We always keep hearing about the "swamp" in Washington DC, but what does that really mean? I will try to shed some light on the subject in this blog.
Before I get into the actual Washington DC Swamp, we need some back up. There are two groups in Washington DC and those are the"
(1) Elected Officials and their appointees
Before I get into the actual Washington DC Swamp, we need some back up. There are two groups in Washington DC and those are the"
(1) Elected Officials and their appointees
(2) Un-elected bureaucrat
If you look at Washington DC, you will see that 99% of those who are supposed to serve you are the un-elected bureaucrats. Further, who do you think controls those bureaucrats? It is the 1% who are elected by you.
Given that we have the Washington DC "swamp", how do we deal with it and make sure that it serves the voters? There are two kinds of elected officials and those are:
(1) Those who have experience running complex organizations with their own money.
(2) Those who are simple minded politicians who have never run anything with their own money and who depend on "advice" from so called experts from the swamp.
Now, what is the best strategy for a voter who wants Washington DC to be responsive to the needs of the whole country? Which kind of person should they vote for? Both could be corrupt or incompetent. Which one could do the most damage and which one could be the most responsive? You need to look at both sides, good and bad. Look at it this way. The "swamp" has been there longer than any politician and knows the ropes better and you can bet that they have the power to squash any weak politician. If you elect a politician who is weak and inexperienced in running a complex organization, you can bet that the "swamp" will end up running things, While the "swamp" is running things, you will not hear much back lash from the "swamp" because they are happy with the situation. If on the other hand, if you have elected a person who is competent and who has had experience running a complex organization the "swamp" will be screaming to high heaven.
To probe the point above, all you have to do is to look at the Trump administration compared to the Obama administration. We hear all kinds of screaming about Trump from the "swamp", but we heard little from them during the Obama administration. That was because the "swamp" was mostly in control while Obama went around making flowery speeches that put the voters to sleep.
What most people do not understand is that the "swamp" grows bigger and stronger every year since the USA was created. Every good sounding new department grows beyond it original purpose to serve the voters to one that serves those in the "swamp". Look at the department of education in Washington DC. It sounded good at the time, but what good has it done? As it has grown, it has expanded it's reach into our lives. We are short of doctors, so why didn't the Department of Education see this problem coming and developed programs to assured that we did not have a shortage? Isn't that the kind of thing we should have expected? Getting my point?
What we need are "sun set" clauses on all new programs and departments so that someone makes sure that government departments and programs do not grow beyond their value to voters. I would start by cutting all departments by 10% per year and requiring them to justify any new or additional tax money. Not fund the government with "continuing resolutions".
If you look at Washington DC, you will see that 99% of those who are supposed to serve you are the un-elected bureaucrats. Further, who do you think controls those bureaucrats? It is the 1% who are elected by you.
Given that we have the Washington DC "swamp", how do we deal with it and make sure that it serves the voters? There are two kinds of elected officials and those are:
(1) Those who have experience running complex organizations with their own money.
(2) Those who are simple minded politicians who have never run anything with their own money and who depend on "advice" from so called experts from the swamp.
Now, what is the best strategy for a voter who wants Washington DC to be responsive to the needs of the whole country? Which kind of person should they vote for? Both could be corrupt or incompetent. Which one could do the most damage and which one could be the most responsive? You need to look at both sides, good and bad. Look at it this way. The "swamp" has been there longer than any politician and knows the ropes better and you can bet that they have the power to squash any weak politician. If you elect a politician who is weak and inexperienced in running a complex organization, you can bet that the "swamp" will end up running things, While the "swamp" is running things, you will not hear much back lash from the "swamp" because they are happy with the situation. If on the other hand, if you have elected a person who is competent and who has had experience running a complex organization the "swamp" will be screaming to high heaven.
To probe the point above, all you have to do is to look at the Trump administration compared to the Obama administration. We hear all kinds of screaming about Trump from the "swamp", but we heard little from them during the Obama administration. That was because the "swamp" was mostly in control while Obama went around making flowery speeches that put the voters to sleep.
What most people do not understand is that the "swamp" grows bigger and stronger every year since the USA was created. Every good sounding new department grows beyond it original purpose to serve the voters to one that serves those in the "swamp". Look at the department of education in Washington DC. It sounded good at the time, but what good has it done? As it has grown, it has expanded it's reach into our lives. We are short of doctors, so why didn't the Department of Education see this problem coming and developed programs to assured that we did not have a shortage? Isn't that the kind of thing we should have expected? Getting my point?
What we need are "sun set" clauses on all new programs and departments so that someone makes sure that government departments and programs do not grow beyond their value to voters. I would start by cutting all departments by 10% per year and requiring them to justify any new or additional tax money. Not fund the government with "continuing resolutions".
