Originally Posted by SteveZ

Having been one of those "government bureaucrats" who wrote, revised, interpreted, critiqued and swore at regulations which had the purpose of placing Congressional "intent" language into operational specifics, there can be a world of difference between the lofty verbiage in statutes and the supposedly "clear and detailed" operational language within regulations.

The fun occurs when the regulations and the administrative agency actions have to defend themselves before Congressional committees and various staffers months and years after the Statute was enacted, with Congressfolk now whining that the agency (and the regulations) are not mirroring what Congress wanted. That, coupled with having to deal with "Congressional inquiries" supporting constituents who are running afoul of the agency for violating regulations, all relate to "vague statutes" devoid of those nasty details which give the statute the necessary clarity for the Executive branch to do the right thing.

So, the situation is like the old Fram Oil Filter Commercial, where the mechanic looks down at an engine being overhauled due to oil changes not being done, and says "You can pay me now [for the oil change and new filter] or you can pay me later [for the engine overhaul.]"

Do we really want to pay and pay and pay later for Congressional laziness now? They will praise themselves for a job well done, but when the Pachyderms and Jackasses have left the circus ring, the bureaucrats will follow with many brooms and shovels to clean up the mess. However, no matter how much sweeping and shoveling is done, there will be plenty of stains and stink left that will be expensive problems for a long time, unless........