Federal Government SLO

Chapter 13:The Bureaucracy

ADA Text Version

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the formal organization of the federal bureaucracy.

2. Classify the vital functions performed by the bureaucracy.

3. Explain the present Civil Service system and contrast it with the 19th century spoils system.

4. Identify the various factors contributing to bureaucracy's growth over time.

5. Compare the means by which Congress and the president attempt to maintain control over the bureaucracy.

6. Analyze and evaluate the problems that bureaucratic organization poses for American democracy.

Introduction

The very word "bureaucracy" often carries negative connotations. To refer to an institution as a "bureaucracy" or characterize it as "bureaucratic" is usually intended as an insult. But the national bureaucracy, sometimes called the "fourth branch of government", is responsible for practically all of the day-to-day work of governing the country. While bureaucracy in the United States, consistent with our tradition of more limited government, is smaller than its counterparts in other longstanding democracies, its influence extends to almost every corner of American society. From delivery of the mail to regulation of the stock market to national defense, federal employees plan, regulate, adjudicate, enforce, and implement federal law. Despite recurrent calls to "shrink" the size of government, the federal bureaucracy remains the largest single employer in the United States. This lesson examines the bureaucracy's formal organization, its critical role in the American economy and society, and its perceived weaknesses.

Study Questions

1. How did sociologist Max Weber define bureaucracy?

2. Identify the various functions federal bureaucracies perform giving at least one example each:

a. Implementation

b. Regulation

c. Adjudication

d. Enforcement

e. Policy-making

3. How many people does the federal government employ? For what percentage of GDP does federal spending account? How does this compare to other economically advanced democracies?

4. Classify and distinguish the major types of bureaucracy in the federal government:

a. Cabinet Departments

b. Independent Agencies

c. Independent Regulatory Commissions

d. Government Corporations

5. How does the federal bureaucracy select and recruit personnel? Contrast the present civil service system with the spoils system. What advantages does the present system provide?

6. What factors explain the growth of bureaucracy over time despite recurrent calls for limiting the size of government?

7. Identify those factors in the budget process making it difficult to cut bureaucratic funding.

8. Describe the way Congress authorizes funding for the federal bureaucracy.

9. How does Congress attempt to control the federal bureaucracy?

10. How does the president attempt to control the federal bureaucracy?

11. What special problems does bureaucratic independence present in a democracy? Discuss with reference to the following concepts:

a. Iron Triangles

b. The "Revolving Door"

c. The Capture Theory of Regulation

d. What obstacles do "whistleblowers" face?

12. How does current law balance the political rights of federal employees with the need to ensure that federal employees are loyal workers?

13. Summarize the arguments of those who have argued for deregulation.Report an Online Accessibility Issue

Article 2:

unctions of the Bureaucracy

ADA Text Version

Bureaucracy describes an organizational structure defined by a specific set of procedures, protocols, and regulations, which typically include hierarchy (clear chain of command and communication), a division of labor and specialized functions, and a clear system of rules and procedures to make decision-making consistent, impersonal, and fair. In a modern bureaucracy, employees are theoretically recruited and promoted based on competence, though advancement through the ranks is often due to political considerations as well. Private businesses, government agencies, and small, citizen associations (such as the Boy Scouts) may all be characterized by bureaucratic organization.

The federal bureaucracy, or THE bureaucracy, refers to the various departments, agencies, and regulatory commissions of the federal government. The bureaucracy has as its primary purpose the implementation of government policy. According to the simplistic model of separation of powers, Congress makes laws, the executive branch implements and enforces the laws, and the courts interpret them. By this understanding, the bureaucracy is an extension of the executive branch, helping it achieve its basic function. While this is a fair generalization, it obscures the fact the federal bureaucracy is much more than a passive agent of the elected branches. It is, rather, a powerful set of political players in its own right and fills several important roles.

