Executive Politics Pika and Maltese Chapter 6. A Pair of Docs Presidents confront a paradox: They enjoy considerable formal legal powers and head a vast,

Executive Politics

Pika and Maltese Chapter 6

A Pair of Docs

Presidents confront a paradox: They enjoy considerable formal legal

powers and head a vast, complex military and civilian bureaucracy

But, their ability to direct that bureaucracy toward the achievement of the administration’s policy objectives and program goals is frequently limited.

Congress First let’s look at how this relationship is

affected by Congress. Only Congress can authorize government

programs. Only Congress can appropriate funds to

finance them. Even presidents who have unified

government may find it difficult to cooperate with Congress because of their differences in constituencies and institutional perspectives.

Congress

In sum, the structure of the federal bureaucracy tends to reflect the political fragmentation and committee jurisdictions of Congress, which often leads, as with Homeland Security, to multiple committees overseeing the activities of the same department.

Another Factor Additionally, presidents deal with career civil

servants who staff bureaucratic units and constitute a permanent federal government.

These individuals respond to interest groups, congressional committees, and the president.

Many, if not most, have been through a number of different presidential administrations, so their loyalty must be earned by new presidents.

The EOP Today, the president’s greatest

assistance in managing the federal bureaucracy comes from the Executive Office of the President.

This office helps the president define objectives, convert them into operating programs, allocate resources to the agencies administering the programs, and coordinate the implementation of the programs within the federal government and among federal, state, and local governments.

Factors that Shape Bureaucratic-Presidential Relations

There are at least five factors that shape presidential-bureaucratic relations:

1. The size, complexity, and dispersion of the executive branch

2. Bureaucratic inertia and momentum3. Executive branch personnel4. The legal position of the executive branch5. The susceptibility of executive branch units

to external political influence

Size, Complexity, and Dispersion The scope of federal government activities has

exploded since 1933. Federal spending in 2010 was roughly $3.55

trillion. In 2010, federal employees numbered 2.65

million civilians and about 1.7 million military personnel.

One estimate sets the total number of jobs associated with federal government programs at almost 15 million when the contract employees, grant recipients, and state and local employees working on government funding are included.

Size, Complexity, and Dispersion The growth in the number of

departments and agencies has led to overlapping jurisdictions and to duplication of efforts in some cases, as well as, contradictory efforts in others.

There is even a high degree of competition between some government agencies.

This means presidents must be coordinators. Think about the complexity of the relationship between departments like the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Justice.

Size, Complexity, and Dispersion

The activities of the federal government are dispersed into every corner of the United States.

This makes it extremely difficult for the president or his secretaries to keep tabs on everything that’s going on in the bureaucracy at all times.

Inertia and Momentum

It is hard to get a new government program started, but probably more importantly, it’s even harder to stop or redirect one.

Bureaucracies at rest tend to stay at rest, and ones in motion tend to stay in motion.

Inertia and Momentum

Much of this arises because organizational routines—standard operating procedures—keep the department/agency doing what it’s doing.

Additionally, every department has some interest group or groups that depend on its existence.

Inertia and Momentum What this means in practical terms is that it’s

REALLY hard to cut the federal budget. In 2012 57% of the federal budget will be

mandatory spending. But, even the remaining discretionary portion

of the budget is hard to cut because of the all the interest groups that are dependent upon the programs.

Major changes usually require years to implement and can be met with fierce opposition (see Bush’s attempt to, at least partially, privatize social security).

Inertia and Momentum What we actually see happen is that over time

incremental increases in the budgets of departments and agencies become huge permanent gains.

Bureaucratic momentum works to the advantage of the permanent government in place and to the detriment of presidents who want to change or shrink it.

The large number of federal employees makes it even tougher for presidents to cut spending or programs because of the number of jobs that are dependent upon maintaining programs.

These things make any type of effort to reduce government politically costly.

Personnel Presidents must depend on both

career civil servants and appointed officials to run the bureaucracy.

Before the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883, these roles were indistinguishable.

Presidents could basically run the bureaucracy through patronage.

Personnel The Pendleton Act (and subsequent policies)

made it so that most federal hiring was/is determined by the qualifications of the prospective employees.

