Mark Thoma often delves into economic history, and this Post on the Work Progress Administration brought back dim memory, and an original Thought (at least I think). I will not comment upon whether it was an effective anti-Depressant (I am trying to make a Joke, though the kids might not catch it), but instead would concentrate on the evolution of the Work Progress Administration into the Work Projects Administration (WPA in both cases). The major, and functionally real, difference between the Two was Congressional adoption and authorization of the WPA.

We are all concerned (well, I am) about the growth of bureaucracy in the U.S. Government. Enactments of the U.S. Congress assume a life of their own past enactment, and never stop assuming new Mission Objectives. This Process on the surface appears beneficial, as it keeps Government employees busy with real issues. The Problem arises, though, lay in the fact that old Mission Objectives are never abandoned, or are Employee positions altered, so that the new Mission Objectives simply fuel extension of Labor rolls in an Empire-building expansion common to bureaucracies. Here comes the almost original Thought.

What if a Congressional Mandate, or more likely a Constitutional Amendment, insisted that all Government employment and its Program labor be established solely by Presidential Order, and this Mandate had to be renewed yearly? It does not express much Change, does it? Most Commentators would say that each President would mainly reintroduce the previous Mandates for funding by the Congress, who would rote pass almost all Funding bills as requested. Has Anyone noticed the use of ‘mainly’ and ‘almost’ into the last Sentence? They are important, because the new methodology leaves the President free to alter Government employment and programs as he would wish, and forces Congress to concentrate on Funding measures and ensuring their desired Government programs are maintained in the manner they desire.

Programs which are not funded will have to be shut down. The President can shift focus in Government effort as he desires, and Congress must willfully replace any Program found necessary. Court decision forestalling Civil Service Firings can be circumvented by the simple expedient of loss of Funding. Presidents and Congressional members would have to campaign on what they would keep in Government Spending, and what they would get rid of excess expenditures. Special Interests would have to meet in Public spotlight, instead of hiding in Washington lobby. Presidents would have to articulate their policies and desires to capture Congressional support for Funding, while American Taxpayers would be granted the right to listen in on the Deal-making. American Voters might get a better grasp of the actual Costs of their serial Demands. lgl