By Stephen Winham, guest columnist
Under the direction of the richest man on Earth, the Trump administration is gutting the government’s budget. The methods seem to mirror those used by major corporations to maximize efficiency and, more importantly, enhance profits as quickly as possible. The average citizen might say, “Hey, what’s wrong with that?”
Well, for starters, government does not exist to generate profits, nor should we want it to. It exists to provide services in return for taxpayer funding. Too many people fail to see the implications of this very important distinction.
If a private business cuts services, it reduces or eliminates the income and profits associated with them. Customers go to another service provider if there is one and they need the service. If no other company provides the service, the customer does without it. Most government services are not luxuries, so real harm often results from their reduction or elimination. We often find the extent of this out too late.
President Trump and Elon Musk are treating the government and its employees as if they are worthless. They want us to believe government is one big joke at our expense. Government is not a joke, and it is entirely possible to reduce and eliminate waste without destroying the government or the services it should provide.
I know of absolutely nobody who would object to squeezing the most efficiency and effectiveness possible out of our government. Deficiencies in both aspects are the biggest reasons we find ourselves so dissatisfied with our government today.
During my 20+ years working government budgets we tried pretty much every known rational approach to cutting budgets. I can tell you that only one worked – incremental budgeting – and it didn’t work particularly well. Incremental budgeting, done right, attempted to ferret out waste by analyzing what was being spent and recommending only what was needed going forward. If further cuts were necessary, they were made on an across-the-board basis, usually by expenditure category (salaries, travel, supplies, professional services, etc.).
The biggest problem with incremental budgeting is obvious. It assumes the department or agency needs to keep doing what it is doing and in pretty much the same way. These assumptions are not necessarily true, and we all know it.
Beginning with the Treen administration, the executive branch in Louisiana decided the people running the departments were the ones who should decide how and where to cut their budgets. After all, they should be in a better position to know what is going on in their departments than a bunch of bean counters in the state budget office or the legislative fiscal office. Makes sense, right? Well, guess what? Department heads didn’t really want the ball, so they simply complained about every cut proposed and begged for more money.
We then tried all manner of fancy, well-intentioned schemes to force rationality in making budget decisions – Zero Base Budgeting, Management by Objectives, Performance Based Budgeting, etc., etc. Several of these things were really the same things with different names, and none of them really worked the way they were supposed to.
The bureaucracy went through the motions of implementing these processes and recommendations, but they were not taken seriously enough by anybody except those trying to dictate them. There are three main reasons these ostensibly rational approaches failed, in my opinion: 1. It is counter-intuitive to assume people on the frontlines and their supervisors will help their bosses cut their programs/jobs. 2. Department heads don’t want to be held accountable (blamed) when cuts have negative consequences. 3. Presidents, governors and legislators make most decisions based on the politics of retaining power rather than on what any budget model says makes the most sense – unless, of course, the two happen to coincide.
I’ve lost count of how many private sector task forces came in and made recommendations based on very limited exposure to government and how it works. Their learning curves in this regard often exceeded the length of their contracts. None of their recommendations were original and they often recommended turning government operations over to private businesses.
It has never made sense to me that a for-profit entity should be able do things cheaper than the government, but it sounded good, and many people bought into it. I found that savings from privatization were almost always temporary and often resulted from lower entry level salaries and benefits. Salaries are not the greatest costs in government and the restrictions of civil service are not nearly as onerous as most have been led to believe. If retention is important, salaries increase over time regardless of the system.
I have always said we should emulate private businesses to the extent possible before turning anything over to them entirely. Again, the government does not exist to make a profit and profiting from the government is all too often guided by greed.
In my opinion, the best way to cut the budget would be a simple, seemingly subtle variation of what the Muskovites are doing. Unfortunately, it would require resolve not yet exhibited by the executive or legislative branches of our government.