Policy Implementation

Without a doubt, putting the laws of Congress and orders of the president into effect is the fundamental responsibility of the bureaucracy. Neither Congress nor the president and his advisors have the time or resources to do this job themselves. This is why even the smallest federal bureaucracy tends to have large numbers of employees. They translate law into policy by issuing regulations, rules that carry the force of law directing the operation of government programs. In other words, while the rules are derived from the laws of Congress and orders of the president, they are binding on all citizens as if they were directly the laws of Congress, at least until overturned by higher authorities or successfully challenged in court. All federal regulation must be published and made available to the public in the Federal Register, the bible of federal regulations. By law, proposed regulations must be published and subject to challenge through hearings or written complaints by interested citizens before they take effect.

Policymaking

By virtue of its ability to issue implementing regulations carrying the force of law, the bureaucracy exercises considerable discretion in making policy as well. In passing legislation, Congress cannot write laws that cover every foreseeable circumstance that may arise during implementation. Frequently, members of Congress lack the technical expertise to draft legislation specific enough to accomplish its goals. This leaves considerable discretion to bureaucratic agencies to determine the content of those laws via regulatory function. For example, few members of Congress are knowledgeable enough in environmental science to determine what level of mercury in water sources constitutes a credible safety risk; and members of Congress cannot judge which new drugs are safe enough for consumer use to be introduced into the market. These decisions are left to the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration, respectively. In policymaking, the devil is often in the details, and these details are frequently left to the federal bureaucracy.

Information Gathering

An obviously important, yet frequently overlooked, function of the federal bureaucracy completes the policymaking cycle. Bureaucratic agencies provide valuable research to help Congress and the president make informed decisions. Good decision-making requires, at a minimum, good information. The president relies on the State Department to supply accurate assessments of the political circumstances affecting foreign policy options. The Department of Defense offers both Congress and the president information about weapon systems needed to maintain an effective national security position. In 2003, when the Central Intelligence Agency provided erroneous information to President George W. Bush about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the consequences were highly damaging for American public diplomacy and foreign policy. Information gathered by government bureaucracies needs to be precise and correct; without it elected policymakers would be flying blind. Bureaucracies should provide the expertise that elected officials lack.

Adjudication

Some bureaucracies, in their roles as bodies of dispute resolution, exercise quasi-judicial powers through their ability to hold regulatory hearings and determine whether individuals or institutions are in compliance with federal regulations. Examples of such bureaucratic entities include the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which rules on workplace discrimination, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which investigates and determines violations such as insider trading on the stock market. Many remember the fines imposed by the Federal Communications Commission on the CBS television network after decency rules governing broadcast television were violated when Janet Jackson's breast was exposed during her 2004 Super Bowl halftime performance. Millions of viewers around the country witnessed the incident with surprise or outrage. But, administrative rulings by federal commissions or agencies are subject to review by federal courts, since the Constitution requires that judicial function rest with the federal judiciary.

Enforcement

Many of the police powers of the federal government, mostly derived from Congress' commerce clause authority, are vested in federal bureaucracies with specialized law enforcement missions and jurisdiction. The famous Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is a national police force authorized to investigate and enforce violations of federal law. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the federal government's frontline weapon in the now decades-old War on Drugs. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (a classic example of bureaucratic mission creep), has its specialized missions advertised in its somewhat cumbersome title. Behind these various federal police agencies is an extensive federally-run prison system populated by more than 200,000 inmates at the end of 2010.

 

 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING

 

Additional Resources

Websites

The Federal Register The Federal Register contains most routine publications and public notices of federal government agencies. At this site, you can search, browse, and read the current issue of the Federal Register.

USA.gov: The US Government's Official Web Portal  Home page of the US Government's Official Web Portal for all government transactions, services, and information. It provides direct online access to federal, state, local, and tribal governments. Includes an organizational database for understanding bureaucratic responsibilities.

Article 3:

DA Text Version

Federal bureaucracies are primarily distinguished from one another by the appointment of their leadership and the degree to which they enjoy policymaking independence from the president and Congress. It is difficult to determine an exact count of the number of federal agencies since certain agencies are formally part of other agencies. Not counting the military, however, the number exceeds one thousand federal agencies. The four major categories of federal bureaucracies are: (a) cabinet departments (Departments), (b) independent agencies, (c) regulatory commissions, and (d) government corporations.

Cabinet Departments

Cabinet departments comprise the largest category of the federal bureaucracy as measured by number of employees and resources. There are fifteen cabinet departments with broad charge for policy responsibilities such as Defense, Justice, Health and Human Services, and the most recently created, the Department of Homeland Security. With the exception of the Department of Justice, which is headed by the Attorney General, each department is commanded by a cabinet Secretary who is appointed by the president (with confirmation of the Senate) and answers directly to the president. This collective group of department Secretaries comprises the president's formal advisory committee—the Cabinet. These departments are the government agencies most directly accountable to the president, who can fire and replace ranking members at will, though subject to political constraints. Departments have elaborate subdivisions of bureaus, sections, and offices responsible for sometimes highly specialized policy areas. For example, the Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of Treasury charged with the crucial task of collecting revenue and enforcing tax laws. The mere fact that a policy area has been elevated to the level of cabinet department emphasizes its national importance.

The Department of Homeland Security

While the word "bureaucracy" often carries negative connotations, bureaucracies actually perform the vital day-to-day functions of government. But never has a bureaucracy's mission been more important than that of the Department of Homeland Security, created in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This video recounts the short turbulent history of the Department of Homeland Security and assesses whether this bureaucracy is fulfilling its mission of keeping America safe.

Video Focus Points

Look for answers to these questions when watching the video:

· What is the role of federal bureaucracy in governing the United States?

· What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of federal bureaucracy?

 

Independent Agencies

While the directors of independent agencies, like cabinet Secretaries, are directly responsible to the president, independent agencies are not formally part of cabinet departments. Independent agencies are smaller and more focused in their areas of responsibility. Familiar examples include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and NASA (the National Air and Space Administration). As a general rule, independent agencies enjoy greater autonomy than cabinet departments, though they are ultimately accountable to the president and Congress.

Regulatory Commissions

Regulatory commissions are created to regulate specific areas of the economy or related workplace concerns. They are typically the most independent of government bureaucracies, existing outside the cabinet departments. Regulatory commissions are designed to enjoy greater freedom from political influence. This is seen most clearly in the limited ability of Congress or the president to remove commission members, who are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate to serve for fixed terms. These terms are staggered to promote political diversity. Prominent examples of regulatory commissions include the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Arguably the most powerful and independent of the regulatory commissions is the Federal Reserve Board, established in 1913. This powerful institution is the architect of the nation's monetary policy, one of the two major tools available to government for influencing the economy. Its seven members serve fourteen-year terms and cannot be easily removed prior to completion of their terms. As a result, monetary policy has been considerably insulated from the political pressures to which the president and Congress are vulnerable, although this has not been without some controversy.

Government Corporations

Entities created by the government to operate like private sector businesses are known as government corporations. As business-like entities, they are organized with the autonomy to generate revenues in areas where the private sector is perceived as not meeting citizen needs. They differ conspicuously from cabinet departments, agencies, and commissions, both by the practice of charging for the services they provide and their ability, ideally if not in practice, to make profits. But some well-known government corporations, such as the US Postal Service and Amtrak, have required considerable subsidies from the federal government to remain viable. The US Postal Service, specifically authorized by the US Constitution, exists to ensure that all citizens have access to mail, though the recent success of private sector competitors and the growth of email via the Internet have challenged the rationale for government sponsorship.

 

 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING

 

Additional Resources

Websites

The Cabinet The official site provides the names of the current president’s cabinet members along with links to the executive departments.

Internal Revenue Service

Department of Homeland Security

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

The Federal Reserve Board

US Postal Service

Amtrak

Article 4:

Staffing the Bureaucracy

ADA Text Version

The modern federal bureaucracy has evolved to substantially depoliticize the hiring and firing practices affecting government employees, to ensure those hired for government positions are competent, and to protect the basic civil liberties of government workers whose political preferences may differ from those of supervisors. However, the goal of creating a quality, apolitical corps of government personnel inevitably conflicts with the reality of bureaucracies being subservient to the direction of political and partisan elected officials.

The Spoils System

In the early decades of the United States, federal jobs in the much smaller bureaucracy were staffed through a spoils system ("to the victor go the spoils"), whereby federal jobs were awarded almost entirely on the basis of loyalty to the victorious political parties. Higher-level positions in government were based on the practice called patronage, with elected officials giving choice federal jobs to friends and supporters who were important to their electoral success.

