Wrong. For every scientist at CDC, there is at least one administrator. Those scientists could not do their jobs without support staff doing things like payroll, HR, and IT. At agencies that work with contractors and/or grantees, they need administrators to oversee the grants and contracts in addition to the scientists who work with the outside researchers.
Furthermore, the most senior scientists spend most of their time overseeing junior staff - i.e., they are more administrators than acting scientists. That is how any bureaucracy works.
On my last CDC contract, I had to interact with four different people - the contract administrator, her assistant, and two technical staffers. That is ridiculously bureaucratic! At the same time I was doing a very similar project with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, where I just reported to one person instead of four. CDC is bloated and bureaucratic, while CPSC is a lean operation that doesn't have enough staff to keep up with what it is legally required to do.
So then for you what's the perfect number? If four at CDC is too many and one at CPSC is too little, who would you cut? Three people doesn't seem like a huge amount of excess to me, especially since it is likely that those people were also working with others, not just overseeing you.
And yet by the end of your post you completely destroyed your own comment. You moan that at the CDC you had to deal with too many people (ridiculously bureaucratic) while at the CPSC you only had to deal with one (hurrah!).
And then you tell us that the CPSC doesn't have enough staff to do what it's meant to do. Seems to me bureauocracies being bureaucratic while cumbersome is not such a bad thing.
The adjective "bureaucratic" might be a pejorative, but the noun "bureaucracy" is not. Anyone using it as a pejorative is a moron who should be ignored.
Meaning evolves over time. Bureaucracy is hardly ever used the way you are describing in 2025. The average person associates the word with draconian rules, inefficiency, red tape, lack of transparency, and outdated technology.
This stubborn resistance to accepting reality is a major failure of democrats and anti-Trumpers. The average American reads at a 6th grade level. They will continue to vote whether you or I like it or not. If they see the word bureaucracy the way it’s used in this headline, they will probably be happy to hear it. We either have to meet people where they are, or continue to focus our attention on what “should” be at our own peril.
No. This administration is not even trying to improve efficiency or to save money. It's all about revenge against Trump's "enemies" - i.e., the people who contradict his fabricated narratives.
Can you stop calling it a
bureaucracy? It’s almost entirely scientists and the people that support their work - not a bunch of pencil pushers.
Wrong. For every scientist at CDC, there is at least one administrator. Those scientists could not do their jobs without support staff doing things like payroll, HR, and IT. At agencies that work with contractors and/or grantees, they need administrators to oversee the grants and contracts in addition to the scientists who work with the outside researchers.
Furthermore, the most senior scientists spend most of their time overseeing junior staff - i.e., they are more administrators than acting scientists. That is how any bureaucracy works.
On my last CDC contract, I had to interact with four different people - the contract administrator, her assistant, and two technical staffers. That is ridiculously bureaucratic! At the same time I was doing a very similar project with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, where I just reported to one person instead of four. CDC is bloated and bureaucratic, while CPSC is a lean operation that doesn't have enough staff to keep up with what it is legally required to do.
So then for you what's the perfect number? If four at CDC is too many and one at CPSC is too little, who would you cut? Three people doesn't seem like a huge amount of excess to me, especially since it is likely that those people were also working with others, not just overseeing you.
"That is ridiculously bureaucratic!"
And yet by the end of your post you completely destroyed your own comment. You moan that at the CDC you had to deal with too many people (ridiculously bureaucratic) while at the CPSC you only had to deal with one (hurrah!).
And then you tell us that the CPSC doesn't have enough staff to do what it's meant to do. Seems to me bureauocracies being bureaucratic while cumbersome is not such a bad thing.
I know what you’re saying but bureaucracy is used as a pejorative now and that’s not how we operate. I too know of what I speak.
The adjective "bureaucratic" might be a pejorative, but the noun "bureaucracy" is not. Anyone using it as a pejorative is a moron who should be ignored.
Meaning evolves over time. Bureaucracy is hardly ever used the way you are describing in 2025. The average person associates the word with draconian rules, inefficiency, red tape, lack of transparency, and outdated technology.
This stubborn resistance to accepting reality is a major failure of democrats and anti-Trumpers. The average American reads at a 6th grade level. They will continue to vote whether you or I like it or not. If they see the word bureaucracy the way it’s used in this headline, they will probably be happy to hear it. We either have to meet people where they are, or continue to focus our attention on what “should” be at our own peril.
Well at this time we have an ignorant conspiracy nut running HHS, and a posse of technobrats who have contempt for anyone not named Elon Musk.
I think most would agree that a thoughtful review could result in creating a more efficient agency, but that is not what is happening.
Well, yeah, but said morons are running things.
I take your point, but do you think this is the way to improve things?
No. This administration is not even trying to improve efficiency or to save money. It's all about revenge against Trump's "enemies" - i.e., the people who contradict his fabricated narratives.