The upside and downside of downsizing

Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C. wrote a book titled “Downsizing the Federal Government.” In his publication, he delineated the benefits of reducing the size of the federal government. The book focused on some of the problems that contributed to the serious problem that has crippled the federal government from making progress, i.e., large budget deficits, wasteful and overspending, as well as the continuation of obsolete and mismanaged programs that should be eliminated altogether in order to avert a fiscal crisis and save the government billions of dollars.

The abovementioned book by Edwards focused on how well crafted budget cuts would be beneficial from many perspectives and how downsizing would expand the economy, enlarge personal freedom, and leave a positive fiscal legacy for the next generation. The model Edwards talked about is certainly appropriate for the situation in the CNMI.

The biggest downside of downsizing is that the people in the programs cut to avert a fiscal crisis are thrust into a fiscal crisis because they become unemployed. Thus, downsizing is construed by some organizational experts to not be a complete panacea for serious problems that are commonplace in large organizations like the federal government and small organizations like the Commonwealth government in the Northern Marianas.

To cut or not to cut, that is the question. If you don’t cut, then a fiscal crisis is inevitable. If you cut, the personal economic consequences for a number of people will be negatively impacted. The expression is: You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Some analysts in economic think tanks do not believe it is feasible to have a situation where no one is hurt in the process of downsizing government organizations.

Anyway you look at it, downsizing is beneficial and at the same time detrimental. So what is the best approach in taking care of a fiscal crisis without placing an economic onus on those individuals who lose their jobs because programs or agencies are terminated? Providing a reasonable answer to that question is not an easy one, especially if you are an elected official who happens to be a governor, representative, or senator. Perhaps that is the very reason why so many elected officials in government get gray hair along with a wrinkled and haggard look during their term in office as a public servant.

Dr. Jesus D. Camacho
Delano, California