Some ideas about what to cut

When discussing the size and scope of government with people who aren’t alarmed at Uncle Sam’s engorgement throughout the past 100 or so years, I often encounter the following confident challenge: “If the government is too big and we need to reduce spending, what exactly would you cut?”

This inquiry is usually followed by the supposed-to-be-intimidating remark that “no one can ever seem to answer that.”

When I hear this, my first reaction is usually one of disappointment in my fellow advocates of limited government, too many of whom apparently have trouble pointing to particular offices, agencies and departments we don’t need.

After the initial disappointment subsides, however, I cheerfully launch into a discussion of how, without question, we should be able to eliminate most of our federal departments, as they tend to be either unnecessary or (more often) downright destructive.

I note that, during George Washington’s administration, there were four main departments in the executive branch — the departments of Justice, State, Treasury and War (now called Defense) — and that there has been a net increase of 11 such departments since then.

Second, I point out that some of those new departments perform duties one might think the existing ones were responsible for to begin with, such as the Department of Homeland Security. That relatively young bureaucracy performs a function I had hoped the Department of Defense was already taking care of.

In addition, I note that some of the new departments take responsibility for areas the Constitution leaves to the states, such as the Department of Education.

That apparatus, created during the Carter administration, strikes me as not only one of the least constitutionally defensible federal departments, but also as one of the worst vehicles for improving American education.

If the current system is broken, isn’t it better to let all 50 states experiment with various methods of improvement instead of imposing top-down rules that will ensure that all of our education systems falter together in the event of a mistaken policy?

Fourth, I point out that several of the other new departments are responsible for stifling economic growth through the onerous regulations they enforce on the entities that drive wealth-creation in this country, from small businesses and start-up firms to the largest multi-national corporations.

Finally, I point out that even the departments that should still exist often have plenty of excess expenditures. The prime example, of course, is the Department of Defense, which has the second-largest budget of any of the federal departments (at nearly $700 billion per year).

The department spends a sizable portion of this budget either maintaining bases and other operations in countries where our mission has long been complete (such as South Korea and Germany) or funding the militaries of countries it currently deems in our strategic interest, a policy that has backfired spectacularly in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, among others.

Obviously, it would be far from easy to implement the elimination or dramatic downsizing of so many ponderous bureaucracies, but it should be clear from this brief overview that it is entirely possible to get the budget under control and cut the government down to size.


E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu