Back in 2010, I posted a “word cloud” from a Gallup poll, which cited people’s reactions when asked to describe the federal government.
Common responses included “incompetent” and “too big,” as well as “corrupt” and “confused.”
Then, quoting from a very funny Mark Steyn column, I explained last year that there is an inverse relationship between the size of government and its competence and efficiency.
…today’s bloated welfare state interferes with and undermines the government’s ability to competently fulfill its legitimate responsibilities. Imagine, for instance, if we had the kind of limited federal government envisioned by the Founding Fathers and the “best and brightest” people in government – instead of being dispersed across a vast bureaucracy – were concentrated on protecting the national security of the American people. In that hypothetical world, I’m guessing something like the 9-11 attacks would be far less likely.
In other words, government is far more likely to have a “reverse Midas touch” when it is too big to manage.
Robert Samuelson makes a similar point in the Washington Post. He writes about why the American people no longer trust Washington and concludes that government is too large to competently manage.
Since World War II, American government has assumed more responsibilities than can reasonably be met. Some are unattainable; others are in conflict. Government is, among other things, supposed to: control the business cycle, combat poverty, cleanse the environment, provide health care, protect the elderly, subsidize college students, aid states and localities. There are more. Most are essentially postwar commitments. As I’ve written before, government becomes almost “suicidal” by pervasively generating unrealistic expectations. The more people depend on it, the more they may be disappointed by it. …political leaders find it almost impossible to confront government’s over-commitment. They find it difficult to withdraw or modify promises previously made and programs previously created — to define what really matters and discard or shrink what’s secondary, outdated or ineffective. …the essence of our problem, which is being more rigorous about defining what government can and should do.
Samuelson doesn’t propose specific policies, but the obvious conclusion is that we should shrink both the size and the scope of the federal government.
That means entitlement reform, particularly if we want to control the size of government. But if we want to deal with the scope of government, it’s probably even more important to deal with the plethora of agencies, departments, and programs that comprise the “discretionary” parts of the federal budget.
I’ve argued that the first target should be the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but it’s a target-rich environment.
P.S. The “competence” argument for small government augments the “economic” argument for small government.
International Liberty 
[…] one obvious takeaway is that shrinking the size and scope of government is the only effective way of reducing rent […]
[…] Robert Samuelson y Mark Steyn han hecho lo mismo. […]
[…] Robert Samuelson and Mark Steyn have made the same point. […]
[…] does less and does it better deserves to be emphasized. Observers ranging from Mark Steyn to Robert Samuelson have pointed out that the federal government is more likely to do a good job if it focuses on core […]
[…] observers ranging from Mark Steyn to Robert Samuelson have made the same […]
[…] moral of the story is that small government is the way to get competent […]
[…] how do we make sure those functions are handled competently? I’ve argued that we’ll get the best results if the public sector is streamlined and elected officials have […]
[…] how do we make sure those functions are handled competently? I’ve argued that we’ll get the best results if the public sector is streamlined and elected officials […]
[…] a leaner government with fewer responsibilities would be more effective. I hope in the future they apply that lesson on a consistent […]
[…] the same point has been made by folks such as Mark Steyn and Robert Samuelson (though David Brooks inexplicably reaches the opposite […]
[…] In my humble opinion, the most important point from the interview is that (as Mark Steyn explained in amusing fashion) you can’t have effective and competent government unless it’s also small government. […]
[…] In my humble opinion, the most important point from the interview is that (as Mark Steyn explained in amusing fashion) you can’t have effective and competent government unless it’s also small government. […]
[…] Yet we get glaring examples of failure, perhaps because Washington has become so bloated that sensible management is increasingly difficult. […]
[…] that seems to be the case. Robert Samuelson, for instance, has written that the federal government is so large that it breeds failure and disappointment. I added my two […]
[…] government, as Mark Steyn has explained with his usual dose of sarcasm. A bloated public sector guarantees slipshod performance everywhere. But if the federal government concentrates on just a few tasks, oversight and monitoring will be […]
[…] government, as Mark Steyn has explained with his usual dose of sarcasm. A bloated public sector guarantees slipshod performance everywhere. But if the federal government concentrates on just a few tasks, oversight and monitoring will be […]
[…] argued that we’ll get better government if we make it smaller. This is important because government is responsible for some things – such as national […]
[…] even a curmudgeonly libertarian like me also thinks it’s important to have effective and efficient […]
Dan, your point that politicians and bureaucrats are incompetent to manage the unfocused and nearly all-encompassing programs of government is clearly right. Large, unfocused conglomerates a small fraction of the size of government have often proven the consequences for management quality. Your economic argument for small government in the video you link to is also excellent.
But let us not forget to point to another extremely important problem with big government, namely the impossible task it puts on citizens to follow and understand its activities and their consequences. Few Americans know much about the proper purpose of government, few know much about how it is supposed to work, and still fewer understand what it is doing. Most are so overwhelmed by the magnitude of this diligent voter task that they do not try to undertake it and they resent their own government that imposes this impossible task on them.
