That is a very generous take. My alternative explanation is that the incentives of government agencies are misaligned with helping society. A government leader is judged based on the size of their budget and the number of employees. They will not get rewarded by shrinking their budget and head count, even if decades of advancement in technology and understanding have made that the optimal choice for society.

Contrast that with private business which is forced to adapt to change. They always strive to increase productivity by increasing value while decreasing costs. The exact opposite incentive exists in the government.

I do have a solution to this conundrum - I think we should give leaders a bonus that is a percentage of savings. For example, if an agency has $200 million budget, give the director 10% of all money saved every year. So if they successfully shrink their budget by $10 million, give them a $1 million bonus.

But as it exists today there is no amount of budget that can satisfy the needs of the state.