On the topic of “Schedule F”

[ModernDiogenes]

The Trump, and certain Pub’s, desire to roll our civil employees back to the spoils system where hiring was all “at the will of and service to” the current administration is horribly wrong. Those that support it horribly flawed in their thinking. This is why.

Please study your US history. The spoils system, with its loyalty requirement to those currently in charge, was the way of things in the beginning. It was HORRIBLY CORRUPTED.

We were so lucky that we got a break and the Civil Service merit system came to be. It’s one if the great things that makes this country better. It not only put a huge dent in governmental corruption it added a component of institutional memory to our system. Where as administrations changed the bureaucracy did not. It remained intact with experienced laborers who knew and understood the workings of the system and kept things moving forward, though slowly, even as the new guys who had no hands in experience got up to speed.

Further still, it left a layer of workers beholden to no political masters. They hadn’t sworn an oath to a political boss. They swore an oath to the Constitution and each other, our fellow citizens. It placed a layer of potential whistleblowers in the mix who, if a politician tries to corrupt the system they’ll protect it, the Constitution and our citizens from that act. (Which is precisely why some want it gone).

If they succeed in demolishing it, it likely is not coming back and the bad ol’ days of the spoils system will return. Don’t mess up something that’s good about our system. Merit based Civil Service, despite how frustrating it can be sometimes, is a good thing.

 

[PirateMk1]

The Trump, and certain Pub’s, desire to roll our civil employees back to the spoils system where hiring was all “at the will of and service to” the current administration is horribly wrong. Those that support it horribly flawed in their thinking. This is why.

Please study your US history. The spoils system, with its loyalty requirement to those currently in charge, was the way of things in the beginning. It was HORRIBLY CORRUPTED.

We were so lucky that we got a break and the Civil Service merit system came to be. It’s one if the great things that makes this country better. It not only put a huge dent in governmental corruption it added a component of institutional memory to our system. Where as administrations changed the bureaucracy did not. It remained intact with experienced laborers who knew and understood the workings of the system and kept things moving forward, though slowly, even as the new guys who had no hands in experience got up to speed.

Further still, it left a layer of workers beholden to no political masters. They hadn’t sworn an oath to a political boss. They swore an oath to the Constitution and each other, our fellow citizens. It placed a layer of potential whistleblowers in the mix who, if a politician tries to corrupt the system they’ll protect it, the Constitution and our citizens from that act. (Which is precisely why some want it gone).

If they succeed in demolishing it, it likely is not coming back and the bad ol’ days of the spoils system will return. Don’t mess up something that’s good about our system. Merit based Civil Service, despite how frustrating it can be sometimes, is a good thing.

The problem with it is we end up with entrenched unaccountable bureaucrats. I will take the spoils system any day. The be simple, the president IS the executive branch and the people in the executive branch represent him. If the buck stops with the president then the president has a right to make sure he is represented as he wishes. Congress still holds the purse strings and can put numbers limits as before. When the president leaves so do their bureaucrats. Thats a good thing. The really good thing about that system is its intrinsically small because bring a lot of people in is a bitch. Aint no way they are hiring 23 million people.

 

[btthegreat]

The Trump, and certain Pub’s, desire to roll our civil employees back to the spoils system where hiring was all “at the will of and service to” the current administration is horribly wrong. Those that support it horribly flawed in their thinking. This is why.

Please study your US history. The spoils system, with its loyalty requirement to those currently in charge, was the way of things in the beginning. It was HORRIBLY CORRUPTED.

We were so lucky that we got a break and the Civil Service merit system came to be. It’s one if the great things that makes this country better. It not only put a huge dent in governmental corruption it added a component of institutional memory to our system. Where as administrations changed the bureaucracy did not. It remained intact with experienced laborers who knew and understood the workings of the system and kept things moving forward, though slowly, even as the new guys who had no hands in experience got up to speed.

Further still, it left a layer of workers beholden to no political masters. They hadn’t sworn an oath to a political boss. They swore an oath to the Constitution and each other, our fellow citizens. It placed a layer of potential whistleblowers in the mix who, if a politician tries to corrupt the system they’ll protect it, the Constitution and our citizens from that act. (Which is precisely why some want it gone).

If they succeed in demolishing it, it likely is not coming back and the bad ol’ days of the spoils system will return. Don’t mess up something that’s good about our system. Merit based Civil Service, despite how frustrating it can be sometimes, is a good thing.

