The Hatch Act of 1939 was issued in response to allegations of corruption and electioneering brought against certain Democrat members of the Executive Branch. It was alleged, and later largely proven, that many lower employees of the executive branch had undertaken actions to help the party carry certain swing states in the election of 1938, among other things. The Hatch Act of 1939 ruled that employees of the Executive Branch cannot engage in partisan political activities, with the exception of the president and certain other high-profile figures.

Since its creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve is tasked with regulating the money supply in the United States, among other responsibilities. It serves as the central bank of the United States and its primary duty is to prevent financial panics and maintain the stability of the financial system. Its record could probably be interpreted as long periods of success with the occasional massive catastrophes, but most economic experts agree that this is much better than the far more frequent financial panics that occurred in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The correct answer is “iron triangle.” An iron triangle is, well, a triangle including an interest group, congress, and the bureaucracy. Essentially the interest group (or, oftentimes a regulated industry represented by an interest group) sinks money and time into lobbying Congress to vote or act a certain way. Specifically, whichever Congress members are on the (sub)committee that oversees the bureaucracy responsible for regulating the industry. Thus, by lobbying Congress, who then pressures the bureaucracy, the regulated industry manages to create policy that meets their preferences. In more concrete terms, pretend that the regulated industry is McDoogans. Pretend further that the Committee on Fat Foods is responsible for overseeing the agency which regulates McDoogans. Well, McDoogans (or an interest group acting on behalf of, or in the interests of McDoogans) spends time, money, and effort to lobby the Committee on Fat Foods. The Committee on Fat Foods responds by pressuring the agency monitoring McDoogans to create policy favorable to McDoogans!

This is an interesting question. Basically, while bureaucrats aren’t elected, and thus you’d think that they can’t make policy, that would be incorrect! Congress oftentimes passes very general laws (that is laws that leave quite a few questions unanswered) and leaves the specifics to the bureaucracies. Bureaucrats fill in the blanks through a process called “rule-making,” which is far beyond the scope of your course (there are entire law courses devoted to it!). Regardless, bureaucracies are involved in policy making.

This should have been a relatively simple question, due to the answer choices. If you recall from American History (or, in reality, the brief introduction you got in American Government), the Jacksonian presidency heralded a new era in American Politics—that of increased democracy, in more than one way. In terms of this question, Jackson ushered in the “spoils system,” in which Jackson’s supporters gained various bureaucratic appointments because they supported him. “To the victor goes the spoils” in politics.

This is a relatively difficult question. The correct answer is “the assassination of President James Garfield.” Charles Guiteau assassinated Garfield after Garfield and his entire administration refused to appoint Guiteau to a diplomatic post overseas. Guiteau believed (likely incorrectly) that he was responsible for Garfield’s election, and thus believed that he deserved a bureaucratic appointment. He became enraged when he did not get it, and killed Garfield some time later. This, in turn, led to the demise of the spoils system, and civil service reform under the Pendleton Act.

The Pendleton Act (most importantly) included the requirement that 10% of bureaucratic jobs must be hired based off of merit, turning around (or at least beginning to turn around) the spoils system. This, of course, was in response to the assassination of President James Garfield by a deranged civil-service seeker.

The federal bureaucracy has actually begun to shrink in size over recent years, partially due to public concerns over so-called “big government,” motivated as well by suspicions of rampant inefficiency and widespread corruption. State and local governments, however, have continued to grow their bureaucratic structures, hiring more and more civilians, many of whom administer federally-mandated and/or funded programs run by the states. By and large, members of the bureaucracy are actually much more representative of the American public than other government officials, most notably in terms of gender and education level. Perhaps this helps account for the overall favorable opinion of bureaucrats held by the American people; when polled, most individuals can point to specific civil servants whom they have interacted with in a positive and satisfactory manner. On the matter of Presidential appointments, while the White House can hand out some high-ranking bureaucratic positions to their supporters, these appointees often find that they hold far less sway over their underlings than they had first imagined. This is largely due to the inherent impermanence of these appointees, who are usually removed from office when the new President arrives, a fact of which all other civil servants are all too well aware.

The most widely controversial of all bureaucratic responsibilities is regulation. Regulation is necessarily one of the basic and widespread functions which bureaucracy must perform, but for many Americans, it is a point of contention. Some people see regulation as the main way that bureaucracies acquire more and more power, unnecessarily and/or unfairly interfering in the lives of daily citizens by placing restrictive rules on everything from mail delivery to purchasing car insurance to the formation of unions. It is also likely that regulation has become a more popular target recently due to the growing trend amongst bureaucratic agencies of more detailed regulatory involvement. The heightening of this trend has led to more public awareness, causing regulatory matters to come under the powerful national spotlight.

In reality, Blackwater USA (aka a private military contracting company) is perhaps the most infamous example of the dangers posed by today’s growing trend of privatization within the bureaucracy. Hired by the US government to help support the military’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, Blackwater contractors committed notorious offenses, including the murders of multiple Iraqi civilians. Despite the dark stain that Blackwater has placed upon the idea of privatization, nevertheless this trend shows no signs of abating. Privatization first became appealing soon after the advent of the ongoing War on Terror (especially the war in Iraq) and the heightened national security concerns that have followed in its wake. The devastating effects suffered by many Americans after the ravages of Hurricane Katrina, particularly the failures of FEMA to provide adequate assistance, combined to make government officials turn to hiring private companies and their staff (known collectively as contractors) to make up for the resources, personnel, and knowledge that the federal bureaucracy seems to be lacking. A consensus exists (even amongst opponents of this practice) that some degree of privatization is necessary, especially when it comes to handling mass natural disaster clean-ups, but the Blackwater incident has helped to highlight the many dangers posed by privatization. Many contractors have been exposed as either wasteful or corrupt (sometimes both) and many companies have been able to secure lucrative government contracts with the help of allies within the federal bureaucracy itself.