You understand that there are not 2 million politicians working for the Federal Government don't you? These are regular people like you and me!
They may be like you, they are not like me. I don't get my income from tax money. Politicians or bureaucrats or soldiers or police, makes no difference. They are feeding their families with money stolen from other people at gunpoint. Theft is theft. I didn't hire any of these people to work for me.
I'm sure the majority of those people see their jobs just like you see yours...a job and a way to earn income.
I guess you blame FDR for our huge government? He did put into motion what you see today through his New Deal by putting the government in control of the economy by offering jobs and welfare to the citizens. Along with WW2 it did bring us out of The Great Depression.
the FDR phenomena was the result of massive over accumulation that had occured in the late 19th century from state intervention in the market place followed by the cycle of under-consumption & under accumulation. It was nothing more than further state interventions that had successively been ratcheted up since that time. See the mutualist Kevin Carson's work in this area.
http://mutualist.org/id87.htmlexcerpt:
This is potentially catastrophic for the survival of capitalism. Capitalism, paradoxically, requires constant new accumulation, even when it suffers the consequences of past over-accumulation. One temporary solution to over-accumulation is new investment; the latter is essential to keep previously accumulated capital profitable. As Marx pointed out in Volume Three of Capital, the falling rate of profit due to over-accumulation can be offset by increasing the productivity of labor (i.e., the rate of "relative surplus value"). This is accomplished by new investment in improved processes. To paraphrase Al Smith, the solution to the crisis of over-accumulation is more accumulation. The economy is balanced on pinpoint, as in a Ponzi scheme, with further subsidized accumulation necessary to render existing over-accumulated capital profitable. And each such new wave of accumulation, to be profitable, will itself require still further accumulation. So statist solutions to over-accumulation directly impede the further accumulation necessary to keep old investments profitable.
The state may also respond by eating up surplus capital with unproductive outlets like military spending; but this, too, reduces the rate of accumulation which, paradoxically, is necessary to solve the problems of previous over-accumulation.
http://mutualist.org/id88.htmlexcerpt:
The levels of state expenditure necessary to underwrite the operating costs of capital and render investment productive create a fiscal crisis, parallel to the crisis of accumulation.
Large-scale state capitalist intervention, generally identified with Whigs and Republicans in the mid-nineteenth century, led to a centralization of the economy in the hands of large producers. This system was inherently unstable, and required still further state intervention to solve its contradictions. The result was the full-blown state capitalism of the twentieth century, in which the state played a direct role in subsidizing and cartelizing the corporate economy. Despite such intervention, though, state capitalism was still unstable. As regulatory cartelization advanced from the "Progressive" era on, the problems of overproduction and surplus capital were further intensified by the forces described by Stromberg in the previous two chapters, with the state resorting to ever greater, snowballing foreign expansionism and domestic corporatism to solve them. They eventually led to New Deal corporate state, to a world war in which the U.S. was established (in Samuel Huntington’s words) as "hegemonic power in a system of world order," and an almost totally militarized high tech economy.
A positive rate of profit, under twentieth century state capitalism, was possible only because the state underwrote so much of the cost of reproduction of constant and variable capital, and undertook "social investment" which increased the efficiency of labor and capital and consequently the rate of profit on capital.3 And monopoly capital's demands on the state are not stable over time, but steadily increase
So here's the question of the day. How do you Systematically reduce the size of the government in a manner that won't cause an economic collapse, and reduce the populations dependency on government jobs? 
see Jason's talk at the last PorcFest called "The Cannae Tactic"...
http://freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/cannae_tactic