Merit based civil employment is one of those arguments, I never imagined anyone would have to revisit or justify, much like the Brown vs Board of Education repudiation of the 'separate but equal' legal doctrine or the reasoning behind a a justice department legal brief justifying the use of torture/ waterboarding as an 'enhanced interrogation' technique by the CIA. I just never thought these topics would come up for serious discussion.

Some things I just never thought we'd need to explain.

 

[Ug make hammer]

The problem with it is we end up with entrenched unaccountable bureaucrats. I will take the spoils system any day. The be simple, the president IS the executive branch and the people in the executive branch represent him. If the buck stops with the president then the president has a right to make sure he is represented as he wishes. Congress still holds the purse strings and can put numbers limits as before. When the president leaves so do their bureaucrats. Thats a good thing. The really good thing about that system is its intrinsically small because bring a lot of people in is a bitch. Aint no way they are hiring 23 million people.

You don't address the huge problem of firing experienced staff and replacing them with (at best) people whose experience is four years out of date. Let alone the problem of one administrations staff wasting public money undoing what the staff before did.

Senior public servants have enough control over the civil service. It is just wasteful to fire and replace the entire civil service.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The problem with it is we end up with entrenched unaccountable bureaucrats.

That simply isn’t true and please produce the evidence to the contrary. Don’t just say it. Prove it.

No system is perfect and stuff sneaks through but there is just over 100 years of federal civil service (established in 1920) that I can lay before you of a system that weeds out its bad actors and dismisses them. Some even go to prison. It’s far better at that than the elected to office system of government. Our elected folk have many of their number involved in insider trading, coming out of public service far richer than the entered it.

I will take the spoils system any day.

You really need to read the first hundred year history of this nation and what it shows on this subject. You might change your mind.

The be simple, the president IS the executive branch and the people in the executive branch represent him. If the buck stops with the president then the president has a right to make sure he is represented as he wishes. Congress still holds the purse strings and can put numbers limits as before. When the president leaves so do their bureaucrats. Thats a good thing. The really good thing about that system is its intrinsically small because bring a lot of people in is a bitch. Aint no way they are hiring 23 million people.

The POTUS does have that, in the selection of his administration and its staff. They serve at the will of the President. The people deserve to have service and lower level administrative infrastructure that puts those laws and policy of the elected into effect that isn’t political. Doesn’t serve a political master, but the people themselves. Whose oath is sworn to “We The People”, not the hierarchy of a political party and its ideology. It has 100+ years of court precedence it was reviewed through and a history of service to back that up.

You can want what you want, so can any political boss, but that doesn’t make it smart or the right way to go.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Merit based civil employment is one of those arguments, I never imagined anyone would have to revisit or justify, much like the Brown vs Board of Education repudiation of the 'separate but equal' legal doctrine or the reasoning behind a a justice department legal brief justifying the use of torture/ waterboarding as an 'enhanced interrogation' technique by the CIA. I just never thought these topics would come up for serious discussion.

Some things I just never thought we'd need to explain.

Strange days, yes?

What can one expect in the days of “alternative facts”. As soon as that hit the wall and stuck with some it was obvious that things we considered adjudicated, processed and determined, went out the window..

The concept of “alternative facts” (in quotes as the educated and scientifically minded know there is no such thing as an alternative fact) mean nothing is real and finalized anymore. It’s all subject to being re-litigated by the “alt fact” crowd using “the new think”.

 

[Mycroft]

The people deserve to have service and lower level administrative infrastructure that puts those laws and policy of the elected into effect that isn’t political. Doesn’t serve a political master, but the people themselves.

The problem we have now is that "lower level administrative infrastructure" isn't serving the people. It isn't putting the "laws and policy of the elected into effect". Those people are serving a political ideology.

We saw that throughout Trump's first term with people dragging their feet, leaking sensitive and classified information, and outright working in opposition of the elected President.

That should not be tolerated and there should be a mechanism that allows the President and his appointed directors to cut those people loose.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The Trump, and certain Pub’s, desire to roll our civil employees back to the spoils system where hiring was all “at the will of and service to” the current administration is horribly wrong. Those that support it horribly flawed in their thinking. This is why.

Please study your US history. The spoils system, with its loyalty requirement to those currently in charge, was the way of things in the beginning. It was HORRIBLY CORRUPTED.

