# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the statement that "As the Federal Bureaucracy has expanded, America had become one nation ungovernable." The federal agencies which are created to help the Congress with the "detailed" and "technical" work seems to have more ability and power to make rules. Even the Congress have to be cautious with giving the federal agencies these powers because "Congress faces the possibility that agencies will issue rules in a manner that Congress views as inconsistent with congressional intent." (CRS) However, even when the "Congress retains its general legislative power, which gives it the ability to conduct oversight, modify or repeal regulations, and amend agencies’ underlying statutory authority." (CRS), from the other article, "There is no authoritative list of government agencies." (Crews, Jr). This means that there is a potential disconnection and power Congress has over the federal agencies since there isn't a definite number of agencies that exists. We are slowly going farther from being governable as we and possibly congress loose count of the federal agencies that exists today.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the two articles, I disagree with the statement that "AS THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY HAS EXPANDED, AMERICA HAS BECOME 'ONE NATION, UNGOVERNABLE'". As explained in the Congressional Research Service article, allowing federal agencies to establish their own rules and policies gives Congress more time and resources to focus on bigger issues. The article clarifies that, "...even after
delegating rulemaking authority to agencies, Congress
retains its general legislative power, which gives it the
ability to conduct oversight, modify or repeal regulations,
and amend agencies’ underlying statutory authority" (CRS). This would mean that even if the number of federal agencies was reduced, the so called "swamp" would continue to exist within Congress. Congress still has the final say in what rules exist within the federal agencies, and they still contribute to what rules are established. Expanding has improved the governability of the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
-I would have to agree with the statement  “As the Federal Bureaucracy has expanded, America has become one nation, ungovernable.” Even though there is a process for rulemaking, where Congress gets overview, the Administrative Conference of the United States, stated, “There is no authoritative list of government agencies”. (Crews, Jr) How can agency be thoroughly regulated when the exact number of agencies aren’t clearly known. With so many agencies and rule making, I believe Congress would overlook some, rather than diving deeper into it. This could create inadequate rules to pass. The thirty day period given to the public for comments would also be strained do to how many rules being passed from so many different agencies. With many laws and regulations being passed, Congress and the public can not actively keep up. “Even when we isolate a given agency, it may be hard to tell exactly what is and is not a binding rule or regulations”. (Crews, Jr.) Clyde used the term “swamp” as an accurate way to describe this confusion. These rulemaking affect everyday Americans lives and is crucial, that it must be thoroughly regulated and controlled. Though these agencies are created for the sake of dividing the work of the bureaucracy into more manageable sizes, the disorganization among them I believe to be creating more disfunction.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the two articles I will be defending the claim "AS THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY HAS EXPANDED, AMERICA HAS BECOME "ONE NATION, UNGOVERNABLE." I would have to agree with this statement because as the number of federal agencies increases, the less control the government has on the agencies, that they should be keeping track of. An example of this was shown in the Forbes article, stating that "If no one knows definitively how many agencies, components and commissions exist by whose decrees we must abide, that means we similarly do not know how many employees (let alone contractors) work for the government. The job of reforming the executive branch is an extremely complex one, and the agencies are fighting it and will fight it, with support from dominant media." (Crews, jr.) This statement explains that we don't know how many specific agencies there are, and furthermore don't even know how many employees work for the government. Not knowing these numbers and stats proves that America is becoming ungovernable, and somewhat unorganized. Having so many federal agencies complicates many processes and creates more arguments and division between political parties involved with certain agencies

# data[].attributes.headline
I agree with this statement because the number of federal agencies has continued to increase.  A quote if found in the Forbes article states, "If no one knows definitively how many agencies, components and commissions exist by whose decrees we must abide, that means we similarly do not know how many employees (let alone contractors) work for the government." (Crews, Jr.) As the number increases it makes it really hard for the agencies to be governed.  It also makes it hard keep track of how many agencies there are and who is apart of them. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I agree with this statement because the number of federal agencies has continued to increase.  A quote if found in the Forbes article states, "If no one knows definitively how many agencies, components and commissions exist by whose decrees we must abide, that means we similarly do not know how many employees (let alone contractors) work for the government." (Crews, Jr.) As the number increases it makes it really hard for the agencies to be governed.  It also makes it hard keep track of how many agencies there are and who is apart of them. 

