THE RETURN OF BIG GOVERNMENT AFTER 9/11

The executive branch is not simply a bureaucratic extension of the president's wishes. Political and governmental influences shape the kind of bureaucracy we have, as do structural factors and the backgrounds and training of the people who work in the government. This chapter focuses on how the federal bureaucracy affects the health and vitality of democracy in the United States.

The opening vignette describes the president's response to 9/11 through foreign and domestic policy changes. As a result of 9/11 the federal government has grown in the number of its civilian employees and active-duty military personnel, the size of its budget, and the degree of its intrusiveness in everyday life. Two major changes were pushed through Congress by President Bush. Federalization of the functions of the Transportation Security Administration was requested in order to take over control of all baggage and passenger screening at U.S. airports. In addition, President Bush pushed for the creation of the Homeland Security-the largest reorganization of the federal government in over a century. The new department brought numerous federal agencies and employs approximately 180,000 government employees. The mandate of the new department is sweeping with the oversight and coordination of virtually all agencies responsible for homeland security. Aggressive use of the Department of Justice for counterterrorism was bolstered by the authority granted through the USA Patriot Act and presidential directives.

The fight against the threat of terrorism abroad resulted in a number of policies which dramatically increased the budget for the Department of Defense, increased the size of the active duty armed forces, and renewed effort to beef up the combat readiness and logistical support for U.S. military forces. Policies promoted by the president include toppling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and going after the al Qaeda terrorist organization, mounting a series of small military operations to root out terrorist organizations around the world, and waging a war in Iraq-in the president's view-to rid the world of one leader of the "axis of evil," countries he believed capable and willing to supply weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) to terrorist organizations.

9/11 greatly contributed to the growth in size, cost, and scope of responsibilities of the federal bureaucracy. This chapter examines the federal bureaucracy-it's history, its form, and how it works with other government institutions and actors.

A COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE AMERICAN BUREAUCRACY

The American bureaucracy was built piece by piece over the years in a political system without a strong central government. It does not take the standard pyramidal form found in other nations, and there are few clear lines of control, responsibility, and accountability. Bureaucratic agencies in the United States have two bosses - the president and Congress - who are constantly battling for control. This concept is derived from the separation of powers and checks and balances in our constitutional system. No other democratic nation uses this arrangement. The norm in other nations is a parliamentary system in which legislative and executive power are combined in a parliamentary body dominated by the cabinet and prime minister.

TRANSFORMATION OF THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY

The federal bureaucracy grew from very small beginnings in George Washington's administration to the very large bureaucratic establishment that we have today. The most immediate causes of the transformation of the role of the federal government and the scale of the bureaucracy are political linkage sector pressures (such as public opinion, voters, parties, interest groups, and social movements) on government decision makers. The more fundamental causes are changes in such structural factors as the U.S. economy, its population, and the role of the United States in the world.

The Great Depression fundamentally changed how Americans thought about government. President Roosevelt and Congress responded to economic collapse, widespread social distress, and serious threats of violence and social conflict with a range of new programs such as Social Security and work programs for the unemployed (all of which caused an expansion in the size of the federal bureaucracy). World War II, the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and America's new role as a superpower also brought a substantial increase in the federal government's responsibilities and in the size of the executive branch. Successful social reform movements and important changes in public opinion during the 1960s and 1970s convinced leaders to take on new responsibilities in areas such as civil rights, urban affairs, and environmental protection. Each expansion of responsibility brought an expansion in the size of the federal bureaucracy. After Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, they began to pare down the size of the federal government, roll back many of its regulatory responsibilities, and shift a number of functions to the states. Members of both parties - but especially the Republicans - are increasingly asking what essential services the federal government should provide (referred to as devolution and rollback). Again, after September 11, 2001, the federal government appears to be getting more involved through various "war on terrorism" activities.

The president and Congress share control over the federal bureaucracy; congressional tools are at least as formidable as those of the president. Congress legislates the mission of bureaucratic agencies and the details of their organization and can alter agency policy or behavior. Congress plays a principal role in determining the federal budget and uses the budget process to assess the performance of executive agencies. Congress uses oversight to assure itself that the laws it has passed are carried out in a way that is satisfactory to it. However, Congress does not always speak with a single voice; Congress is highly fragmented and decentralized, with power dispersed among many subcommittees. Confusion about congressional intent is also common, a problem that does not enhance public accountability and control.

HOW THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS ORGANIZED

Executive departments and officers are referred to only indirectly in the Constitution; the framers apparently wanted to leave these questions to Congress and the president. The U.S. executive branch is comprised of several different kinds of administrative units. Departments are headed by cabinet-level secretaries appointed by the president and approved by the Senate; they are designed to carry out the most essential government functions. Independent executive agencies are federal agencies that are not included in any of the departments and are not corporations or regulatory commissions. They usually perform a single specialized function. Government corporations are agencies that operate in a market setting and are organized much like a business enterprise. They are usually created to perform some essential economic activity that private investors are unwilling or unable to perform. Independent regulatory commissions are responsible for regulating aspects of the economy where it is judged that the free market does not work properly to protect the public interest. They are independent in the sense that they stand outside the departmental structure and are protected against direct presidential or congressional control.

WHAT DO BUREAUCRATS DO?