We were so lucky that we got a break and the Civil Service merit system came to be. It’s one if the great things that makes this country better. It not only put a huge dent in governmental corruption it added a component of institutional memory to our system. Where as administrations changed the bureaucracy did not. It remained intact with experienced laborers who knew and understood the workings of the system and kept things moving forward, though slowly, even as the new guys who had no hands in experience got up to speed.

Further still, it left a layer of workers beholden to no political masters. They hadn’t sworn an oath to a political boss. They swore an oath to the Constitution and each other, our fellow citizens. It placed a layer of potential whistleblowers in the mix who, if a politician tries to corrupt the system they’ll protect it, the Constitution and our citizens from that act. (Which is precisely why some want it gone).

If they succeed in demolishing it, it likely is not coming back and the bad ol’ days of the spoils system will return. Don’t mess up something that’s good about our system. Merit based Civil Service, despite how frustrating it can be sometimes, is a good thing.

There are some problems with that, so called, merit based system. It’s (accidentally?) designed to resist change (necessary for progress), since you end up with many ‘experts’ at doing things the current way, who may not be qualified to do things differently (better?). For example, someone may be ‘expert’ at using operating system A, software package B or programming language C, but has little (or no) idea how to use anything else.

It also uses a personnel evaluation system which discourages managers from rating (ranking?) an employee other than average (satisfactory) or above average (bonus/promotion eligible), since doing so requires the manager to prepare a rather cumbersome improvement and/or (potentially costly) additional training plan.

There are also the usual problems with the Peter Principle and the complexity of getting rid of anyone who turns out to be just plain lazy or untrainable. Adding DEI to that mix isn’t likely to make things any better.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The problem we have now is that "lower level administrative infrastructure" isn't serving the people. It isn't putting the "laws and policy of the elected into effect". Those people are serving a political ideology.

Because you and the “alt facts” folk say so? Lay out the proof of that. I’m not talking links to articles that parrot rhetoric. I’m talking the actual smoking gun(s) that prove corruption has sunk from the elected branch into those mid-level and staffers of the bureaucracy.

You won’t be able to, but I’ll show you that while both political parties if the elected branch are involved in that corruption one 9f the two is more adept and deeper involved in it than the other.

We can start with the enigma that is the head of one of those parties in the Senate, the leader of one side if that mess, who with the same mouth stated that one POTUS was unworthy of placing a SCOTUS candidate before that body for consideration because he had eight months left in his term, yet the next POTUS wit four months left in his not only was worthy, but did, and had that candidate confirmed.

We saw that throughout Trump's first term with people dragging their feet, leaking sensitive and classified information, and outright working in opposition of the elected President.

What feet dragging that was done was done by “deep staters” (of which I proudly declare membership) being presented with policy that violated the Constitution and was a detriment to our elective process and the best interest of “We The People” they had sworn an oath to. Giving time for the judiciary branch to resolve the problem and whistleblowing when it was beyond that.

They did PRECISELY what makes it work in service of “We The People” and why it needs to stick around.

That should not be tolerated and there should be a mechanism that allows the President and his appointed directors to cut those people loose.

You got that wrong. It’s what I pointed out above. Never so violently tested by any administration before Trump, except Trump’s potential second coming where he’s absolutely promised to do far worse. What don’t folks understand about that? He’s saying who he is. Why aren’t you listening? If you are listening why aren’t you believing? If you are believing why don’t you care? Just how much do these folks hate our representative democracy and want to see it go away?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

There are some problems with that, so called, merit based system. It’s (accidentally?) designed to resist change (necessary for progress), …

Not true at all.

It was designed to deal with corruption but what it accidentally added to the system was a slowing of the process to allow the other parts of it, the judiciary and the electorate, to act to keep corrupted elected pols from using the bureaucracy as a tool to undermine our democratic republic.

Whic h is PRECISELY what it did with the Trump administration.

since you end up with many ‘experts’ at doing things the current way, who may not be qualified to do things differently (better?).

You argue better. I’ll make the case for corrupted to a person agenda in service to a political master.

If it’s actual progress it survives the vetting of the bureaucrats and passes into the process as the new way. It just can’t do it overnight. Meaning sineine can’t game this system to their own design. Yank it out and reinstall the spoils system, that goes away.

