As America approaches a historic transfer of power, it is becoming ever-clearer what a daunting set of tasks awaits the new administration. When Barack Obama takes the oath of office at noon on January 20 he will inherit an economy collapsing before our eyes and a pair of ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he will also inherit a federal government whose machinery should bear an “out of order” sign.

Today’s dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum will bring together all of America’s living ex-presidents for what will likely be a warm and celebratory event. Protocol for the unveiling of presidential portraits and presidential libraries general calls for an abundance of courtesy and good feelings, with politics to be left at the front door.

Like all presidential libraries, this one — built on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas — largely reflects the president’s own view of his time in office. The library and museum also reflects the 43rd president’s unique demeanor — “straightforward, confident, unapologetic and willing to let history be the ultimate decider of his time in office,” according to the Washington Post.

But there are other views, of course. George W. Bush’s presidency — like most — was also marked by controversy, tragedy, bitter political rancor and failings large and small. As the Bush administration ended in Dec. 2008, the Center for Public Integrity took stock of what went wrong during those years in its Broken Government project. In a comprehensive assessment of systematic failures over the previous eight years, the Center found more than 125 examples of government breakdown.

Read the project: Broken Government

The number of backlogged disability claims at the Social Security Administration (SSA) more than doubled over the past decade, with those pending at the hearing level reaching 760,800 as of October 2008, according to an agency spokesman. The spike in applicants from an aging baby boomer generation, staff cuts, and management problems all contributed to a cumbersome operation; individual cases took an average of more than 500 days to process in 2007. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people pursuing disability claims have been forced to wait as long as three years, with some going into bankruptcy, losing their homes, or even dying while waiting for a result. As far back as 2001, the chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board acknowledged that “unless there’s fundamental change, we will soon see disruptions of service. The Social Security agency lacks the ability to handle existing workloads, and those workloads are bound to increase in the next decade.” The situation continued to deteriorate, despite continuous warnings and recommendations for improvement from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), especially in regard to issues with the SSA’s electronic claims processing system.

A lack of funding compounded the problem; Congress appropriated an average of $150 million less for the agency than the Bush administration requested between fiscal years 2001 and 2007, while giving the agency a heavier workload. In an attempt to reform the system, the agency introduced its so-called Disability Service Improvement in 2006, but the GAO found that poor management, rushed rollout, and short staffing ultimately stunted the initiative, resulting in additional costs. Finally, in May 2007, Michael Astrue, the Social Security commissioner, appealed to Congress for additional funding to refine the disability program’s electronic systems and hire more judges to hear cases.

After years of calls for Congress to create stronger regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, time ran out in 2008 when the two mortgage giants collapsed, forcing a costly government bailout. Congress created Fannie Mae during the Great Depression to buy mortgages and free up capital so that lenders could make more loans, especially to low- and middle-income buyers. Congress launched Freddie as a competitor in 1970. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) first assumed regulatory duties over Freddie and Fannie in 1992, while an independent office within HUD — the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) — was tasked with maintaining their safety and soundness. Unlike bank regulators, OFHEO needed budget approval from a Congress — a Congress on which Freddie and Fannie lavished $170 million on lobbying over the past decade. The two companies also contributed $4.8 million in congressional campaign donations over the last 20 years.

The Executive Office of the President and the Bush administration in general have drawn widespread criticism for their push toward a “unitary executive,” a presidency with vastly increased power to interpret and implement the law. The administration’s decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping, its use of signing statements to pick and choose which portions of legislation to execute, its push for unrestricted detention of suspects in the war on terror, and its broad and aggressive assertion of executive privilege all drew bipartisan criticism. Some view the changes as a positive reassertion of executive power that was lost in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal — indeed, as far back as the dawn of the Reagan administration, current Vice President Dick Cheney had pushed incoming Reagan White House Chief of Staff James Baker to “restore power” and authority to the executive branch. Cheney and other adherents of the unitary executive believe that a powerful executive branch is especially important during time of war. Others view it as a dangerous power grab by a president unwilling to be held accountable by the judicial or legislative branches. Either way, with its opposition to both judicial review of its decisions (regarding handling of detainees, for example) and assertions of authority over Congress (as seen through its signing statements and refusal to respond to congressional subpoenas), the Bush administration has pushed executive power to a level unseen for many years. The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment, but in 2006, President Bush defended his decision-making role, noting, “I'm the decider, and I decide what's best.”