Here’s an outline of a possible method of efficiently and effectively cutting, not gutting, the budget:
Based on the best information readily available (and there is plenty), funding should be provided for each department (or independent agency) based on how important their work is and how well they are doing it. You don’t need a new process for this, nor should you have to ask the departments for the information necessary to do it. The data should already be out there. Analyzing it does take a little time and effort, but the staff is already there, too. It does not have to be a long, drawn-out process.
Some departments may actually need more money to function efficiently, but the rest can continue to function with reasonable cuts. Some programs can be eliminated, including those unable to justify their existences via available data. Give the department heads the maximum flexibility possible to manage the funding levels in the best way possible and make them tell you what they are doing and the effects.
Hold DEPARTMENT HEADS accountable for the results – this is the absolute key to success. Do not allow prolonged and unproductive appeals. If the department/agency heads don’t do the very best they can to make responsible decisions (and, believe me, you will know), fire them and hire somebody who will. Do your best to avoid arbitrary cuts but realize mistakes will be made no matter what you do.
If accountability is placed at the department level, neither executive nor legislative branch elected officials can be made scapegoats for unfair or irrational cuts. Decision-making is done at the appropriate level. Elected officials, of course, would continue to bear accountability for whom they have appointed and retained to run the departments and for the funding levels provided them.
Could this work? I am convinced it could, but it would require our elected officials to place the needs of our people and our country ahead of their own. What are the chances this will ever happen? Slim, if we keep electing the same kind of people and pay no attention to what they are doing. That’s where our resolve must come in. If we continue to be apathetic and disconnected, nothing will change.
P. S. Musk’s idea to have employees briefly describe what they do, and why, is not a bad idea, in my opinion. It should only take a few minutes if the bureaucratese is left out. Most people should be able to summarize why their job exists in 2-4 sentences. On the surface this might seem like a silly idea, but it could be a very useful exercise for both the employees and the government.
Editor’s note: Stephen Winham is a retired Director of the Louisiana Executive Budget Office, former adjunct professor and a freelance writeer and editor. He resides in St. Francisville.
Louisiana Voice 
Very good advice from the wise Mr. Winham.
“Well, for starters, government does not exist to generate profits”. No joke. When has a “profit” been an issue with the federal government?
We currently have 2 million employees who work for us. How long have these people been “working from home”? Are we to believe they are actually putting in 8 working hours a day or even 40 working hours per week? We both know the answer to that. Really, ever looked at our education system? The education system has been abysmal ever since we created the Department of Education (Thanks Jimmy). We all know it. Private schools operate far more economically.
The suggestions put forth in the article will never amount to trillions of dollars. Musk has saved more already. Certainly, a person with your background would not oppose the cuts made so far. I will not rehash the USAID expenditures, which clearly are wrong, and have been for many years.
And kudos to you for even acknowledging that bureaucrats should have to account for their paychecks, especially when they do not even show up for work and are receiving paychecks of over $100K with many benefits (look for that in the real world). I agree that we could lose 25% of governmental employees and never miss a beat.
Even at the state level; Ever call DPS or Dept of Revenue for assistance? There is no accountability in government employees like there once was and they seem to think we work for them, not the contrary.
It is way past time for accountability for our tax dollars. Just read this; https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Roman-Written-Testimony.pdf
And this is a small part, but really, as one defends our government, understand we are literally giving billions to have our own soldiers killed! Defend that.
Thank you Stephen. You have offered a serious and intellectually honest response. The problem is that neither Trump nor Musk are serious. Both are known liars drunk on power. They aren’t trying to eliminate waste or fraud or streamline government. They are the proverbial bull in a china shop smashing things randomly because that’s all a bull in a china shop can do. This highlights the central problem in addressing the current state of affairs. MAGA is not a serious, intellectually honest political movement. It is a fascist alternate reality built on lies and propaganda for the sole purpose of allowing its adherents to wallow in their ignorant prejudices as made manifest in the person of Trump. It can only accomplish something good and desirable by accident. Therefore a serious and intellectually honest suggestion – one in which both sides might find something to support – competes with the delusion, paranoia, and prejudice of people who have already sold out to the ecstasy of fascism and power, and who have demonstrated time and time again they don’t give a damn about intellectual honesty. MAGA voters willing to listen to your argument, take it seriously, and find solutions that work for everyone are so few as to be statisically zero. That is true of MAGA regardless of what issue is under discussion. This leaves the rest of us frustrated and flailing, willing to debate and compromise but with no one honest enough to debate or compromise with.
