POL200 Do you believe that the federal bureaucracy is at an appropriate size in terms of costs and number of employees? Why or why not?

Query

Do you believe that the federal bureaucracy is at an appropriate size in terms of costs and number of employees? Why or why not? In 600-800 words

“Plato argued that good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will always find a way around law. By pretending that procedure will get rid of corruption, we have succeeded only in humiliating honest people and provided a cover of darkness and complexity for the bad people. There is a scandal here, but it's not the result of venal bureaucrats. ― Philip K. Howard, The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America

My essay

Development of the bureaucracy

At the time of our first President, George Washington in 1789, the federal government consisted of three departments: State, Treasury and War. Westward expansion required that new agencies were created to manage land and settlements. As people expanded, an expanded Postal Service was needed. The Civil War of 1861-1865 created thousands of new jobs and departments to handle warfare demands. The Industrial Revolution’s economic growth then required more bureaucratic agencies to control the growing economy.

The riotous years between the civil war and turn of the century were known as the Gilded Age. This “was a period where greedy, corrupt industrialists, bankers and politicians enjoyed extraordinary wealth and opulence at the expense of the working class.” According to History.com. Thus, working class Americans called upon government to regulate business and industry.

Consequently, independent regulatory commissions emerged. Railroad industry abuses were monitored by the first agency: Interstate Commerce Commission. Social movements of the early 20th century wanted governmental regulation of child labor, food processing/packaging and working conditions for laboring classes.

The Great Depression of the 1930’s led Americans to depend on public works programs in the form of relief and recovery. Franklin Roosevelt enacted a series of programs called the New Deal. These programs included safeguards on the banking industry, support for elderly, youth and farmers. The New Deal of 1933-1945 meant larger government. More agencies were needed to administer these many programs.

World War II in 1941 meant that the bureaucratic operations of the war effort inflated the need greatly. “The total number of federal employees increased from a little over half a million in 1933 to an all time high of more than 3.5 million in 1945. After World War II ended in 1945…[it] still has remained at levels between about 2.5 and 3 million..” [US History.org]

Public Works, Farm and Rural Programs, the Housing Sector and Trade between other countries bolstered bureaucracy needs even further. The “Second New Deal” of the mid 1930’s saw the dawning and funding of the Social Security Act. Labor Relations gained important bargaining power and established working wages. Works Progress Administration heralded long term relief to the national unemployment issue. Under the WPA, schools, hospitals and roads were built. Irrigations systems and bridges were built or maintained. Lastly, the Wealth Tax Act was established to redirect the wealth and Housing acts to abolish slums and improve living conditions for low income workers.

Roger Meiners is resolute in his theory of bureaucracy: “Despite all protests to the contrary, the prevailing attitude in Washington is elitist and paternalistic. It insists that people be regulated because they cannot make decisions in their own best interests because they are either denied information or given false information or information too complex for their limited understanding.

True, bureaucracy envisions images of bloated and overprotective superiors. However, we should agree from an educated understanding of what bureaucracy has done for our society and how we each benefit. Prior to the programs enacted by Roosevelt and other social-minded persons, working class and elderly were, literally, dying in the streets if they could no longer produce for the industrial machine. Children were routinely maimed and dying in sweatshops working 14-hour days and 6-7 day workweeks.  

Thomas Patterson gives us a succinct and partisan explanation of bureaucracy. It is “a method of organizing people and work, based on the principles of hierarchical authority, job specialization, and formalized rules…bureaucracy is the most efficient means of getting people to work together on tasks of great magnitude and complexity. It is also a form of organization that is prone to waste and rigidity, which is why efforts are always being made to reform it. “

Flawed system?

Hassan Elhage helps us understand the flaws which plague government bureaucracy.  “…duplication and conflict is a result of the inefficiency brought on by a large bureaucracy with a multitude of components... For instance, the [ARS] [1]tells farmers how to grow crops more efficiently, while the [ASCS] [2]pays farmers to grow fewer crops.”

It wasn’t just reform and social concern that swelled administrations to large proportions. Roberts & Dull in Guarding the Guardians says scandal forced into being oversight committees. After a price fixing scandal, the Secretary of Agriculture created an Inspector General. Subsequent scandals in Welfare, Health and Educations including inducements in Medicaid billing resulted in more Inspectors. “Rather than blame individual malfeasance,” Roberts/Dull write “Congress depicted the problem as excessive organizational complexity and insufficient chains of accountability”

Conclusion

Working in the health care field, I see firsthand social programs at work. America has made significant progress in society in compassion to those in need. Some say that is the only thing that separates us from animals. Absolutely, there are problems with accountability, duplication and costly mismanagement of funds. There is no easy answer. It will almost certainly require another committee…

Bibliography

Elhage, Hassan. The Need for Bureaucracy Explained. 29 Aug 2016. 27 Feb 2020. <https://democracychronicles.org/bureaucracy-explained/ >.

