# How do we get back to smaller government? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046 "2004-10-13T18:15:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/1 "2004-10-13T18:15:07Z")
“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” --Thomas Jefferson Just look at us now. Gov’t. grows, and grows, never shrinks. Gov’t. spends more, and more, seldon cuts off programs or spending. Doe anyone have the answer or is there one? ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/2 "2004-10-13T18:22:09Z")
I’m certain one of the mods will move this to a more appropriate forum. That said, IMHO, we will probably not ever get back to a smaller government because there are people interested in keeping one or other part of it going. That hunk of fat that we may think the US can do nicely without is bound to be a sacred cow for someone willing to fight to keep it. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/3 "2004-10-13T19:46:42Z")
Cut all services except the ones I need. (That’s the most honest answer you’ll get to this OP 😉 ) ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/4 "2004-10-13T20:14:26Z")
As intimated, all those ‘parasites’ are doing real work that benefits people. If you get rid of them, we all lose something. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about the value of any given government program, and in any organization there’s waste and duplicated effort, but in general government employees are a net plus. Consider that in Jefferson’s time, average life expectancy was what? 35 or so? Now it’s something like 70 as I recall. The biggest reason for the change is public health departments and public water treatment and sewage plants. Jefferson also didn’t have fire departments and safety inspectors, interstate highways, airlines, free public schools, state colleges, and government-funded research to create the internet. I think it would be fun to take, say Arkansas, and turn it into a ‘1790s’ state, where government taxes and services were at a 1790’s level, and let whoever wanted to go live there. Of course, that means no FBI to hunt down the guy who raped your wife, no jobs other than farming and life-threatening manufacturing jobs, no internet, and because of no public sewage or clean drinking water that life expectancy thing. But you can spend all of those 35 years enjoying the low taxes! ---
**Author:** ![Chimpy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a9adbd/32.png) [@Chimpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimpy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/5 "2004-10-13T20:50:27Z")
Shotguns? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/6 "2004-10-13T22:35:43Z")
Never mind “how” until you make a persuasive case as to “why” – which you haven’t yet, **spingears,** and for that matter neither did Mr. Jefferson. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/7 "2004-10-13T22:36:29Z")
Debate your heart out, **spingears**. But, _please_ try to post questions that have a discreet factual answer in GQ. Otherwise, post them to IMHO of GD. Or the Pit. Moved from GQ to GD. **samclem** GQ moderator ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/8 "2004-10-13T23:03:32Z")
There are now 300 million ± a mill or two people in the US. In Jefferson’s time, the total population of the US was less that the population of Greater New York today. Of course it’s bigger! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/9 "2004-10-13T23:17:43Z")
> [@spingears](#): > > “I think we have more machinery of government than is > necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the > industrious.” --Thomas Jefferson > Just look at us now. > Gov’t. grows, and grows, never shrinks. > Gov’t. spends more, and more, seldon cuts off programs or spending. > Doe anyone have the answer or is there one? The flaw in your analysis is the assumption is that all _want_ smaller government. I like big government. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/10 "2004-10-13T23:25:21Z")
And even if you don’t actually like big government, you still have the problem of how small government would effectively counterbalance big business. Let’s face it, when several dozen of your business organizations have economies larger than those of some European nations, you need something to act as a counterweight. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/11 "2004-10-14T03:59:27Z")
Stop electing the taller guy President. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/12 "2004-10-14T14:05:52Z")
Make a law so that any civil servant who proves that someone else’s job is unnecessary will get half that persons salary added to his own, until retirement. Eventually there will only be three civil servants. Tris ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/13 "2004-10-14T14:21:47Z")
The thing is that there are certain services that we find indespenilble. However, I’ve yet to run into anyone who thinks that government bureaucracy equates to efficiency. I’ve not seen any reason to challenge this assumption. If someone would like to make the case that gov bureaucracies do equate with efficicency, be my geust. Until such time, we’ll take this as a given. This means that to acquire the services that we want we’re using an inefficient method. This means that more of our resources than necessary are expended. To most people, this is a self evident “bad thing.” (Though I suppose there are the perverse among us who find the wasteful allocation of resources a joy to behold.) This is but _one_ of the easier to describe reasons to desire a lean gov. Hope that makes sense. There’re certain function that by there nature cannot be turned over to any other entity. Specifically, I’m thinking of the use of force- law enforcement, military (yes, I have issues with the use of tens of thousands of private contractors/mercenaries in Iraq). These services must remain in the hands of a gov responsive to the people. **rfgdxm** as to your desire for a larger gov- ugfhxm ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/14 "2004-10-14T14:31:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > And even if you don’t actually like big government, you still have the problem of how small government would effectively counterbalance big business. Let’s face it, when several dozen of your business organizations have economies larger than those of some European nations, you need something to act as a counterweight. I’m not so sure if gov does counterbalance big biz. Gov tend to be a tool of big biz. The golden rule and all. ([soapbox]Just as we don’t allow artificial persons to vote, we should not allow artificial persons to lobby our legislatures nor to contribute to election campaigns.[/soapbox]) ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/15 "2004-10-14T14:54:00Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > I think it would be fun to take, say Arkansas, and turn it into a ‘1790s’ state… Have you ever _been_ to Arkansas? Man, we’re not really that far off that mark, at least not in the rural areas. It’s not called ‘The Natural State’ for nothing…actually, it is. There’s really nothing here to speak of. Anyway, as much as people gripe about ‘big government,’ everybody likes the perks too much to give it up. Frankly, I could do with bigger government, like you’ll find in most other industrialized nations. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/16 "2004-10-14T14:57:32Z")
