Nation vs. government
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
Food for Thought
Judge of Probate Richard Dean
I hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable American Independence Day and spent some time reflecting upon how fortunate we, and the world, are that America exists. Anyone who knows me knows I believe America is the greatest nation in the world.
So as not to confuse, let’s get on the same page. There is a difference between a nation and a government. A nation is defined as a group of people with a common language, history, culture, and (usually) geographic territory. The government, on the other hand, is the “complex” of political institutions, laws and customs through which governing is carried out, usually through a small group of persons.
As a nation, we haven’t done everything right, nor righteously, but we try. As a nation, we admit our flaws and show our blemishes. We look at history and attempt to correct ill-conceived notions and actions of the past.
As we enter our 250th year, I hope we spend the year honestly comparing America’s values to other nations, seeing the contributions America has made and makes and seeing where we can make improvements not only for ourselves, but, more importantly, to those who follow.
Now to the government. That is where the problems usually arise. We’ve heard much noise about federal personnel/employee cuts, federal government bloat, federal employees not being in their offices, and the list continues. Therefore, I decided to check the facts, at least regarding federal personnel numbers, and compare them to the military personnel numbers and reductions in which I was involved.
The more I found, the more frustrated I became. I read many articles, looked at multiple surveys and studies and visited many U.S. government websites. There are many government sites (federal agencies and Congress) reporting federal employee numbers. Each site reports differently; not sure why unless the goal is to confuse. Some government agencies have multiple websites reporting federal employee numbers. Even sites within the same agency differ in the numbers reported.
I took what appeared to be a consensus of federal employee numbers. The numbers I will address do not include U.S. postal employees (600,000 in 2024), part-time employees, U.S. military uniformed personnel (1.3 million), federal contractors, and others.
The following data is from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management reports for federal employees. As of September 2017: Employees: 1,869,986; Annuitants 2,579,861. As of September 2024: Employees: 2,313,216. The 2024 report did not list annuitants. The latest data for Annuitants was found on the Congress.gov website: 2,832,000.
According to the Pew Research Center Report in January 2025, the following is a snapshot of federal civilian employee pay data. Please note, the numbers and percentages vary slightly due to rounding. Employees earning less than $50k is 8.1% or 187,370 personnel. Employees earning between $50k – $109k is 50.8% or 1,175,114 personnel. Employees earning between $110k – $199k is 38.1% or 881,335 personnel. Employees earning over $200k is 3.1% or 71,710 personnel.
I have long believed the federal government is much too large and has too many agencies performing similar functions. Many federal government positions require advanced college degrees. However, when one looks at the responsibilities and duties, many positions should require at most some college or a two-year degree and specific job-related training.
When I was active-duty military and later working in Washington, D.C., I was involved in many military force reductions and base realignment and closing (BRAC) actions. I saw multiple and drastic military personnel reductions.
In 1974 when I entered the military, we were “right-sizing” following Vietnam. From 1968-1980, we decreased military personnel end-strength by 1,497,000. This is confusing to me because military personnel end-strength during Vietnam only increased 569,000 from 1962-1967. The highest number of U.S. troops in Vietnam was 543,400 in April 1969.
From 1981-1987, President Reagan, as part of his rebuilding and re-equipping the military, increased military personnel by 91,700. Then from 1988-2000 our military forces went through another reduction. Military personnel were reduced by 789,900.
With the start of Desert Storm, military personnel end-strength increased by 50,000. Since 2005, military end-strength has again steadily declined by approximately 125,000.
I say all of this to make the point that since 1987, the U.S. military has been in an almost constant state of military personnel reduction. In 1987, three years of the “downsizing” began. Then in the 1990s (1991-2000) we cut another 790,900 military personnel. Today we have 1,310,000 active-duty military personnel.
The cutting of military personnel was supposed to save money. By having a smaller military force, we would be able to close bases and reduce equipment (airplanes, ships, support equipment, etc.). However, we found that while closing military bases made sense, we still needed much of the equipment to meet ongoing mission requirements. In addition, we realized our military needed new airplanes, ships and other equipment because much of what we had was simply wearing out.
In the early 2000s, there were many reports (Military Times, NPR, Los Angeles Times, and the major media networks) expressing concerns about the U.S. military’s readiness and capability.
It was also realized that if the nation’s overall defense mission had not changed and equipment from closed bases was reallocated to other bases, someone had to maintain it. Military personnel argued this point, but the arguments fell on deaf ears. I testified multiple times before Congress about military personnel and equipment shortfalls, the extremely long duty hours our military personnel were performing and the lack of parts available to keep an aging fleet of equipment serviceable.
I wasn’t the only one testifying about these issues. Other organizations around the D.C. area and military leadership were appearing before Congress making the same arguments.
The bureaucrats replaced many military positions by hiring more expensive civilian and contract personnel. Many reports are easily found indicating there really wasn’t any cost savings because expenses were simply reallocated; some argue expenses increased, but were hidden by the agencies.
In the Gulf War/Operation Desert Storm, War on Terror and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we sent many civilian personnel and contractors to the war zones. We did this because we did not have the military (active, reserve and guard) personnel to deploy. This all contributed to enormous bureaucratic bloat in our federal government because once the bureaucracy grows, it never wants to shrink. It just keeps feeding itself.
With the stroke of a pen, military positions can be eliminated or converted. However, eliminating federal civilian employee positions usually takes years. Often even resulting in court cases and union issues.
Having a federal civilian workforce larger than all our combined active-duty military forces seems backwards to me. I support efforts to reduce the size of our federal government; a government run by bureaucrats, spending our nation into oblivion, and doesn’t seem to care. Rather than sending money to Washington, D.C., for redistribution, I prefer keeping funds and spending control within the states.
America as a nation is awesome; it is our government that needs work. We should work to fix our government to meet what we expect as a nation. Whatever your opinion, I encourage you to call your representatives to let them know.
Hopefully, I have given you some food for thought. Until next month, try to stay cool.
