> If you think so, then please tell me the name of one efficiently-run government organization?

How are these two passages connected? If there's one efficiently-run government organization (there are, even in the US—benefits programs tend to be quite efficient, contrary to "common knowledge") then that proves... what? That taxing the rich would equalize opportunities? The two things have practically nothing to do with one another.

Why is government judged on efficiency rather than service?

If there's a government agency with money to give to vision impaired people, and they set up a website (graphics heavy, non-ADA compliant of course) as the only way to sign up for the payments, that department would be extremely efficient - they might only be able to reach a fraction of their target market, but they'd do so very efficiently with little overhead and they'd even have money left over since they had so few applicants, so they could cut the budget next year!

In contrast, if that same agency took $100M of their fund to set up offices across the country, and hire outreach staff to drive to the homes of qualified applicants to help them apply, that wouldn't be very efficient, but it would provide better service.

Government is not a business and shouldn't be run like one.

Please let this trope die. The US government is generally, and especially when it comes to welfare programs, efficient.

"It currently stands at about 25 percent, as did in the 1970s. This means the ability of the poor to sustain a higher level of income independently of transfers has not changed over time."

[1] https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_b...