Analysis: Too big to succeed

After the 2008 meltdown of the U.S. financial markets, the federal government came to the rescue with a $787 billion economic stimulus package and a $700 billion bailout aimed at financial institutions that were deemed too big to fail without risking disaster to the broader American economy.

But maybe a bigger problem is that government is too big to succeed.

Now most of the stimulus money has been spent and the bailout money repaid, yet the economic problems linger. The effects of the global recession are still being felt in the form of high unemployment, low housing prices, and mounting debt that threatens the stability of U.S. and European financial markets. And the super committee, which was supposed to cut the federal deficit by at least $1.2 trillion, essentially declared defeat.

In the past year, U.S. officials struggled to pass a federal budget, which almost resulted in a government shutdown; raised the federal debt ceiling, which nearly led the nation to default; and downgraded America's Triple A credit rating for the first time. Now their failure to come up with a viable deficit reduction plan could result in automatic across-the-board cuts to both defense and entitlements such as Medicare.

Many blame politicians on the right and the left who are unable to work together and seek middle ground. But perhaps this lack of compromise is a symptom rather than the cause.

Proposals from presidential contenders and members of Congress for reducing the size of government range from cutting 10 percent or more of the federal workforce to eliminating three to five federal departments.

Calls to cut government come from those who want to save money and curb waste. But the mandate also stems from a growing sentiment that it has gotten too large and complex to accomplish its missions.

To put it in perspective, consider how the three branches of government add up: The president and vice president, 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 senators, nine U.S. Supreme Court justices, 15 Cabinet chiefs, 2.65 million executive branch civilians, 7,000 Senior Executive Service members, 1.4 million active-duty military personnel, 848,000 reservists, 574,000 U.S. Postal Service workers, 33,000 in the legislative branch, 30,000 in the judicial branch, and a budget of $3.82 trillion. Add in 311 million citizen-constituents and more than 17,000 lobbyists spending $3.5 billion on thousands of causes and we are talking about a big and complex engine of democracy.

But the point is not whether government should be smaller or larger, but rather that size matters.

Continued growth of large entities becomes a greater management challenge. The life cycle of organizations, and in fact all organisms, takes the shape of an S-curve (the Sigmoid Curve). After start up and growth, there comes a plateau and flattening-and possibly even a decline if a new growth curve isn't established. Unimpeded growth does not come without costs and an eventual slowdown or transformation.

Government has grown fast and far, but now is reaching the limits of what is feasible to manage and control. A transformation is needed to establish a new order, simplify the complex, organize the chaos, and shift the business of government to a sleeker and more high-tech management model.

It will not be easy or cheap to change the status quo. As in all transformations, government officials first must recognize the need to change and then work to achieve the goal with speed and commitment.

Andy Blumenthal is a State Department division chief, author and blogger at www.totalcio.blogspot.com. The views expressed are his own and do not represent those of any agency.