I’ve complained endlessly about America’s bloated and expensive government bureaucracies. It irks me that people in the productive sector get slammed with ever-higher taxes in part to support a gilded class of paper pushers who have climbed on the gravy train of public sector employment.

It even bothers me that bureaucrats put in fewer hours on the job than private-sector workers, even though I realize the economy probably does better when government employees are lazy (after all, we probably don’t want hard-working OSHA inspectors, Fannie and Freddie regulators, and IRS bureaucrats).

But sometimes it helps to realize that things could be worse. And based on some international data from my “friends” at the OECD, let’s be thankful the United States isn’t Denmark.

That’s because nearly 20 percent of Denmark’s economic output is diverted to pay the salaries and benefits of bureaucrats, compared to “only” about 11 percent of GDP in the United States.

Not only are bureaucrats nearly twice as expensive in Denmark as in the United States, they’re also much more expensive in Denmark than in other Nordic nations.

Speaking of Nordic nations, they tend to get bad scores because a very large share of their populations are feeding at the government employment teat.

Whether we’re looking at the total cost of the bureaucracy or the number of bureaucrats, the United States is a middle-of-the-pack country.

But I am somewhat surprised by some of the other results.

• Germany is significantly better than the United States, whether measured by the cost of the bureaucracy or the size of the bureaucracy.
• Japan also does much better than America, notwithstanding that nation’s other problems.
• In the I’m-not-surprised category, France does poorly and Switzerland does well.
• To see where bureaucrats are most overpaid, look at the nations (particularly Greece, but also Portugal and Spain) where overall pay is a very large burden but bureaucrats are not a big share of the workforce.
• To see where the trends are most worrisome, look at the changes over time. The total cost of bureaucracy, for instance, jumped considerably between 2000 and 2009 in Ireland, Greece, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Spain, and the United States. So much for “austerity.”

P.S. These numbers are only for OECD nations, so it’s quite possible that other jurisdictions are worse. To cite just one example, I was one of the researchers for the Miller-Shaw Commission, which discovered several years ago that fiscal problems in the Cayman Islands are almost entirely a function of too many bureaucrats with too much compensation.

P.P.S. Here’s my video on the cost of bureaucracy in the United States.

P.P.P.S. Denmark has a bloated and costly bureaucracy, but it compensates by having very pro-market policies in areas other than fiscal policy.

P.P.P.P.S. Perhaps the numbers are bad in Denmark because people like Robert Nielson are listed on government payrolls as independent leisure consultants?

Debate on the House Agriculture Committee’s version of the next farm bill will begin in the Republican-controlled chamber in June. One of the most contentious issues will be spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, a.k.a, food stamps). The House Ag bill would cut SNAP spending by $20.5 billion over 10 years versus the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline. That’s too much for Democrats and it might be too little for conservative Republicans. 

Earlier in the week I wrote that the federal government should not administer or fund anti-poverty programs. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats support big government so that isn’t an option. So let’s put the proposed cuts in food stamps in perspective.

The first chart shows the dramatic increase in inflation-adjusted SNAP spending since 2000. (See here for a quick background on what caused SNAP spending to more than triple since 2000).

The second chart shows the projected amount of spending under the House Ag bill versus the CBO’s baseline. Sum up the difference and you get the $20.5 billion over 10 years in cuts. On an annualized basis, it becomes clear that we’re hardly talking about major cuts to the food stamps program. Moreover, as the first chart shows, spending would remain near the elevated levels of recent years.

Read the rest of this post »

Last week, the Senate accepted by unanimous consent an amendment to the pending farm bill that would ban convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits (a.k.a. food stamps). Introduced by Louisiana Republican David Vitter, the amendment has received condemnation from the left and at least one round of applause on the right. 

My initial reaction was “A few undesirables will lose a taxpayer-financed handout—so what?” But the more I thought about the amendment, the less I cared for it. For starters, the amendment appears to be politically motivated. Vote against it and a Senator can expect to see a negative campaign add from his or her next opponent. That’s probably why the amendment was agreed to by unanimous consent instead of being formally voted on in the Democratic-controlled Senate.   

More importantly, what does it accomplish? In terms of budgetary savings, it probably won’t save taxpayers much money. In addition to doing little to curb the size of government, it does nothing to rein in the federal government’s scope. I believe that it is not a proper role of the federal government to fund and/or administer anti-poverty programs. At most, such concerns should be the domain of state and local governments. Ideally, poverty relief would be completely handled by charities and other private organizations. The Vitter amendment, however, is just another example of the Beltway’s one-size-fits-all mentality. 

So should an individual convicted of a horrible crime who has paid his or her dues to society be denied assistance? Some would say yes, others would say no. The left has a case when they argue that denying assistance to an ex-criminal could have the unintended consequence of incentivizing further criminal activity. But the right also has a case that, hey, that’s our hard-earned money being taken from the government and being handed over to people who made awful choices. 

The diversity of opinion points to a fundamental problem with the government trying to act like a charity: the country gets stuck with whatever the politicians conjure up. Contrary to what youngsters are led to believe in school, our elected officials are not altruistic, enlightened beings. In reality, federal efforts to alleviate poverty will always be undermined by the self-serving nature of politics. And even when approached with the noblest of intentions, bureaucratic sclerosis and the undue influence of special interests will ultimately undermine a program’s effectiveness and efficiency.   

Personally, I would have no problem donating to a charity that helps struggling ex-cons who need to put food on the family table. Perhaps other people wouldn’t feel as comfortable and would instead direct their donations toward charities that only serve, say, hungry women and children who were the victims of violent crime. That’s the beauty of choice, which stands in stark contrast to the ugly, coercive alternative of the political system.