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that I will attack and disagree with the statement that  "AS THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY HAS EXPANDED, AMERICA HAS BECOME "ONE NATION, UNGOVERNABLE." I disagree because as our nation and democracy expands it is only natural that we will need more federal agencies in order to perform as a well oiled machine in a way. I believe that these agencies are helping congress make America a more easily governed state. "Congress delegates rulemaking authority to agencies for a number of reasons. Perhaps most importantly, agencies have a significant amount of expertise and can “fill in” technical details of programs that Congress created in statute. This can be useful for Congress, which is responsible for establishing policy in a wide range of issue areas and does not necessarily have the same depth of expertise that agencies may have. In addition, even after delegating rulemaking authority to agencies, Congress retains its general legislative power, which gives it the ability to conduct oversight, modify or repeal regulations, and amend agencies’ underlying statutory authority. As such, delegating authority to agencies can enable Congress to focus on “big picture” issues rather than spending its time and resources debating all the technical details required to fully implement a complex public policy." (CRS) Without these agencies, congress would have a much tougher time dealing with all the policies needed in order to keep the United States running smoothly.  The use of these agencies, while they may be able to be compacted, are helping congress have less specific matters on their plate so to say. These agencies are allowing for multiple issues to be taken care of at once and in order for them to be approved they are still being ran though congress one way or another, therefore making them 'governed.'

# data[].attributes.body
I can see how someone could attack or defend this statement after reading both articles but I will have to disagree with the statement “AS THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY HAS EXPANDED, AMERICA HAS BECOME “ONE NATION, UNGOVERNABLE.” I am leaning this way because in the article Congressional Research Service it states “As such, delegating authority to agencies can enable Congress to focus on “big picture” issues rather than spending its time and resources debating all the technical details required to fully implement a complex public policy” and this quote shows that its actually helping the government improve its ability to govern by having these federal agencies. Having these federal agencies helped America become more governable because it helps and allows congress to focus on the major necessary tasks. Also another quote that shows I disagree with this statement is in the article How Many Federal Agencies Exist? We Can't Drain The Swamp Until We Know. In the article it states “Since the federal government is so extensive, issuing a formal rule may not even be necessary to achieve bureaucratic ends since agencies can issue "guidance" instead” and this quote shows how these agencies are very powerful and they don't even need to issue a formal rule they can just directly help America govern because they issue guidance, which is similar to governing. So the expansion of these agencies and the federal Bureaucracy has made America more governable.

# data[].attributes.body
I would have to attack the statement “AS THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY HAS EXPANDED, AMERICA HAS BECOME "ONE NATION, UNGOVERNABLE.” I believe that the expansion of the federal bureaucracy is only helping govern the country. It may seem that the growth of the federal bureaucracy would only complicate things further rather it helps the government do its job efficiently. A way that government helps itself govern the country is by establishing agencies “Perhaps most importantly, agencies have a significant amount of expertise and can ‘fill in’ technical details of programs that Congress created in statute” (CRS). Agencies are established to help the government by being assigned a certain field of expertise (Education, Defense, and/or Ariculture, etc.) and being responsible for the smaller details that they would not have time to go over because they are more concerned with the country as a whole rather than the minuscule area. Some may argue that this only complicates things more giving the agency full charge of that specific area but, in the end everything that is done by the agency still has to go through the usual legislative process.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the two texts, I will be attacking the claim "AS THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY HAS EXPANDED, AMERICA HAS BECOME "ONE NATION, UNGOVERNABLE" as the surplus of federal agencies has actually improved our ability to govern by giving the United States greater reach.  On top on that, Congress has complete control of these said agencies.  Leaving little room for doubt that the system in place is ineffective.

To begin, the surplus of federal agencies has given the United States an improved ability to govern.  IN the "FAS" PDF it states, "This can be useful for Congress, which is responsible for establishing policy in a wide range of issue areas and does not necessarily have the same depth of
expertise that agencies may have...As such, delegating authority to agencies can enable Congress
to focus on “big picture” issues rather than spending its time and resources debating all the technical details required to fully implement a complex public policy" (CRS).  As seen in this quote, the agencies aid to Congress allows to focus on bigger picture items, while the each of the agencies can focus on their specialty with more precision and with a personal touch.  While this seems like a lot of power left alone to all these agencies, but fear not, Congress is still in control of them.
Secondly, Congress is in complete control of these agencies by rule making process.  Once again in the "FAS" text they go on to explain how, "Congress maintains ultimate control over federal agencies’ actions. Congress can pass statutes that expand or contract agency authority, repeal existing rules, or compel an agency to issue certain rules" (CRS).  As seen in the quote, these federal agencies are not just 🤬-nilly making whatever rules they want.  Congress is required and willing to check these rules proposed by the agencies.

