It seems you have conflated elected politicians and their staffers with the people who work inside the agencies tasked with carrying out policy. As well as that the money flow goes from the corporations and their owners to the elected to move policy in a way that benefits them more which then is rinsed and repeated.
If there is a place to look, it's in how we have allowed the erosion of transparency among elected officials and rather than come down on them for things like insider trading or excessive expenditures or the lack of requirement for a blind trust for holdings while in office, or even *shocker* donor transparency, we just all wonder at the nebulousness of dark/gray money and the impacts it can have on the electoral process. Hell, there is growing evidence that the guardrails being off of transparency is allowing foreign actors to donate into campaigns as a method of gaining traction for beneficial policy shifts for them and they're not US citizens.
Nobody is making a mint insider trading in agencies in the US. Members of Congress? Members of the SCOTUS? POTUS and their family members? There needs to be oversight and scrutiny beyond that which is being done. Similarly, dismantling of entities whose whole purpose is the investigation and prosecution of
Anyway, back to the weather.
Federal Agencies act like jobs programs at this point much like how the Wal-mart greeters used to be.
Federal workers are not homogeneous. There's been this tremendous public outcry about how all these federal workers aren't working, etc. But, the way the federal government works, agencies don't work similarly.
Yes, there are a lot of workers working from home. But, most of them are not coming from the Department of Defense, ICE, HHS, etc. I know this because I'm in the chain of approval to allow teleworkers to come to our installation and get office space. Very, very few are from DoD, HHS, law enforcements, etc.
Secondly, agencies like the DoD are huge and have massive layers of headquarters, because it's a military organization. Are some jobs not needed? Sure. But we're looking at a 20% cut at my level, and it leaves us unable to do a bunch of things we are currently doing. The way the military works, the lower levels give up positions to enable higher headquarters to have more people (who create more work instead of just doing what they were intended for, but that's another discussion).
At the warfighter level, we have very little fat to cut. Eg: if DoD cuts probationary workers, my installation will lose 15% of the civilians who work ranges. Those are the guys out on the ranges changing targets, making sure the target lifters are working, making sure the rifle ranges function properly so Soldiers can show up and train. That directly effects readiness of the Army.
In my shop, we run the installation, manage all emergency situations, become an emergency headquarters for FEMA and DoD on the east coast in case of a disaster, and we maintain a fly away capability to go help elsewhere (which we did during Hurricane Helene). There's no one here to cut. There's no one else that's available to do what we do. You can't hire off the street to do this job (have to have a military background). Many of the readers of this post aren't physically fit enough to work in my section (no offense, it's just the reality).
When you head into the DC beltway, many of these intermediate headquarters, and agencies with workers not related to the mission, that's where we need to cut.
I get the "what did you do last week email," and it takes me less than five minutes to reply. I could put 10 things pretty easily. Most of us at the warfighter level are in the same position.