Bureaucracy is like poison ivy. It spreads rapidly, chokes out desirable life forms, and poisons those who come into contact with it.
I know whereof I speak. I ran a bureaucracy of modest size for a dozen years, and saw at first hand the workings of huge government bureaucracies during my 30 years as a denizen of the military-industrial complex. And, like most Americans, I have endured (for more than 60 years) the frustrations of dealing with bureaucrats in government agencies and corporations.
Human nature being what it is, the head of a bureaucratic organization — large or small — often strives to extend its scope of activity and enlarge it. (The second goal is usually justified by efforts to attain the first one.) The bureaucrat sees a “need” to be met and stakes a claim on the resources required to meet it. It is not coincidental the the enlargement of a bureaucracy means that its head rules a larger “empire”, enjoys more prestige, probably enjoys a higher income, and (unless he shoots himself in the foot) enhances his eligibility to lead ever-larger bureaucracies.
The bureaucratic imperative, in other words, is to grow the bureaucracy, if possible, and to justify its existence by pumping out more rules even if growth isn’t possible. The bureaucratic imperative decidedly is not to be efficient for the benefit of taxpayers or shareholders. The more bureaucratic a business, the more it comes to resemble government in its sluggishness and inefficiency.
The only way to eliminate or downsize government bureaucracies is to eliminate or downsize them. Cutting taxes doesn’t work because (at the federal level, at least) government grows despite tax cuts — the Fed finances bureaucratic bloat. And State and local governments, for the most part, have acquired the habit of passing on the cost of bureaucratic bloat to taxpayers.
The only way to make businesses more responsive to consumers and more profitable for shareholders is to ensure that there is vigorous competition. But doesn’t competition reduce profits? Not if the first response to more competition is to cut spending that is simply the result of bureaucratic inertia; and not if the second response it to stay lean and mean in order to maximize profits in the face of continuing competition.
In any event, government programs are responsible for much of the bureaucratic infestation of businesses: EEO compliance, OSHA compliance, EPA compliance, etc., etc., etc. If you believe that such programs are necessary for “fairness”, safety, environmental quality, etc., you have swallowed the Kool-Aid of bureaucratic rationalization.
Competition, not bureaucratic infestation, is the solution to “problems” that politicians and bureaucrats invent in order to satisfy vocal constituencies and achieve the benefits (to themselves) of bureaucratic bloat.
The only way to foster competition is to cut government — to the bone. The cozy relationship between government and squelches competition by erecting regulatory barriers that favor incumbents.
So it comes down to this: Either overthrow Democrat rule of government and eliminate most of the federal bureaucracy or set up a new government for States that want minimal government.
I have found another good reason for a national divorce. But to tame government effectively, the “freedom party” would have to immediately adopt and then strictly abide by a Constitution that crystal clear about the limitations on government — like this one.