The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

A Simple Graph To Explain Why Merely Changing The Names On The Doorplates Means, Roughly, Jack

Posted on | January 16, 2012 | 4 Comments

by Smitty

This is the Information Age. We’re using technology to streamline enterprises and improve profitability. Except in government. Technology, should, for a quick guess, be a liberating force. The laws, theoretically, ought to need less people to administer over time, no? Ha ha, quite the opposite: that word processer churns out even more laws, requiring even more clowns to pretend to administer.

I don’t agree with the title of the graph: this problem is not an Obama-centric one. It has everything to do with the nature of bureaucracy. While amputating Obama from the body politic and cauterizing the wound remains our first priority, in the longer run, asking ourselves who these civil servants are and are they really needed is a job that Has. Got. To. Be. Done.

via Protein Wisdom

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

4 Responses to “A Simple Graph To Explain Why Merely Changing The Names On The Doorplates Means, Roughly, Jack”

  1. JeffS
    January 16th, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

    …asking ourselves who these civil servants are and are they really needed is a job that Has. Got. To. Be. Done.

    Speaking as a career Federal employee, and focusing only on the agency I work for…..a lot of those new jobs are overhead, or management of overhead, with minimal to no value added. 

    So I would say….HELL NO!

  2. Quartermaster
    January 16th, 2012 @ 6:44 pm

    Most likely the majority of FedGov employees added in the last 30 years are mere overhead. We could cut to level that existed, say, in 1980 without doing any harm to the current functions of FedGov.

    The real problem is the trash that’s been added to the Federal register in the last 70 years. A lot of that could be ended with an EO (contra a lot of people that think it would take an act of congress – POTUS does not need anyone’s permission to end a program that is unconstitutional. EPA, for example was created by an EO under Nixon, and could be ended the same way). Afterwards, a RIF that would align the bureaucracy with the amount of work that actually exists can be made. I think the Fed workforce could be reduced to about one third of what it is now and still not be down to just the constitutional functions (the enumerated powers that have to do with foreign relations, Defense, and interstate commerce). Most of the explosion of FedGov’s work force has taken place since the New Socialist Deal starting in 1933.

  3. John Clifford
    January 16th, 2012 @ 6:46 pm

    Hmmm… the graph is flat when Republicans controlled the Congress, and slopes sharply upward when Dems have any control. What does that mean? It means that the GOP can freeze government but don’t have the clout to shrink it… but Dems are always trying to grow government.

    So it DOES matter who controls government.

  4. Adjoran
    January 16th, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

    We’ve reached the limits on our credit cards now so if Congress doesn’t want to see another downgrade, they will have to do some cutting.  If Congress doesn’t cut, the President’s options are limited – impounding appropriated funds is unconstitutional according to a 40 year old SCOTUS ruling.

    While the default position for Republicans in Congress was to duck and cover and go along to avoid being labelled “cruel” or “racist,” that time is done.  Not only are we electing more conservative members, reality is creeping in.  With all the attention given the Presidential race, and it is important, but we need to remember to keep the pressure on our candidates for Congress to do what MUST be done.