Thanks for explaining the REINS act purpose and rationale. I had not heard of that legislation, and your explanation was helpful.
I think it would be useful to discuss the counter-arguments which I would anticipate (I haven't done any research so I don't know the actual arguments being made in OK, GA, IN or nationally).
Some people will say that we need "independent subject matter experts" to make technical and administrative decisions based on their specialized knowledge, which is far more detailed than legislators have time to delve into. So pragmatically, they would argue, we need to delegate most regulation making to the legion of subject matter experts - ie: bureaucrats - operating within some general framework created by the legislature, executive and judicial branches. To the degree possible, it would be argued, such regulators should be insulated from political pressures like major campaign donors, so they can focus on the rational best responses.
(And the argument would not be that such a system of relatively independent experts would be perfect and never make bad decisions, but that they would do a relatively better job of it than the alternatives. We can find at least some bad decisions made by ANY system, like the excesses of capitalism or the flaws of democracy; it's important, however, to choose the least flawed of the options rather than reject any system with any flaws).
My first take on that tradeoff is that crux of the matter is where to set the threshold of a "major" decision which must be approved by the legislature, versus a minor decision which can be delegated to an unelected civil servant. What do you know about that?
If you plan to continue discussing this topic, I think it would add depth and nuance if you were to discuss the counterarguments and where you would set the balance. How do (or would) legislatures specify which proposed regulations would need to be referred to the legislative branch?
Thanks for explaining the REINS act purpose and rationale. I had not heard of that legislation, and your explanation was helpful.
I think it would be useful to discuss the counter-arguments which I would anticipate (I haven't done any research so I don't know the actual arguments being made in OK, GA, IN or nationally).
Some people will say that we need "independent subject matter experts" to make technical and administrative decisions based on their specialized knowledge, which is far more detailed than legislators have time to delve into. So pragmatically, they would argue, we need to delegate most regulation making to the legion of subject matter experts - ie: bureaucrats - operating within some general framework created by the legislature, executive and judicial branches. To the degree possible, it would be argued, such regulators should be insulated from political pressures like major campaign donors, so they can focus on the rational best responses.
(And the argument would not be that such a system of relatively independent experts would be perfect and never make bad decisions, but that they would do a relatively better job of it than the alternatives. We can find at least some bad decisions made by ANY system, like the excesses of capitalism or the flaws of democracy; it's important, however, to choose the least flawed of the options rather than reject any system with any flaws).
My first take on that tradeoff is that crux of the matter is where to set the threshold of a "major" decision which must be approved by the legislature, versus a minor decision which can be delegated to an unelected civil servant. What do you know about that?
If you plan to continue discussing this topic, I think it would add depth and nuance if you were to discuss the counterarguments and where you would set the balance. How do (or would) legislatures specify which proposed regulations would need to be referred to the legislative branch?