Designed Deconstruction

Some of our founding fathers seemed to understand the dangers of a government getting too big and too powerful. They advocated (designed in) some term limits, etc. I guess, also, that modern holders of office have cut budgets and programs, which may have become inefficient and/or unnecessary. But it seems to me that once the system, offices, administrators, etc. are in place, it can be hard to get rid of all this so easily. The system tends to perpetuate itself, for itself. Once you start to depend on tax money for your livelihood, you tend to want to stay tapped into that stable revenue spring. But I think we really need to build in mechanisms for deconstruction of programs, for if/when they become inefficient or obsolete. We need to start thinking of "programs" more generally as simply groups of people working together to concentrate/share resources to affect a change. If we measure the effort/resources going in to be disproportionately greater than the benefit coming out, we have to design it into our psyche that deconstruction of such a system is a valid option. Yes the measurement of success can be hard, and may require time. But we need to realize that a person working inside the program may be too biased a judge of it's effectiveness. I think we need to lower the cost of being able to deconstruct things, in general. These can also lower the cost of construction. --even to revive programs we may have deconstructed in the past. How could we do this? Ironically, I think maybe many government administrators would have ideas on how to do both. Even if they are safely enjoying a stable position, many are also frustratingly aware of unnecessary inefficiencies which can make construction and destruction so costly. The written rules, procedures, regulations with must be authored, recorded, followed, updated, reported, agreed upon, etc. On the surface, many of these might seem reasonable. But if they are hard to implement and enforce efficiently enough, they are just words. -not really helping people. -not as many people as the their cost is causing us to ignore. I think we could better use electronic communication to organize, make decisions, etc. Maybe allow more people to work outside a physical office. If you need to add to, or reduce, people working on/in a program, you don't then need to think about creating or wasting a physical work space. Pay them a little for the use of their home resources, for your job. But when you need to deconstruct, it is easy. You cut that loss, without hanging on to the office space overhead. We need to realize that deconstruction is really just a shifting of people/resources. I don't think we should get into the habit of closely identifying our personal identity with our position title or program name. That is my opinion. Feel free to share yours.
By the way, I am in no way saying this is limited to government programs. I see the same kind of thing happening even with private organizations. I respect the group that publishes Consumer Reports (have subscribed). I like that they don't accept ad revenue. But it bugs me when they run promotions like sweepstakes, or try to market additional health magazines, etc. I see things like this merely as gimics to try and maintain or grow their group. I think they also must need to be able to deconstruct or shift resources more efficiently, if they find they can't meet the needs of their subscribers or current employees, the way they are currently configured.