Breaking the Bureaucratic Wall: Why Trimming Government Fat Remains an Impossible Task

Jul 12, 2025

From the federal government in Washington to city halls across the country, bureaucracy has grown into a sprawling, deeply entrenched system that seems impervious to reform. Despite decades of attempts by leaders across the political spectrum, efforts to reduce the size and inefficiency of government have largely failed. The reasons are complex, but one thing is clear: once a government program is created, it becomes nearly impossible to dismantle—even when it no longer serves its intended purpose.

One of the earliest modern attempts to tackle this issue came from President Jimmy Carter, who introduced the concept of Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB). The idea was revolutionary: instead of carrying over previous budgets with incremental increases, each federal department would start from zero every year and justify every dollar based on performance and necessity. In theory, this would eliminate waste and force accountability. In practice, it was never fully implemented. The inertia of existing programs, political resistance, and the sheer complexity of federal operations rendered ZBB more of a thought experiment than a functional policy.

President Ronald Reagan took a different approach. His administration sought to close down programs that had either fulfilled their mission or were no longer effective. Yet, despite his strong rhetoric and political capital, Reagan’s efforts were similarly thwarted. Programs persisted, often protected by entrenched interests, bureaucratic inertia, and the fear of job losses.

Fast forward to today, and the story remains the same. President Donald Trump, through the Department of Justice and other agencies, proposed sweeping cuts to federal programs. But again, Congress—tasked with approving such changes—has shown little appetite for deep cuts, especially when they threaten jobs or services in their districts.

At the local level, the struggle is just as pronounced. In San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie inherited a nearly $1 billion budget shortfall. Her administration aimed to reduce the city’s workforce by 15%, trimming down from a bloated 35,000-employee base. Yet, despite the urgency, the effort has largely stalled. Departments resist cuts, unions push back, and political will falters.

Even when new programs are funded, implementation lags. San Francisco voters approved two new taxes to fund homeless shelters and child daycare facilities. Years later, neither initiative has been fully realized. Now, there’s talk of diverting those funds to other uses—an all-too-common outcome when bureaucracy meets budgetary pressure.

So why is it so hard to eliminate or scale back ineffective programs? The answer lies in one word: jobs. Every government department, no matter how inefficient, is tied to employment. These jobs come with titles, responsibilities, and constituencies. Eliminating a program means eliminating positions—something few politicians are willing to do, especially when those jobs are in their own backyard.

Moreover, programs often carry noble intentions. Who wants to be the official who cuts funding for a homeless shelter, even if it’s underperforming? The optics are terrible, and the political fallout can be severe. As a result, accountability takes a back seat, and taxpayers are left footing the bill for services that may not deliver meaningful results.

This issue is poised to become even more pressing as the U.S. attempts to revive its manufacturing sector. With unemployment at historically low levels, where will the labor come from? One potential source is the vast government workforce. As the country retools for industrial growth, it may need to reallocate human capital from bureaucratic roles to productive, private-sector jobs.

But given the track record of reform efforts, this will be no small task. The U.S. government—at all levels—has proven remarkably resistant to change. Programs, once created, take on a life of their own. They become institutions, protected by layers of regulation, political alliances, and public sentiment.

Breaking through this bureaucratic wall will require more than policy tweaks. It will demand a cultural shift—one that prioritizes results over rhetoric, accountability over appearances, and the public good over political convenience. Until then, the machinery of government will continue to grow, and the dream of lean, efficient governance will remain just that: a dream.

 

BY HANS HANSSON, President of Starboard CRE