History.com Editors. Gilded Age. 13 Mar 2019. A&E Television Networks. 27 Feb 2020. <https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/gilded-age>.

Meiners, Roger E., et al. Regulation and the Reagan Era : Politics, Bureaucracy and the Public Interest. Independent Institute, 2017. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.mendocino.idm.oclc.org/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/ZTAwMHhuYV9fMTU4MDA5OV9fQU41?sid=bf1a89d8-900a-4c73-9c4b-37c986838202@sdc-v-sessmgr02&vid=1&format=EK&rid=1.

Patterson, Thomas. We The People. 13th. New York: McGraw, 2019. pages 428.

Roberts, Patrick & Matthew Dull. "Guarding the Guardians: Oversight Appointees and the Search for Accountability in U.S. Federal Agencies." Journal of Policy History 25.2 (2013): 207-241. 27 Feb 2020. <http://web.a.ebscohost.com.mendocino.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=394a228c-6824-4af9-8c58-178dda3307f2%40sessionmgr4008>.

ushistory.org. The Development of the Bureaucracy. n.d. 27 Feb 2020. <https://www.ushistory.org/gov/8a.asp>.

800 words, not including Query, Intro Quote, Headers, Last Sentence in italics and Bibliography
Prof. Liljeblad POL200

---

[1] Agricultural Research Service

[2] Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

POL200 Has the current conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court served to impede or support civil liberties and civil rights? Why or why not?

My Essay

“At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”
~ Aristotle

Query & Thesis

Research done by political scientists Segal and Spaeth show that “justices tend to vote in line with their political background.” Journalist Meghan Keneally is in agreement: “…Supreme Court picks tend to fall along the political lines of the president who nominated them to the court. What that means now is that justices picked by Republican presidents -- …Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch … Kavanaugh -- tend to rule more conservatively than justices nominated by Democratic presidents --… Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan. “

It seems expected: a current conservative court will vote conservatively. Since the 2^nd conservative appointment under the Trump administration brings the Supreme Court Justices to conservative backed majority, the question is investigable: Has the current conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court served to impede or support civil liberties and civil rights?

Swing Voter

The reason why most recent assignee, Kavanaugh, a Trump nomination, was such a topic of ardent speculation, was that the previous Justice, Anthony Kennedy, was widely identified as being the swing vote. A swing voter oscillates between parties, as opposed to voting strictly within party lines. In other words, the Supreme Court had a relatively even association of Justices until present. Now the political leaning appears unbalanced since Kavanaugh was nominated by a very conservative and republican nominee. (Kavanaugh; sworn in on October 6^th 2018.) An unbalanced/politically skewed justice is a valid concern to civil liberties.

Data correlated by Lawyer Adam Feldman and interpreted by researcher Tessa Berenson describes that during Kavanaugh’s term as a justice, he voted liberal as often as he has voted conservative. Former US district judge for the southern district of New York, Shira A Scheindlin disagrees emphatically Scheindlin states “During his 12 years on the bench...Several cases reveal an anti-worker, anti-union or anti-immigrant bias."

Voting/Courts

Current Supreme Court has not seen most of cases brought to the courts. They haven’t even gotten past the lower courts to be judged by the Supreme. “With a few exceptions… the high court has shown no inclination to rush to Trump’s aid. Most cases never reach the Supreme Court. And while Trump has filled numerous vacancies in the lower courts, appointees of Democratic presidents still account for more than 55 percent of active federal judges”, according to Indiana University’s dean of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, John D. Graham.

Institute for Policy Integrity by the New York School of Law has tracked the outcomes of litigation. Specifically, the Trump government’s “use of agencies to deregulate as well as to implement its other policy priorities.”

Policy Integrity has on record 70 cases, of which 66 were unsuccessful and only 4 were successful. That is just a 6% success rate for the Trump Administration. Beings that the supreme court justices usually vote alongside the lines of the political party that nominated them, let’s look at the cases filtered by Judge Appointment. Democratic appointments yielded 40 of the 70 cases. There was 38 unsuccessful and 2 successful cases; that’s just 5% of cases successful. Republican appointments made up 12 cases; 10 to 2 for a 20% success rate, the highest success rate of all appointments. Mixed appointments were just 1 for 0% success. Also N/A appointments numbered 17 and all 17 unsuccessful, also a 0% success rate. It is interesting to note that N/A cases are when the action was withdrawn before a court could determine the lawfulness of said action.