Because they do not practice this impossible due diligence, we get lousy politicians who are far from the best and the brightest, not to mention far from the most moral. It is a necessary consequence that special interest groups step in to fill the power vacuum that results. Because of the broad scope of government, an incredible array of special interests exists. These focus on some aspect of government and manipulate it to their advantage with no or little regard for the general welfare (the protection of individual rights). Among such special interests are crony mercantilists, labor unions, radical environmentalists, government workers, export bank users, those who benefit from ethanol mandates, green energy companies, some bankers, some favored minorities, and many more special interests. All of these special interests further confuse the poor voter.
[…] may understand that the federal government is bloated and they may understand that there’s a big problem with corruption in Washington, but can you […]
I bewlieve it was Jefferson who stated “that government is best which governs least”. Many would argue that these government-created bureaucracies are not governing, but “assisting”. So, it seems what our government has become is not a government at all, but a bottomless insurance agency. Fall into its arms and never leave.
crying… whining… and snot slinging… every establishment newscast is filled with it… statists who have a pet program that needs funding… some amazing cause that only more government can address… and democrat and republican politicians who have devised a plan… chosen a new cause… or have been overcome with compassion at the wretched plight of good people somewhere on the planet… the calls for more government… more spending and more bureaucrats are never-ending… and yet… the real issues of our age go wanting for attention… in favor of micro managing the ucmj and scolding the irs… we face a myriad of problems… serious issues that will shape our quality of life for generations to come… meanwhile the democrats and republicans squabble and jockey for political advantage… mug for the cameras… shamelessly exploit the tragedies of our day… and spend… spend taxpayer money with contemptuous abandon… these people are not on our side… the question is how to slow the trend… and find individuals who are committed to a real and pragmatic transition back to constructional governance… we need a viable third party to break the democrat and republican stranglehold on the political system… we need real choice… not politics as usual…
If you use this sort of logic, we should also be working to shrink Christianity, since it was at its best back when it was only 12 guys and Jesus. All the problems came once it got too big.
Unfortunately many people have heard of “economies of scale” but don’t grasp that there are “diseconomies of scale” that make even private large entities less efficient (that is patly why despite some paranoia about large companies among liberals, they don’t control every market niche and tend to have a limited lifespan before being undermined). Obviously monopolistic entities are more prone to problems, and government entities even moreso, which means smaller governments are going to be more efficient than larger ones.
Obviously small government advocates would prefer it if certain tasks were left entirely to the private sector. However we should at least try to argue that when a liberal wants *a* government to do something, they should at least try to have it done by the lowest level of government possible which is both more “democratic” in a sense and as we know then at least provides some ability for jurisdictions to compete and learn from each other, and larger distant central governments are more prone to capture by the corporations many liberals fear. If we get them to devolve power, we can fight its enactment at lower levels of government, and it at least limits the damage. This page goes through these issues in detail, noting for example:
http://www.politicsdebunked.com/article-list/representation
“If you were mayor of a small town with a $100,000 budget and 1 employee, you could keep a much closer eye on how money is spent than if you managed a small city with a $100 million budget with a thousand employees. You would need to leave more decisions to hired staff who might for instance hand favors to their industry friends. The small town mayor would be more effectively exercising democratic control over government than the city mayor who has to delegate to unelected staff. In one sense the government of the small town would be 1000 times more democratically under control than the small city. “
Daniel, I don’t think you’ve thought this all the way through. All those duplicate agencies, departments and whatnots are the jobs programs for the elite and expensively credentialed. You can’t throw them into the heartless world of capitalism where they will be expected to produce something of value for their fellow man.
Better for us all to give grandma some palliative care then cut even one bureaucrat.
“Since 2010, discretionary outlays have been falling, both in current dollar terms and as a percentage of GDP. If caps on discretionary spending remain in place, discretionary spending will continue to fall as a share of GDP. CBO projects that under current law, discretionary spending will fall to 5.5% of GDP by FY2023. That share would be about 15% lower than its minimum share during the 1990s (6.2% in FY1999).”
Click to access RL34424.pdf
The best way to reduce entitlement spending is to reduce the need for it. People don’t collect Food Stamps because the government is generous, they do it because their pay is low. Employee compensation and benefits have been lagging productivity growth ever since the 1970s. This is about the same time as unions began their long decline.
Want less entitlement spending? Support unions.
http://econopolitics.com/2012/12/11/attack-on-american-unions-continues/unionmembership_wages/
Very few folks get elected promising to increase taxes and spending. They pick that up in DC once they are ensconced, then it is nigh impossible to dislodge them.
The best and first target should be the Department of Education. It has a budget of over 70 billion dollars and it educates NOT ONE SINGLE SOUL. Why do we want to send our local tax dollars (all taxes are local to those who pay them) to DC so we can compete in a race to get those dollars back?