"Every president grabs for more power. What's different it seems to me is
the acquiescence of Congress," said former representative Mickey Edwards
(R-Okla.), a government scholar at the Aspen Institute.
When Republicans won control of the House in 1994, conservatives turned an institution run by Democrats and veteran chairmen into a top-down organization that looked in some ways like the flow chart of a Fortune 500 business. The idea was to put power in the hands of a few leaders and place conservative loyalists in the most important lower-level jobs to move legislation as quickly as possible through Congress, according to current and former lawmakers.
Those who cross party leaders often pay a price, usually by losing positions of influence. Most recently, Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) lost the chairmanship of the Veterans Affairs Committee after clashing with party leaders over spending and other issues. At the same time, loyalists are rewarded. The result, writes
American University's James A. Thurber in a forthcoming book on Congress and the presidency, is less powerful representatives facing increased pressure to carry
out their leadership's wishes.With control over the House Rules Committee, which
determines which bills make it the floor, how they will be debated and whether
they can be amended, Republicans have made it much harder for Democrats to offer alternatives -- for example, a smaller tax cut than one Republicans advocate.
Democrats also are increasingly shut out of the final negotiations on
legislation between the House and the Senate before bills are sent to Bush for
his signature.Bush created a top-down system in the White House much like the
one his colleagues have in Congress. He has constructed what many scholars said
amounts to a virtual oligarchy with Cheney, Karl Rove, Andrew H. Card Jr.,
Joshua Bolton, himself and only a few others setting policy, while he looks to
Congress and the agencies mostly to promote and institute his policies.
President Bill Clinton oversaw a transition of government away from strong
agencies, which historically provided a greater variety of opinions in
policymaking. "On the surface it looks like Bush is doing this better than
Clinton, but there is much more going on," said Paul C. Light, an expert on the
executive branch.
Light said Bush has essentially turned most of the agencies
into political arms of the White House. "It's not just weakening agencies but
strengthening political control of the agencies," he said.
Major policies such as Social Security are produced in the White House, while Cabinet heads and their staffs are tethered. After the 2004 election, the White House began requiring Cabinet members to spend as long as four hours a week working in an office near the West Wing....Bush has demanded similar loyalty from GOP lawmakers -- and received it. Republicans have voted with the president, on
average, about nine out of 10 times. Critics and some scholars charge that the
Congress now seldom performs its constitutional duty of providing oversight of
the executive branch through tough investigations and hearings.
This has coincided with a dramatic increase in overall government secrecy. In 1995, the government created about 3.6 million secrets. In 2004, there more than 15.5 million, according to the government's Information Security Oversight Office.
The White House attributes the rise in information the public cannot see to the
security threats in a post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.
But experts on government secrecy say it goes beyond protecting sensitive security documents, to creating new classes of information kept private and denying researchers access to documents from past presidents.
"We have never had this kind of control over information," said Allan J. Lichtman, a professor of history at American University. "It means policy is being made by a small clique without much public scrutiny."
Now, the Republicans, with the support of the White House, are
looking to reshape the courts in their image. The Senate's bipartisan compromise
on judges will cost the president a few of his nominees to the appeals court but
will require him to secure only 50 votes for future picks for the Supreme Court
and other openings. If Democrats filibuster, Bush and Republican senators can
move again to pull the trigger on the "nuclear option" and, if successful,
prevent the minority party from ever again using the filibuster on judges. "I
will not hesitate to use it if necessary," Frist said this week.
Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) has been assigned by GOP leaders to look for new ways to provide oversight of the federal courts and tougher discipline for judges. In a recent interview he said some judges have
"deliberately decided to be in the face of the president and Congress." Senate
Republicans are weighing legislation to limit court authority, as well.