This placed a powerful limitation on the ability of the president to control the bureaucracy.

It also led to a clear distinction between career civil servants and appointed officials.

Personnel Outside of the cabinet members, presidents do

appoint political executives. But their appointments (and subsequent

confirmations) are highly dependent on many things outside the president’s control, including:

Parties Interest Groups The wishes of the cabinet member under whom they

will serve Congress State and Local party leaders

Personnel We’ve also seen that with each new administration the

confirmation process has grown longer. Some of this is self-inflicted. For example, several of

President Obama’s appointees had to withdraw because of revelations about their personal conduct.

Once they are there, it often takes political executives 12 to 18 months to master their jobs. The average tenure, however, is only two years.

The high turnover rate makes it difficult to develop teamwork and communication within and across departments.

Cabinet secretaries are consistently having to adapt to new assistants.

Personnel One last point on personnel. The high level career civil servants have

different time perspectives than do appointed executive officials or cabinet secretaries.

This means they can have patience when it comes to solving problems and implementing policies.

This is often in direct conflict with the prerogatives of an administration that wants to accomplish its goals quickly.

Law Stuff The legal position of the executive branch

is rather ambiguous. This is mainly due to Congress consistently

delegating authority to the president that is not mentioned in the Constitution.

In some cases, such as independent regulatory commissions or the Federal Reserve Board, the president has no formal power to direct agency actions.

More Law Stuff In other situations, the Constitution’s “Take

Care” clause allows the president to command the decisions of his subordinates.

However, he risks confrontations with Congress, clientele groups, and individuals affected by the administrative units involved.

Not to mention that long ago the Supreme Court held that the president cannot interfere with the execution of the law by subordinates.

The Last of Law Stuff We’ve talked about

Congress delegating authority to the executive branch because legislation can seldom be drafted in sufficient detail to cover all contingencies.

However, Congress also delegates to the bureaucracy because it is political advantageous to shift difficult and unpopular decisions to someone else.

The Supreme Courts has cleared these delegations as long as they are accompanied by clear statutory guidelines.

However, this has rarely been followed by Congress or by the lower Courts who have been asked to uphold it.

So, in spite of judicial review, administrative officials retain substantial discretionary authority.

Externalities The federal bureaucracy is susceptible to

outside forces beyond the president’s control. For some agencies this support is essential

when they are being challenged by a president who ranks them low on his priority list.

On the other hand, agencies who are being confronted with external criticism and political pressure will find it hard to gain any ground with a president who worries about publicity and political fallout.

Externalities Agencies rely heavily

on the public and Congress to justify their existence.

Clientele groups can: Publicize an

agency’s accomplishments

Defend it against attack

In exchange the agency will administer its programs with the interest of the clientele group in mind.

The agency will also consult with members of the clientele group when administering its programs.

Externalities

Agencies seldom draft guidelines and regulations or award grants without extensive external participation and consolation.

Additionally, there is often a two-way flow of personnel between agencies and clientele organizations.

Externalities Agencies also find it easy to develop

strong ties to the congressional committees or subcommittees that oversee them.

Congressional requests for consideration on appointments and grants, suggestions on program administration, and inquiries on behalf of constituents are always given priority.

Externalities

This enables bureaucrats to develop connections with committee members which in turn helps the agency gain favorable treatment during budget negotiations.

Externalities

This three-way relationship between agencies, clientele groups, and congressional committees is often referred to as an iron triangle.

In fact, there is fear that some agencies will become “captured” by the interests of one or both of the other players.

The Cabinet

I have one thing to say about the Cabinet.

The president doesn’t use it that much.

I Lied Most presidents say they are going

to try to use the cabinet more once they get into office, but they never do.

What I mean when I say “use” is “ask for advice” or “seek their help when making decisions.”

That doesn’t mean the cabinet isn’t important.

It Was Just a Little Lie Members tend to be the principle

spokespersons for administration policy in their jurisdiction.

They also are the top political executive for a department that is deemed important enough to warrant cabinet status.

In fact, their management tasks may be the most important things they do.