The Merit System

The 1881 assassination of President James Garfield by a disgruntled individual who had failed to secure a federal job gave new impetus to the cause of civil service reform. The Pendleton Act of 1883 established a Civil Service Commission and began a process of bureaucratic reform recognizing the principle of merit. A merit system is one in which government jobs are awarded on the basis of both educational and professional qualifications and, as in the case of the federal government, by an individual's performance on competitive examinations related to the field of service. The present merit system used to fill the vast majority of jobs in the federal bureaucracy is called the civil service system. It consists of a highly structured qualification/pay pyramid with levels known as grades. The higher one's grade, the more the employee earns in annual salary.

Compensation

It has been argued that federal employees are generally well-compensated and enjoy good benefits compared to their counterparts in the private sector. However, many critics contend that federal workers are overpaid. While the average salary of a federal worker compares favorably to the average private sector worker (according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis), it must be taken into account that federal workers are better educated, on average, and more likely to work in white collar jobs than individuals in the private sector. It is also the case that federal employees in the highest-level, high-profile positions make considerably less than CEOs in the private sector. The debate over the compensation of federal employees is also complicated, and politicized, by the related controversy over the federal bureaucracy's relative inefficiency and low productivity. However, federal bureaucracies must balance values such as efficiency and responsiveness with sometimes countervailing values such as fairness and accountability. Almost by definition, private business operates with a degree of freedom not afforded to federal bureaucracies.

Political Involvement

Another issue in bureaucratic employment has involved the degree to which federal employees may exercise political liberties as private citizens when they are held accountable to elected officials selected by a very political process. At one time the ability of federal employees to engage in political activities was severely circumscribed by law. Government workers were not permitted to engage openly in partisan politics. The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibited federal employees from working for political campaigns, donating to campaigns, or volunteering with a political party. The Federal Employees Political Activities Act of 1993 liberated federal employees to engage in most every political activity that a private citizen enjoys. They may even run for public office, although federal employees may still not run for office in partisan elections.

Privatization

From the familiar blue-shirted neighborhood postal worker to the American ambassador in a distant African nation, federal bureaucrats are vital to the performance of effective government. Not counting the armed forces, the federal government is still the largest employer in the United States, with approximately 2 percent of the national workforce on its payroll. In a variety of contexts, however, the federal government has increasingly explored outsourcing certain services to private companies. This trend has been most visible, and controversial, in the government's use of private military companies to support US missions. According to a 2010 Congressional report, private military contractors made up as much as 30 percent of the armed US forces in Afghanistan. The government also deployed private military forces to New Orleans and the Gulf area during its delayed response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Proponents of outsourcing government services, military or otherwise, point to cost savings and efficiencies to be gained by turning to the private sector. Critics highlight with equal concern the loss of accountability inherent in such measures, citing as examples the roguish behavior of military mercenaries and abuses in prisons whose operations have been contracted to private companies.

Virtual Roundtable

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the 2010 Gulf oil spill, the role of government bureaucracy in disaster relief situations has been questioned. Is the government or the private sector more effective when responding to large scale disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina?

 OPEN VIDEO ROUND TABLE

 

 CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING

 

Additional Resources

Websites

The Plum Book Published after each presidential election, the United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (known as the Plum Book) lists over 7,000 federal civil service leadership and support positions in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. The publication covers positions such as agency heads and their immediate subordinates, policy executives and advisors, and aides who report to these officials.

Books

Confessions of a Tax Collector: One Man's Tour of Duty Inside the IRS, by Richard Yancey.  After failing at a number of jobs, Yancey joined the IRS as a revenue officer when he answered a want ad in the newspaper. At the start of his career, Yancey was ambivalent about working for the IRS, but the longer he stayed with the organization the more seriously he took his responsibility to collect from delinquent taxpayers.

