Exactly.  However, just so you know, I am talking about high level (they are jokingly called Public CEOs) administrators.  So long as they don't violate the law, 99.9% of their decisions go unchallenged by the public or by the policy makers themselves.  Mostly because people believe the "how" is law too, but it isn't.  Which makes it really hard for the average person to change.

The only "checks and balance" on administrators are their own ethics and "transparency" laws.    

Sorry for the hijack Jill, but are administrators political appointees or 'merit-based' PS promotions?

I realize that the way I view this topic is not the norm on this site. I also realize that there's no way I'm really going to change anyone’s opinion about it either. However I do at least want to point out that there are other ways to view this.

Forgive me if I haven't bothered to completely read all 3 pages of this thread and follow every nuance of the conversation however I do want to address the concept of "my" money vs. "your" money vs. "our" money because it does seem to be a common theme on this site.

Basically I view everything that anyone has as in some sense the product of living in a civilized society of which the current government is a pretty large part. Without a civilized society providing the framework in which we can work, earn a living and live in relative peace the first person or group of people that came along that was a little bit stronger than you could simply kill you and take everything that you have. So without society/government or whatever you want to call what it is it is that provides the environment in which you can earn and maintain your standard of living, you would have nothing and so therefore whatever portion that we collectively as members of that "society" decide to take of "your" money, which should be decided in the same manner as the portion that is taken from "my" or anyone else's money, for whatever we collectively define as necessary for the upkeep and maintenance of said society, is not something about which anyone really has the right to complain, least of all those that have the most to lose if we were to suddenly no longer live in a civilized society.

So I believe that such money, once taken for the upkeep and maintenance of society, is no longer "your" money or "my" money, however it is still "our" money given that it now belongs to us collectively as members of the society. So while I don't particularly care to see money that "used" to be mine wasted any more than anyone else does, I do acknowledge that it is no longer "my" money but "our" money. I don't get to solely define how it's to be used although we collectively decide how it’s to be used in the manner that society has defined to make such decisions.

I'm pretty sure this shouldn't sound all that unfamiliar as it's simply classic Locke or Rousseau or one of those other guys, I forget which.

Anyway like I said at the beginning I don’t expect this to change anyone’s opinion, however perhaps it will explain why others may view this topic differently.

I don't think you explained anything to anyone.  This whole blog is about how much of "my" money should have to become "our" money.  Obviously the ones that want more and more of my money to go in the pot are ones that aren't putting anything in but are getting as much or more out.

It depends.  I will try to explain it without writing a book, heh, but it is complex.

Some administrators (like the Pres' cabinet) are appointed (hired), and there are equivalents at the state level as well, appointed by the Governor.

Often appointees have no real "operating" experience in these areas and end up being dressing/fluff/figure heads.  Even with a vast amount of knowledge, they are not trained in that particular gov bureaucracy so have no applicable experience.

What can they do?  What they do, do.  heh.  They rely on the people who were there before them and will be there long after, to direct, train, and lead to a large extent....and those people are administrators.  (And in many cases they can NOT be fired by the new "head.")

The ultimate idea behind the Pres' cabinet is to "guide" administrators to interpret and administer in ways favorable to the current President.  It doesn't work that way in reality, but its the idea.

For continuity of government, most administrators are hired on their own merit /experience/education and supposed to be separate from the politics.  This also makes it very difficult to fire them.

But, can you imagine how bad it would be if every department was potentially replaced every 4 years with a new President?

We used to do it that way in this country, but it led to corruption, the Spoils System, (new Presidents appointed family and friends to positions they could not do...still happens but a few thousand appointees is nothing in the big scheme of gov...and for the most part they are "figure heads" anyway.)

So administrators are hired by human resources on merit (education/experience).   Occasionally there are extra steps but ultimately it is a hire process.

Administrators are supposed to be experts in the field as well as government bureaucracy.  They are SUPPOSED to be there to implement policy made by elected officials.

What generally occurs is ....people like Obama get elected and he is a novice.  He knows nadda about running a country, and just a little more about being a Senator. 

