Saving Money By Hiring More Federal Employees

By George A. Warner

In a piece in the new issue of Washington Monthly, John Gravois makes a provocative case: if Congress really wants to save money, it shouldn't slash the federal workforce, as Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., proposed in February, but rather should beef up the bureaucracy.

His argument:

The problem is that, as employers go, the federal government is in fact pretty exceptional. A corporation can shed workers and then revise its overall business strategy accordingly. A strapped city government can lay off a few street sweepers and then elect to sweep the streets less often. But federal agencies are governed by statutory requirements. Unless Congress changes those statutes, federal agencies' mandates--their work assignments--stay the same, regardless of how many people are on hand to carry them out. ...

If Congress and the White House agree to substantial cuts in the federal workforce but don't also agree to eliminate programs and reduce services, the end result could be more spending and deficits, not less. Strange as it may sound, to get a grip on costs, we should in many cases be hiring many more bureaucrats--and paying more to get better ones--not cutting their numbers and freezing their pay. Because in many parts of government, the bureaucracy has already crossed that dangerous threshold beyond which further cuts can only mean greater risk of a breakdown.