Cabinet-Level Department - Essay Example

Cabinet-Level Department The federal government of the United States is composed of a bicameral legislature, the congress, which consists of two houses; the House of Representatives and the senate. The congress carries out its meetings in Capitol, Washington DC. The cabinet is one of the advisory bodies to the president consisting of fifteen executives, appointed by the United States president and confirmed by the senate (Miller, 1998). Cabinet members are usually considered the closest confidants of the president. On the other hand, the executive power rests upon the president of the United States. At this capacity, he is the head of all the states and the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces. He must commit to his executive role of implementing the laws discussed and drafted by the congress and appointing the federal agency heads including that of the cabinet. There seems to be a bone of contention between the presidents of the United States and the congress. An element of distrust crosses the presidents’ minds as they suspect that the congress is subject to influence and manipulation which finds an incubated home in the name of bureaucracy and protocol. Occasionally, the congress, through statutes, has ever mandated the presidents’ sources of advice with confusing results. These sources are like the National Security Council and the Council of Economic Advisers. This can either be the case, but then it has come a time when change and reconciliation should take interest at the expense of saving America. The use of cabinet level agencies over executive offices is an arguable subject. However, different schools of thought seem to agree than disagree on the subject. The cabinet level agencies are seen as a means to redress of fragmentation of assistance from the outside world to the US government (Miller, 1998). This is majorly considered at the department of state. It is also argued that cabinet level agencies would increase the status of diplomatic and defense assistance in the US. Finally, it would contribute in addressing the debilitations of USAID probably by eliminating it. At the respective perceptions, the cabinet level agencies’ argument is an incubation of reasons defined as explicit and implicit. The first explicit reason addresses the problem of decentralization of the organization of the foreign assistance in the US, which as a matter of fact, has been defined as fractured and with no probable directions and coherence (O’Hanlon et al). The second explicit reason covers the question of elevated status of assistance to the cabinet level. Out rightly, the subject in question here is diplomacy and defense. In the case of an implicit reason, the question of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is addressed. This is in line with collusion with the department of state in the depletion of budget and policies. The issue of fragmentation of foreign assistance is by now common knowledge to every reasonable American citizen. Just at the end of the cold war, reformers from central Europe move in to America to offer assistance (O’Hanlon et al). These requests were a product of the Clinton government having been responded to by almost every department and agencies in the US. This approach by the Clinton administration was not considered properly as their enthusiastic responses paved way for a free and open market for any department or agency considering themselves experts in that area. As a result, the 150 accounts for cabinet level departments outside international affairs budget and agencies were controlled by the department of states (Thomas, 2002). The department of states also controlled other departments such as defense, agriculture, health and human services, treasury, justice commerce and energy. In trying to salvage the problem of fragmentation and establishment the accountability for foreign assistance in the past, an integrated framework was created by secretary Rise and the implementation part was assigned to the director of foreign assistance. She initiated a transformational diplomacy by amalgamating resources from her province; diplomacy and foreign assistance with the aim to work together with their partners. This not being the only level of fragmentation that took place, the existence of the cabinet level development agencies is seen to provide a remedy to this situation (Thomas, 2002). These agencies can rebuild and assure the level of accountability to the satisfaction of the legislative and executive branches. A cabinet level agency would contribute in the enhancement of foreign assistance status. This would be within the government of the United States and other donors’ foreign assistance agencies (Arnold, 1996). The policy of national security would be attained, just like diplomacy or defense since development would continue as an underlying principle in the United States. In the context of policy deliberations, sitting at the table in the cabinet seems irrelevant. The time for serious issues to be discussed at the cabinet is long gone. Such a thing was seen last in the Lyndon B Johnsons administration (James, 1996). The cabinet level agencies also exhibit practical significance. This is evident in the policy-level meetings that usually affect assistance from foreign countries. Using an example of a cabinet level secretary of global development, a presumption could be made that he/ she is a National Security Council (NSC) principle member. The agencies’ mandate and leadership determines inter-agencies organization membership and meeting invitations (Warshaw, 2002). If the head of the agency has tainted status in the hierarchy, then he/she can never be considered as a principle much less appears in the principles meeting. In such cases, the agency would be represented by somebody with a deserving rank (James, 1996). The principles’ meeting would be in attendance by the secretary of states and treasury. In cases where cabinet level agency houses the foreign assistance, the secretary of global development would be the principle of the meeting except in such events where limited attendance is authorized by the senior convener in person. A cabinet level secretary is most likely to elevate the development priority. A difference in the status would be observed in the agency’s testimony to the congress, as they would negotiated with the director of the office of management and budget, media engagement, cooperate with foreign leaders and probably in many such other endeavors to have a conclusive solution, (Arnold, 1996). The status of the secretary of cabinet agencies would be enhanced relatively to other developments agencies and recipient ministers from other countries. This is totally as opposed to what the executive office would do simply because they do not believe in a negotiation which is part of a noble problem solving criteria. The final reason for the need of a cabinet level agency, as opposed to executive office is the giant question of USAID (Thomas, 2002), which as a matter of fact was a collaborate of better integrated foreign assistance. This organization brings memories of lamentation which as of now, American can never do anything about. Though, it would be very difficult to rebuild another integrated agency from it. USAID is a memory of lost battles, which cannot be passed over to the cabinet level agencies. The only reason which would justify USAID existence is organizational setup of foreign assistance in US which again would not generate enough political support to sustain that proposal. Well the fact is clear that USAID have been dismembered, and time for the cabinet agencies to take over has come. The termination of USAID was as a result of its weaknesses; functional and structural in nature (James, 1996). The failure of it could be blamed on the executive as they were the author of the organization that caused a moment of regret to the United States of America. The above three reasons explains why the congress would prefer cabinet level agencies, as opposed to executive office. This is the new path for United States ant it will for sure address most of the domestic and international problems faced by the US. References James, P., 1996, The Strategic Presidency: Hitting the Ground Running, 2nd edition, revised . Miller, John. 1998. “The Impossible Position of Tom Ridge,” National Review. O’Hanlon et al., Protecting the American Homeland. Arnold, Peri. 1996. Making the Managerial Presidency: Comprehensive Reorganization Planning, 2nd Edition. Warshaw, Shirley. 2002. Power sharing: White House-Cabinet Relations in the Modern Presidency .Chapter 2. Thomas, Cmar, 2002 “Office of Homeland Security,” Harvard Journal on Legislation. Read More