> But their scope is massive, particularly across the 117th and 118th.
Are they just upwards wealth transfers disguised as bills or do they actually change administrative law? What's the "massive" part about them, exactly?
> The Capital is buzzing with committees investigating all manner of things.
This is easy to say and nearly impossible to quantify. I can only approach it with the obvious questions: "Then why do they want the Chevron doctrine back?" and "Why would such buzzing activity result in fewer bills?"
> Are they just upwards wealth transfers disguised as bills or do they actually change administrative law? What's the "massive" part about them, exactly?
Codifying same-sex marriage. Hundreds of billions on re-framing our transport system. (Like every major airport in the country is being renovated and expanded.)
What is your standard for meaningful legislation?
> easy to say and nearly impossible to quantify
It’s trivial to quantify; the minutes are public. The people I know on the Hill are busy as ever. The do-nothing months of total gridlock (or the speakership fight) were exceptions.
> I can only approach it with the obvious questions: "Then why do they want the Chevron doctrine back?
It was the status quo and made their job easier. With the CRA, the Congress never actually ceded any power. Just initiative. In any case, there is no legislative push to reinstate Chevron by statute.
Congress is lazy. But it’s powerful, and holds its own against the Court.
Replacing definitions. Important but not "massive."
> Hundreds of billions on re-framing our transport system.
They spend hundreds of billions most years. It's part of the FY budget, is it not? They included a few billion dollars for additional grant projects.
> (Like every major airport in the country is being renovated and expanded.)
Like ATP. Are you referencing ATP? It's a grant program.
> What is your standard for meaningful legislation?
Look at all the places where the lack of a Chevron doctrine is being decried as a tragedy. Perhaps, start there?
> It’s trivial to quantify; the minutes are public.
That they meet I'm sure is a recorded fact. You said they were "buzzing." Compared to previous years? With more than just reauthorizations?
> With the CRA, the Congress never actually ceded any power. Just initiative.
Once the initiative is taken through a court and precedent some measure of power is lost until congress finds the initiative again. Which is not always a guarantee given it's political structure and lengthy vacations.
> there is no legislative push to reinstate Chevron by statute.
Per the article: "Last week, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) introduced a bill in the upper house seeking to codify the Chevron Doctrine under a law duly voted by Congress."
Are they just upwards wealth transfers disguised as bills or do they actually change administrative law? What's the "massive" part about them, exactly?
> The Capital is buzzing with committees investigating all manner of things.
This is easy to say and nearly impossible to quantify. I can only approach it with the obvious questions: "Then why do they want the Chevron doctrine back?" and "Why would such buzzing activity result in fewer bills?"