Interestingly, the current move by the executive branch is in contrast to President George W. Bush’s plan for the civil service eight years ago. At the time, the Bush administration was criticized by Republicans and Democrats for increasing the number of political appointments in federal agencies. The result is a government composed of more people beholden to the White House than Congress, as career bureaucrats are, than before.

The House oversight committee prepared a report in 2006 on this increase in political appointments. It found that the executive branch had increased the number of political appointees by 33 percent since the Clinton administration.

Who got those plum jobs? According to the same report, white men faired the best. Meanwhile, the hiring of women and minorities declined by about 50 percent.

At the same time it was becoming clear that the executive branch was growing more politicized. A study by Princeton University concluded that career managers are more effective than their political counterparts. As more political appointees find their way into career jobs, there just might be a need for a follow-up report.

The Post reports that, so far, 20 political appointees have been changed over to career posts — which carry rules that make it more difficult for higher ups to fire the person. It’s an old tactic, the story notes. The Clinton administration did the same thing, for example.

The story has many details on what’s happening across the federal government, particularly in agencies dealing with environmental issues.

One area the Post doesn’t delve too far into: is it worth it? Why bother maneuvering at the last minute to slip in a few dozen people into a vast bureaucracy? After talking with one expert on the subject, it sounds like it could well be worth the effort.

I exchanged emails this morning with Nina Mendelson, a professor at University of Michigan Law School, who published the formative law review article on agency burrowing in 2002.

Mendelson says that the practice does have the potential of making it difficult for a new administration to get done what it wants — which is why almost every administration has tried it.

It’s such a common practice that she kicked off her 2002 article with a quote from Harry S. Truman on the incoming President Dwight D. Eisenhower:

“He’ll sit right here…and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that! And nothing will happen. Poor Ike — it won’t be a bit like the Army.”

Mendelson explains that political appointees rely on civil servants, who make up the bulk of the executive work force, to get work done:

Civil servants might be enthusiastic implementers of a new initiative. On the other hand, a knowledgeable civil servant might publicly advocate against it within the agency (which can have some benefits in terms of forcing a political appointee to more thoroughly justify a new proposal) or can more quietly undermine it. My research suggests that quiet subversion can include heel-dragging, losing projects in the cracks, leaks or worse. (emphasis added)

The result of these burrowee tactics is to make it tougher for a new president to push the executive branch in the direction he wants. Mendelson laid out the details in her 2002 piece:

They appear to undermine the responsiveness of agency personnel to a new president; interfere with the new president’s efforts to set policy; and impeded the new president’s ability to set her own policy agenda.

In all, it sounds like it’s worth a shot, as far as George W. Bush is concerned.