Regardless of necessity, change is never easy.

We become victims of routine. The status quo is comfortable despite our complaints identifying and validating the need for change. It’s easier to gripe and whine than actively advocate for change. Implementing worthwhile change involves short-term adjustment, even hardship, but facilitates long-term benefit.

Recent actions of the President provide a perfect example. We’ve all felt and complained about government being bloated, overstaffed; aggravated by overspending, lack of accountability or frustrated by the scarcity of competent, prompt governmental service.

With a $36.3 trillion national debt, an annual interest payment over $1.1 billion, and a 2024 deficit of $1.8 billion, we and the country have reached the end of our rope. We must not only reduce expenditure but generate a surplus or our country will hang at the end of that rope.

We don’t have a choice. Our biggest danger isn’t international military conflict, environment, immigration, or constitutional threats; it’s economic. Less and less money is available for the needs of citizens. Foreign countries own $8 trillion of our debt, 364 of the Fortune 500 employing 8.5 million Americans, and 46 million acres of agricultural land. Our negative balance of payments increases annually. The threat is obvious.

With 3.1 million employees, payroll is the quickest way to begin the process.

Governmental agencies and departments develop their own bureaucracy. Those within it have a vested interest in continued growth, which increases funding. Directors desire more employees because enlarging their kingdom pads their resume’. Once established seldom do governmental organizations voluntarily decrease in size; they possess eternal life.

No city or state wants to lose jobs, but the status quo is unsustainable. The financial deadline has arrived. Job losses facilitate lower prices as demand decreases. These losses are short-term because the private sector is experiencing employee shortage in every category. Eventually, lower governmental spending could justify lower taxes, increasing consumption.

In business, if a new function “X” needs to be done, initially the owner will ask his people “Who can pick this up?” with the goal being meeting the need with current employees. The owner must minimize expenses to stay in business; his money is at risk. As the company’s revenue grows, the time may arise when another employee is required, but it’s never choice No. 1. Any governmental, school, non-profit organization, receiving taxpayer funding doesn’t require profit. When a new need surfaces, the tendency is to either establish a new position or another department. Bankruptcy isn’t a concern.

With a 4.9% increase in our population between 2020-2024, it’s hard to justify a 14.8% increase in federal employees (2.7 million to 3.1 million); indicating efficiency isn’t a priority. Given the millions spent on technology, increased efficiency should have facilitated a decrease in employee numbers.

A 10% reduction of a $294 billion 2024 total payroll saves $29 billion. A beneficial strategy would be a sharing approach. Split the savings. Reduce expenditure by $14.5 billion and lower middle class tax rates by whatever percentage reflects $14.5B in tax revenue.

Between 2020-2024 private sector layoffs averaged 12 million annually. With federal employees’ seniority-based promotions, federal pension system, reduced-rate health insurance, 20-26 paid vacation days, 11 paid federal holidays, and strictly limited daily hours, it’s hard for those working in the private sector to feel sorry for the 10% of 3.1 million federal employees potentially losing their jobs.

A 10% decrease would eliminate 310,000 employees requiring significant change from the status quo. Eliminating the Department of Education illustrates what’s possible without negatively affecting the mission.

It might be surprising that as a public high school teacher for 40 years, I would advocate such. It’s because I value public education and understand student learning increases occur at the local level, in the classroom, between student and teacher. Get taxpayer money there.

 The 2024 Department of Education had 4,300 employees and a budget of $268 billion. I can’t speak for others, but in my experience little if any of that budget reaches the classroom. One year, there was $3,000 available for curriculum. The accompanying bureaucratic application and reporting requirements required 30-40 hours; wasn’t worth it.

 What happens to all the money? It’s used up in the federal and state educational department bureaucracy. A better plan would be divide the money up among the 50 states. Four staff could handle writing the checks and receiving annual state accountability reports.

The same concept applies to states and the same process necessary. The Colorado Department of Education has 276 employees earning $25.7 million. Another four person staff (saving $25 million) could divide the budget figure arriving from the Department of Education and divide it among Colorado’s school districts. The local district and its citizens know their schools’, teachers’, and students’ needs the best and have the biggest stake in increasing their students’ learning.

Given the $268 billion Department of Education budget, the government could put the $892 million payroll toward total budget reduction leaving $267.1 billion. Divided by 3.15 million public school teachers, $84,793 could theoretically be allocated to each teacher’s classroom. Each school district could decide what portion of that figure would go toward teacher salaries, facilities, student learning activities, increasing school days or whatever needs were determined locally. This may seem simplistic, but simple often generates the best and most efficient results.

The two main variables in student learning are time and teacher quality. We are naïve to think the number of “best and brightest” attracted to teaching wouldn’t increase if they could earn $100,000. Attracting more to the profession would allow schools to be selective and demand educational accountability.

Reducing bureaucracy with its inherent cost and inefficiency requires difficult but necessary decisions. We don’t have to agree with all the implementation strategies, but it’s time to be personally responsible, stop complaining, advocate necessary change and have the courage to support the process as it has begun. It’s a necessity. We don’t have a choice.

Bryan Whiting feels most of our issues are best solved by personal responsibility and an understanding of non-partisan economics rather than government intervention. Comments and column suggestions to: bwpersonalresponsibility@gmail.com.