- The Washington Times - Thursday, May 10, 2001

Big bureaucracy is back in fashion at the Heritage Foundation it seems at least if Robert Moranto and Robert Moffit speak for the venerable think tank. Writing twice over the past few months in these pages, the two Heritage authors have constructed one of the most effective defenses of bureaucratic layering since Max Weber first put pen to paper in the 1800s.
In taking aim at my recommendations to flatten the bloated federal hierarchy, the Heritage authors do not question the extraordinary title creep within government. To the contrary, they add a new angle to my argument by showing that the ratio of deputies to assistant Cabinet secretaries has grown four-fold from an average of 1.4 in the 1960s to 5.8 in the 1990s.
Having accepted my facts, Messrs. Moranto and Moffit mount an extraordinary defense of layering at all levels of the hierarchy. Although they defend the political layers at the top by rightly noting that the federal governments 3,000 presidential appointees are but a drop in the bureaucratic ocean of civil servants, accounting for just 0.2 percent of total federal employment, they ignore my analysis showing that those 3,000 appointees occupy between a quarter and a third of all layers in the federal hierarchy.
The two authors are unwilling to stop at the top, however. Messrs. Moranto and Moffit also argue that the vast accretion of lower-level layers is justified by the need to pay civil servants a competitive wage. As they argue in their most recent commentary in The Washington Times: "To eliminate these layers would drive many of our highest-skilled, most experienced civil servants out of government."
Casting aside the irony that this argument comes from an organization that was singularly responsible for the Reagan administrations eight-year campaign against bureaucratic bulge, Messrs. Moranto and Moffit ignore the cost of layering in lost accountability and poor performance. They also dismiss the possibility that the federal governments over-layered hierarchy has become one of the most significant barriers to attracting talented young people to entry-level jobs.
One only need revisit the celebrated security problems at the Department of Energys Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory to illustrate the problem. Two years after former Sen. Warren Rudman argued for a semi-autonomous security agency with the "clear mission, streamlined bureaucracy and drastically simplified lines of authority and accountability to protect the nations nuclear secrets," the Department of Energy remains an over-layered organization chart that can only be described as a meandering, mostly unlinked collection of overseers who can easily evade responsibility for what gets lost up and down the hierarchy.
Just like Messrs. Moranto and Moffit, the department has long subscribed to the notion that more leaders equals better leadership. At its founding in 1979, its secretary, deputy secretary, under secretary, and assistant secretary compartments contained 10 layers and 56 senior executives, both political and career. By the winter of 1998 when the espionage story broke in the national media, those four compartments had thickened to 18 layers and 143 senior executives.
The problem in such over-layered, top-heavy organizations is not always a lack of information or possible wrongdoing. It turns out that half of Washington was told about the vulnerabilities at Los Alamos. Rather, the problem is finding someone, anyone, who can be held accountable for a decision. Like the childhood game of telephone, in which messages become hopelessly distorted as they are whispered from child to child, bureaucratic layers create a bureaucratic fog in which Congress and the president are hopelessly isolated from the people they most need to guide.
The Department of Energy is hardly alone in the thickening, of course. The year 1997 was the first year in civil service history when middle level employees actually outnumbered lower-level employees. That giant sucking sound coming from Washington over the past few years has been the retirement of nearly 200,000 senior and middle-level managers in government and the promotion of almost everyone next in line, all at a cost of $3 billion in voluntary buyouts for what turned out to be a big retirement party with no visible impact on the basic structure of government.
Meanwhile, the political and career hierarchy has grown ever taller. From 1993 to 1998, federal departments created 16 new senior level titles, including a stunning number of new alter ego deputy posts, including "deputy to the deputy secretary," "principal assistant deputy under secretary," "principle senior deputy assistant secretary," "associate deputy assistant secretary," "chief of staff to the under secretary," "assistant chief of staff to the administrator," and "chief of staff to the assistant administrator." It hardly matters whether the titles are filled by political or career officers. A layer is a layer is a layer.
Although it is hardly the place of a Brookings Institution author to advise the Heritage Foundation on how to reconcile its past opposition to bloat with its current defense of layering, let me suggest that Congress and the president put all of the layers, career and political, on the chopping block and cut them in half.
This simple proposal would reduce the average height of the federal hierarchy to roughly 25 layers, far from the six-to-10 layers considered appropriate in Americas leading corporations, but well on the way to a higher performing government and a more attractive public service. If Congress and the president can cut the layers without sacrificing a single political or civil service job, all the better for Messrs. Moranto and Moffit. But surely the Heritage Foundation would not be unhappy if the flattening produced a few hundred million in savings that could be spent on the tax cuts it also advocates. So, too, one imagines, would Ronald Reagan, whose portrait graces the foyer of the Heritage Foundations Washington headquarters.

Paul C. Light is vice president and director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution, and author of "Thickening Government: Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Accountability."


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide