The Federal Government: Under Renovation or Demolition?

Change is in the air. You can feel it. Change in the congressional agenda and (of course) big, uncertain changes in the White House.

The election was all about change. Change Obamacare, change our tax code, change our dysfunctional immigration system. For many voters and legislators, this change election represented a mandate to change the status quo, change the way Washington has been doing (or not) the nation's business, and, perhaps most importantly, change the size and role of the federal government.

Although President-elect Trump, as well as a number of important congressional Republicans, have been quite vocal about reigning in the expansive federal government through reducing federal regulations and eliminating federal programs, I am quite surprised that the press and those all too familiar "talking heads" have not picked up more of this desire. They should listen to the rhetoric – "bloated bureaucracy," "duplicative," and the need to "streamline and modernize the federal government  for the 21st century."

One of the ideas gaining circulation in some corners of Congress is a "commission" to study and recommend ways to streamline and modernize our federal government. Of course, embedded in the goal of streamlining is the hope that recommendations will reduce programs, eliminate programs or transfer program authority to the states.

This approach has been tried before. Truman did it in the 1940's. Eisenhower did it in the 1950's and President Reagan tried it in the 1980's. Some efforts were successful and made a substantial impact. Others, especially the Grace Commission under President Reagan, offered 2,500 recommendations that were largely ignored by a Democratically controlled Congress.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of the Truman and Eisenhower efforts, but I've read a lot about them. I do, however, know about the Reagan efforts. I found them ideologically driven. Many of the members and staff were Washington insiders with long held beliefs that made honest evaluations and recommendations difficult, if not impossible to find. Logic and reason were in short supply.

I agree that Washington is often times broken and that change, if done right, can be a good thing. Streamlining and modernizing our federal government for the 21st century is needed. A thorough review, by an open and honest commission, is potentially of immense value in congressional deliberation.

But to produce such a product, a truly fair and ideologically neutral report, would require quite a change from the current way Washington does business. This could be the kind of change I could believe in!