For example, someone may be ‘expert’ at using operating system A, software package B or programming language C, but has little (or no) idea how to use anything else.

Happens. The new system, if it’s actually better and serves “We The People” eventually gets installed.

It also uses a personnel evaluation system which discourages managers from rating (ranking?) an employee other than average (satisfactory) or above average (bonus/promotion eligible), since doing so requires the manager to prepare a rather cumbersome improvement and/or (potentially costly) additional training plan.

Nonsense. Reviews and productivity analysis is the order of the day throughout much of the system. It took time to get there, like everything else, but that’s the glory of the system. It grinds slow but fine. It does not give space for someone(s) with an agenda that serves a personal interest and not “We The People” to pas through undetected. It’s got time to be seen for what it is. Called out as what it is. Dealt with for what it is.

There are also the usual problems with the Peter Principle and the complexity of getting rid of anyone who turns out to be just plain lazy or untrainable. Adding DEI to that mix isn’t likely to make things any better.

Just like huge corporations. Anything large has that problem. Doesn’t mean you scrap a system that provides far greater use and service to those it actually serves; its end consumers than what a few Peter Principke issues create.

 

[BlueTex]

The problem with it is we end up with entrenched unaccountable bureaucrats. I will take the spoils system any day. The be simple, the president IS the executive branch and the people in the executive branch represent him. If the buck stops with the president then the president has a right to make sure he is represented as he wishes. Congress still holds the purse strings and can put numbers limits as before. When the president leaves so do their bureaucrats. Thats a good thing. The really good thing about that system is its intrinsically small because bring a lot of people in is a bitch. Aint no way they are hiring 23 million people.

Super.... So you would have no problem is Biden reclassifies tens of thousands of federal employees next week and purges those hired by Trump. Right?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The Trump, and certain Pub’s, desire to roll our civil employees back to the spoils system where hiring was all “at the will of and service to” the current administration is horribly wrong. Those that support it horribly flawed in their thinking. This is why.

Please study your US history. The spoils system, with its loyalty requirement to those currently in charge, was the way of things in the beginning. It was HORRIBLY CORRUPTED.

We were so lucky that we got a break and the Civil Service merit system came to be. It’s one if the great things that makes this country better. It not only put a huge dent in governmental corruption it added a component of institutional memory to our system. Where as administrations changed the bureaucracy did not. It remained intact with experienced laborers who knew and understood the workings of the system and kept things moving forward, though slowly, even as the new guys who had no hands in experience got up to speed.

Further still, it left a layer of workers beholden to no political masters. They hadn’t sworn an oath to a political boss. They swore an oath to the Constitution and each other, our fellow citizens. It placed a layer of potential whistleblowers in the mix who, if a politician tries to corrupt the system they’ll protect it, the Constitution and our citizens from that act. (Which is precisely why some want it gone).

If they succeed in demolishing it, it likely is not coming back and the bad ol’ days of the spoils system will return. Don’t mess up something that’s good about our system. Merit based Civil Service, despite how frustrating it can be sometimes, is a good thing.

The spoils system is obviously much better because you then won’t have entrenched bureaucracies undermining democratic government.

The idea of “merit” in the civil service is laughable, the purpose of the civil service is to employ leftists and they don’t even use merit any more, they’re using DEI and affirmative action.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

“Chesterton’s Fence is a simple rule of thumb that suggests you should never destroy a fence, change a rule, or alter a tradition if you do not understand why it was created in the first place.”

The Link

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The spoils system is obviously much better because you then won’t have entrenched bureaucracies undermining democratic government.

Please make yourself knowledgeable of the US history about the corruption present in the spoils system that required the creation of the US Civil Service in the first place. Then ask why anyone without an agenda based in bringing that corruption back would want to do so?

The idea of “merit” in the civil service is laughable, the purpose of the civil service is to employ leftists and they don’t even use merit any more, they’re using DEI and affirmative action.

Because you say so? One example: Law enforcement and enforcers lean heavily conservative. I represented them. I was one of them. I know thousands of them. With exceptions liberal in their aggregate they are not.

Merit is used. Your information is incorrect.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Please make yourself knowledgeable of the US history about the corruption present in the spoils system that required the creation of the US Civil Service in the first place. Then ask why anyone without an agenda based in bringing that corruption back would want to do so?