(With a small sample size, it is a cautionary advisement to not jump to conclusions about whether the Republican appointments show a bias towards proving our hypothesis or not.)

Blind Justice?

Thomas Patterson reminds us that “Federal judges are unelected officials with lifetime appointments, which places them beyond the reach of voters.”

That is the reason why terms are set for life: so Justices are not affected by any political affiliation. Supposedly. Founding framer and 2^nd president John Adams is quoted saying “"A government of laws, and not of men." I, personally, don’t believe that a Justice could be blind to current politics. Do they not strive for happiness in their lives with their families, just as we do? They live in today’s world with our thoughts and emotions from incoming evidence and hearsay and, also importantly, the schema with which they were raised.

Affect Public Opinion & Closing

Further concern is Micheal F Salamone’s insinuation, Supreme court sways general population’s belief on matters of great importance. Is it okay that a conservative Justices’ judgement are influencing an entire society to their conservative ways? Or is that how today’s society will function smoother, regardless of whether the society initially wished for it or not.

In closing, I could say the jury is still out whether there is solid evidence the Justices are rolling back civil rights, however the court is still in session.

Bibliography

Berenson, Tessa. Inside Brett Kavanaugh's First Term on the Supreme Court. 28 Jun 2019. 20 Feb 2020. <https://time.com/longform/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-first-term/>.

Feldman, Adam. Supreme Court of the United States Blog. n.d. 20 Feb 2020. <https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/>.

Graham, John. The Trump administration has lost in court at least 63 times. Here’s why. 20 Mar 2019. The Washington Post. 20 Feb 2020. <https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/19/the-trump-administration-often-loses-in-court-heres-why/>.

Institute for Policy Integrity. "Roundup: Trump-Era Agency Policy in the Courts." 2020. <https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup>.

Keneally, Meghan. Their pay, age, political leanings and more: 6 Supreme Court questions answered. 1 Oct 2018. 20 Feb 2020. <https://abcnews.go.com/US/pay-age-political-leanings-supreme-court-questions-answered/story?id=58204713>.

Patterson, Thomas. We The People. 13th. New York: McGraw, 2019. pages 449 & 454.

Salamone, Michael F. Perceptions of a Polarized Court:. Temple University Press, 2018.

Scheindlin, Shira A. Should Brett Kavanaugh occupy the swing vote seat? His judicial record says no . 31 Aug 2018. 20 Feb 2020. <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/31/kavanaugh-swing-vote-supreme-court>.

Requirement 600-800: Actual word count 792. not including the headers, intro quote or works cited.

POL200 "Is the federal government effective if separate parties control the Executive and Legislative branches? Why or why not?"

The Question:

Is the federal government effective if separate parties control the Executive (President/Rep.) and Legislative: Senate (Rep), House of Reps (Dem), supreme and lower court branches; congress) branches. Why or why not? (In 600-800 words)

My Essay

 “Political parties are inevitable, and they are effective and convenient when principles divide people. But popular representation is older than a party system of government, and when it becomes utterly subordinate to the welfare of parties it is time for a democratic people to realize the possible loss of their instrument of liberty.” The Rise of the Democracy, by Joseph Clayton 1911

Define effective

Is ineffective for your own cause unjust, while effectiveness for your cause just? In Political Ideals 1916, Bertrand Russell stated “If a nation is divided into two…democracy theoretically insures that the majority shall have their way.” This is an important concept. In the Political landscape of today, this is effective for the majority Republican Senate, in the political climate of the day, isn’t that it is ineffective for the Democratic House still constitutes ineffectiveness?

In 1905, Professor of Political Science and Constitutional law John Williams Burgess wrote Reconstruction and the Constitution. In it, he reminds us that the partisan powers at the time of the adoption of the 13^th amendment, abolishing slavery, were due to a majority power of the legislation. If the Reconstruction supporters had had their party in power in 1865, the history of human rights as we know it would have taken an entirely different course.

Thomas Patterson looks in-depth into legislative workings. “A divided government can lead to bitter dispute and stalemates.” Would the alternative be a government that does not discuss issues based on the opinions of others? That the current government unequally represents minority groups is a concern, and clearly not irrespective of party differences, which in and of itself is alarming. As often seen in the Senate, powers that are in majority would pass bills and motions to further their own political power. That concept breeds casual wonder do we have a dictatorship disguised as a democracy.