OK, Maybe it was More than Just a Little

One thing to remember is that cabinet members need to have good ties with clientele groups, especially those groups that are important to the president.

Exceptions…Wow I Really Lied About This There are some exceptions to this, “I don’t

hang out with members of the cabinet” rule. These exceptions are those departments

which make up the “inner cabinet.” State Department Department of Defense Department of the Treasury Justice Department Department of Homeland Security

Why might these be a little higher on the president’s priority list?

Exceptions Aside…So, Now I’ve Said at Least 20 Different Things About the Cabinet

These exceptions aside, some presidents may try to use the cabinet as a decision-making body early in their administrations.

But, most eventually abandon this and rely on the White House staff instead.

Why? Consider the relationship between a rock star and his/her groupies.

The Vice President

I only have one thing to say about the Vice President.

Historically, the role of the Vice President has been very limited.

Appointment and Removal

The main thing to discuss here is that high-ranking officials are subject to Senate confirmation.

Historically, the Senate gave presidents considerable leeway in this, however, today it is much more controversial and politically influenced.

Appointment and Removal It seems at times, a Congress that is

opposed to the president will simply block appointments just because.

During Bush’s first term it took an average of 181 days for an appointment to be confirmed.

By mid-May 2009 (Obama’s first year), 85 nominated candidates awaited confirmation, 111 had been approved, but there were a total of 486 positions that needed Senate confirmation to begin with.

Appointment and Removal

Presidents can also make recess appointments when the Senate is in recess.

These must be approved by the end of the Senate’s next session.

Appointment and Removal Removal has been another area of

contention between Congress and the president.

The Constitution is silent on this other than when discussing impeachment procedures.

The Courts have been ambiguous on it as well.

Suffice to say, presidents seem to have broad removal powers, but in some instances, the courts have held they must abide by particular guidelines.

Executive Orders

Remember what we said bout EOs earlier?

Well, that’s the formal law surrounding them.

However, most presidents issue them without considering those guidelines.

Executive Orders They tend to be presidential edicts, legal

instruments that create or modify laws, procedures, and policy by fiat.

They have pushed the boundaries of presidential power by taking advantage of gaps in constitutional and statutory language that allow them to fill power vacuums and gain control of emerging capabilities.

What the heck did that mean?

Executive Orders

Reliance on EOs is extremely important when it comes to areas where conflict with Congress means action cannot be accomplished through legislation.

Think civil rights issues in the 1960s or economic issues in the 1930s.

Management

Managing the bureaucracy relies on a set of tools presidents have at their disposal: Staffing Reorganization Planning

Staffing As mentioned earlier, the tendency is for

presidents to use a strong, sizable, centralized White House staff to protect the political interests of the president, to act as their principle policy advisers, and to direct (as opposed to monitor and coordinate) the implementation of presidential priorities by the bureaucracy.

As opposed to using The Cabinet.

Although

Although, this doesn’t meant that staffing for each presidency is similar.

Let’s look at the text on page 287-289.

Reorganization What does this mean? When talking about organizational

structure it can mean the difference between establishing an administrative unit as a department, an independent agency, or a component of an existing department.

Where the unit is situated can signal how important a president feels it is.

Reorganization

Current presidents do need congressional authorization to reorganize executive branch units.

This is what was used to create the Department of Homeland Security, which was essentially just a massive reorganization of several different departments and agencies.

Reorganization But, when it comes to reorganizing within a

particular department or agency, presidents have much more leeway.

Additionally, presidents have found creative ways to use reorganization as a way to achieve their political goals.

For example, W sought to reduce government employment by making at least half of the federal jobs subject to competitive bidding from the private sector.

He also instituted a “pay for performance” system that did not guarantee annual pay increases unless the performance of employees met particular guidelines.

Planning Planning can be defined as:

Current action to secure future consequences—Aaron Wildavsky

Presidents need foresight in anticipating problems and developing solutions.

However, long range planning rarely happens in Washington.

Take the current levels of government spending for example.

Also consider Bush’s efforts at reforming social security, previous administrations’ efforts at regulating the financial industry, or developing a comprehensive energy policy.

So…

Based on what we’ve covered do you think the president can lead the executive branch?