Thanks for the comment, Paul. Good points.
Thank you, Mr. Winham! You make such sense and hit the nail on the head. As a 40+ year retired state employee in Child Protection, I’ve heard a lot of this before. The same “solution” by a different name. Still doesn’t work whatever you call it. We “know” it is the same and won’t work, but nobody listens. We do it any way. The ship continues in the wrong direction with those on board having little influence on that direction.
In Child Protection, there are mandated responsibilities. When enough resources, workers, are not there, CPS is already behind the eight ball. With the number of new abuse/neglect cases assigned to workers, the responsibilities are overwhelming and the time constraints, deadlines, are almost impossible. What is done instead is to set up some task force or “unit” to review why the problem exists. When that doesn’t work, another layer of oversight is put in place. Here is a waste. We know why the problem exists, yet it continues. Too many cases for one worker to complete in mandated time frames and burnout is inevitable and something like locating/contacting a biological parent goes by the wayside. The child/children must be protected and while that is being done, the worker is assigned one to two to three more cases. Some of these contacts are left undone. Not the way it should be, but the way it is.
Here is an example – DCFS has always been deficient in contacting biological fathers of children in foster care. Every year, we had to meet to be told what we already knew. Even when we explained the “why,” the solution was usually, a “unit” was set up to review the cases to determine how many fathers we were not contacting and why, with more reports required on more deadlines. Same thing. Another meeting. Another form to complete to show we were not doing what we already knew we were not doing. So another person, unit, is set up to review the data and come up with a solution – more forms, more reports, more deadlines to meet. After a while, there are many overseers of what is not being done, but not enough people to do the work and rectify the problem. That leads to an agency being top heavy – more overseers of the overseers. There are not enough workers. True, but we have resources we are not utilizing efficiently and effectively. If some of those “overseers” were moved to positions that can actually accomplish something – more boots on the ground – that would make a difference. Or hire more workers so cases are more manageable. We say we want to protect children, but we are not willing to put in the needed resources to accomplish that better. We just add another layer. We just add someone or many someone’s to look at it, which usually means another person on the ground, will be moved, promoted, to that new unit for more money and less hands on. Thus, the problem continues.
We don’t want to say something is not needed (as that includes people who are working) and we might lose them and worst of all, we will lose the money. Nobody wants to lose money or manpower, even if that manpower is not in the right place. We just stay with the status quo because it’s easier.
Your solution to Hold Department Heads accountable is it. That Department Head should know where the waste (really not waste, per se, but where the money is not being best used) and make the hard decision. Nobody likes it. But if it’s objective and fair, and not arbitrary or willy-nilly, not personal or political, as is happening in the country now, it is at least more easily accepted.
Civil Service was put into place to keep politics out of government employment. That protection is needed now more than ever. Civil Service is not perfect, but is necessary. Government workers, state or federal, are NOT worthless. They are necessary. They deserve the best we’ve got!
Thank you, Marsha, for making and keeping it real.
As always, Stephan Winham offers an experienced eye and thoughtful and common sense analysis of complex issues. Bevis and Butthead are destroying democracy with the adoring hordes cheering them on rather than standing to defend our country. Thanks, Stephen.
Thanks Mr. Winham and Mr. Spillman, and Ms. Linam. As I recall most Department Heads are appointed by the Governor, or some Board/commission, who answers to the Governor. I agree the solution is to hold the “heads” accountable, but I support paying our teachers, social workers, and all state workers commensurate with their skills and assigned duty. This is not hard to do, it is called leadership and a real Civil Service. thanks