The Challenge of Reducing Government: A Path to Accountability and Consumer Choice
- Jeff Hulett
- Mar 4
- 6 min read
Updated: Apr 13
The Dilemma of Government Downsizing
F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” That quote resonates deeply with me as I wrestle with the issue of reducing government.
On one hand, I firmly believe that the federal bureaucracy has grown too large, too insular, and too resistant to accountability. This is not merely a theoretical concern—it reflects what I have observed directly through my experience in federal contracting. The bureaucracy has evolved into a self-perpetuating ecosystem defined by outdated mandates, misaligned priorities, and limited oversight. I call this problem statement the "what."
In my experience, federal employees generally fall into three categories:
Minimal Contributors – A small but visible group performs minimal work, often remaining in place because their supervisors display similar behavior. They appear content to draw a salary, meet baseline requirements, and await retirement benefits.
Hardworking but Ineffectively Deployed Staff – This is the largest cohort. These individuals work diligently, but their roles often overlap with other agencies or support legacy programs that no longer reflect the public interest. Nonetheless, their agencies continue to receive annual budget increases by default, with little scrutiny. As Jennifer Pahlka notes in Recoding America, many federal roles are rooted in “stop energy”—the enforcement of rules and avoidance of risk—rather than “go energy,” which involves creative problem-solving and public impact. This imbalance discourages innovation and reinforces the institutional rigidity leading to ineffectiveness.
High-Impact Contributors – A small number of federal employees embody “go energy.” They perform unique, mission-critical work—such as national defense or emergency response. These individuals often face internal resistance, since their proactive behavior deviates from the dominant risk-averse culture.
From a game theory perspective, the prevailing behavior of Group 2 represents a Nash Equilibrium. Federal employees, as rational actors, respond to the incentives and constraints embedded in the current system. Group 2 behavior—cautious diligence within rigid rules—provides the highest payoff in terms of job security, low risk, and bureaucratic approval. Even employees who wish to act more boldly have little incentive to deviate, because “go energy” efforts often entail personal risk with minimal institutional reward.
In other words, the federal workforce behaves exactly as one would expect, given the rules of the game. The system does not fail because of bad people; it fails because of bad incentives and constraints, a concept articulated clearly by Thomas Sowell in Knowledge and Decisions. If society desires more high-impact, Group 3 outcomes, it must reform the underlying structure—not simply hire differently or issue new directives.
There is no doubt that a leaner, more accountable government would better serve the public.
In early 2025, President Donald Trump launched the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with the explicit goal of streamlining federal operations. DOGE has pursued aggressive cost-cutting by dismantling agencies, reducing staffing, and eliminating redundant programs, all in the name of taxpayer savings. However, these actions have triggered legal challenges and raised concerns regarding constitutional boundaries, procedural fairness, and the sustainability of such rapid, executive-driven reforms.
Thus, while the changes described by the "what" is needed, the"how" is troubling. The methods currently being used to shrink government seem aggressive, legally questionable, and, in some cases, unsustainable. While bold action might be necessary to break through bureaucratic inertia, governing by executive fiat or pushing constitutional limits until courts intervene feels like a dangerous precedent. If reforms are not built on a solid foundation—like legislative consensus and structural accountability—any progress made today could be easily undone by the next administration.
As an example, consider Abraham Lincoln. If he were alive today and asked to reflect on the strength of his legacy, would he cite the Emancipation Proclamation—or the passage of the 13th Amendment? The Emancipation Proclamation, issued by executive order in 1863, was a morally courageous act that declared freedom for enslaved people in Confederate states. However, it was limited in legal scope and subject to reversal by future presidents.
In contrast, Lincoln championed the 13th Amendment because it permanently altered the constitutional framework—abolishing slavery throughout the United States and making that freedom immune to the whims of any executive. His pride, undoubtedly, would lie in the amendment, not the proclamation. It is a compelling reminder that meaningful, enduring reform requires legislative consensus and structural change—not just executive action.
