explain why s it so difficult for the president to change the bureacracy?

Answer 1

Because the president also has to have the support of Congress. And because the bureaucrats you are seeking to eliminate are the ones who have to approve the elimination.

People in general serve their own self-interest, so why would you expect them to fire themselves.

Unfortunately, it is a major flaw in the system. All government incentives are in place to increase the bureaucracy, not decrease it.

Answer 2

Part of the problem is the entrenchment of the Federal Bureaucracy. Virtually every department, no matter how small, has an ally in the House or Senate that wants to see it continue. Additionally, in the 1960s, Congress switched the way it budgeted. Traditionally, Congress used Zero Base Budgeting. Every budget cycle they sat down and decided how much they were willing to fund each department. If they decided not to fund one, it was eliminated. In the 1960s, we switched to a system called Current Services Budgeting. This virtually removed the entire concept that a department might not be necessary. Every department gets an immediate increase in budget equal to the rate of inflation to maintain its "Current Services" (hence the name). Then Congress decides how much MORE it wants to give to certain pet departments. Since they calculate the rate of inflation higher than the actual rate, each department grows each budget cycle. Not only that, it encourages each department to overspend so that they can come back and claim that their department is "underfunded". With ever more massive budgets and no line item veto, no president will actually ever shrink the size of the government. Even when they propose to cut the rate at which the bureaucracy grows, the press and political opponents howl that they are making "Draconian Cuts".

Answer 3

Bureaucracy is the hidden government, the REAL government. It is too big and cumbersome to change. The people are not elected, many times organized (in unions), and are usually connected in other ways. These people actually implement many of the laws the Legislature and President pass.

Smaller government isn't the answer, though, larger one with more people. Who carer about efficiency; everyone can be employed by this beast.

Answer 4

Bureaucracy

3 decades: federal government went from minimal presence in day to day life, to omnipresence

KEY THING TO NOTE: MOST of the "laws" that affect American society are determined by through the federal bureaucracy.

Congress imposes SOME legal limits, but the discretionary authority of bureaucratic agencies is often quite broad.

Some examples
-- who gets to own t.v. stations?
-- safety features for automobiles
-- what kinds of scientific research should be promoted?
--what drugs should appear on the market?
-- what dissident groups should be investigated?
-- what kind of fumes can an industrial smokestack emit?
-- what corporate mergers will be allowed?
-- what use shall be made of national forests?
-- what prices for crops/milk?

We have gone from Congressional government to Presidential government, and in practice, Presidential government means government by bureaucracy.

Yet government by bureaucracy means different things in different contexts.

KEY FEATURES OF THE BUREAUCRATIC STATE (by the time of LBJ's "Great Society" Policies of the 1960s)

a) Vast expansion of National legislative powers and Delegation of Power to the Executive Branch (= vast potential for Presidential power OR BUREAUCRATIC INDEPENDENCE )

b) Meritocratic Civil Service, with protection from dismissal by the Executive

c) Congressional Power is DE-CENTRALIZED; insofar as Congress plays a role in overseeing the bureaucracy, it tends NOT to be through party leadership, but through the leadership of Congressional committees and committee leaders

5. The Problems with Bureaucracy: Iron Triangles and Issue Networks

The basic problem with bureaucracy is one of accountability: bureaucracies, in many ways, are accountable neither to the President, nor to Congress as a whole.

Control over public policy, post-new deal, seemed to be base on collusion amongst key committees/committee chairs, bureaucrats, and the interests they were meant to regulate basic problem: policy decisions are crafted only by those most interested in the outcome

e.g. if a congressional agricultural committee is dealing with tobacco related issues, the tobacco industry is likely to dominate the proceedings (at least, this is the case prior to rise of the anti-smoking movement)

laws and decisions that emerge reflect narrow interests; members of Congress unwilling to challenge the prerogative of other committees;

Iron Triangles

Agencies can act independently of both President and Congress: if they have allies on key Congressional committees, and if they are supported by key interest groups

Alliance of federal agency, congressional committee, interest group= iron triangle

What is problematic about policy-making through iron triangles?

POLICY is made by the PARTS, not by the whole; policy reflects the interests of the parts (members of Congress, bureaucrats, interest groups e.g. regulated industries) NOT the interests of the whole.

Can't Congress control this?

Yes, but individual members want their own particular projects to be approved, their own particular interests to be respected

Does this mean that private interests make public policy, based upon their influence within executive agencies and Congressional committees?

Yes, policy making can be "captured" by well-organized interests.

BUT the potential for Capture is different, Depending upon the distribution of costs and benefits.

6. The Political Environment of Bureaucratic Regulation

– “capture” by private interests will be more or less likely, dependent upon the nature of the agency’s mission

"Capture" occurs when narrow interests dominate congressional committees and federal bureaucracies, but this depends upon the ways in which public policy IMPOSES COSTS and DISTRIBUTES BENEFITS.

The Costs and Benefits, in a general sense, can be CONCENTRATED or DIFFUSE.

CONCENTRATED: costs or benefits fall upon a specific, relatively narrow group (e.g. an industry)

DIFFUSE: costs or benefits fall upon society as a whole