Trump vs. Clinton SOTU speeches

Let us now compare the 42nd President William Clinton with the 45^th President Donald Trump. I will propose that the country’s effectiveness and foremost its judicial system, is greatly improved by having a political electorate who, even as they stand for one dedicated platform (Republican or Democrat) speak regardless of party preference, in an effort unite the nation.

A leader, by words and deeds has an influence of how well the Senate and House will work together.  The approval rating of Williams Clinton’s first year was 50% (pg 392). President Clinton used the word bipartisan 8 times in his first two State of the Union Addresses. In comparison, approval rating of Donald Trump’s first year was 38%. Trump used bipartisan three times in two speeches. Only two times as the word used to encourage bipartisan efforts, once was distrusting partisan efforts to cause problems.

That there is a >30% greater approval rating with a >30% greater usage of the word “bipartisan” is of great value to us; it is a bipartisan issue benefits our country to have leadership which unites.

Reform

Older, more developed nations do not follow our suit, yet all of them, according to Brooks Adams, borrow freely from the parliamentary system of England. America has a unique legislation and for the past 231 years we have had the same electoral and ruling system. Perhaps we would benefit from adopting a system which has a longer proven history. In The Theory of Social Revolutions, says Adams: “Since 1789, every highly civilized Western people have readjusted their institutions at least once, yet not one has in this respect imitated us.”

Some scholars suggest a broad reform of the electoral election method. T.R. Ashworth, in his 1901 Proportional Representation Applied To Party Government A New Electoral System proposes: “The system of single-membered electorates was rational in the fourteenth century, because there was only one party. Is it not on the face of it absurd to-day, when there are two parties?” That was written when the 25^th President, William McKinley was in office.

By that time, America had seen 6 different party affiliations taking political power for the nation. Democrat and Republican parties. No Party (1^st George Washington and 17^th Andrew Johnson), Whig (last office held 1845 with 10^th President John Tyler) , one Federalist 2^nd John Adams, and a party called Democratic-Republican, holding office during the tenure of 3 Presidents in a row, our 3^rd through 5^th.

Closing

In his farewell speech to 13 states and a population of 3,929,214, first President George Washington warned future American about the likelihood of political parties and their hostile intent toward democracy. He spoke fervently and eloquently on that topic alone for just under 1000 words; imploring the people not to let powers of parties corrupt democracy, subvert liberty and become despotism.

United States of 231 years later retains the same legislature as of 1789.  Yet now there are 50 states and a <90% increase in population to an estimated current amount of 330,656,950. If the first president of our United States, of whom we often valiantly interpret their reasoning for the framework of our legislative system as they saw it, tells us to be wary of an overly powerful political party, shouldn’t we heed that warning?

Bibliography

Adams, Brooks. The Theory of Social Revolutions. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 1913. <https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10613/10613-h/10613-h.htm>.

Ashworth, T. R. Proportional Representation Applied To Party Government, A NEW ELECTORAL SYSTEM. 1901. <https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14459/14459-h/14459-h.htm>.

Britannica, Encyclopedia. United States presidential election of 1789. 17 Aug 2009. 2020 Feb 2020. <https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1789>.

Burgess, John William. Reconstruction and the Constitution 1866-1876. CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS/, 1902. <https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50295/50295-h/50295-h.htm>.

Clayton, Joseph. The Rise of the Democracy. Cassel and Company LTD, 1911. <https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19609/19609-h/19609-h.htm>.

Clinton, William J. State of the Union Addresses of William J. Clinton. eBook, 2004. <https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5048/5048-h/5048-h.htm#jan1994>.

Patterson, Thomas. We The People. 13th. New York: McGraw, 2019. pages 352 & 343.

Russell, Bertrand. Political Ideals. The National Council for Civil Liberties, 1916. <https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4776/4776-h/4776-h.htm>.

Trump, Donald J. State of the Union Speech. 2018 2019. <https://time.com/5125174/trump-state-of-the-union-address-transcript/ https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/donald-trump-state-of-the-union-2019-transcript/index.html>.

US Government, Census Department. "Population Characteristics and Migration 1790-1940." PDF and XLS. n.d. <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1949/compendia/hist_stats_1789-1945/hist_stats_1789-1945-chB.pdf? https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/national/totals/na-est2019-01.xlsx>.

795 words (irrespective of question restatements, opening quote and Works Cited).
Mendocino College, POL200, Spring 2020, Professor Liljeblad