Report an Online Accessibility Issue

Article 5:

Issues with Modern Bureaucracy

ADA Text Version

Growth of the Bureaucracy

By comparative standards, the federal bureaucracy was tiny until the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. Before World War I, it was still quite small by the standards of industrializing nations. In 1940, federal spending accounted for less than 10 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but with spikes in defense expenditures during World War II, federal spending reached a historic high of nearly 44 percent of GDP in 1943 and 1944. In 2003, it accounted for just under 20 percent. Since then, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and ever-increasing spending on Medicare and Social Security have pushed that percentage even higher. The Great Recession of 2008 caused a spike in government spending from nearly 21 percent of GDP in 2007 to over 25 percent in 2008. While it is false to paint a picture of the federal government as a creature that grows incessantly (civilian federal employment declined in the 1990s), economic crises like the Great Depression and frequent wars expand the size of government. The expectation that government should provide welfare services to a variety of groups—the old, the poor, the sick, children—has also contributed to the bureaucracy's expansion.

Because bureaucracy has grown to be such a pervasive part of American life, it is no surprise that a growing bureaucracy has come under increased criticism in a political culture that has a strong, instinctive reflex toward limited government. Detractors argue the federal bureaucracy is too big, too inefficient, and too costly. Whatever the benefits of a welfare state and its attendant bureaucracy, there is substance to these charges. Government bureaucracies, in general, are vulnerable to a number of pathologies traceable to the logic of their organization, purpose, and political influences.

How Bureaucracy Evolved

The federal bureaucracy has grown from three cabinet departments in George Washington's administration to fifteen cabinet departments in 2010. What factors influenced the growth of the federal bureaucracy? Test your knowledge about how the federal bureaucracy evolved.

 LAUNCH ACTIVITY

 

Inefficiency

Another common complaint leveled at the federal bureaucracy is that it is inefficient and often ineffective. Government bureaucracies are not disciplined by the need to make profits or the threat of going out of business. As a result, they are more prone to wasteful spending. Worse, interagency jealousy and a lack of cooperation have led to turf wars, resulting in dark outcomes. Critics, including the 9/11 Commission, have pointed to the reluctance of complementary federal agencies, including the CIA, FBI, and Department of State, to cooperate in the years and months leading up to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as an important reason behind the US government's failure to identify and prevent the attacks.

Government bureaucracies are institutions that seek to preserve their existence and funding in a variety of ways. One of the factors contributing to the "inertia of growth" is that in most years funding for government agencies is premised on baseline budgeting, which assumes that federal agencies will receive the same resources they received in the past budget and must now make the case for further increases in funding. Rarely, especially in good economic times, are federal bureaucracies asked to justify existing programs and expenses. Downsizing government bureaucracy, even when the political will is present, is also made difficult by the fact that federal law makes it much more difficult to fire unionized federal employees than for private companies to fire workers. Federal workers who have become unnecessary may remain part of the government workforce long after their usefulness has expired.

"Mission Creep"

It isn't only that government bureaucracies seek to preserve existing functions and resources; they seek to expand their functions and size. From a budgetary standpoint, the best defense is a good offense. In a process that can be called mission creep, bureaucracies perpetually, and often successfully, attempt to find new reasons to justify their existence, even when the original rationale for their creation has disappeared. The evolution of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is a classic example. Its predecessor was originally charged with enforcing Prohibition during the 1920s and 1930s, but the prohibition of recreational alcohol ended in 1933. The bureau's mission subsequently expanded from the policing of illegal alcohol to cigarettes in the 1950s, to illegal firearms in the 1960s, to illegal explosives in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. To paraphrase a frequently cited truism, "old bureaucracies never die, they just invent new missions."

Iron Triangles

Other criticisms of bureaucratic behavior center on its negative impact on democracy. Bureaucracies, in theory, are supposed to represent the public interest as defined and formulated by elected officials. But what if the influence of special interests—interest groups, Congressmen seeking reelection, and bureaucrats themselves—collude to frustrate what is truly in the public's interest? This situation defines the chronic reality, and often danger, of what political scientists sometimes refer to as iron triangles—the tight, mutually beneficial relationships that form between government bureaucracies, congressional committees, and interest groups, not always for the greater good of the citizenry.

