How does the increasing size of the federal bureaucracy affect the president's control of the government?

Answer 1

Let's first consider something other than government. As an example, let's say that you own The EZRest Spa and Resort. This business offers a (1) regular hotel (2) a bed and breakfast type lodging (3) a full service spa (4) a gaming room for families (5) a casino-gambling area for adults (6) an Olympic-sized swimming pool for adults and (7) several small 3-feet deep wading pools for children (8) a mini-mall for shopping (9) a convention center for business meetings and... (10) a variety of restaurants from lower-budget to high class cuisine. Ok, YOU are the owner/manager. But you can't be everywhere at once. So you hire 10 "General managers" to oversee each of the 10 areas. You give the General Managers the power to hire "Assistant Managers". Assistant Managers can also hire personal assistants, plus workers. Each of these leaders need secretaries (except the workers).

Now, since your business has gotten so big and so complicated, you hire specific types of professionals, like an Auditor, Financial Manager, etc.

As well, you have a Board of Directors to help you make decisions. Under the Board of Directors, you also have Investors and Stockholders.

With a structure of leadership and control, you can now manage your business better. All parts work for a common goal, even though they do different things and have different responsibilities.

The US government is similar to having a structure in a business. First there is a House and Senate (similar to a Board of Directors), elected by citizens (the "stockholders"). Citizens, businesses, and Special Interest groups are LIKE the investors in a business, except that only tax money can be used to fund services (i.e. it is illegal and unethical to "buy" votes for or against issues in our government).

At the same time, the Executive Office is similar to an "owner" - he/she runs the place, but only with much help. And the President / Vice President can't just do as they please because the House and Senate can stop the President (just like a Board of Directors can vote against some proposal).

Along with the President, House, and Senate, the US Government has Agencies. These are like the 10 "areas" of a business (except there are many more than 10 in government). Some examples might be: The US Treasury; Health and Human Services; The Justice Department.

Each department or agency has a top executive -- similar to a "General Manager" in a large business. They often have a deputy director or assistant director in government. Under the director's office, there are many departments each with a "manager". Assistants and Secretaries work along side the leaders. Under all of them are workers; many need to be Civil Service workers to work for the government.

In Related Links (to the left), you can browse the list of US Agencies and Departments.

When a business increases in size, we call that business "prosperous", especially if it makes a lot of money. Consider Microsoft, AT&T, and other long-standing businesses.

When the US Government increases in size, we call that "bureaucracy". This may be because although citizens' voices are supposed to be heard through the House and Senate, citizens can feel their voices are ignored or never heard.

Citizens may also feel government is a bureaucracy because we can never talk to the "owner" (so to speak) - the head, the office of the President, is insulated by layers of low level workers, supervisors, managers, directors, bigger managers, bigger directors, etc. The first line people, the low level workers, do their best to "give service" to the citizens, to answer questions, resolve problems, etc. But these workers may not know, may not have an answer to complex problems, may not have been trained well, cannot give legal advice, and most certainly cannot act to change policies or rules. Often, the laws, rules, and policies-- designed to help, protect, and serve citizens-- end up being burdens to citizens instead of helping.

So low level workers end up feeling their hands are tied, just like citizens feel a lot of times.

The US President's "control" over the entire government is a shared control. He (or she in the future, perhaps) will NEVER fully control the government, with all it's agencies, departments, managers, directors, workers--AND citizens. First, full control is restricted under our Legislature (House and Senate). This is, in part, similar to a big business in that a large business "Owner" which has a Board of Directors and Stockholders also could NOT dismantle or drastically change the nature of the business-- an owner cannot lessen OR expand without approval FIRST. So, even if a US President got fed up with our government, he cannot solely decide to dismantle government. He is also limited by how he can expand it. A good example is how the 2010 Health Care Bill is being challenged in many State Courts because States believe the President has created a Law that infringes on the States' rights to make their own laws.

The Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches are present to create a better balance in government and to control any one person who would ever try to drastically change our government from a free democracy.

From the examples given, it is easier to understand how, just like an owner of a major business, the US President must work from within. He must use communication and persuasion and must listen and be cooperative as well. He must consult his Cabinet, his Advisors, and the top heads of the House, Senate, and other agencies. For example, President Bush (2) sought, supported, and signed The Patriot Act after terrorists attacked the US on September 11th. BUT, even if this Act was solely George Bush's idea, he had to have the cooperation of Senators, Representatives, heads of many departments and agencies, etc. in order for the bill to be drafted, defined by the Justice Department and legal departments, and passed by the Legislature. Many regular citizens feel The Patriot Act has restricted our freedoms and is in conflict with parts of the Bill of Rights-- BUT, the Act was approached as most Bills and Acts that later become law.

So, again, the President's "control" of government, in a rather large way, is an illusionary control. He does NOT control bureaucracy, any more than the rest of us. Instead, he is in a unique position to interact, communicate, debate, discuss, persuade, convince, and ask for a cooperative effort toward creating a law or act designed to protect or enhance the lives of US Citizens. As citizens, we do NOT have the same unique position to talk to the multitude of leaders across all areas of the US Government. We DO have the right to voice our opinions, to protest, and even to withhold a vote for an incumbent President. But, never can we personally reach out and talk directly to all the leaders within our government. (Even if we wrote letters to each Agency or Department, a correspondence secretary would answer our letter.)