I really don’t care if corrupt officials take bribes. They’re less of a danger to my Liberty than true believers. If the EPA was full of corrupt self dealers they wouldn’t be trying to ban me from cooking with gas or using a non restricted shower head

Because you say so? One example: Law enforcement and enforcers lean heavily conservative. I represented them. I was one of them. I know thousands of them. With exceptions liberal in their aggregate they are not.

Law enforcement is not typically associated with the civil service and broadly they’re employed in the municipal level and not the federal government, which is what you’re referring to with schedule F. Most federal law enforcement, at least those commissioned under Title 8 (border patrol, FPS, police at federal installations) have less authority then local police anyway.

Merit is used. Your information is incorrect.

Not really, the government now uses various non objective testing to increase diversity. They’ve added biographical data assessments to the air traffic controller exam to pencil whip more non white cadidates into jobs.

 

[Safiel]

A lot of the problem lies in the fact that we have FAR too many positions labelled as principal officers, subject to Senate confirmation. With the breakdown of comity in the Senate, it takes months for Presidents to get their political appointees into place. During the interim, these positions are occupied, temporarily, by careerists.

The solution lies with blowing up the Senate rules instituting a process where executive nominations must be voted on within 30 days or else considered automatically confirmed. I would also allow any Senator to demand a vote on an executive nomination at any time, with the vote being held immediately.

I would reduce the number of nominations going to the Senate by treating inferior officers as inferior officers and removing the Senate confirmation requirement.

Just a sampling of officials I would remove from having a Senate confirmation requirement:

Military Field Grade Officers (O-4 to O-6).

Career Senior Foreign Service Officers would be subject to confirmation for appointment to the CSFS or promotion within the CSFS, but would not require confirmation for posting as ambassadors to foreign countries. (Patronage ambassadors would still require confirmation.)

Deputy, Under and Assistant Secretaries would lose confirmation requirement, as well as Deputy Administrators of independent agencies.

United States Attorney's, who I would change to be appointed by the courts of law, as permitted in the appointments clause. Same with United States Marshal's.

There are others as well that I would change.

This would make it much faster for a President to get his appointees in place and get control of the bureaucracy faster.

As a side, I would prohibit "burrowing in" by political appointees.

 

[notquiteright]

The problem with it is we end up with entrenched unaccountable bureaucrats. I will take the spoils system any day. The be simple, the president IS the executive branch and the people in the executive branch represent him. If the buck stops with the president then the president has a right to make sure he is represented as he wishes. Congress still holds the purse strings and can put numbers limits as before. When the president leaves so do their bureaucrats. Thats a good thing. The really good thing about that system is its intrinsically small because bring a lot of people in is a bitch. Aint no way they are hiring 23 million people.

I have trouble remembering when tRump ever said the buck stopped with him. He even denied his hand-picked 'best of the best' when he needed a scapegoat. The President is NOT a king as much as MAGA wishes for the return of a Ceaser. The Bitter division will be smothered in the cradle of authoritarian wet dream without a dictator ruling, even for one day....

I'll wager a shiny nickel you haven't studied the patronage/nepotism riddled government before a professional workforce. The chaos MAGA wishes already has a working model in the House. See how well it works to be able to throw out anyone who doesn't display enough ass kissing or fluffing....

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Entrenched bureaucrats are what today's modern "Deep state" is really all about. They will rebel against someone trying to undo their legacy of work, etc. - That said, I believe being able to remove all schedule F employees "at will" will create too much instability. But, I don't know what the answer is to moderate the chaos and remove employees who are trying to undermine the foreign policy of whatever president happens to be in office at the time. To be sure, I would say that maybe 15% of people in any given administration would consider actively rebelling, but I'm not sure what to do if their employment wasn't "at will."

Any thoughts?

 

[PirateMk1]

Super.... So you would have no problem is Biden reclassifies tens of thousands of federal employees next week and purges those hired by Trump. Right?

If thats what he wants to do.

 

[Chomsky]

The Trump, and certain Pub’s, desire to roll our civil employees back to the spoils system where hiring was all “at the will of and service to” the current administration is horribly wrong. Those that support it horribly flawed in their thinking. This is why.

Please study your US history. The spoils system, with its loyalty requirement to those currently in charge, was the way of things in the beginning. It was HORRIBLY CORRUPTED.

