“Sledgehammer or Scalpel?” asks IP attorney and author Timothy Trainer
We love to target the government. Many have the image of lazy, overpaid government employees. What do they do to improve the lives of citizens? What do they do to improve the ability of our businesses to compete in an ever more competitive global business climate? How does the government protect our international interests militarily and otherwise? Well, the questions about what the federal government does for its citizens and the country could go on and on.
Most will likely agree that sledgehammers and scalpels are very different. If the goal is to break up a slab of concrete, it’s probably a lot easier to do that using a sledgehammer, but that same sledgehammer is the wrong tool to use if cutting into a body to get at a joint that needs replaced or to access a body organ. In many ways, the lack of precision in reducing government waste is likely to result in the kind of damage a sledgehammer causes.
It is not difficult to get agreement on the topic that there is waste in government. The federal budget is like many household budgets. For most, there’s always room for cutting expenses. The question is who should do the cutting and how it should be done.
What we’ve witnessed during the past few months is a sledgehammer approach by people who do not understand the role of the federal government, what it does, how it does it and why. Businesspeople and entrepreneurs have an enormous advantage over the government because they concentrate on a return on investment (profits) and oversee an operation that is much more limited and focused than what a government is expected to deliver to its citizens. At this point, the vast array of what the government is expected to deliver for its citizenry and businesses is an endless list. Some are simple things like national security, but even that is not as simple as many might wish to believe.
Today, the concept of national security is much more complex than one might imagine. Simplistically, it might be understood to be those who serve in the armed forces. It’s the “military”, but that fails to capture the concept of national security in all its forms. Does the concept of national security include the research and development of the latest technologically advanced weapons systems? If so, who does all this research, and where? Who manufactures these systems? Should economic issues be considered as part of “national security”? If so, what does that entail? Should the government take on the task of ensuring that U.S. businesses are treated equally under the law in a foreign country as if they were a domestic company? A discussion on national security can quickly expand into areas that many may never have expected.
Given the fact that the federal government is not transparent in the numbers of government employees being fired or taking buyouts, there are no precise numbers. However, the New York Times has attempted to compile statistics that reflect the number of job cuts, buyouts, and expected future reductions to federal agencies. The Times’s effort to compile the numbers reaches an overall federal employee reduction of roughly 270,000. What We Know About the Trump Administration’s Cuts to the Federal Work Force – The New York Times
The challenge for anyone cutting government staff is to understand why a particular office exists, what it does and how many people it might take to fulfill a particular mission. Simply eliminating offices and staff without the appropriate analysis can do more harm to the government’s overall mission.
For all intents and purposes, the gutting and elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is a great example of doing harm without assessing what it does and how it delivers positive results for the U.S. While the superficial appearance of the activities of USAID may seem wasteful, this should not be the basis for the complete elimination of the agency and its activities.
For example, do we want to encourage a more positive business climate for U.S. businesses in foreign countries so they can operate under fair and equitably applied laws and regulations? If the answer is yes, then USAID activities that addressed commercial law issues in a particular country, working with a foreign government to improve laws and regulations that would attract more U.S. commercial opportunities and improve the ability of U.S. businesses to generate profits, seem to be worthwhile activities. These were activities conducted in numerous countries. Essentially, USAID worked to provide a more welcoming legal landscape for U.S. businesses. These are not activities individual companies undertake.
There is no doubt that some of USAID’s work was duplicated by other government offices. Several government offices and agencies are involved in economic and commercial development programs abroad that work to improve the business climate for U.S. businesses, but the sledgehammer approach fails to appreciate the work, the skill sets, and expertise that are needed to engage various foreign government agencies to make necessary progress.
A more precise management approach to reorganize or consolidate agencies, offices, and staff that are tasked with these projects is more efficient than the wholesale elimination of the agency without consideration of the goodwill these projects generated toward the U.S.
While USAID is only one agency, there are other losses among these personnel cutbacks that are priceless. No price tag can be placed on the loss of institutional knowledge, expertise, and specialized skills of thousands of employees leaving government service. Ultimately, the country will likely pay a high tax price to rebuild what is lost. It’s hard to fix anything if you fail to use the right tools.
