Creating Government Efficiency

Ronald Reagan, in whose White House I worked, joked that government programs are like rabbits, hard to catch and quick to multiply. Having raised rabbits, I think he was on to something. A responsible president or governor must push both efficiency and smaller government.

President Trump, like President Reagan, prioritized tax cuts and defense. Unlike Reagan, Trump inherited a $36.1 trillion national debt. Reagan’s debt was $3 trillion. Today, our national debt has ballooned, chiefly on interest payments, to $3.61 trillion.

So, how do you get national debt down, government efficiency up, and restore limited government? At the federal level, as Congress quarrels with the President over spending, major reforms are needed. The road to fiscal solvency is rough, since so much spending is automatic.

At the state level, spending cuts – and greater efficiency – are within reach, but get pushed away by Democrats who do not want to limit spending and create efficiency. State spending – nationwide – jumped 5.7 percent in 2025, led by Democrat states.

Some stand out as big spenders and taxers – proportional to populations. The top four are New York, Hawaii, Vermont, and Maine.  Not surprisingly, they are Democrat controlled, high-spending, low-efficiency, and have no oversight.

To fix states that spend and tax too much, are inefficient, and often corrupt, major reforms are needed. Notably, these reforms differ from private sector reform. Cutting government and making what is left efficient is a fundamentally different process from business growth for profit. While efficiency is common to both, government efficiency is from downsizing, not growth.

Put differently, having run a company and downsized multi-billion-dollar government programs, the secrets of business efficiency lie in labor, capital, revenue, and earnings, not part cuts. Businesses achieve efficiency with market focus, business development, a good customer pipeline, changing with the market, smart division of labor, and keeping costs down – for profit and growth.

Government does not work like that. Some principles can be cross-applied, but government is a different animal. Achieving efficiencies is far harder, as dug-in bureaucrats use well-honed tools like dodging metrics, slow-rolling the process, non-and-under performance, administrative and personnel complaints, litigation, media links and leaks, deception, deflection, and denial.

Worse, often counter-intuitive, the best way to create government efficiency is not – as in the business world – growth, but the reverse – cuts. These cuts are the mortal enemy of bureaucrats, who fight them tooth and nail, by nature, job security-focused, not risk takers, never entrepreneurs.

Achieving efficiency in government and reducing size also requires managing the political process, which for most businesses is a drag. The political process is a negative externality for business – something to be put up with, hard to control. But when creating government efficiency and cutting size, the political process is the guts of the whole thing.

Examples show what Trump is up against, how governors create efficiency and limit government. Incentivizing the bureaucracy and contractors to be efficient – even downsize – is not impossible.

When I took over a multi-billion dollar operation as US Assistant Secretary of State, thousands of employees and programs in 70 countries, my first moves were to incentivize efficiency and downsizing. Calling the top 300 people into an auditorium, I made the stakes crystal clear.

Those who understood the operational and political requirements, who were prepared to work overtime for the missions – from high-risk aviation, counterterrorism, and counternarcotics ops to training the Iraqi, Afghan, Kosovar, and Colombian police, diplomatic to security outcomes – would be rewarded in proportion to their level of dedication. Advancement was on the table.

On the other hand, those who had personal or political agendas, ideological arguments with the leadership, myself, the Secretary, or the President, would be found, and once identified, fired or their position eliminated. They could expect to lose their jobs, benefits, pensions, and be on the street.

Noting that every employee has options, I invited those who wanted to show merit to stay, those who thought they could outlast, out-litigate, or ride me off the play to go. It is a parting of the Red Sea. Politically revolted bureaucrats fled; the rest stayed. Those who produced advanced rest were fired.

Word travels fast, and once it was clear that outcomes were expected, underperformers became the short-timers. Things changed markedly. I did the same with contractors, imposed $20,000-per-day fines for late delivery, ended overcharges, scrutinized every invoice, and split up market share.

By the time I left, we had taken the nation’s largest armed airwing outside the Pentagon from 60 percent readiness – 6 planes up, 4 down – to 85 percent ready – almost 9 up, 1 down. We had trained the Iraqi and Afghan police in record time, brought major drug traffickers down, done countless operations flawlessly – and saved millions of dollars. The taxpayer got real value.

Bottom line: To those who think bureaucracies cannot be tamed, they can. They can be made efficient and shrunk markedly. I have done it. More to the point, taxpayers deserve public sector efficiency, limited government, less spending, and lower taxes. All that can be achieved with focus.

Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, former Reagan and Bush 41 White House staffer, Maine attorney, ten-year naval intelligence officer (USNR), and 25-year businessman. He wrote “Narcotics and Terrorism” (2003), “Eagles and Evergreens” (North Country Press, 2018), and “Cherish America: Stories of Courage, Character, and Kindness” (Tower Publishing, 2024). He is the National Spokesman for AMAC. Today, he is running to be Maine’s next Governor (please visit BobbyforMaine.com to learn more)!