The Project 2025 Ethos: A Concern
Project 2025’s approach appears less about reform and more about gaining an advantage by dismantling the U.S. Federal Government—a strategy that inflicts harm on “others” regardless of who they may be.
The Problem with "Owning the Libs"
The phrase "owning the libs" is often touted as a badge of ideological victory, but it ultimately reduces complex political realities to a shallow contest of insults. This mindset bypasses the necessity for real reform by celebrating a superficial win over an opposing worldview, rather than addressing the systemic issues that truly affect governance.
Cleaning House vs. Burning It Down
Reforming, or "cleaning house," is a reasonable objective. However, burning the house down—eliminating structures and people simply because they are disliked—is neither a viable strategy nor morally defensible. The consequences of such destruction are severe and far-reaching.
Irrecoverable Damage and Consequences
Even if those in power were to attempt an immediate reversal, the damage inflicted could be irreparable. Sweeping reforms achieved through destructive means might lead to widespread harm, even loss of life, before any corrective actions can be implemented.
The Cost of Elimination
While drastic measures might remove problematic elements, they do so at a steep cost. A nation of over 300 million people requires a robust federal workforce. Currently, the U.S. federal government employs approximately 2 million civilian workers—about one per 170 people (excluding military, contractors, and state/local employees). This scale is necessary to manage an array of critical responsibilities.
Evaluating the Federal Workforce
The federal government oversees:
- National Defense
- Social Security
- Healthcare Programs (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid)
- Environmental Protection
- Scientific Research
- Infrastructure
Historically, despite population growth, the federal workforce has remained relatively stable. In the 1960s, the number of federal employees per capita was higher, yet today's ratio still reflects the vast responsibilities of modern governance.
Federal vs. State and Local Government
Although the federal workforce is significant, state and local governments employ over 19 million people. These entities handle education, policing, and local infrastructure, allowing the federal government to focus on broader, national-level issues.
Is One Federal Employee per 170 People Excessive?
Given the scale of federal responsibilities—such as administering Social Security for over 70 million beneficiaries and regulating public health and safety through agencies like the EPA and FDA—the ratio of one federal employee per 170 citizens does not seem excessive. Instead, it is a reflection of the comprehensive role the government plays.
International Comparisons
In many countries, the ratio of public sector employees to the population is even higher. Nordic nations like Sweden and Norway maintain larger public sectors to support extensive social services. Conversely, nations with smaller governments often rely on privatized services, leading to different outcomes in terms of efficiency and equity.
Conclusion
The U.S. federal workforce, with roughly one employee per 170 citizens, appears proportionate to the government's extensive responsibilities. While some may advocate for downsizing in the name of efficiency, reducing the workforce too drastically could undermine the delivery of essential services. Project 2025 doesn’t merely debate the merits of a one-in-170 ratio—it seeks to dismantle the administrative state entirely, a radical departure from preserving the institutional capacity essential to serve over 300 million Americans.
Comments