Are there any advantages to having a bureaucracy that is somewhat independent of tight presidential and congressional control?
126089
When you ask that question, I think of the US court system. It's complex and independent, but necessary.
527429
A gov't that does both.
512187
As it happens, the question you pose happens to be the case right now.  The Republicans currently control both of those Branches (some would argue that they control all three).  In the current case, it appears that a weak legislature of the same Party as the President tends to act as rubber stamp for the Executive.  In times past,  the Congress has taken its role in the scheme of "Checks and Balances" more seriously.  Part of the answer to this question depends on your view of the performance of the party in power. Personally, I don't think things are going particularly well - you may have another view.
213704
Well, our current bureaucracy is still alive and functioning poorly.  For the future, I'm guessing it will continue to live and grow bigger and more inefficient.  There will come a point in the future where it's just too unwieldy to do much of anything but by that time, I think the US will have other problems to worry about.
419010
The federal government is specifically laid out in the constitution of the united states. it has grown through laws passed by congress and through judicial interpretation of these laws, for instants, congress has the right to oversee interstate commerce, judicial review says that they can now shut an  establishment down if they aren't handicapped accessible, and so on. a local government regulates everything else from property tax to speed limits to zoning laws. You have a direct say who runs your local government where as you vote for a representative to voice your opinion in federal matters.  This could literally take weeks to go over but I hope you get the basics, read up some government web sites on US democracy or get the cliff notes on Tocqueville's Democracy in America, an old book but a knowledgeable one written by a Frenchman.
639995
There's not exactly complete control by the Republican party.  And we've had long runs with the Dems at other points in history... in fact, the Democrats had twenty years (1933-1953) of executive control with F.D.R. and then Truman.  And we did alright.  ;)  In any case, these are elected officials, so if things go sour for a considerable amount of time, the American people will demand a change.  That is a check in and of itself.
35532
seperation of powers.  they tried to make a balence between the presidency and congress to guarantee that the president wouln't become a king and the people could get him out if he tried\n  or think of congress as the other president, nothing will get done without both powers
526736
If the job is limited in scope and inherent politics the person-job fit is more important.  Person-organization fit is more important in the upper echelons.
661908
Absolutely.  There MUST be a debate between the "ins" and the "outs" (those IN power versus those OUT of power.)  It is the job of the INS to get away with as much monkey business as possible and it is the job of the OUTS to act as the watchdogs of the INS.  EVERY political party tries to get away with monkey business.  EVERYONE.  Of course there can be lesser parties but their impact is often to act as a spoiler for the two major parties (eg. 1912, 1948, 1968, 2000 elections)
47883
Federal branch takes care of business, it also seems to rule over those gray areas of government.\n\nState government rules the state.
276079
Maybe the US would become more independent and rely on its own resources.
76796
#1.. No the Job is not done. Leaving before the job is done is more than just simply detrimental. It is catastrophic.\n\n#2... Less handouts. Less of the government acting like a charity. Less unnecessary spending on stuff that the government was never meant to support (art programs, welfare, hand holding programs for individuals, corporate welfare, advertising to people telling them to buy American, etc). Smaller government. And definately putting back more personal responsibility back on the individual, not letting the individual use the government as a crutch.
78317
it's always best to rate each candidate individually.  The only advantage of voting a straight ticket is to avoid political gridlock.  \n\nBut, if quality people are elected from either party, then gridlock won't be a problem anyway.
106627
No.  Because it wouldn't work.   First of all the Secret Service is under the treasury's authority.  Each agency has their own duties.  FBI is responsible for investigations, The Marshal Service responsible for convicts, fugitives, and federal court security.  Postal Inspectors work directly for the post offfice, dealing only with mail fraud.\n\nJust due to the different things each agency is responsible for it would make it to complicated to have everything under one roof
547097
Upper management in corporate America?\nLook for jobs in central government, you'll have to be quick to get in while Blair is still in office though.
49837
True the US fore-fathers revolted against a colonial power and gave US its discernible freedom and democracy much in line with what was happening in France.\n\nHowever, in this day and age, democracy allows us to vote out those we don't want or vote in those we want. however the power of the citizenry is not limited there, they can lobby their senators and can band together via lobbies to influence thinking in white house.\n\nSo to answer your question, it is important that the structures built over the years to develop the checks and balances of governance are not eroded - like the free media etc...so strengthen these..and ou will see a stronger US...
89251
I think a minority government is actually beneficial as it encourages the parties to work together. Smaller parties like the NDP get more input and have more influence, so there's real purpose to having multiple parties in Parliament.\n\nThe problem with a Presidential government is the vetos. If the President is not the same party as the House and/or Senate, then a lot of legislation ends up getting vetoed by one or the other and nothign gets done. There's less incentive to work together because there's no danger of non-confidence bringing down the government.