In his book "Knowledge and Decisions," Economist Thomas Sowell offers an aligned perspective: "[T]he most fundamental question is not what decision to make but who is to make it -- through what processes and under what incentives and constraints, and with what feedback mechanisms to correct the decision if it proves to be wrong."
This internal tension is where I find myself. I want real reform, but I also want it done in a way that upholds constitutional principles and endures beyond a single political cycle. The challenge, then, is not just reducing government but finding a path to do so that is both effective and principled.
The Problem of Execution
While the "what" of government reduction is compelling, the "how" presents serious challenges. Simply slashing budgets or dismantling agencies without a well-structured plan risks unintended consequences, including the erosion of necessary public functions. A drastic "burn it down" approach, often favored by political outsiders, may seem appealing but is ultimately unsustainable. Without structural reform, any cuts made today can be easily reversed by the next administration.
The U.S. government operates in cycles of expansion and contraction, but absent systemic change—such as a Zero-Based Budgeting law that requires every agency to justify its budget from scratch—reduction efforts will remain temporary. Presidents from both parties have selectively enforced laws, further undermining institutional integrity. This "rule by refusal" approach, where administrations choose which regulations to enforce or ignore, creates instability rather than efficiency.
A Smarter Path to Limited Government
The solution lies in targeted, structural reform rather than blunt-force elimination. The goal should be not just less government, but better government—one that is lean, accountable, and designed to serve rather than perpetuate itself. Work a process with proper incentives and constraints that should lead to leaner government. Lead with the proper process, not the intended outcome.
Key principles of a sustainable government reduction strategy include:
Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) – Every department and agency should justify its expenditures from the ground up rather than automatically receiving funding based on past budgets. This would force agencies to prioritize essential functions and eliminate waste.
Regulatory Sunset Provisions – Laws and regulations should not exist indefinitely. Every major rule should have an expiration date, requiring Congress to actively renew it based on demonstrated effectiveness. To a behavioral economist, this is like a constitutional commitment device, where the default decision is smaller government and larger government requires active legislative intervention. As it stands now, bigger government is often the default.
Decentralization and Federalism – Many functions currently handled at the federal level could be better managed by states and local governments, allowing for more tailored and accountable governance. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
— F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit (1988)
Enhanced Consumer Choice in Public Services – Rather than government monopolies in areas like education, healthcare, and transportation, policies should enable competition from the private sector and non-profits, giving individuals more freedom to choose services that best meet their needs.
Accountability and Transparency – Implementing stronger oversight mechanisms and performance-based evaluations would ensure that agencies deliver measurable value rather than persist for institutional survival alone.
One recent development in this direction is the Loper Bright Supreme Court decision (2024), which overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine. By requiring courts to independently interpret statutes rather than deferring to federal agencies, Loper Bright introduces a judicial check that may enhance bureaucratic accountability. While critics argue this shift could give courts excessive influence over complex regulatory areas such as healthcare and environmental policy, it also represents a structural correction—empowering the judiciary to prevent agencies from unilaterally expanding their mandates without clear legislative backing. In this sense, Loper Bright may serve as a necessary, if still uncertain, tool to align agency behavior more closely with statutory intent and public accountability.
The Essential Outcome: A Government that Works for the People
Ultimately, the goal is not destruction but reform. Reducing government should not mean dismantling essential functions or leaving critical needs unaddressed. Instead, it should focus on empowering individuals, increasing choice, and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. A smaller, more efficient government would be one that protects rights, enables markets, and supports innovation rather than stifling it.
A government that is too big to manage is too big to be accountable. A government that is disciplined and restrained—one that limits itself to necessary functions while fostering competition and consumer choice—is the key to long-term prosperity and freedom. The challenge, then, is not just reducing government for its own sake but redesigning it to serve the public effectively and sustainably.
If this article leads you thinking, "If only it was this easy! Expecting the legislative branch to pass any good law today is like pushing on a string!"
If you would like to dig deeper into the challenges of America's eroding legislative branch strength, including how and why the legislative branch effectiveness has been reduced and what to do about it, please see:
Comments