Little-known fact: the number of Federal employees in 2000 was at its lowest level since 1960. The Clinton administration launched an extensive down-sizing effort, and it cut the number of employees by 17% between 1993 and 2000. [This chart](http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/exec2000.asp) shows the numbers. The mystery is why they haven’t updated this information since 2000. But [this table](http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/2004/march/table1.asp), dating from March, 2004, indicates that executive branch employment is back up to 2,640,212, whereas at the end of 2000, it stood at 1,784,032. I have the feeling there might be some differences in precisely what’s being counted, but these stats may provide a hint about why the OPM hasn’t updated the year-by-year chart. I’d say “embarrassment.” ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/17 "2004-10-14T15:06:03Z")
> [@Stonebow](#): > > Have you ever _been_ to Arkansas? Man, we’re not really that far off that mark, at least not in the rural areas. It’s not called ‘The Natural State’ for nothing…actually, it is. There’s really nothing here to speak of. > > Anyway, as much as people gripe about ‘big government,’ everybody likes the perks too much to give it up. Frankly, I could do with bigger government, like you’ll find in most other industrialized nations. I don’t think anyone has an issue with the “perks.” To me, the issue is, “What’s the best way to get the perks?” I argue that gov bureaucracies are not likely to be in the top five answers to that question. AR rocks. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/18 "2004-10-14T15:07:52Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > Little-known fact: the number of Federal employees in 2000 was at its lowest level since 1960. The Clinton administration launched an extensive down-sizing effort, and it cut the number of employees by 17% between 1993 and 2000. [This chart](http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/exec2000.asp) shows the numbers. > > The mystery is why they haven’t updated this information since 2000. But [this table](http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/2004/march/table1.asp), dating from March, 2004, indicates that executive branch employment is back up to 2,640,212, whereas at the end of 2000, it stood at 1,784,032. I have the feeling there might be some differences in precisely what’s being counted, but these stats may provide a hint about why the OPM hasn’t updated the year-by-year chart. I’d say “embarrassment.” Team Bush are “big-government conservatives” whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean. Neocons aren’t really all that con. These folks are acting like liberal entryists. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/19 "2004-10-14T15:09:54Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > However, I’ve yet to run into anyone who thinks that government bureaucracy equates to efficiency. An aside: in my experience, bureaucracy is always inefficient, whether it’s public or private. Over the past 30 years, the stories I could tell about wasteful, stupid stuff going on in the public sector could always be matched by the stories told by friends who worked for large private organizations. In short, it’s not a question of “public vs. private;” bureaucratic inefficiency seems to arise whenever an organization exceeds a certain size. I have a theory that I call the Rule of One Hundred. Whenever an organization, be it a business or a government entity, has more than one hundred employees, bureaucracy starts to creep in. Whenever there are more employees than one person can adequately supervise and organize, things start to go downhill. Unfortunately, it’s simply not possible to run a large commercial enterprise or any kind of government bigger than a small town without running smack into this problem. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046/20 "2004-10-14T15:11:28Z")
[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2864&sequence=0](http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2864&sequence=0) > [@Congressional Budget Office](#): > > INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY > > From 1985 through 2000, the period covered in this analysis, the federal government experienced a net decrease of about 430,000 civilian workers, or 19 percent–the total fell from 2.3 million workers to 1.8 million. Those figures exclude the 170,000 temporary employees hired for the 2000 decennial census. However, even when those employees are taken into account, data still show a decrease in employment over the 15-year period of about 260,000, or 11 percent of the workforce. (See Tables 1 and A-1; also see Box 1 for a discussion of measuring the size of the federal workforce.) Although the number of employees at most agencies fell over the period, by far the largest decreases occurred at the Department of Defense (DoD). > > * * * > > ## TABLE 1. CHANGES IN FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT BY BRANCH, 1985-2000 (In thousands of workers) > > Branch 1985 2000 Change, > 1985-2000 Percentage Change, > 1985-2000 > > * * * > > Legislative 39 31 -9 -22 > > Judicial 18 32 14 82 > > Executive 2,211 1,947 -264 -12 > > Total 2,268 2,009 -258 -11 > > ``` > Defense 1,080 681 -399 -37 > Non-Defensea 1,187 1,328 141 12 > > ``` > > * * * > > SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office using data from the Office of Personnel Management. > NOTE: Numbers are averages of monthly employment counts. Data cover all branches of the federal government, work schedules, and geographic areas but do not include the U.S. Postal Service. > a. The increase in employment at non-Defense agencies is all attributable to temporary hires for the decennial census. Excluding those workers, employment at non-Defense agencies fell by about 30,000 over the 15-year period. From: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z2.xls](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z2.xls) The federal budget as percent of GDP decreased from 22.9% in 1985 to 18.4% in 2000. I have used dates up to 2000 because data is readily available and because a post 2001 shift in spending and employment is attributable at least in part to increased homeland security requirements. Neither of the OP’s assumptions about monotonic growth in federal spending or employment is true. However I would agree that it is unlikely that we will ever return to a Pre-WWII, Pre New Deal or Pre Civil War level of government. **SimonX** : WRT to government and big biz. I agree that the government is somewhat of a double edged goon squad with respect to backing “the little guy” vs backing big business, but it at least has some responsiveness to and accountability to voters, and the Feds moreso than local’s. And to your soapbox I say “hear, hear”. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-get-back-to-smaller-government/269046.md?page=2)