To those itching to get rid of Dept. of Energy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by james_bond_3rd, Nov 11, 2006.

  1. Arnie


    Who said that? What the hell are you talking about?
  2. I believe that was part of another discussion. Conservatives who said they wanted a smaller government failed to come up with a single example of a govenment program, service or department that they would like to eliminate without causing a huge backlash among the american public. The dept of Energy was one of the candidates mentioned though, of course no one has any idea what it is the DOE does.
  3. Arnie


    I was one who called for it. But I never said I was a

    "...anti-science right wing religious fanatics, they'd rather ban all scientific research, and return us to the medieval times".

    All of the useful things they do could be handled by the Dept of Commerce, the Atomic Energy Commission, The Dept of Defense etc...It appears I have touched a nerve with our resident Phd. :D
  4. Well, FYI, the bulk of the Atomic Energy Commission became DOE in mid 1970's.

    I didn't know that you were such a dinosaur. :D

    Dept of Commerce has little experience running these national labs. Their priority is not technology innovation, but promotion of commerce. During Clinton years a couple of small labs were transferred to Commerce in response to calls to abolish DOE and it was a disaster.

    DOD only handles defense related R&D. It is unreasonable to transfer civilian R&D under DOD.
  5. Arnie


    Again, I am not against this research, but WHY do we need a cabinet level department for this?
  6. Because these are not your typical researches done by someone in his own garage, that are politically neutral. These are strategically important researches (think hydrogen bomb or Star Wars or fuel cell) that should be directed by elected politicians instead of career beauracrats. What if the president wants hydrogen fuel cell technology, but your middle level director decides that nuclear energy was a better investment? Only a cabinet level department that directly answers to the president can properly handle this.
  7. By that reasoning we need a Department of Medicine. How can we trust those bureaucrats in the FDA or Center for Disease Control?
  8. Wrong reasoning. Medicine is politically neutral. At least it should be. You can't decide based on politics what diseases are treated and what are not. Republicans try to bring politics into medicine (contraceptives, for example) but that's wrong.

    Do not mis-interpret my explanation as distrust of bureaucrats. That's a whole different issue. Even if you trust all politicians and all bureaucrats, there is still the issue who should be making strategic decisions on important R&D researches.

    It sounds like though, that you might be willing to get rid of FDA and CDC?
  9. I agree with your point that agencies require political oversight to prevent unelected bureaucrats from making policy. Typically this is more of a conservative concern, as the worker bees in the agencies tend to be liberal democrats. I just don't believe the agencies have to be cabinet level to ensure proper oversight.

    The question of the proper reach of the federal government is more complex. I don't have a problem with the FDA or CDC per se. There are far fatter and more troublesome targets, such as the Education Department, HUD, Commerce and Energy.
    #10     Nov 15, 2006