DonFerrari said:
Puppyroach said:

Except the US government isn't a company. The job of all departments is to work for the people through the constitution, not to be a loyal slave to the president whatever he does.

So any personnel working for the government can talk in the name of it?

And one of the problems with governement is that they aren't managed as companies, so much drains and inefficiencies.

 If taxpayer money goes into public research for example, of course the results should be shared with the masses, for examples in cases of environmental research, infrastructure research and so on. This is the attempt by an administration to control information that belongs to the public. I'm not talking about employees having the right to bash the government, but rather their obligation to share public information.

Regarding your second part: generally, government entities are more complex and ineffective than private counterparts (with some exceptions, the private health care and insurance system in the US seems like the most ineffective system I've ever seen). The reason they are less effective is because their job is to work for the people, not s small group of private shareholders. Yes, it would likely be more effective to run a country like a company, but that's because a company is not a democracy, it is rather more like a dictatorship where you can also increase your power by owning more of the vote. That works for a company but is the opposite to a democracy.