In conclusion, the United States has not developed into one ungovernable nation, but its quite the opposite.  The amount of federal agencies allow for the US to reach far and wide many opinions, problems, and citizens.  All while under the control of the Legislative Branch.

# data[].attributes.body
To the statement of: "AS THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY HAS EXPANDED, AMERICA HAS BECOME "ONE NATION, UNGOVERNABLE," I am leaning more towards disagreeing with this statement but I can also see the agreement perspective. I disagree with this statement because in the Congressional Research Service article it stated, "Congress often grants rulemaking authority to federal agencies to implement statutory programs. The regulations issued pursuant to this authority carry the force and effect of law and can have substantial implications for policy implementation. When issuing these regulations, agencies are required to follow a certain set of procedures prescribed in law and executive order.These procedures collectively comprise the federal rulemaking process." This quote signifies that with the expansion of the federal bureaucracy these federal agencies go through a required amount of steps in order for their rule to be enacted. Meaning that each rule, or policy that these agencies create will be overlooked by Congress or higher serving powers to allow or pass these rules. So despite the amount of "brains in the kitchen" everything is overlooked before it is set n stone. The expansion of the federal bureaucracy has allowed congress to focus on bigger problems as well. The Congressional Research Service article  explains, "In addition, even after delegating rulemaking authority to agencies, Congress retains its general legislative power, which gives it the ability to conduct oversight, modify or repealregulations, and amend agencies’ underlying statutory authority. As such, delegating authority to agencies can enable Congress to focus on “big picture” issuesrather than spending its time and resources debating all the technical details required to fully implement a complex public policy." I think that America has became one nation but I disagree in the comment of ungovernable because the main focus of the government is to govern its people. The expansion of the federal bureaucracy has allowed a more focus point in solving issues in this nation, which can help in getting better resolutions.

# data[].attributes.body
As with every argument and conflict imaginable, it is a double edged blade. The expansion of the federal bureaucracy does make it substantially more difficult to actually govern a supermassive country, especially considering that the bureaucracy itself can’t even decide how many agencies truly exist within its own framework. But besides that… I will disagree with this statement. More agencies means more structure in control, the country is one of the largest in the world with one of the most diverse groups of people in the world. A small setup wouldn’t be able to cover all the numerous opinions and thoughts about how things should and shouldn’t be done, leaving a much larger--almost mysterious--set of rules and people that govern the country to be the most effective one. “Even when we isolate a given agency, it may be hard to tell exactly what is and is not a binding rule or regulation.” (Crews, Jr.) This ambiguity is the same concept as how the constitution was written, deliberately vague in order to give sensible powers to those in charge--making decisions that would benefit in the ultimate future, instead of individually catering to whatever people want at the time.

# data[].attributes.body
I am going to disagree with the statement because there have been multiple positives that come along with the expansion of the federal bureaucracy. The biggest point that leads me to believe this is "Congress maintains ultimate control over federal agencies' actions." (CRS). Because of this, the nation is not becoming "ungovernable" because ultimately, congress remains in control of federal agencies' actions. "Congress can pass statutes that expand or contract agency authority, repeal existing rules, or compel an agency to issue certain rules." (CRS). Federal agencies are under control and do not hold too much power, thanks to congress. Another point that leads me to believe this is, "...delegating authority to agencies can enable Congress to focus on 'big picture issues'..." (CRS). Not only is this not hurting the government, but rather, it's helping. By having federal agencies, it allows for Congress to focus on larger, more important/urgent tasks. Because of federal agencies, America has been able to govern more efficiently.

# data[].attributes.headline
Although I can see and relate to both arguments, I'm leaning more so on disagreeing with the statement. The expansion of Federal Bureaucracy through the use of agencies has displayed numerous benefits. Firstly, there is a lot of Congressional oversight, as evident through, "Congress maintains ultimate control over federal agencies' actions. Congress can pass statutes that expand or contract agency authority, repeal existing rules, or compel an agency to issue certain rules." (CRS) This shows that Congress doesn't let these agencies have free reign. Secondly, these agencies can deal with smaller issues so Congress can handle bigger ones; noted when they write, "As such, delegating authority to agencies can enable Congress to focus on "big picture" issues..." (CRS) Lastly, these agencies allow the public to share their insight on an proposed rule, stating, "Typically, an agency will provide at least 30 days for public comment. The agency is required to review the public comments..." (CRS) Allowing the public to weigh in on proposed rules, allows the nation to feel more connected with the their government. Overall, America has become more governable under an expanded Federal Bureaucracy due to the agencies and the power Congress still holds over them. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Although I can see and relate to both arguments, I'm leaning more so on disagreeing with the statement. The expansion of Federal Bureaucracy through the use of agencies has displayed numerous benefits. Firstly, there is a lot of Congressional oversight, as evident through, "Congress maintains ultimate control over federal agencies' actions. Congress can pass statutes that expand or contract agency authority, repeal existing rules, or compel an agency to issue certain rules." (CRS) This shows that Congress doesn't let these agencies have free reign. Secondly, these agencies can deal with smaller issues so Congress can handle bigger ones; noted when they write, "As such, delegating authority to agencies can enable Congress to focus on "big picture" issues..." (CRS) Lastly, these agencies allow the public to share their insight on an proposed rule, stating, "Typically, an agency will provide at least 30 days for public comment. The agency is required to review the public comments..." (CRS) Allowing the public to weigh in on proposed rules, allows the nation to feel more connected with the their government. Overall, America has become more governable under an expanded Federal Bureaucracy due to the agencies and the power Congress still holds over them. 

