The Challenge of Reducing Government: A Path to Accountability and Consumer Choice

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. The unchecked expansion of agencies, many with overlapping mandates and entrenched inefficiencies, is frustrating—especially when taxpayers foot the bill. There is no doubt that a leaner, more accountable government would better serve the public.

In early 2025, enter President Donald Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The purpose is to streamline federal operations. DOGE has aggressively reduced government spending by dismantling agencies and laying off thousands of federal employees, claiming significant taxpayer savings. However, these actions have sparked legal challenges and raised concerns about potential overreach and the sustainability of such rapid reforms. 

The how troubles me. 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 aren’t built on a solid foundation—like legislative consensus and structural accountability—any progress made today could be easily undone by the next administration.

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 why 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.

Key principles of a sustainable government reduction strategy include:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 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.

5. Accountability and Transparency – Implementing stronger oversight mechanisms and performance-based evaluations would ensure that agencies deliver real value rather than merely existing for their own sake.

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.