That's not a slam, just a fact.  So now instead of really making policy himself (as the people wanted), he has to rely on the "expert" advice of hired and occasionally appointed people to make policy.  Most of that advice comes from administrators who are supposed to be non-political.  (The idea of going into this field is to serve Americans fairly, effectively, efficiently, and Constitutionally, not politically.)

Sure he signs things on tv and looks all official, like he's making changes...but the things he signs are usually very general, the details of which are worked out by....you guessed it.... administrators. 

So for instance Clinton can sign a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy for the military, but how its interpreted, how its enforced, all of that is decided by DOD Administrators (yes a lot are soldiers as well, but equally administrators).

Another example, this infra-structure idea under Obama.  Who do you think is coming up with the nuts and bolts of it?  How its run.  How much money it needs?  Where it starts, when?  From what I am hearing/ reading in the Administrators Journals and other professional literature, administrators are doing it all with very little guidelines from elected officials.

They'll get the plan all written up, give it to Obama/Obama's figure head.  He'll make a change here and there if its politically expedient, but for the most part, these unelected administrators will decide everything about the program.

On the local level you see this in the Council/Manager form of Government.  The Council is elected and then they hire a City Manager to run the city.  The City Manager isn't accountable to the public.  He's accountable to the council.  So long as they're happy, he's fine.  They make policy and he implements it but more often than not the CM takes the budget, his new policy ideas, etc to the Council and "sells" it.  They vote on it, and most times defer to his expertise.  So you tell me.  Who is REALLY running the gov?

It's not the guys on tv.

This is why IMO political ideology is the root of the economic problems we face in this country.  For whatever reason, the field of administration tends to draw "elitists" or people like Mumblefratz who believe essentially, what you have is at the disposal of the civilized society in which you live. And anyone making over a certain $ amount should give the "extra" to the gov to re-distribute.  (If that summation is wrong Mumble, my apologies.  However, it doesn't negate the point.)

No matter how conservative the President is, unless we can somehow get some checks and balances on administrators (we have ethics and transparency and that's it...and how many Americans have the time to go through thousands of pages of administrative decisions made every single day?) our debt will only get worse.

Right now the Pres only has control of 48% of the budget (which is why the military is often cut because their budget comes from his 48%).  The other 52% is tagged by law and under the purview of administrators.  (Source:  Denhardt & Denhardt, Public Administration: An Action Orientation, 6th edition,).

So now that I've totally confused you....hahahaa.  Hope that helps.

   

 

I'm not so sure that's so obvious. For example I put plenty into the pot on an absolute basis. Certainly there are those here that put even more "into the pot" than I do but I most certainly put in my fair share. I'm also not saying that I think you should put any more into the pot than you are already. All I'm saying is that once it's in the pot it's no longer yours but ours and if the money is collectively ours than it is we collectively (i.e. assumedly by a majority) that define how to use it.

In your OP you say:

As far as I know we have always been ruled by majority and there has been no fundamental change to that.

I think what I said was certainly not elitist, if anything it's populist but whatever.

The part about what you have being at the disposal of the civilized society in which you live is a terse but reasonable summary of what I said however that's a long way from concluding that means "anyone making over a certain $ amount should give the 'extra' to the gov to re-distribute".

All I said is that we collectively decide through our quasi-representative government the rules that apply equally to all that determine "how much" each of us puts into the pot as well as define what is done with that money once it's in the pot. You can complain all you want that you feel you put in too much into the pot or that others put in too little. You can also complain all you want about what is done with "our" money once it's in the pot. However yours is only one voice out of all of ours with no more or less say than anyone else's voice regardless of how much you've put into the pot.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I just wanted Cacto to understand the ideology of so many in gov administration.  While not agreeing on everything, as you pointed out, the general principles seem the same.

My elitist comment was supposed to read as "in addition too" as in elitists AND also...I was not putting you into the category.

Sorry I was sloppy.

That's what I thought you probably meant.

However I'm not so sure that the ideology of so many in government *is* that anyone making over a certain $ amount should give the 'extra' to the gov to re-distribute. I'm about as rabid a liberal you could find and even I don't think that extreme. I've never heard anyone say that the marginal tax rate should approach 100% no matter how much someone makes.

