As noted in the prior post on Term Limits or Rotation of Office, there has been an awakening in the country that there is a permanent ruling class that is divorced from American society. The ruling class is comprised of both elected and unelected officials. The previous article dealt with reining in the elected officials. This article will address the unelected ones who are not a part of the military.
Prior to the Wilson administration, when there were relatively few government agencies, permanent government employees were rare. Just as the framers intended, the national government was small. Today, there are approximately 3 million “federal” employees (not including the military.)[1] The larger the government, the higher taxes must be to fund it. Also, the larger the government, the more inefficient and powerful it is. Given Lord Acton’s observation on power and corruption, why would we believe that such a government would obey the Constitution?[2]
There are some advantages to having unelected bureaucrats. There is inherent stability with people who overlap more than one administration. But the downside with the current system is illustrated by what every freshman Congressman or Congresswoman hoping to change Washington finds out. It doesn’t take long before a senior bureaucrat informs them that “I will be here long after you are gone.” Members of Congress face election every two or six years, and those who make waves don’t tend to get reelected. Bureaucrats can’t be fired, so most of them are there for an entire career – decades.
The nation was founded with the intention that “civil service” was a duty that one performed as an obligation for living in a free society. There was no intention of anyone ever making a career of government employment. The balance was such that “civil servant” really meant it. Federal employees have had better retirement benefits than the private sector for quite some time.[3] As time has gone by, the wages of unskilled federal workers has also exceeded that of the private sector, and skilled labor is comparable.[4] Add in stability and power, and government employment becomes quite alluring over the risk of private sector employment.
So, how do we fix it? Let’s enumerate the issues:
- Bureaucrats don’t listen to elected officials. They intimidate them.
- This completely defeats the voice of the people and sets up an unelected tyranny.
- Instead of civil servants, they are civil rulers.
- Working for the government is not motivated by a sense of duty.
- It has become too financially rewarding.
- Retirees can live more comfortably than the average American retiree.
- The power is both tempting and corrupting.
No one should want to work for the government for any reason other than a sense of civic duty. Government employees’ total compensation should be just slightly below par with the average private sector citizens in their area, but it should not be so low as to totally discourage taking a turn at civil service.
Private sector employment should always be more desirable.
It should be just as easy to terminate a government employee as to fire someone in the private sector. The lack of accountability in the current system inflates government power and encourages incompetence.
Just as term limits should be considered for elected officials, they should be considered for unelected officials. It makes sense to have experienced bureaucrats that understand the workings of government; however, government should be as simple as possible. An entrenched bureaucracy leads to over-complication of government – and a larger size.
What would be a reasonable limit on an unelected term? A decade would cover almost two senatorial terms or five congressional terms. That should be an adequate stabilizing influence. It is a term that does not justify a complete retirement, but, again, no one should view government employment as a career. It should be seen as a duty. A reasonable government pension should not provide all the needed income for retirement.
So, what prevents this? Public sector labor unions would never allow such a thing. However, there is a simple answer. Rescind JFK’s executive order 10988 that authorized public sector unions. At that point, Congress could legislate the needed adjustments. What’s to prevent these actions? The cowardice of elected officials and the fact that we the people haven’t made it clear that we want it to happen.
[1] “Federal Workforce Statistics Sources: OPM and OMB – Fas.” Accessed April 25, 2022. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43590.pdf.
[2] Dalberg, John Emerich Edward. Acton, letter on historical integrity, 1887. Accessed April 24, 2022. https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html.
[3] “Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015.” Congressional Budget Office, April 25, 2017. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637.
[4] Summers, Adam. “Comparing Private Sector and Government Worker Salaries.” Reason Foundation, April 7, 2021. https://reason.org/policy-brief/public-sector-private-sector-salary/.
Aren’t government employees essentially part of the welfare state? They consume private sector wealth.
That’s an interesting question. Compensation for elected officials and Supreme Court justices is spelled out in the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about compensation for unelected officials. on 10 Jan 1794, the House debated donating money to the French refugees of the Saint Domingue slave revolt. Madison is quoted as saying he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence. Congress eventually considered the donation as paying off a debt to France. France didn’t really agree – contributing to the Quasi-War. Can we lay our collective fingers on the article in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to compensate an unelected bureaucracy?
This is a sticky issue that really opens up Pandora’s Box. In particular, the “Non-delegation Doctrine” is front and center. One (“Eightly”) of Madison’s original nine proposals for what became the Bill of Rights would have codified the Doctrine into the Constitution. It did not survive the Senate on 24 Aug 1789. (see The Road to Americanism page 189). also see this Heritage Foundation Article.
As this article explains, the Supreme Court has upheld the legitimacy of administrative agency. On the other hand, the Supreme Court does not have the constitutional power to bless such a thing. This is an example of why Article V should also call for a Convention of States to review SCOTUS decisions – just like the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution’s “council of censors”.
The article also lays out some good reasons to have the agencies. But perhaps, there is a better answer that could be found by having Congress call on the private sector directly for advice. To a degree, the current agencies almost function like middle men with lobbyists.
I should add that Dr. Philips Hamburger’s excellent read, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? provides a wealth of knowledge on the subject.