percent to about 66 percent in just a little more than four decades). But a critic could rightly mention that white Americans weren’t always viewed so monolithically. When our nation saw a huge influx of Irish, Italian and German immigrants, there was often great group conflict; ethnic slurs passed lips and fights were not uncommon (amazing how they negotiated this period without “hate crime” laws, huh?). Yet, there was a difference. Immigrants: Today vs. Yesteryear The M&M invasion (Moslems and Mexicans) is distinguished from previous immigrant waves by a feeling of entitlement. A Zogby poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans believe California and the Southwest rightly belong to them. Although this belief is bred by a tendentious view of history, it doesn’t change the end result. It has spawned groups such as Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), which advocates conquering the Southwest in the name of Mexico. More significantly, it causes many average Mexicans to have no compunction about imposing their culture and language on the country that has so generously given them succor. Where Mexicans exhibit ethnic patriotism, Moslems manifest religious chauvinism. Far too many pious Moslems believe they have been enjoined to impose their faith on others by any means necessary; this is why they will unabashedly demand concessions, such as their own dormitories at colleges and an Arabic public school in New York City. It’s also why they have fought for the right to use sharia law to settle civil disputes in Canada. This lies in stark contrast to the behavior of yesterday’s immigrants. Like anyone else, they certainly felt comfortable in the bosom of their own subculture; yet, they knew they were in another’s land and never viewed accommodation by their host nation as a birthright, and any ethnic patriotism harbored was often trumped by the dream of becoming American. Unfortunately, today’s immigrants’ dream is often our nightmare, one from which we could arise if only, if only, if only. . . . Looking at the American in the Mirror Walt Kelly wrote, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” The truth is that when assigning blame, our feet are where the majority must lie. There was a time when Americans, like most nationalities, took pride in their culture and defended it with manly fortitude. Today, though, after decades of imbuing the modern mind with the “Hey, hey, ho, ho, western culture’s gotta go!” mentality, this is no longer the case. Too many of us have imbibed the multiculturalist malt, with its evenhanded principle stating that others have a right to their cultures and we have a right to them, too. But this philosophical shift has been addressed before, so let’s discuss a nuts and bolts aspect of the problem. Many of us understand how government actively thwarts assimilation by pandering to foreign elements. Our government will print official documents in other languages (the standard California driver’s license test is available in 32 of them) just so those without enough respect to learn our national tongue can collect our national treasure and cast votes for those who lavish it upon them. But this isn’t where governmental complicity in this problem ends. Traditionally, Americans never relied on government to achieve most goals, and ensuring assimilation was no exception. Many years ago, for instance, if a person insisted on dressing like an advertisement for the Middle Ages, didn’t learn the language or sought to impose strange beliefs in the workplace, he would have been fired or not hired in the first place. What this means is that the Moslem clerks and cab drivers who, respectively, won’t ring up pork and won’t pick up passengers with alcohol or seeing-eye dogs would have either changed their ways or returned to where ways don’t change. This enforcement of tradition through individual initiative is what every non-western country does and makes sense. If you’re so enamored of your native ways, stay in your native land. If you tried this today, though, you’d receive a treatment from the proctologist of government bureaucracies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Yes, because freedom of association has been trumped by lawless judges, citizens have lost control over their businesses, rental properties and, in many cases, organizations. Privately owned and financed entities can no longer determine who receives paychecks, who will be served and who will be rented to, thus removing the social pressure to conform that the common man would naturally apply via the exercise of his values in his castle. Likewise, local school boards have been robbed of the right to set dress codes and behavior standards reflecting the surrounding community. What this means is now you can’t refuse to hire a cross-dressing Colombian from Cartagena on the basis that he is a cross-dressing Colombian from Cartagena. Ah, it sounds almost Jeffersonian . . . almost. We’ve now traded liberty for perversity. America is being erased. The stabilizing majority that forged her unique culture is being eroded through the importation of culturally imperialistic forces by treasonous politicians. And traitors they are, and be not faint-hearted in saying so. After all, if this happened anywhere but in western nations, the lamentation over this cultural imperialism would be staggering. Just imagine if the majority population of Nigeria or Cambodia were rapidly being replaced with European one. The only question would be whether the nation they hailed from would be targeted by only stupid bureaucrats or also smart bombs. It’s time for at least a ten-year moratorium on immigration. I know, I know, “What radicalism!” bellows the left. But since this is the set that extols the virtue of constant change, even telling us “truth” changes, it’s ironic. In the world of the leftist Utopian vision, immigration is the one constant in an ever-changing Universe. Albert Einstein once said a definition of insanity is “. . . doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Given that we have a greatly diminished sense of national identity, Moslem terrorists blending into a multicultural mish-mash, Spanish supplanting English, and Mexican flags going up while American ones come down, should we really stay the course? The M&M invasion sympathizers may call me names, but I’ll simply render a diagnosis: They’re insane. They have turned immigration into an institution. It’s time for it to be institutionalized. My question is for YOU! Why not? Don't you think it would be much eaiser? I'm only considering answers from people with profile dates older than 2 weeks. (That will weed out most of the cowards and riff raff on this site.) User does not allow IM User does not allow email need not apply.

Further info on Sweden's modern Witch Trials needed and questions it entails.? Can we get closer to the smoke-screen Swedish bureaucrats are setting up? The case concerns a young child, perhaps ll, 12, 13, or more; depending on hearsay, who was dragged to police station and manhandled by a police bully with name Reijo Bohman and a State Prosecutor, Tora (Thora) Holst. What one needs is the exact date(s) and full transcripts of the interrrogation, if made, of the spinster, who, was accused for going against the totalitarian Swedish bureaucracy, allegedly run by a tiny clique of fanatical bureaucrats, living a hog's life on lining their own pockets and feathering their own nests. The violation and abuse goes clearly against Article 19 which Sweden has pledged to uphold. It appears to have taken place at Stockholm, or nearby. Essential to examine the possible violations are also the written accusations made against the child as one presumes Sweden has not gone that far that the Prosecutor himself is the accuser, making past Witch Trials mere Kinderspiel. Who has?