Bureaucrats are involved in three kinds of major activities: executing the law, making rules, and adjudicating disputes. In each of these, they exercise a great deal of discretion. Civil servants are basically representative of the American population, although women and minorities are overrepresented in lower-level jobs in the federal bureaucracy. The demographic representativeness of the bureaucracy is greater in the United States than in virtually any other democratic nation. On the other hand, the highest policymaking positions in the bureaucracy enter government service by presidential appointments, and they are not demographically representative.

WHO ARE THE BUREAUCRATS?

There are three different personnel systems in the federal bureaucracy: the career civil service, separate merit services in specific agencies, and political appointees. The Civil Service Act of 1883 (the Pendleton Act) created a bipartisan Civil Service Commission to oversee a system of appointments to certain federal bureaucracy posts on the basis of merit. Competitive exams were to be used to determine merit. In 1978, Congress abolished the Civil Service Commission and replaced it with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) - which administers the civil service laws, advertises positions, writes examinations, and acts as a clearinghouse for federal agencies that are looking for workers - and the Merit Systems Protection Board - which settles disputes concerning employee rights and obligations, hears employee grievances, and orders corrective action. This system covers about 60 percent of all federal employees at the present time. Congress has established separate merit systems for a number of federal agencies that need personnel with specific kinds of training and service, such as the Public Health Service and NASA. These agencies administer their own merit systems.

The highest policymaking positions in the federal bureaucracy (such as department secretaries and assistants to the president in the White House Office) enter government service through presidential appointment rather than by competitive merit examinations. At least in theory, these patronage positions allow the president to translate his electoral mandate into public policy by permitting him to put his people in key policymaking positions. Most presidents use patronage both to build support for their programs and to firm up their political coalition by being sensitive to the needs of important party factions and interest groups. Top political appointees are not representative of the American people. This is important in evaluating the practice of democracy because it is these officials who exercise the most discretion and make the most important policy decisions.

POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL INFLUENCES ON BUREAUCRATIC BEHAVIOR

The public pays little attention to the bureaucracy, focusing on the content of public policy rather than its implementation. At times, however, if aroused or informed by events and media coverage of the bureaucracy's activity, public attitudes may influence bureaucratic behavior. For the most part, public opinion controls the federal bureaucracy only indirectly and intermittently. Thus, popular sovereignty must usually work through elected officials who are accountable to the people.

Although the president is the formal head of the federal bureaucracy, virtually every modern president has been frustrated to discover that he cannot assume that bureaucrats will do what he wants them to do; the president has only limited abilities to control the executive branch. The sheer size and complexity of the federal bureaucracy make it difficult for presidents to maintain control over the bureaucracy. Presidents also have no control over the tenure or salary of most bureaucrats because of civil service regulations, and presidents are not the only ones trying to control the actions of bureaucrats - executive functions must be shared with Congress and sometimes with the courts. Moreover, bureaucratic agencies are insulated against presidential efforts to control them through agency alliances with powerful interest groups. However, there are a number of ways in which the president can encourage bureaucratic compliance. Decisive bureaucratic action is sometimes possible because of a crisis or a widely shared national commitment; the president's prestige as our only nationally elected leader makes his wishes hard to ignore; and most bureaucrats respond when a president chooses to become directly involved on some bureaucratic matter. A president greatly increases his ability to have his way if he is careful to fill top administrative posts with people who support him and his program, and the president's power as chief budget officer of the federal government is a formidable tool of administration.

Congress also exercises some control over the bureaucracy, and congressional tools are as formidable of those of the president. Congress legislatively controls agencies' organization, mission, staffing, and goals. It confirms presidential appointments to top posts through the Senate. More importantly, it sets agencies' budgets, and reviews their performance through exercising oversight of agency operations.

REFORMING THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY

This section examines proposals for reforming the bureaucracy. People who worry about the size of government have proposed several changes, including hiring freezes, restrictions on the creation of new department bureaus, and even the elimination of bureaucratic units. The most popular reform idea during the Reagan years (which still has much support) is privatization, the transfer of many government functions to the private sector. Many people are concerned with making the federal bureaucracy more effective. Many people believe that policymakers must provide clear policy signals in order for the federal bureaucracy to achieve its missions and goals. Some suggest much greater discretion for civil servants, usually accompanied with a proviso for improving the professional and technical skills of civil servants. A major criticism voiced by others is the fact that the bureaucracy is ineffective in carrying out policy, that its operations are wasteful and inefficient, and that it is mired in red tape - in other words, is filled with meaningless rules, regulations, and procedures. Some reforms along these lines were implemented during the Clinton Administration through Vice-President Al Gore's reinventing government initiative. Still others are concerned with building protections against bureaucratic abuses of power. There are many who believe that a bureaucracy of the size and shape of our present one is potentially dangerous. Closer control over the bureaucracy by elected political bodies and by clear legislative constraints has been the preferred solution. There are a number of legislative enactments that try to keep bureaucratic activity within narrow boundaries.

Many people worry that the public does not have much influence over what federal bureaucrats do. Citizen participation in agency affairs has been proposed by some reformers as a solution to the current lack of public influence. Others argue that one way to restore effectiveness and accountability to the bureaucracy would be to increase direct presidential control.

Copyright © 1995-2008, Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Legal and Privacy Terms