Conservative Vision for a Smaller Federal Government: Streamlining and Reining in Bureaucracy

The political debate about the size and role of the federal government often hinges on the principles of fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, and constitutional adherence. Many conservatives advocate for a reduced federal government, arguing that it can be more efficient and less intrusive in the lives of citizens, effectively reducing the burden on taxpayers and aligning more closely with the principles established in the U.S. Constitution.

Consolidation of Cabinet Agencies

According to conservative thought leaders, streamlining the federal government begins with a thorough restructuring of the cabinet. The idea is to consolidate vast departments and bureaus, thereby reducing redundancy and enhancing accountability. For instance, the cabinet would be reduced to the six largest agencies: Defense, Justice, Treasury, State, Interior, and Commerce. Smaller agencies such as Agriculture and Labor would see their roles redistributed or eliminated, while others like Education, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services would be cut entirely and returned to state governance.

Examples of these changes include:

Rolling the Agriculture and Labor departments into Commerce. Eliminating the Department of Education and returning its responsibilities to state governments. Transferring Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation responsibilities to the newly consolidated agencies. Merging the Department of Energy into Defense. Repealing the 16th and 17th amendments and imposing term limits on Congress.

Functionality and Elimination of Agencies

The primary functions of the federal government—such as national defense, judicial oversight, interstate commerce, customs, and immigration—are essential and necessary. These core functions ensure the safety and stability of the nation. However, many conservative policy makers believe that there are numerous agencies and departments that do not align with the original intent of the Constitution or are unnecessary additions to the federal structure.

Retaining Essential Functions

The argument is that the federal government should focus on its core competencies, such as:

National Defense: Ensuring the security and defense of the nation. Judiciary: Maintaining a fair and impartial legal system. Interstate Commerce and Transportation: Regulating trade and ensuring the movement of goods across state lines. Water and Air Pollution Control: Managing pollution that does not abide by state boundaries. Treasury and Currency: Managing national finances and maintaining the stability of currency. Customs and Border Protection/Immigration: Protecting national borders and managing immigration.

Eliminating Unnecessary Bureaucracy

Conversely, the federal government would need to reduce or eliminate agencies and departments that do not align with the Constitution's enumerated powers, such as:

The Department of Education: Its extensive reach into K-12 and higher education is seen as an overreach by many conservatives. The Department of Agriculture: Its wide-ranging oversight and subsidies are frequently cited as unnecessary. The Center for Disease Control: While public health is important, many argue that these functions should be managed by state and local authorities. The Department of Labor: Its extensive regulatory role is considered burdensome by some.

The argument for these eliminations is based on the belief that such departments are overly intrusive and can be managed more efficiently by state and local governments. Critics of these proposals argue that a smaller federal government could result in significant disruption of public services and job losses for federal employees. Proponents, however, argue that a phased reduction with adequate time for adjustment would minimize these negative impacts.

Constitutional Considerations and Term Limits

Conservatives also advocate for constitutional amendments to limit federal powers and return sovereignty to the states. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution states that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Advocates of a smaller federal government argue that this principle should be strictly adhered to, and they wish to establish term limits to prevent the federal government from becoming too entrenched and dominated by career politicians.

Term limits would limit the length of time that elected officials can serve in Congress. While some support absolute term limits, many believe that allowing some flexibility (such as consecutive but not absolute term limits) would better balance the needs of maintaining institutional knowledge and responsiveness to the citizens' needs.

Conclusion

The vision for a smaller federal government involves a careful balancing act between reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, ensuring the nation's core competencies are maintained, and adhering to the principles established in the Constitution. This transition requires a thoughtful, phased approach to ensure that the significant disruption to public services and jobs is minimized. By reining in the federal government and shifting powers to state and local levels, conservatives believe we can create a more efficient, accountable, and responsive government.