It does seem to me that those that cry the loudest about taxes are those that have the most left over even considering the taxes they pay. Certainly it's their right (just like anyone else) to complain about how much they pay or what is done with it once it is paid. They only thing that I believe is that once taxes are paid it's just not their money anymore it's ours collectively. I certainly realize that belief is not widely shared on this site.

At one time the majority thought slavery was fine.  So I guess that makes it right?

If you are robbing Peter to give to Paul you can generally count on the support of Paul.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the men with guns can force you to give them money.  Bravo. Congratulations, Mumble, you have persuasively made the point that the majority can make use of the government's legal monopoly on force to loot the produce of the minority.

Granted, they don't think all the "extra" should be taken (the fact your issue is with the % and not with the idea that administrators have a right to label something "Extra" plays to the original point of ideology).

I am working with, and interacting with administrators on the federal and state level right now who believe it is "Fair," down right PATRIOTIC, for 60-75% of that "extra" to be stolen under the guise of taxes and redistributed. 

If that doesn't reflect your beliefs, so be it.  Doesn't mean its not true in my research, education, and experience in this field. 

 

Tova:

Interesting. In Oz it's much the same, but with a few subtle differences. Local politics is mostly identical, which is why it's considered the most commonly corrupt and inefficient level of government around. State and federal politics involve strong party affiliations and consistent vote management, whereby the party has policies and these are given to the public service to implement. The PS comes back with a program, or a couple of options (depending on the minister involved) and the minister and/or his/her advisers make a decision about what to do or make alterations to the proposed policy and send it back for redraft.

However, as the minister has the support of a federal or state-level party policy thinktank it's much more difficult for the PS to be as influential on a high policy level. Where they can have strong influence is on application of policy, but they're constrained in that by tradition, public response and a very strong ethos of independence. Having read what you're saying though, I'm definitely starting to question whethere all this is quite so effective as I previously thought.

Traditional/Classic (or "mechanistic" management as opposed to more free flowing organic management) administration is being eschewed at most colleges now.  The Public Administration accreditation is ensuring it.

In other words tradition is out, considered old school, yadda yadda.  And since administrators here aren't accountable (technically) to the public..meaning can't be voted out and civil service makes it difficult to fire people...well ya see where I'm going with this?

Accountability will come I guess.  It'll have too.

That's a nice distinction.  There are think tanks here I guess...but we call them lobbyists...hahahaha.

I didn't know anything about Gov in Oz.  I'll have to read up on it.  You know some of the best ideas come from older countries who have gone through the administration issues.  They don't have to be Democracies either, administration is one of those things that has to be done no matter the form of government...and with a little tweaking can be applied to all forms. 

Something I think is hysterical..only because I didn't ever know it until recently, and always poo-pooed him...  Al Gore, our former Vice Pres, was/is a brilliant administrator.  He had a knack for getting rid of outmoded organizations that were no longer serving any purpose.  And also was a great consolidator, to help cut red tape and get things moving.  He was forward thinking and a go getter in the administrative world making significant contributions to govs efficiency in serving the public.

And the sad thing is?

Most people think he's only the global warming guy.

He was a much more successful administrator.

 

 

 

I think we should pool all the world's money into a giant pinata and have a huge party so people don't stress out so much over little things.

I guess if that's how you look at it then there's not much I or anyone else can say to convince you otherwise, however that's not at all how I view it.

First off loot implies some illegality or at the very least impropriety and in my opinion as long as the same rules apply to everyone it's hardly looting. AFAIK we both must abide by the same tax code. Secondly while the government is indeed a monopoly you do have a choice of monopolies that you can live under and that's a choice that's far more accessible to the minority that you mention and not so much an option for the majority. I hear Monte Carlo is very nice this time of year. Finally as far as the government having a monopoly on force, that's true up to a point. That point being the point at which life has been made sufficiently difficult for a sufficient number of people that they decide to take things into their own hands. There are a number of examples of this occurring in history and none of them are pretty, particularly for said minority.