Rant warning: this should kill the thread.

I don't think he's joking, and in any case he's right. But there is something missing. My observation over the last 50 years or so (while I've been aware of my political and economic surroundings) is that few people enter politics with the idea of public service and efficient delivery of same in mind. Most have other things in mind - typically promoting some ideology and imposing it on others. That certainly affects both the ability to fairly generate revenues and to fairly spend them. So what else is new? And it is the same whether the politics are concentrated in one person (dictator, king, etc.) or based on a herd of cats (our current setup).

"The People" are also, logically, interested in getting something (everything if possible) for nothing - ever hear of "bread and circuses?" So ideally (sarcasm mode on) government services should be provided entirely by in-house (slaves who live in the office and are available 24/7 would be best) staff receiving nothing above minimum wage - prisoners who pay for their incarceration would be even better (the old British model), and instead of being provided a decent retirement plan they should simply be executed upon separation from service. Contracting out isn't a viable option because it costs too much - even though the staff get minimum wage the bosses and CEOs don't. You might have to pay the guards slightly more than minimum wage - but if you have to have one guard per bus driver at least there might be security on transit).(/sarcasm)

Look at the "loaded rate" (including salary and benefits) for most state and county employees (cities and utility agencies are often a different story, and are typically higher) and compare them to similar staff levels at consultants as billed. You'll find that, except for a few classifications, they're 1/2-3/4 of the consulting rate. BTW, that "loaded rate" is nowhere near what they actually get paid; it's typically double or more. Since the economy is driven by cash flow (current income) more than the total, that difference makes a difference, but the benefits including retirement have to be paid for somehow unless (see above) you just kill 'em off when they're no longer needed.

If you detect a bit of bitterness, your're right. Also note: this issue is not limited to government - many businesses operate the same way. Otherwise, why would you get so many corporations that (logically) push staff costs as low as possibly through wage-cutting, killing pensions, eliminating benefits, and offshoring while (illogically) paying CEOs and top executives multi-million$ packages with generous (multi-tens of million$) retirements? Why aren't more shareholders screaming about taxation (loss of profits and dividends to the top management) without representation (the Board is bought and paid for my that management)? In both the business and the government cases, the issue is balance - how do you get what you need and want without breaking the bank for everybody but those on top?

But then, there's always the old political saying: all you find in the middle of the road is roadkill...