Is the Government Size the Real Issue?

Shannon Bohrer

(4/2025) We are in the midst of reducing our government by laying off and firing government employees. Ostensibly, the federal workforce is rife with corruption and incompetence and is just too large. There also exists opposition to the reductions, with the belief that government employees are necessary to conduct the people’s business. We do know that the process being used to reduce the employee numbers is divisive and controversial. One should expect some damage if one weeds their garden with a matchet.

The argument about the size of our government has been a topic for generations, with the belief that reducing the number of government employees is long overdue. Additionally, there is a Deep State embedded in the government that runs everything. The Deep State consists of networks of agents from financial and industrial organizations that rule with a few elected officials. The theory is that a small group of billionaires run the country for their benefit. Another reason to downsize is that the government should be lean and mean, more like a private industry, and only employ the number of employees needed.

Both sides agree that our national debt, at thirty-six trillion dollars, is a bit too high. That equates to $106,000 for every citizen. Senator John McCain once said, "Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor, and I’ve never known a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination that this congress has." He was correct. Many elected officials talk about deficit spending and reducing the debt but rarely do anything constructive to address the problem.

A rational conversation about the size of the government in relation to what we expect from the government is needed. We need a consensus on what we expect from the government, and then how many employees are needed can be determined. While that is easy to say and even understand, politicians are masters at distraction and deception. For over forty years, one party has told us that government is too big, we spend too much, and we need fewer regulations. Many call this mantra the three-legged stool.

The three-legged stool sounds good, even responsible, and has been in the conversation for so long that many believe it. The belief is strong, and yet, the evidence is nonexistent. The premise of the three-legged stool is that with fewer regulations, business will thrive. We will spend less with fewer employees, and taxes can be reduced. Maybe the size of government should be determined not for the benefit of business and industry - but for its citizens. The Constitution is about the personal freedoms of individuals, not corporations.

It may surprise many that the government was reduced before. In 1990, there were 3.4 million civil service workers; today, before the firings, there were 2.4 million civil service workers. Other numbers run as high as 3 million workers. Why the different numbers exist is unknown. As one might expect, substantial false information does exist – possibly for deception. If you don’t like something, just make something up. We were told that the government spent fifty million dollars on condoms and sent them to Gaza. The scary part is that people believe it. While that sounds implausible and farfetched, it was topped with the news that Ukraine started the war with Russia.

For discussion purposes, let’s agree there are too many government employees. Therefore, it is understandable that reducing the number of federal employees will reduce the deficit. However, do the reductions allow billions in tax cuts for the billionaires without adding to the deficit? Most people familiar with math, addition, and subtraction say no. To pass the proposed tax reductions without creating more deficits, other programs comprising large budget segments must be reduced. Those segments include the big three: Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. The math required to balance the budget does not work without additional reductions in spending, even if you believe that Ukraine started the war.

Under President Clinton, the number of federal workers was reduced, and we did have balanced budgets. He did not weed the garden with a matchet or a chainsaw. The reductions were methodical with research and without disruptions of services. He also balanced the budget and paid down the national debt. Conversely, under President Trump's first term, he increased the national debt by almost eight trillion dollars, the largest four-year increase of any former president. He may be trying to top his four-year record.

Do the wealthy individuals really need additional tax breaks? In 2023, it was reported that there were 735 billionaires in the United States. Notably, billionaires' wealth has "increased 88 percent in the last four years." It was also reported in 2023 (the last year with available numbers) that "The 25 richest Americans paid little to no federal income taxes," as reported by ProPublica. The same document noted that "Nearly 50 companies in the S&P 500, including Tesla" and others, paid no income tax. So, are these the people and businesses that need tax breaks?

Additionally, our government subsidizes businesses to the tune of 100 billion dollars every year, twenty percent of which is for the fossil fuel industry. It was reported several years ago that a few companies made record profits, paid no taxes, and received government subsidies. To be fair, many corporations take advantage of tax regulations that reduce what they pay - so it is legal.

Axios summarized the issue as follows: "Most politicians agree on three truths: We have a spending problem (too much), a tax problem (too high or too low), and a debt problem (way too much). Yet the typical response is to make all three worse." I think they got it right.

Considering that we have a deficit problem, we should examine ways to address the issue. Reducing the number of federal employees is not a bad idea, but using a chainsaw is not helpful. Many find it strange that we have yet to be told of the fraud, waste, and abuse related to employee firings. Maybe they have not found any. Almost every piece of information on savings posted by the DOGE committee has been questioned and found to be misleading and often just false. No one born in 1850 is collecting Social Security.

Maybe we should question the motives of individuals and groups that are supposedly fixing many parts of our government that may not be broken. DOGE is run by the richest man on earth. Could DOGE be part of the Deep State?