Regulatory Bodies

One thing you have to admit, Governments love to pass laws regulating the citizens behavior, environment, and limits to what they can do. The general method is for congress to set up an agency to define and enforce these regulations.  Thus we have the FDA, EPA, OSHA and a whole host of other bureaucracies that regulate what we eat, the drugs we are allowed to purchase, working conditions, the limits on land use to avoid impacting some species or other, the standards for the environment in which we live, the contents of materials that we use to make items for sale, the standards for education of our young people, relationship between independent companies and the labor unions, and a myriad of other limits on our choices and freedoms to act on our own.
Are all these agencies really necessary?  Likely not, but one must agree that a whole host of them perform a necessary function that would not be accomplished otherwise. Why?  Simply because private industry, for all it's positive virtues, has no motivation to increase their costs in order to implement procedures that will clean up the environment, assure that drugs should not be prematurely dumped on the open market before adequate testing to assure they are safe, assure that the food on your grocers shelves are not contaminated by deadly microorganisms and disease, and so forth. History has shown clearly that the private sector does contain companies that worship the bottom line to the extent of cheating their customers, putting unsafe products on the market and other nefariousness activities. Right now we are seeing examples of that following the financial meltdown, although the government shares some of the blame, and examples of  questionable  practices played out on the nightly news. Practices that could impact the health of the people on a large scale.
So what's the problem?  The problem is inherent in the workings of any bureaucracy.  That is true whether part of a private organization of one on the public payroll.   Eventually the main goal of any bureaucracy will be self preservation, whether it's function has anything meaningful to accomplish or not. In fact preservation and expansion of the agency will always be at the forefront of the agencies agenda from it's very inception.  This is due to a few factors that exist.

• The importance of a manager is largely determined by their budget and/or the number of people reporting to them. This encourages the manager to look diligently for tasks and additional scope within their charter to expand the influence of the bureaucracy, thus requiring bigger staffs to cover the work load. A perfect example of that is played out in the Endangered Species Act.  At first the emphasis was on the bigger animals (wolves, mountain lions, American bald eagle, etc.) that most people envisioned as the reason for the act to begin with.  But, now the scope is being enlarged to include such animals as rats, in spite of the economic impact of including them in the endangered list and that the species isn't really being impacted all, just in a particular region. There is no end to the number of species that will be found that need protection from "extinction" so that the bureaucracy can continue to live and even grow. You can see this syndrome being played out in the EPA mafia, and any number of government regulatory bodies. 
• Parkinson's Law applies.  "In any organization the work will expand to fit the funds available". The conclusion and "law" as reached by the titled study has been shown to be true, over and over again. This implies that even after all the goals of the agency have been completed, or no longer exist, internal procedures will generate work loads that will keep the personnel busy, even hiring new people, when there is no input or output.  Strange, but shown to be true. Studies have shown that the government is loaded with agencies that really have no function, or that their function is duplicated many times over by other agencies created by congress. And yet they continue to exist as independent agencies, with no motivation to combine their functions to reduce the burden on the taxpayers.  There is no one to step in and decide that the agency is no longer needed or at least should be combined with other agencies to increase efficiency and reduce costs.
• The typical bureaucrat knows that it safer to say NO to any request for change.  Having no responsibility for the bottom line they have no motivation to move anything along.  It is better to make the mistake of being overly cautious than to move things along by quick action and later to be proved wrong. Thus, they become a large bottle neck in accomplishing anything that requires speedy action, or is not following the manual developed by the bureaucracy.  Make sure all the i's a dotted and t's are crossed becomes the mantra. This characteristic is common in private industry, but much more pervasive in the public sector.  The private sector does have overall  leadership concerned with profit, which tends to keep the bureaucracies under control.  The public sector has no such motivations.  In the public sector the employee serves their time, keeps their nose clean,  is advanced up the line in management by seniority and finally to a very lucrative retirement package unmatched anywhere in the private sector.  And, you don't really want to tangle with a government agency to do anything out of the ordinary.  You will likely get stonewalled to death.  

It would be nice if the citizens could do something about all this.  But, unfortunately there really isn't. The bureaucracies are so entrenched in the government that rooting them out, once established, is next to impossible.  Every one of them have a legion of  supporters to jump to their defense at any hint that they should be dissolved or significantly modified. 

Republican vs Democrat

      Sometimes in all the mud, muck, political posturing, power games and poison thrown around in the political arena one forgets that there really is a difference in the basic approach to what is best for the people of the US between the two major parties. We read all the time, especially in vehicles such as the letters to the editors feature almost every newspaper carries, that the legislators should stop the political games and just work for the good of the country, state, city or whatever. The thing the letter writers don't seem to get is that the representatives are really doing just that in their own mind. The fighting that occurs is due to the fact the the two parties are coming from two opposing directions in their pursuit of a what's best for the people of the country. It also obvious that the two parties are subject to being hijacked by special interest groups with an agenda that only loosely aligns with either parties basic beliefs.
      The basic differences between the two parties really is kind of simple.
      One could reduce the differences between the two major parties down to a simple thought.  Republicans tend to believe that the health of the nation comes first, while Democrats believe that the health of the individuals in the nation supersedes. These differences lead to the Republicans fight against higher taxes, as it drains money from the private sector where the financial health of the nation is determined, even if it means that that we have to forgo funding of some social welfare program that is perceived to be needed. They would basically object at the idea of borrowing money to pay the nations bills; would rather forgo the purchase. Democrats, on the other hand perceive a wrong and believe the nations taxpayers have an obligation to correct that wrong by spending money on appropriate public programs, paid for by taxes.  And, if there isn't enough money in the treasury, then it's perfectly alright to borrow the money to pay for it. And there you have the basis of the war in congress.
      Republicans are more aligned with the idea of individual initiative and opportunity for all of the citizens of the country. With individual initiative comes individual responsibility also.  Each person not only has the opportunity to pursue their goals but, the responsibility to not become a drain on their neighbors.  The government should basically get out of the way and let individuals and the free market place decide what is the best course for the economy.  It is a basic tenet that large government with far reaching powers, approaching a socialist state, is not in the best interest of the people in the long run.  All one has to do is look at Europe to see the consequences of too many entitlements handed out by governments. Entitlements that they could not afford.  Taxes should be minimized and government should only take on those areas of responsibility clearly outlined in the constitution and only those entitlements (read welfare) that can be afforded.  That means most public welfare programs are the responsibility of the local (state, county, city) governments. Republicans are more likely to favor a balanced budget amendment to the constitution to force the federal government to limit it's spending to it's income. A feature that most states seem to have written into their constitutions.
      Republicans are stronger on national defense, and are willing to put a much larger share of government spending into the army, navy, and air force. This follows from the basic idea that the health and safety of the nation is paramount. For the same reason they tend to favor infrastructure building and maintenance to assure that the nations highways support the movement of goods and services and that the water, power and other utilities support the population and the nation.
     If you think about it almost all of the social welfare programs were initiated by the Democrats while the Interstate highway system and other projects favoring the private sector (think trans-continental railroad) were  Republican initiatives.  The republicans, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, actively pursued policies that brought down the USSR and ended the so called Cold War..
      The Republican Party tends to attract the socially conservative individuals, including the ultra right fringes, in our nation. That is a two edged sword but, one the party has to live with. All too often the fringe groups can gain an inordinate amount of power within the party, due primarily to way our elections are held.  The religious right is but one example, not the only one.  Exactly what the issue of homosexuality, for example,  has to do with the either of the two major parties is hard to imagine.  But, that issue has become a major factor for both parties, driven from the splinter groups within each party. You see that now in the Tea Party movement.  The party was founded on basic Republican principles but the religious right is trying too hijack it.
      Democrats are much more bleeding hearts. That isn't a bad thing, it's just the way it is (in spite of the fact that the Republicans have tried to make that a derogatory term). They tend to see the misery and inequality of the citizens and move to eliminate the problem, even if we have to spend borrowed money to do so. The mantra of spend, spend, spend attached to the party is all too true. They are the authors of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and whole host of entitlement programs to aid the poor, the sick and others not so well off. They tend to want to regulate individual and business behavior to achieve a perceived better goal.  Thus, we have the EPA, the endangered species act and a host of other regulatory legislation. The problem with entitlements and the regulatory agencies is simple.  Once enacted, they produce a whole host of people that become dependent on them.  That makes it almost impossible for them to be cancelled or even to be changed significantly. Look at Social Security.  Any change to make the system viable over the long term is viewed with horror by the current recipients, even though it has been promised repeatedly that they would not be affected. It is very doubtful that the expansion of our country to the west, including the building of the trans-continental railroad would have proceeded at all under the current rules and regulatory agencies that are geared to say NO to every initiative that effects the status quo.
     Democrats tend to attract the socially left groups. Thus, such groups as the pro-illegal immigration forces tend to gravitate to the democrats as do the other social liberal groups. And, they also can exercise a lot of power within the party due to the election process.
     Neither party is above catering to special interest groups to strengthen their power in congress. The Democrats pander to the illegal immigration lobby (lots of votes there and growing by the year), labor unions, especially public employee unions (lots of money), and the very liberal entertainment industry (lots of star power).
     Women seem to gravitate to the Democratic Party due to one issue.  The so called "Freedom of Choice", a nicer way of saying abortion on demand.  Most middle class women are really aligned with the Republican basic ideas, but the abortion issue overrides all other concerns for a lot of women, especially younger women.
     Most minorities seem to favor the Democrats.  The Mexican-Americans, a large and growing segment of the population, would normally line up on the Republican side of the isle except for one issue, illegal immigration. Most of them are in this country and are now voting citizens due to the fact their parents or grandparents came to this country illegally and got  pardoned by several bills that found their way through congress or they were born here. The past flood of illegals coming across the border in the present, and in the recent past, is tipping the make up of the voters more and more toward the Democrats. Witness California, once a Republican stronghold, now a sure electoral vote for the Democrats.  In a short period of time California has become a minority dominated state, driven largely by the large Latino population.  . 
      The Republicans are much more attuned to the needs of business both small and large, and are supported heavily by them (lots of money), as well as the religious right (lots of votes) and the middle class wage earner.