To the contrary, political appointees occupy a large proportion of the government layers that undermine presidential control. And that was before the Clinton administration added 16 new titles to the senior hierarchy. The front lines of government have never been farther from the President. This is not to argue that political appointees are the only layers that matter. Much as former Vice President Al Gore celebrated the administration's success in winnowing down the number of mid-level managers, anecdotal evidence suggests that the layers have increased over time.
Managers are managers, regardless of their titles.
Whether justified as a way to implement the President's agenda or a device for controlling wayward bureaucrats, layering almost always produces a net decline in performance. Ideas and guidance must travel farther to reach their destinations, even as managers invent needless rules to justify their continued employment. As a result, more hands must handle the directives, more signatures must grace the page and more readings must be made of every decision. Although it is hardly the place of a Brookings scholar to advise the Heritage Foundation, let me make the following modest proposal in the hope of finding common ground with my Heritage colleagues. Put all of the career and political layers on the chopping block and cut them by half.