We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us
Outcomes matter.
How World War II Bureaucratic Sabotage Endures in the Defense Department, and How to Fight Back
Bureaucracy is the enemy.
‘During World War II, the Office of Strategic Services — predecessor to the Central Intelligence Agency — produced a manual detailing methods of sabotage intended for the European Allied resistance in German-occupied areas to disrupt the German war machine. But this wasn’t about blowing up bridges.1 The Simple Sabotage Field Manual established disruption tactics to impede productivity and create inefficiencies in enemy organizations. These tactics were considered subversive acts of warfare.
‘Ironically, from rigid adherence to procedure to endless deliberation in committees, many of these tactics have become normalized and even embraced in modern workplaces. How did we come to unwittingly replicate this wartime sabotage directed at our enemies to proliferating it against ourselves?’
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government
The civil service is going to find out what it’s like to work in the private sector.
‘Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil-service protections stop the president or even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the statute allows for “reductions in force” that don’t target specific employees. The statute further empowers the president to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service.” That power is broad. Previous presidents have used it to amend the civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court has held—in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they weren’t constrained by the Administrative Procedures Act when they did so. With this authority, Mr. Trump can implement any number of “rules governing the competitive service” that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.’
As Trump Shakes Up Bureaucracy, PBS's Barron-Lopez Pushes New Red Scare
One measure of the credibility of the DOGE effort is and will be the type of opposition it inspires.
‘But first came a series of clips introduced by anchor Amna Nawaz of several disgruntled bureaucrats and union members working (for now) in the federal government. Surprise! They’re all opposed to Trump’s plans. One example will suffice:
‘Jesus Soriano: When our future boss, the president, is passing the message that we do not belong here, that many of us will lose our jobs, that our families will suffer, that we may be forcibly relocated to other area, we care. We suffer. Employees are fearful, scared for their jobs, for their families, and many of them are already considering leaving.
‘As if government employees are more vulnerable to job loss than private-sector ones!’
Delta CEO says the Trump administration will reverse government ‘overreach’ seen under Biden
Bureaucratic relief is tax relief in a sense. The additionally imposed costs of compliance, reporting, and responding to dilatory, speculative bureaucratic inquiries that lead to punitive, unproductive, and unnecessary sanctions constitute a tax.
Business is looking forward to releasing those resources.
‘The airline executive said Trump promised “to take a fresh look at the regulatory environment, the bureaucracy that exists in government, the level of overreach that we have seen over the last four years within our industry. I think that will be a breath of fresh air.”’
Google’s Government Foes Are Aiming Too High
DoJ proposes to take Google’s core intellectual property and give it away to Google’s competitors. You know. Because reasons.
‘Some of the DOJ’s proposals were expected, such as the divestiture of the Chrome browser and a ban on payments to Apple AAPL 0.81%increase; green up pointing triangle in exchange for default or preferred placement of Google’s search engine on Apple’s devices. But others came as a surprise, including a proposal the government described as “Restoring Competition Through Syndication And Data Access.” This involves Google providing its search index—essentially the massive database it has about all sites on the web—to rivals and potential rivals at a “marginal cost.” Google would also have to give those same parties full access to user data and advertising data at no charge for 10 years.’
New Zealand’s Regulatory Standards Act
The coalition government in New Zealand wants to put in place a mechanism for seeing how good statutory intentions translate into practice, with a view to unwinding unintended negative consequences.
The post-pandemic pendulum is swinging.
‘“It seeks to bring the same level of discipline to regulation that the Public Finance Act brings to public spending, with the Ministry for Regulation playing a role akin to that of Treasury.
‘“Some regulations operate differently in practice than they do in theory. To make regulators accountable to the New Zealanders they regulate, the Bill contains a recourse mechanism, by establishing a Regulatory Standards Board. The Board will assess complaints and challenges to regulations, issuing non-binding recommendations and public reports.
‘“If we raise the political cost of making bad laws by allowing New Zealanders to hold regulators accountable, the outcome will be better law-making, higher productivity, and higher wages.’
How to Regulate AI Without Stifling Innovation
Hallelujah. Don’t use regulations to protect the incumbent.
‘Fifth, regulation must not become a moat protecting incumbents. History shows that well-intentioned rules can entrench existing powers, from medieval guilds to hospital certificate-of-need laws. In AI, we risk repeating this pattern. Centralized licensing bodies could easily become gatekeepers stifling competition. A superregulator could be captured by big companies. When tech giants enthusiastically promote regulation, it should raise red flags. Our regulatory framework should nurture a competitive AI landscape, not solidify the dominance of a few early movers.’