THE MODERN FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY| 337control (to some extent) through his appointees.^39 In contrast, independent agen-
cies have more freedom from oversight and control by the president and Congress.
For example, the president nominates governors of the Federal Reserve, who (if
the Senate confi rms them) serve for 14 years. Outside the nomination and confi r-
mation process, the president and Congress have very little control over the Fed-
eral Reserve’s policies; the organization is self-fi nancing, and its governors can be
removed from offi ce only if Congress impeaches them. These kinds of details about
the hiring and fi ring of bureaucrats and the location of agencies in the structure
of the federal government matter because they determine the amount of political
control that other parts of the government can exercise over an agency, as well as
who gets to exercise this power.^40
The Size of the Federal Government
The federal government employs millions of people. Table 11.1 reports the num-
ber of employees in each executive department and selected independent agencies.
Millions of additional people work for the government as members of the armed
forces, as employees of the Postal Service, for civilian companies that contract
with the government, or as recipients of federal grant money.
Figure 11.4 shows the size of the federal budget since 1968. Clearly, the budget
has steadily increased, to the point that recent annual spending tops $3 trillion
per year. The best explanation for the size of the federal government is the size of
America itself—more than 300 million people spread out over an area more than
twice the size of the European Union—coupled with America’s position as the
most powerful nation in the world.
However, some observers argue that the real explanation has to do with bureau-
crats themselves. This view suggests that the government is so large because
bureaucrats never pass up a chance to increase their own funding, regardless of
whether the new spending is worthwhile.^41 This a rg ument misses some impor ta nt
points. First, the increase in total federal spending masks the fact that many agen-
cies see their budgets shrink.^42 Particularly in recent administrations, one of the
principal missions of presidential appointees, both in agencies and in the Execu-
tive Offi ce of the President, has been to scrutinize budget requests with an eye to
cutting spending as much as possible.^43 And every year, some government agencies
are eliminated.^44
Moreover, public opinion data demonstrate the American public’s demand for
services.^45 Despite complaints about the federal bureaucracy, polls fi nd little evi-
dence of demands for less government. When the Harris Poll asked people in 2007
to decide which two programs should have their spending cut as a way of reducing
the budget defi cit, a majority favored cutting relatively small programs: 52 per-
cent picked the space program and 79 percent picked foreign economic aid. Far
fewer people favored cuts in the programs that account for most federal spending:
defen se (42%), hea lt h ca re (22%), a nd Socia l Secu r it y (1 2%).^46 In other words, while
in the abstract Americans might want a smaller government that is less involved
in everyday life, they do not support the large-scale budget cuts that would be nec-
essary to achieve this goal. The public’s desire for more government services is
often encouraged by elected offi cials, who create new government programs (and
expand existing ones) as a way of building support and improving their chances of
re-election.