|
July 09, 2007
Bureaucracy always puts me to sleep
Anyone who has dealt with what we call "bureaucrats" knows that one of the most important things to a bureaucrat is having a form filled out correctly. Getting the forms right is the traditional sine qua non of bureaucracy. In a previous post, I speculated that a major push for the immigration bill is coming from the bureaucratic classes, and not for the conventionally given reason that they're all a bunch of "Kumbaya" singers who love aliens and want to build a better Third World in America. Rather, it's because aliens make their job difficult: IMO, a major push behind the immigration bill comes from bureaucrats and social workers who find the illegal status of the 12 million extremely inconvenient, but would consider their legalization through a complex process to be extremely convenient! Laws are often passed simply because bureaucrats hate to be inconvenienced or because they want more jobs. But both? What a win-win!Over the weekend, I saw confirmation of this view in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which documented the growing bureaucratic inconvenience of illegal alien maternity and prenatal care: Rocio, a Mexican woman living in Norristown, is scheduled to have her second baby, a boy, by cesarean section next Sunday at Montgomery Hospital.Won't pay? Sounds inconvenient to me. Especially for the poor hospital administrators and for government bureaucrats who have failed to produce the magic papers which are required to trigger the urgently desired flow of taxpayer dollars. As to the fact that our government does not pay for prenatal care for these citizens of other countries, it's seen as a "quirk": This quirk in the government's insurance program - a sign of the country's ambivalence toward its burgeoning population of illegal immigrants - leaves hospitals and doctors in a quandary: Subsidize prenatal care they believe is essential, or risk confronting much bigger problems when the women arrive in their emergency departments with labor pains.Much bigger problems? Might those include lawsuits filed by guys (like John Edwards) who get 40% of whatever the hospitals are forced to pay out if a sympathetic jury decides the child should have been provided with prenatal care? Legally, the hospitals have to take care of women in labor. But they've been so strained by the cost of litigation, that already they can't afford it, and then the aliens come along, with the same rights to sue for malpractice that anyone else has: By law, hospitals must care for women in labor.Much as I dislike bureaucrats, I have to say that if I were a bureaucrat caught up in all this, I'd be tearing my hair out. Bear in mind that the Inquirer piece only dealt with a few hospitals in one municipality. Considering 12 million aliens in the US and the thousands of hospitals, I wouldn't be surprised if this one issue alone generates quite a few bureaucratic complaints. Add to that the endless army of bureaucrats working in schools, social welfare departments, law enforcement agencies, child protective services, codes and inspections, various safety services -- all of whom need to fill out forms -- and the number of potential complaints and complainants is mind-boggling. Does anyone think that bureaucrats will complain to taxpayers? God no! They might be the apparatchiks who run the government, but when they have a problem that needs solving, they complain to the people whose job it is to change the laws to make their job easier -- the legislature. In this case the legislature was Congress, which was presented with a humongous piece of legislation hundreds of pages long which no human being could be expected to read, but which, if enacted, would make life a lot easier for bureaucrats who have to work with aliens -- mainly because every alien would have been given (or automatically qualified for) that magic number that is the bureaucratic Holy Grail of every important form: The bill would have created a new class of visa, the "Z visa", that would be given to everyone who was living illegally in the United States on Jan. 1, 2007; this visa would give its holder the legal right to remain in the United States for the rest of their life, and access to a Social Security number.I know most people focus on other aspects of the bill, but I think a good argument can be made that the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007" really deserves to be called the "No Human Left Unnumbered Act of 2007." Not to sound overly frivolous here, but from a purely libertarian perspective, has anyone considered that all these damned aliens running around in an unregulated and unnumbered state constitute a dire threat to the forces which want to keep track of and monitor every last human being? The fact is, illegal aliens have way more privacy than the average American, and if ordinary people figured it out, they might get jealous. Rather than deport round up aliens and deport them (or simply catch them by a process of gradual attrition), the idea is to force them into mandatory numbering. Lots more good jobs for the nanny state that way, with much more to come once the aliens learn that they qualify for benefits. It's a little like California's AB 1634 -- California's mandatory spay and neuter act, which I called the "Ease Mental Suffering of Animal Control Bureaucrats Act," and which would effectively put most "companion animal" reproduction under state control. This begs the question of who is running the government, of course. We kid ourselves by imagining that we the voters elect the people who actually run the government. We don't. The people who run the government are the same people who run our lives, and while the fiction might be that they answer to the legislators, more often the legislators answer to them. When the apparatchiks say "jump!", the lawmakers say "How high?" Of course, sometimes (especially when the apparatchiks are feeling really big for their britches) they don't even need the legislature. They can simply rule by administrative fiat. In what I consider a shocking recent example of this, a few well-placed wretches at OSHA decided that they could use the "workplace safety" meme to attempt a back-door approach to gun control. How? The NRA-ILA explains: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed new rules that would have a dramatic effect on the storage and transportation of ammunition and handloading components such as primers or black and smokeless powder. The proposed rule indiscriminately treats ammunition, powder and primers as "explosives." Among many other provisions, the proposed rule would:Naturally, this would prevent most gun stores from selling ammunition, and would make ammunition much more expensive and tougher to obtain.* Prohibit possession of firearms in commercial "facilities containing explosives"--an obvious problem for your local gun store. Now, I realize that the people who hate guns would think this was a great idea, but can you imagine the outcry if Congress tried to pass laws mandating the same thing? It would be in every newspaper, the NRA would be up in arms, and there'd be a huge public debate. But OSHA does it -- and in language so dense and confusing and ridden with cross references that despite my legal training I was unable to make sense of it -- and there's barely a peep anywhere in the MSM. There's a lot more in the proposed regs, which are analyzed in some detail here. If you don't want to read it, take my word for it that it's some of most God-awful gobbledygook I've ever seen. (As unreadable as it is unconstitutional.) Sometimes I wonder whether freedom will end that way. Not with a bang, or even a whimper. But with a long document that no one can read because it's designed to put everyone to sleep. posted by Eric on 07.09.07 at 04:17 PM
Comments
Things have gotten to the point where most of us work in one bureaucracy or another, and eventually we might as well all be working for the government. Nothing personal -- or individual -- about any of it. ZZzzzzzzz....... Eric Scheie · July 10, 2007 08:27 AM I'm with Jennifer! Although I was technically a 'bureaucrat' for 25 years, I did not consider it a fulfilling part of my job to fill in forms or ensure that others had done so. Sometimes it was necessary in order to get particular goods or services that the job (or I) required. Sometimes it was necessary to avoid jail or fines or firing. Get me in a really, really good mood and I'll talk to you about DOJ fines and suspensions for not filling out paperwork.... John Burgess · July 10, 2007 03:25 PM Interesting... Anonymous · July 22, 2007 07:54 AM Sorry :( Anonymous · July 24, 2007 12:49 AM Sorry :( Anonymous · July 26, 2007 05:53 AM |
|
July 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2007
June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"Conservatives for Hillary"?
Bambi activates Lyme Seeing beyond sex? Station Of Record Getting Tuned Up Imagining fallen neoclassical Victorians Nifong Apologizes Attention gun nuts! Thank you, Cam & Company, and NRA News! Fusion - False Alarm
Links
Site Credits
|
|
You know what peeves me Eric? It's people thinking that because I work in a bureacruacy, I'm one of 'them'. I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle to make things *less* bureaucratic - both for citizens and internals who can't get work done for all the forms.
But I do love your final paragraph - hear hear!