# data[].attributes.body
I would attack/ disagree with the statement that "As the federal bureaucracy has expanded, America has become 'one nation, ungovernable'." I think that as federal bureaucracy has expanded and led to many creation of new agencies, which has allowed Congress to use important delegations, "As
such, delegating authority to agencies can enable Congress
to focus on “big picture” issues rather than spending its
time and resources debating all the technical details
required to fully implement a complex public policy"(CRS). The big picture issues are something that Congress should be focusing on rather than smaller more complex and technical issues. The creation of these extra agencies allows Congress to do just that which is why America has not become ungovernable, but more easily governable.

# data[].attributes.body
I’d attack the statement because I think federal agencies are a necessary investment. Overall, they could do things Congress couldn’t do. Also it’s beyond Congress’ power to make laws because they need to go into detail. Congress still has their powers, it’s just going to be an even more powerful system. It’s because federal agencies can make up more rules for each of the laws. In addition, citizens can comment or opinionated on these laws which they’re certainly abiding by.  Even with this, Congress and the Judicial Branch can still check on them so it wouldn’t be overpowering. For example, a quote from the Congressional Research Article,”Perhaps most importantly, agencies have a significant amount of expertise and can “fill in” technical details of programs that Congress created in statute...In addition, even after delegating rulemaking authority to agencies, Congress retains its general legislative power” (CRS). It’s basically displaying this is a good plus to the system because it’s able to make more rules. It’s not overpowering the system, it’s just enough to pass these rules and laws.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the statement is correct and that America is becoming ungovernable as the federal bureaucracy expands. I think that as our government continues to expand into more departments and agencies everything will just take longer and longer to complete. A quote I found to support this is in the forbes article and it is stated, However, congressional opposition to any administrative state reforms are also part of the swamp. There is little Democratic support, for example, for any of the administrative state reform bills in the 115th Congress that would rein in the bureaucracy (Crews,Jr.). This explains that whatever party is proposing something, the other side never wants anything to do with it. In this case, the Democrats never agree or help pass a law wanted or proposed by Republicans. Nobody wants what the other does and if the government just continues to expand nothing will change. I think that if our government can’t get along and make choices for our country then the people will follow in their footsteps and our country will become far from governable.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with the statement, “ AS THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY HAS EXPANDED, AMERICA HAS BECOME "ONE NATION, UNGOVERNABLE."   I believe that the expansion of Federal Bureaucracy has had positive benefits and made governing the nation much easier. As stated in the Congressional Research Service article, “Perhaps most importantly, agencies have a significant amount of expertise and can “fill in” technical details of programs that Congress created in statute. This can be useful for Congress, which is responsible for establishing policy in a wide range of issue areas and does not necessarily have the same depth of expertise that agencies may have” (CRS). The benefits are fairly obvious as the expertise of the agencies will allow for the best policies to be forged to benefit the majority of citizens. As well as, the agencies alleviate some of the stress of congresses shoulders as now congress has less topics to be focused upon which will allow them to tackle larger problems happening inside the United States. Furthermore, according to the Forbes article, “However, congressional opposition to any administrative state reforms are also part of the swamp. There is little Democratic support, for example, for any of the administrative state reform bills in the 115th Congress that would rein in the bureaucracy,” (Crews, Jr). This part of the article gives a separate reason as to why America has become one nation, ungovernable: political polarization. Political polarization is both political parties moving towards their extremities and away from the center point which is the sweet spot for allowing change and governing to happen. As the article states there is very little democratic support for any administrative state reform bills but strong republican support which gives an example of how political polarization is furthering the idea of making this nation ungovernable by not allowing for compromise between the parties not the expansion of federal bureaucracy.