TexasCHLforum.com

tbrown wrote:Replace? No.
Eliminate? Yes.

Beat me to it.

Holy Mackeral, Andy!

Have y'all got any idea what the unemployment rate would be if all self-serving government agencies; e.g., the BATF, EPA, etc. were eliminated? Where and how would these people live, what would they eat, who would care for them? Be careful what you ask for....

{sarcasm smiley}

lest anyone be offended

Oldgringo wrote: Holy Mackeral, Andy!

Have y'all got any idea what the unemployment rate would be if all self-serving government agencies; e.g., the BATF, EPA, etc. were eliminated? Where and how would these people live, what would they eat, who would care for them? Be careful what you ask for....

{sarcasm smiley}

lest anyone be offended

And that's a problem in and of itself. Anyone who's working for the government (at any level) is not contributing to our economy. So not only do we pay their salary, but we potentially pay for it again in the sense that these people could be working on something exportable to raise our country's GDP. As I understand it, this would strengthen the dollar, bringing down our cost of living and making foreign goods cheaper for us. After they all become gainfully employed in the private sector, that is. If you can keep the unemployment rate low enough and keep the country on the whole focused on exportable goods & services, government jobs hurt the economy.

I think. Really I mostly slept through that class. I vaguely remember wanting to eat pancakes and go to the range afterwards... that's about it.

Oldgringo wrote:Have y'all got any idea what the unemployment rate would be if all self-serving government agencies; e.g., the BATF, EPA, etc. were eliminated? Where and how would these people live, what would they eat, who would care for them? Be careful what you ask for....

They could do all the jobs Americans don't want to do.

In the interests of playing devil's advocate, I have to observe that there's a whole lot of knee-jerk disapproval going on here. No one likes seeing their hobbies and interests come under undue legal restrictions, but I think people are using the ATF as a scapegoat for a larger issue.

My granddad was career ATF - he mostly worked in the Carolinas in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. From what I know of his career, I can attest that the agency, at least in its original form, did serve a valid purpose. Even after the repeal of prohibition, illegal alcohol production was still a significant issue, and moonshiners were a very prominent semi-organized criminal element in rural areas. International firearms smuggling also became an issue in some of the army towns that he worked in during the Vietnam conflict.

Also, don't forget that the ATF (or at least a more general law-enforcement arm of the Treasury department) pre-dates a lot of the other agencies being presented as redundant. If I recall correctly, the Secret Service wound up with the VIP protection role by being one of the only federal law-enforcement agencies at the time. The addition of additional agencies and re-shuffling everything under the DHS aegis has muddied the waters a bit regarding roles and responsibilities. Like the rest of the federal law-enforcement community, the post-9/11 ATF has undergone slightly unnerving levels of militarization and has been used to pursue some questionable policies, but that's a symptom of a broader philosophical issue.

Incidentally, I would argue that the proper solution to the redundancy between federal agencies is to re-scope the agencies back to their original roles, not to consolidate everything into a handful of superagencies (I sure as heck don't want to see most IRS agents become armed responders). Monolithic unified law-enforcement agencies make me nervous, both because of the ease with which they could be abused and the lack of competence in specialized areas that tends to result. Plus, you only exacerbate the issues of bureaucracy and inefficiency. I've seen similar things play out in a couple of different contexts, and a handful of small, agile, and tightly-focused organizations almost always works better than one huge amalgamated one.

Steve133 wrote:In the interests of playing devil's advocate, I have to observe that there's a whole lot of knee-jerk disapproval going on here. No one likes seeing their hobbies and interests come under undue legal restrictions, but I think people are using the ATF as a scapegoat for a larger issue.

My granddad was career ATF - he mostly worked in the Carolinas in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. From what I know of his career, I can attest that the agency, at least in its original form, did serve a valid purpose. Even after the repeal of prohibition, illegal alcohol production was still a significant issue, and moonshiners were a very prominent semi-organized criminal element in rural areas. International firearms smuggling also became an issue in some of the army towns that he worked in during the Vietnam conflict.

Also, don't forget that the ATF (or at least a more general law-enforcement arm of the Treasury department) pre-dates a lot of the other agencies being presented as redundant. If I recall correctly, the Secret Service wound up with the VIP protection role by being one of the only federal law-enforcement agencies at the time. The addition of additional agencies and re-shuffling everything under the DHS aegis has muddied the waters a bit regarding roles and responsibilities. Like the rest of the federal law-enforcement community, the post-9/11 ATF has undergone slightly unnerving levels of militarization and has been used to pursue some questionable policies, but that's a symptom of a broader philosophical issue.

Incidentally, I would argue that the proper solution to the redundancy between federal agencies is to re-scope the agencies back to their original roles, not to consolidate everything into a handful of superagencies (I sure as heck don't want to see most IRS agents become armed responders). Monolithic unified law-enforcement agencies make me nervous, both because of the ease with which they could be abused and the lack of competence in specialized areas that tends to result. Plus, you only exacerbate the issues of bureaucracy and inefficiency. I've seen similar things play out in a couple of different contexts, and a handful of small, agile, and tightly-focused organizations almost always works better than one huge amalgamated one.

Granddad was a revenuer.

To my mind the only legitimate part of BATFE is the E for explosives. The rest needs to disappear along with all the so called laws, rules and regulations propagated thereof.

BTW, Your grandad was probably a nice guy doing a job that should not have even existed.

Taxation can go to the Infernal Revenue Service. Federal law enforcement to the Justice Department. There's too many junior G-men running around with guns, shooting people's pets and causing all kinds of problems.