We were so lucky that we got a break and the Civil Service merit system came to be. It’s one if the great things that makes this country better. It not only put a huge dent in governmental corruption it added a component of institutional memory to our system. Where as administrations changed the bureaucracy did not. It remained intact with experienced laborers who knew and understood the workings of the system and kept things moving forward, though slowly, even as the new guys who had no hands in experience got up to speed.

Further still, it left a layer of workers beholden to no political masters. They hadn’t sworn an oath to a political boss. They swore an oath to the Constitution and each other, our fellow citizens. It placed a layer of potential whistleblowers in the mix who, if a politician tries to corrupt the system they’ll protect it, the Constitution and our citizens from that act. (Which is precisely why some want it gone).

If they succeed in demolishing it, it likely is not coming back and the bad ol’ days of the spoils system will return. Don’t mess up something that’s good about our system. Merit based Civil Service, despite how frustrating it can be sometimes, is a good thing.

I'll just keep this short:

At this juncture, the GOP are laser focused in supporting Trump's authoritarian takeover of our government.

Schedule F's removal is only one of a great many things they & Trump will do to seize power and not relinquish it.

In essence - if Trump & the GOP desire to do something, you can bet it will be bad for democracy.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

They’re less of a danger to my Liberty than true believers. If the EPA was full of corrupt self dealers they wouldn’t be trying to ban me from cooking with gas or using a non restricted shower head

That’s proof of why you’re wrong. The problems above you state you object to are not products of the cogs and mid-level bureaucrats who service it. They just push the paper

Regulations and policy creation is above their pay grades. They are the product of elected politicians and their politically appointed upper most level bureaucratic department heads. Who are NOT civil servants. Some of them may have been appointed out of the true bureaucratic ranks, but their appointments to those lofty positions depend far less on merit and far more on political arse kissing, the oaths of loyalty, and political hackdom.

I know enough of them to know how they got their jobs.

They are products of the remnants of the very spoils system you are advocating.

I really don’t care if corrupt officials take bribes.

You may not just now, but you will if the civil service that prevents it disappears and our democratic republic with it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That’s proof of why you’re wrong. The problems above you state you object to are not products of the cogs and mid-level bureaucrats who service it. They just push the paper

Regulations and policy creation is above their pay grades. They are the product of elected politicians and their politically appointed upper most level bureaucratic department heads. Who are NOT civil servants. Some of them may have been appointed out of the true bureaucratic ranks, but their appointments to those lofty positions depend far less on merit and far more on political arse kissing, the oaths of loyalty, and political hackdom.

I know enough of them to know how they got their jobs.

They are products of the remnants of the very spoils system you are advocating.



You may not just now, but you will if the civil service that prevents it disappears and our democratic republic with it.

The civil service is not compatible with a democratic republic, because it can be institutionally captured by people who don’t agree with elected leadership and who can effectively bring policy to a grinding halt to wait out a term

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The civil service is not compatible with a democratic republic, because it can be institutionally captured by people who don’t agree with elected leadership and who can effectively bring policy to a grinding halt to wait out a term

Sorry but that’s bullcrap.

The Civil Service is a protector of our democratic republic. The whistleblowing and leaking of the recent criminal nonsense is proof of that.

The leaders set law and policy. The true bureaucratic layer of our governing simply slows it down so that it can be fully processed. It gives time for the checks and balances to work. For the other components of our republic to vet the law and policy so no one part of government can ramrod law and policy through the system and create “Teapot Domes” and other illegal products of corruptive acts.

You seem to have a corporatist, autocratic, viewpoint. Why is that?

 

[samiam5211]

The problem with it is we end up with entrenched unaccountable bureaucrats. I will take the spoils system any day. The be simple, the president IS the executive branch and the people in the executive branch represent him. If the buck stops with the president then the president has a right to make sure he is represented as he wishes. Congress still holds the purse strings and can put numbers limits as before. When the president leaves so do their bureaucrats. Thats a good thing. The really good thing about that system is its intrinsically small because bring a lot of people in is a bitch. Aint no way they are hiring 23 million people.

What you get are people who understand their job well.

The president appoints agency heads. If people aren't being held accountable, then the President didn't do a good job picking the Agency heads.

 

[AmNat]

Further still, it left a layer of workers beholden to no political masters.

The problem with it is we end up with entrenched unaccountable bureaucrats.

That simply isn’t true and please produce the evidence to the contrary. Don’t just say it. Prove it.

"It's not happening and it's good that it is"