Co-dependant bureaucracies
By Bruce Walker
web
posted July 1, 2002
The proliferation of regulations, programs, court decisions, and statutes
are correctly perceived as creating more bureaucracy and less clarity
in the federal government. Like some helpless victim in a Franz Kafka
story, increasing numbers of people find themselves guilty of behavior
that is inherently innocent. Violating the edicts of one federal agency
may be required to fulfill the demands of another federal agency.
Millions of quietly, desperately frustrated, people yearn for change,
but how does one end a federal agency? How does one stop the flow of federal
dollars to addicts hooked on this fiscal opium? How can federal system
be saved before it suddenly implodes like the First Foundation in Isaac
Asimov's famous trilogy? How can the supernova be slowed without creating
the gravitational tug that yanks all matter into a singularity?
Without being too pessimistic, there may be no hope. But understanding
the true nature of the beast, the real roots of the overgrowth, is essential
to any solution. Knowledge of the mechanics of compulsory inefficiency
provides the only chance to fix the mess which gets messier every day.
The federal bureaucracies connected with useless programs are massive,
but these are only the tips of the iceberg. The vast majority of these
programs have constituent state government administering agencies, each
of which has a separate bureaucracy. Many of these state programs superintend
the implementation of federal mandates at the local government level.
The multiplier effect is not just in numbers of employees who have become
dependant upon irrational rules, but these employees work at different
levels of government creating pressure not only in Congress, but in statehouses
and in city halls to keep the program alive.
Moreover, these bureaucracies are co-dependant on one another. State
agencies responsible for, say, literacy training have no incentive in
reporting to federal agencies in Washington that the problem of illiteracy
has been substantially solved, but they also has no incentive for saying
that the literacy training program does not work. Social problems remain
suspended in a bureaucratic emulsion. Likewise, local programs have no
reason to say that in their community illiteracy has been wiped out. Rather,
they have a strong interest in finding reasons to compete for funds from
other parts of the state.
Bureaucrats, unlike businessmen, do not judge their personal success
by the bottom line or any other real measurement, but rather by the number
of employees they supervise. Consequently, bureaucrats will constantly
complain about being "understaffed" because more employees below
them in the organizational chart means a grander title, more money, and
a nicer office.
This Theater of the Absurd which we call "government" should
be scrutinized by outsiders whose profession is showing that the emperor
has no clothes, but there are equally serious bureaucracies in academia
and the media. Studies by professors and graduate students on a particular
government program will never say "problem solved" or "no
work done" or "counterproductive" because the niche within
academia that these bureaucrats inhabit requires an eternal problem to
be examined.
Reporters specialize. In doing so, they stop thinking and start absorbing
the belief systems around them. Those noble guardians in our Fourth Estate
likewise have crass interests in the perpetuation of the appearance of
a constant war fought against some dangerous and barely restrainable social
problem.
What about those corporations which end up paying for so much of this
ornamentation? These behemoths also develop bureaucracies designed specifically
to respond to the bureaucracies of government. Much like medieval mercenaries,
these corporate bureaucrats have an interest in almost bloodless but almost
constant battle.
The specialization of lawyers creates yet another horde of freelance
knights, fully conversant with the practical intricacies of some narrow
areas of law and deeply valuing the continued existence of putative problems
and prescribed palliatives. And to this group of independent misery profiteers
must be added trainers and facilitators, technical writers and editors,
and other auxiliary forces.
The numbers of individuals dependant upon the continued existence of
problems, which must be constantly restrained but which may never be conquered,
are staggering. The bulk of our productive time and energy is spent in
this unproductive and morally debilitating activities.
Moreover, the territories of these realms of lard create even more waste.
Much of the work in a literacy program, for example, will be spent complying
with civil rights mandates, drug free workplace directives, OSHA job safety
requirements, and so forth. Perhaps the most bizarre requirement for state
agencies is to complete the Paperwork Reduction Act form.
Sometimes insanity reaches beyond mere absurdity. There are government
employees who do work needed work. Recent graduation ceremonies had long
lists of "thank you" and "we appreciate" to teachers,
counselors, administrators, secretaries, etc. There was a conspicuous
absence of any thanks or appreciation for the janitors, bus drivers and
cafeteria ladies. These folks, however, actually did something of merit.
Likewise, although firefighting is among the most obvious and fundamental
roles of government, how many communities have hundreds of people working
full-time in senseless jobs, while the community is protected by a volunteer
fire department? Why not volunteer bureaucrats and full-time firemen?
As anyone who has volunteered to do bureaucratic work for some voluntary
association (e.g. recording secretary, treasurer or newsletter editor)
these volunteers have a strong incentive to be as efficient as possible.
So why not have government jobs that "do stuff" like keep roads
in good repair, maintain water and sewage lines, trim hedges and grass
in parks, shelf library books, patrol streets for crime, provide emergency
medical and fire services, and the like get permanent funding (their work
is real) and have the true bureaucrats all retired volunteers who have
worked in real jobs before?
Many of these truly useful jobs are like the military: if their services
are not needed, we are much better off. In other words, paying firemen
to sit around and play cards is much better than having these firemen
battle a roaring city fire. When a police car patrols a neighbor and finds
no crime (perhaps because he is patrolling the neighborhood) then that
is also great news. It is better to pay policemen and firemen and not
to have fires and crime, than to pay them and to have fires and crime.
This is the sort of commonsense which even liberals understand. But within
the Byzantine structure of co-dependant bureaucracies there is another
hidden problem: not only do all the participants in "addressing"
the problem have a vested interest in this problem existing until the
end of time, but these are also the very people who have the information
that proves that they are wasting everyone's time.
Is there a real solution? Perhaps. Why not allow those employees in federal,
state and local governments to take a "very early retirement"
with a relatively modest pension, combined with vocational training and
six months of paid leave to discover a job that the employee truly loves
and can do well, for those bureaucrats who say "I am not really doing
any useful work"?
Who knows? Maybe some of these people would like to trim hedges in parks,
shelve books in libraries or cook food for children in cafeterias? Maybe
nothing can break the lock of bureaucratic co-dependancy. But maybe something
both simple and ambitious could start the trend back to real work and
real leisure.
Bruce Walker is a senior writer with Enter Stage Right. He is also a
contributor to Citizens View, The Common Conservative, Conservative Truth
and Port of Call.
Printer friendly version |
|
|