Transcription
Hey everybody. Welcome back. The president is head of the executive branch, but we need to talk about all her minions. Go ahead and minion smash that like button and let's get it. [Music]
The bureaucracy is sometimes referred to as the Civil Service. And no matter what you call it, these are the day-to-day workers who implement federal policy. The vast majority of bureaucrats are non-political workers, though the people at the top of the agencies and departments often are politically appointed. So keep an eye on that distinction between the political and non-political workers.
The Merit system replaced the patronage system. So non-political bureaucrats earn their job either through their qualifications or their performance on a civil service exam. In the past, many people may have gotten these government jobs because of who they knew or who they voted for, but that system was replaced by the Merit system. The effect of the Merit system has been to increase the effectiveness of the bureaucracy by promoting professionalism, specialization, and neutrality. Because they aren't politically motivated—at least not officially—agencies and departments typically fall into one of four major categories. So let's go over those.
Cabinet departments are the big kids on the block. They have a major area of responsibility over a broad policy area, and in fact, a lot of the agencies and commissions we'll talk about soon report to the Cabinet departments. We're thinking of things like the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, and Education—large, broad areas of power and influence.
Independent regulatory commissions have a narrower set of responsibilities than Cabinet departments. They make rules regulating specific industries. For example, the Securities and Exchanges Commission regulates Securities markets—think of the stock market—and is intended to protect investors and stop fraud.
Executive agencies report directly to the president and perform some sort of Public Service. The Environmental Protection Agency is a very famous one that you probably have heard of. I'll talk more about the EPA soon, but their goals have to do with ensuring that we have clean air and clean water.
The last type are government corporations, and they provide services that would normally be provided by private companies. But, for one reason or another, they're not profitable, and so instead the services are provided by the government. Amtrak is probably the classic example. Commuter trains aren't typically profitable, so the federal government provides that service that private companies won't because they probably go out of business if they tried.
These agencies are in charge of implementing federal policy. Congress makes legislation, and then the executive branch enforces it. Well, here's who's actually on the ground implementing all those policies.
In the policy-making process, there are relationships known as iron triangles and issue networks. Iron triangles are relationships between congressional committees, bureaucratic agencies, and interest groups that influence a specific policy. For example, the Armed Forces Committee in the House, the defense department, and an interest group working on behalf of the Boeing Corporation form an iron triangle related to defense. Like this graphic shows, it can be a symbiotic relationship with each side working together and helping the others. Members of Congress want to win reelection; bureaucratic agencies and departments want funding and support from Congress; and the interest group wants favorable legislation for their members. With this relationship, all three get what they want, but is that actually good for U.S. democracy? It's reasonable to wonder if this helps maintain elite democracy and causes Congress and the bureaucracy to be more worried about big donors and special interests than the general public.
Issue networks are very similar, but they are confined to just committees, interest groups, and agencies. They might also include lawyers, academics, think tanks. They're also temporary and more fluid in nature than iron triangles, but they share the same purpose of trying to influence a particular public policy.
Closely related to this is that leadership from the bureaucratic agencies frequently testify at Congressional hearings about legislation in their areas of expertise. Once the law is passed, an agency or agencies are in charge of implementation—actually putting a policy into practice and enforcing the law. Additionally, Congress often gives the agencies administrative discretion, allowing them to choose how to implement and enforce the legislation, which increases their power. Additionally, they have significant rule-making authority and are often empowered to make regulations that have the power of law.
One of the dirty little secrets is that Congress often writes laws in vague, non-specific ways. The law then allows specific agencies or departments to fill in the gaps and basically write the specifics for them. The idea is that Congress lacks the time, ability, and expertise to handle the details of policy making, so they leave it to non-political policy experts.
Let's take an easy example. Congress passes the Clean Air Act in 1970. They know the goal: clean air and clean water, less pollution. But members of Congress are not experts on pollution and environmental issues. They're not scientists. Again, shocking, I know. So they passed the legislation with a broad goal and then hand off the details to the EPA, giving them power to make specific regulations. This has two advantages: the policies are made by people who are supposed to have expertise, and it's also supposed to remove politics from the picture. So now these non-political experts get to make the specific rules about disposing waste or pollutants.
In addition to making and enforcing regulations, they also have the authority to punish violators, typically by issuing fines. So the EPA makes the regulations, then they enforce the regulations they've made, and then they punish people who they believe are in violation of those regulations. That's a lot of power. Sometimes these powers are referred to as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial, with the implication that the agencies are acting like all three branches in one. We'll talk more about the criticism of this in the next video, but you might be starting to see why some people complain that these unelected bureaucrats have too much power.
But that's it for this one. Until next time, this has been A La Money Production. Thanks again for watching. Wanna help me out and hit that like button? I appreciate it. And if you want, check out the ultimate review packet. I'm going to keep saying it, and I will see you in the next video.