Bureaucratic supremacy, the U.S. and the European Union

The United States have a bloated, unelected bureaucracy answerable only to unelected political appointees to whom they must “suck up” should they desire promotion and more power. It creates more laws (Federal regulations) than the Congress and then interprets them to its advantage.

The Federal bureaucracy has grown more vigorously than Topsy. The notion probably had its American origins with Theodore Roosevelt’s idea that a bureaucracy of experts could guide the legislative branch and those who administer our laws along proper paths. Not necessarily a bad idea but we now have — instead of a bureaucracy of experts — one intent upon “implementing” Federal legislation along lines helpful to political ideologues to whom they look for advancement and increased power. Their alleged expertise is often rejected in support of this goal.

According to an article on Federal land use restrictions titled Sagebrush Rebellion Redivivus,

Executive agencies can also simply implement the extremist environmental agenda on their own. This is how the Obama administration’s “war on coal” is being waged following the failure to pass the president’s “cap and trade” legislation even in the Democrat-controlled Senate. This January, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set limits on how much carbon dioxide new coal-fired power plants are allowed to produce—limits that will require expensive and unproven technology, severely limiting the likelihood of new plants being built. This follows past regulation that will force the retirement of more than 30,000 megawatts of power capacity by the end of 2016. Later this year, the EPA plans to establish limits for already existing power plants, with devastating implications for coal-rich Western states such as Wyoming, which generates more coal annually than the next six coal-producing states combined. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska points out that “89 percent of the coal electricity capacity that is due to go offline [due to regulation] was utilized as backup” to meet demand for energy during the harsh winter that just ended. Not only she and Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, but also liberal Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, have worried that these EPA regulations will threaten the ability of America’s power grid to meet future demand. [Emphasis added.]

According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2009 through 2013, oil and natural gas production on private land was up 61 percent and 33 percent, respectively; on federal lands, by contrast, oil production was down eleven percent and gas production was down 28 percent. This is no mere coincidence. The Monterey/Santos oil field in California is estimated to hold more than twice the oil of the Bakken oil field in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford oil field in west Texas combined, but its development is on hold because federal lands are involved.

Apparently wishing to slow production even further, former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar—ignoring that hydraulic fracturing has been regulated successfully by states for 60 years—proposed new fracking regulations that will add $345 million in annual costs to Western energy development. Regulatory costs as a whole, it should be noted, are at a record high: Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute places the total costs of federal regulations in the U.S. in 2013 as greater than the GDPs of either Canada or Mexico. [Emphasis added.]

This just in:

The Obama administration’s crackdown on Western land use has sparked a furor over the Forest Service’s decision to fence off a creek used by thirsty cattle in drought-stricken Otero County, New Mexico.

The Otero County Commission is scheduled to meet Monday to discuss whether to order the sheriff to open the gates against the wishes of Forest Service officials, who have argued that the fence is needed to protect the Agua Chiquita riparian area and habitat for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

“The Forest Service is coming in and saying, ‘We’re in charge of the water and the water is part of the forest,’” said Sheriff House. “It’s a control issue, and they’re trying to push the rancher out. They’re using every excuse in the book. One area is a riparian area. One area is critical habitat. One area might be for endangered species.” [Emphasis added.]

Such bureaucratic attempt to turn Federal regulations, and even legislation, into efforts to implement “social justice” and other initiatives that please them, brings us to the European Union and its governance by bureaucracy. Maybe as we become more accustomed to it it won’t matter. To how many does it not matter even now?

Here’s a Pat Condell video about the European Union, posted almost three years ago:

I wrote about it here. I will try not to repeat myself, beyond commenting as I did there:

Many of “our” elected officials are lazy, unresponsive and preoccupied with raising funds and then using them to campaign for re-election. Some are corrupt. However, the far greater multitudes of unelected bureaucrats, most often accountable only to themselves, are worse. We have little to say about what they do and what we (and even our elected representatives) manage to say rarely matters unless the needed political “suck” is available and used. Laws promulgated by our unelected betters bureaucrats, i.e. Federal Regulations, are far more numerous (and frequently more oppressive) than laws enacted by elected members of the Congress and signed by the President.

The Congress has encouraged and enabled this farce by passing legislation (often un-read by most legislators before voting on it) that expressly authorizes interpretation and engorgement by various Federal agencies — see, e.g., ObamaCare. It is a common practice. The numerous Federal regulations, as well as the fewer laws enacted by the Congress and signed by the President, are frequently disregarded, ignored or violated at will by those employed to enforce them.

Here another Pat Condell video, posted just a few days ago.

The situation has not changed much, except that a British political party, UKIP, stands a decent chance of getting seats in the European Parliament. That small step is good thing, compared to the nothing being done about the similar problem in the United States of Obama. Although it is questionable whether it will produce any significant good results, it’s a first small step in the right direction and one that has been considered in the United States of Obama too little if at all.

However, since we all belong to the Government, what difference does it make now? It must be good for us or else “our” Government would have told us. Right?

How many sheep believe that? How many of their “our” regulatory shepherds?

UPDATE:

According to Sky News,

UKIP is on course for a massive political upset with victory in the European elections in its sights, according to an exclusive Sky News/YouGov poll.

The poll confirms that in recent weeks Nigel Farage’s party has leaped ahead of Labour, with the Conservatives in third place and the Liberal Democrats lagging well behind.

The poll, which was carried out last week, shows UKIP on 31%, while Labour has slipped back to its lowest YouGov showing in weeks on 25%.

. . . .

But the YouGov polling demonstrated that far from being confined to the UK, disenchantment with mainstream politics is a phenomenon that is sweeping the continent.

Respondents to the poll in a range of European countries showed similar sentiments to those exhibited by UK voters.

In Finland, 57% of people said they do not trust politicians; in Sweden 59%; Denmark 61% and Germany 70%.

Voter dissatisfaction is strongest in France, where 78% of people said they do not trust politicians, leading to record levels of support for Marine le Pen’s Front National.

In short, the European elections are likely to result in a wave of success for minority and protest parties; and a massive slap in the face for Europe’s political leaders.