Cutting Government Is An Exceptional Skill

It’s customary in politics to tout a candidate’s experience in government. As a bystander, I’ve never been impressed.

It’s not in the nature of government to shrink.What has mattered to me were his or her ideas for the future. It’s a candidate’s vision for what government should and should not do that determined my enthusiasm for the campaign.

Plus, I’m not looking for a well-run government. I’m looking to get rid of the whole mess, or, at least someone to cut it as deeply as possible.

It’s not in the nature of government to shrink. Looking for a chief executive to cut government is like looking for a boss who is good at running off customers and driving down the stock price. It goes against the grain.

Might doing that take some expertise? Probably. And that comes from actual experience. Hence does this political season seem to be adding some nuance to the simple conclusion that experience in government doesn’t matter.

Cutting Government Is An Exceptional Skill
Image source: Wikimedia Commons

Not All Experience

Hillary Clinton’s experience in government is extensive, even massive. She has never been in a topmost executive spot, but Senator and Secretary of State are pretty close. Instead of growing humble, however, she has become more dedicated to big government.

True, her ambitions for what she can do in office boil down to collectivist cliches. However, it’s pretty clear that government has worked for her quite as much as she has worked for the government. It’s the only world she has ever known, and it’s been insanely beneficial to her. It’s her life.

Through decades of experience at ever higher levels, she has found that the business of pay-to-play politics really does pay, and in more ways than purely financial ones. It’s good to be at the center of power, ever closer to the public-private nexus at which the big deals happen.

The vast majority of the government’s objectives are non-viable. This is not the kind of government experience I regard as credible. She has only grown the state in ways that are compatible with her own personal advance. And this is typical with politicians. As the state grows, or especially the sector they control, so too grows their reputation and career prospects. This all happens at our expense.

For this reason, we all have reason to be suspicious of experience in government. This kind of experience is a negative. Yes, she knows how the system works and she is realistic about it. But her understanding of what works is what works for her.

And expanding government power always and everywhere works for the politicians who are in charge. They gain the reward and then work to avoid the consequences of the mess they make.

Yet Nobody in Particular Can Manage Government

Donald Trump brags about his management experience. In forecasting what kind of government executive he will be, he draws on his experience as a real estate development. He talks about the country as a whole as if it were one of his country clubs. The government is the management team, and he is the CEO. He thinks he will bring his managerial genius to bear on the entire thing and make it all work.

That’s not just creepy; it is also unworkable.

The government consists of nearly two million civilian employees, all told: entrenched careerists who have no interest at all in complying with an elected leader’s dictate. Bureaucrats know they will outlast their temporary managers. And they are not looking for marching orders. They constitute a machinery that works on its own, following countless pages of regulations, some of which have a historical legacy dating back 150 years.

Then there’s the problem that the vast majority of the government’s objectives are non-viable. No matter how much you press the minions of the nation-state, they can’t achieve their goal – such as ridding the world of marijuana, for example.

The natural path of government is to grow. To reverse that direction is like reversing a river, defying gravity, or standing against the tide.What’s weird about listening to Trump is that he doesn’t seem to make any distinction between the businesses he runs and the government he wants to head. He seems to think that both can be an extension of his personal will. One Will. His Way. Just as with every authoritarian, reality must conform to his word.

He is not right in either case, but in the case of his own private-sector accomplishments, he might just be bragging. In the case of the public sector, he is absolutely deluded.

Maybe a bit of government experience would tame his wild ambitions. It wouldn’t be a bad thing, at least, to approach the job with at least a hint of humility, such as that which a two-term president usually has by the end.

Notice that Obama hasn’t had many grand visions or goals since Obamacare came and destroyed what was good about healthcare? That’s probably because his experience has taught him something.

Johnson and Weld
What if one’s experience in government has cultivated a different and seemingly impossible talent? What if during your tenure as a manager in the public sector you actually managed to cut bureaucracy, regulation, taxes, and spending?

I can’t even imagine a more difficult and counterintuitive experience. The natural path of government is to grow. To reverse that direction is like reversing a river, defying gravity, or standing against the tide.

Such feats are not for the faint of heart. Very few have ever managed such a thing. Sometimes it happens almost by accident, as with the case of Jimmy Carter, who deregulated on a case-by-case basis, in a way having nothing to do with ideology.

Even if you shrank the government just a bit, there is a degree of congratulations in order. The cunning, the managerial expertise, the persuasive power, the sheer competence necessary for such a feat are all things that elicit wonder.
By all reports, both Gary Johnson and William Weld, now the nominees for the Libertarian Party ticket, have actually done these things. Cato wrote in 2002 that Johnson “has cut the state income tax, the gasoline tax, the state capital gains tax, and the unemployment tax. In 2001, he wanted a further 7 percent reduction in income tax rates. The legislature cut the tax less than he wanted, so he vetoed the bill. In 1999, he vetoed a 12 cent per pack cigarette tax hike because he opposes all tax hikes…. In 2000, he signed a residential property tax cap that will limit increases in valuations to 3 percent per year. Johnson has successfully sponsored other government reform initiatives such as an electricity deregulation bill, a 10 percent reduction in state payrolls, and a Medicaid cost-cutting plan….”

As for Weld, Cato wrote:

  • 1992, “A.” Weld cut the budget and pushed to reduce income and capital gains taxes.
  • 1994, “B.” Weld cut spending, balanced the budget, improved the state’s bond rating, and cut numerous taxes. Even with a Democratic legislature, “Weld has a stunningly successful fiscal record.”
  • 1996, “B.” Weld “began to engage in a whirlwind of government downsizing. In his first two years in office, the state budget
    1, 2  - View Full Page