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.

Although some iron triangles are naturally more lasting than others, history has shown that it is indeed quite possible to destroy an iron triangle, even the most powerful (as is evidenced by the dismantling of the nuclear power iron triangle in the 1940s and 1950s). Such dismantling typically draws most of its momentum from widespread outrage amongst the public, who in turn put constant pressure upon members of the Congress and interest groups and other officials, thus cutting off the triangle’s legs one by one. As is true for any iron triangle, the three legs are always composed of an interest group, a bureaucratic agency, and a Congressional committee (or subcommittee). Together, these three bodies form a symbiotic relationship, sharing information, resources, and support to advance their mutually agreed-upon goals. Iron triangles help further the decentralization of government, due to their transfers of power amongst their members and the dissolution and/or spread of authority which such cooperation necessarily requires. Often, the intentions and decisions reached by iron triangles end up binding the government as a whole, becoming widespread policy, with Congressional and/or Executive Branch endorsement. Such binding is helped along by the fragmentation of decision-making which iron triangles encourage, while members of Congress, the White House, and other agencies on the outside end up deferring to the iron triangle’s united front.

"Patronage" is the name given to the system of government appointment where officials are given jobs based on whether or not they supported the victorious political party. It may be seen as contrary to meritocracy, where jobs are awarded solely on the basis of merit.

The United States census is collected every ten years to determine, among other things, the population of each of state, so that their representation in the House can be fairly allocated. Reapportionment is the name given to the reordering of seats in the House, after the census count has been determined.