In a classic example, one can point to numerous cases of weapons procurement by the Department of Defense. Manufacture of weapon parts for which the federal government has contracted may be done by a suspiciously large number of defense contractors and originate in a suspiciously large number of states. Interest groups, in the form of private defense companies, have a vested interest in making substantial campaign contributions to members of important congressional committees with authority to authorize funding for weapons projects. Members of congressional committees stand to gain campaign funds and bragging rights about jobs they have brought to their districts if they award funding to these companies. To complete the triangle, federal bureaucrats in the Department of Defense charged with procurement contracting may or may not experience an immediate payoff, but they may later walk through the "revolving door" that leads from government employment to employment with the private defense companies. There may be no conscious awareness of wrongdoing or ethical lapse, but rather a self-rationalization about how the process and decisions served the interests of the public. One must critically examine, however, the growing trend of former government employees, including congressmen, leaving government service to work for the companies with which they used to interact on behalf of the federal government, typically for far more money than they ever earned as modest public servants.

Iron Triangles

Bureaucrats and congressional committees have close relationships with interest groups wanting to influence government policies. These strong alliances form iron triangles. Every policy area has an iron triangle associated with it. Can you select groups that would form alliances in an iron triangle?

 LAUNCH ACTIVITY

 

The Revolving Door

This phenomenon of the revolving door in the political system, despite federal time restrictions on when government employees may accept jobs from such groups, has mushroomed in recent decades. But the door is not one-way. Talented individuals from the private sector are often solicited by the president to serve as cabinet officials and federal appointees in the administration, providing needed expertise. This passage of experienced individuals back-and-forth between government and business, while inevitable, points to the perennial problem of regulatory capture, in which members of government agencies or commissions charged with regulating specific industries, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Food and Drug Administration, identify with and become overly sympathetic to the industries they are charged with regulating.

Additional Resources

Websites

The Center for Public Integrity This nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organization’s mission is to “enhance democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism.” The website provides news and information on corruption, mismanagement, and waste in government.

Books

America in Space: NASA's First Fifty Years, by Steven Dick.  A bureaucracy with the mission to "pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research," NASA's funding is often subject to a political tug-of-war in Congress.

Article 6:

Restraints on the Bureaucracy

ADA Text Version

Granting the propensity of all government bureaucracies and bureaucrats to pursue their own institutional and personal agendas, sometimes with the collusion of elected officials, how do the three constitutionally established branches of national government control a powerful federal bureaucracy and bring it into compliance with the prerogatives of elected representatives? Though the size of the federal bureaucracy, not to mention sheer inertia, makes the task difficult, the tools available to the three branches are considerable. Ultimately, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches will prevail over government agencies as long as the attention and will is there.

The President

The president influences the composition and direction of government agencies through appointment power. The three thousand or so direct appointments through which the president fills high-level positions are sometimes referred to as presidential plums. Presidents naturally try to appoint individuals who share their political and policy preferences. The president may also pressure government agencies by exerting influence over the budget submitted to Congress through the Office of Management and Budget. Within the limits of existing legislation, the president additionally wields the power to issue executive orders directing bureaucratic behavior. These orders have the force of law and can change bureaucratic regulations. Also, within the limits of congressional legislation, the president may reorganize government agencies to reflect policy intentions.

Congress

Congress holds the power of the purse and can turn off the financial spigot from which government bureaucracies are funded. Though a cabinet department has never been abolished once created, Congress has the power to completely abolish government agencies should it wish to do so. It can cut or reduce funding for particular programs. Congress can also use oversight power, holding official hearings or conducting investigations backed by the power to compel testimony by relevant government bureaucrats, in order to monitor or discipline government agencies. Because congressional legislation is superior to regulations, it can use its lawmaking power to change bureaucratic policies. The Senate also plays a role in the appointment process, since its approval of presidential appointments is required by the US Constitution.

The Courts

Finally, the federal courts exercise the same police power over government agencies they exercise over all government actors. Their judicial power permits them to declare bureaucratic policies and actions illegal or even unconstitutional. They can apply constitutional principles to ensure that individuals in conflict with bureaucratic decisions receive a fair hearing of grievances. It should also be mentioned that there is a federal agency, the General Accounting Office, with the specific mission of monitoring the spending of federal money by government agencies. In the past, it has identified large amounts of money that have been wasted or misspent by the bureaucracy.