While we've been focused on the scandal over the fired attorneys, the Bush Administration has been rewriting the way that rulemaking is done in the bureaucracy.
According to a recent executive order, the bureaucracy's discretion will be limited and the White House will have more influence including requiring the bureaucracy to consider free market options to the implementation of laws.
The specific fight centers on funding for something in the White House called the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and its ability to implement Executive Order 13422: "The order requires federal officials to show that private companies, people or institutions failed to address a problem before agencies can write regulations to tackle it. It also gives political appointees greater authority over how the regulations are written."
Critics in Congress are concerned that this expands the power further politicizes the bureaucratic process.
It's worth pointing out that every White House has attempted to control the bureaucracy. An advantage this White House has had in having a staff--including the vice-president--with the executive experience that would allow them to do it effectively. The dispute arises when one considers whether it is a good idea to have a professional bureaucracy with the discretion to implement laws as they see fit, or a bureaucracy more controlled by the White House.
Professionalization sounds great, but we are a democracy--or a republic defined by separated powers. Should the president have greater control? Or might this lead to further efforts to politicize the bureaucracy?
