Be sure to check out the excellent cover story of the latest issue of National Journal, which fleshes out more details on the Bush administration's drive to consolidate as much power as possible over the executive branch and install an Imperial Presidency. The article focuses on the many ways the White House is seizing power at the expense of the long-time agency workers who have, in recent years, been the source of revelations that the administration has been ignoring what's best in order to do what's desired by industry: The White House is proud of its management initiatives and Bush's reputation as "the M.B.A. president." The administration regularly issues press releases to announce progress on the President's Management Agenda . . . . And Bush's fiscal 2006 budget includes cuts based on performance assessments for hundreds of individual federal programs. But critics fear that the management agenda, combined with an array of other administration initiatives, has established a framework that makes it easier for political appointees to overrule, marginalize, or even fire career employees who question the president's agenda. The performance theme is a handy rhetorical cover for political decisions, as we have shown in the budget context. The White House is pushing for "performance" to be the rhetorical cover in the personnel context as well: a pay-for-performance model that destroys existing civil service protections and replaces them with a model in which "performance" can be used as the excuse for pushing out agency workers who reach conclusions that are contrary to the interests of the administration's supporters in corporate America. As bad as the plan would be for government employees across the board, it would prove terrible for the public interest as well. Just think of the cases of Sibel Edmonds, Jack Spadaro, and David Graham, among many others. As difficult as it can be now for scientists and other agency workers to bring the truth to life, a performance system would make things even worse. The checks and balances when personnel procedures fail are also under attack. The National Journal article spotlights White House efforts to make Inspectors General less adversarial and more cooperative -- read, less aggressive in seeking out the truth and more willing to cede ground to the agencies they are charged with holding accountable -- and the politicization of the Office of Special Counsel, which is supposed to protect whistleblowers but is instead abandoning that job and apparently abusing its own employees. The article also details how this drive to establish an Imperial Presidency is working out on the superstructural level. The White House is seeking the power (and, in some cases, is already launching efforts) to reorganize the very structure of government. The calls for sunset and results commissions once again invoke the rhetoric of performance to mask the drive to counter Congress's intent -- which is to diffuse power within the executive branch and avoid the extreme centralization of an Imperial Presidency. National Journal reports that CDC officials "feel 'cowed into silence'" as agency reorganization leaves them unable "to make independent professional judgments on topics ranging from sexual abstinence, to drug use, to influenza." Don't miss it: Paul Singer, "By the Horns," National Journal, Mar. 26, 2005, at 898.