A very simple explanation of the Chevron Deference
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (31)
sorted by:
Yes, that is a very good explanation.
The Chevron Deference allowed unelected corporations/federal agencies to 'make the law', instead of observing laws, which are written by legislators, who are democratically elected. Hence the completely insane and inhumane revenue gathering.
This phenomenon happened as the word 'outsourcing' became a buzz-word in management, in the governance sphere. So, in the eighties a revolution was triggered called New Public Management. It was a mainly Western idea (but it also happened in post-Soviet countries) that getting 'someone' else - i.e. 'experienced business peeps' rather than 'lazy public servants' - to sort out one's governance issues, spearheaded by Reagan and Thatcher. Keep in mind that at the time, this was mainly a Public Servant Union-busting move. I showing my age here, but I 'memeber the Iron Lady telling us that the Unions were the biggest card-carrying communists in our midst. And yes, they thought they would do a Pinochet-lite. (biffing communists out of 'copters).
The idea was that getting the business-peeps to do this stuff was more economical and efficient. They even coined the phrase: Three E's, to market this idea to the public. Efficiency, Economy and Effectiveness. So there was a jingoistic element of training and the use of comms departments - to make a case to the public - for what was essentially budget-cutting and the removal of the now-redundant, public servants. Some countries, like Finland, had to rebuild their public service from the ground up, when the dust settled.
Look up: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Politicians and corporate media can take a running jump, BTW. We the people have to take it all apart now and start at the beginning. And yes, we DO need legislators that WE elect, to make the laws. No more ideologically driven 'circular economies' (WTF even is that?).
You also added some good info. Yes "outsourcing" was the buzzword of the eighties. But business-peeps used it to make lots of money for themselves.
zigacktemento - the way the system was set up before the NPM (NEw Public Management) asset-stripping of the eighties and nineties, and even the noughties, was a post-WW2 system that did appear to be socialist, in that many people needed help from public servants, with re-building, and keeping everyone calm (think: friendly bobby on the beat). There was an element of the government being there to help - but the 70's (post-Vietnam) energy-crisis made it seem that the public service was a drain on resources (akshully it was war-debt, but people don't want to talk about that).
However, such a system has disadvantages: One problem was that the old system relied heavily on hierarchy, and there was a strong wiff of upward-brown-nosing and downward-slave-stomping. This, in theory is cured with a meritocracy - much like the Chinese and the Russians are doing now - as a 'cure' for the traditionally hierarchical 'communism'. (Although arguably the Russians and the Chinese were aware of promoting academic prowess - see the Russian movie: AK47 Kalashnicov - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47_(2020_film).
Often the outsourced “experts” were related.
Bless you for this post and info.
Yes... perfectly explained!