B-U-R-E-A-U-cracy

This most recent push by Republicans to either shut down the government or defund Obamacare has put a renewed focus on the size of our federal bureaucracy, which has in turn put renewed stress on my spell-check.

Bureaucracy is too much red tape, too many rules, such that good ideas get bogged down and decay or die out. That’s a problem.

Philip Howard wrote last year in the Atlantic, “Radically simplify government. Make law a framework of goals and principles, like the Constitution. Put real people in charge again.” In other words, eliminate laws and let people make decisions.

Abolish the bureaucracy.

But I’m not convinced bureaucracy is so bad.

It actually does our country good. Along with guaranteeing equal treatment under the law, it slows the rate of legal and regulatory change between successive administrations with radically different ideals.

This contributes to a stable business environment and greater equality of opportunity because start-ups play by the same rules as the big guys.

A de facto bureaucracy, in which governmental decision-making could radically alter from administration to administration, would inherently favor those with the greatest capital assets who have the ability to adjust more quickly to those changes.

But Howard’s idea is headed the right way and works with both conservative smaller-government ideals and progressive smarter-government ideals.

The real trap that Howard falls into is assuming that a one-size-fits-all approach will solve the government’s problems.

Some programs would be improved by eliminating red tape and placing decision-makers who are held accountable for those decisions.

For some programs, though, rules are important.

Howard is right. Rules can’t think. But thinking isn’t always good.

Look at the Department of Energy’s clean-energy loan program, of “Solyndra” fame. An independent analysis found the program exceeded expectations. The program is, in a word, exemplary.

Despite this, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., argued in the Vice-Presidential debate last year, that “$90 billion in green pork [went] to campaign contributors and special interest groups.”  

That was predictable politics, but imagine how much worse it would be if there wasn’t a specific, praised methodology used by the DOE to decide which companies got loans.

Instead, some bureaucrat thought about who to give loans to and then did so. The results would be catastrophic, at least politically.

We need real radical reform, a total paradigm shift in how we view government. It should be measured not as “big” or “small,” but as “effective” or “ineffective.”

This will allow the government to shrink from some areas where it’s not suited to be. It will force us to simplify the convoluted and ineffective tax code, lower rates and cut
loopholes.

It will also encourage government intervention where  it’s useful and loan guarantees where the market is failing to account for positive externalities or social good, protecting the environment and developing and building infrastructure.

When it comes to government, size doesn’t matter. What matters is how well it works.

­— shlumorg@indiana.edu
Follow columnist Luke Morgan on Twitter @flukemorgan.