Having gotten a big paycheck funded by us taxpayers for the past four years, state treasurer Kurt Schuller believes you need him, or at least his office, after all:

Four years ago, I never thought I would say these words.

I no longer believe the state treasurer’s office should be eliminated. I have changed my mind. …

To continue to attempt eliminating this office defines “insanity,” which is trying the same thing over and over again but expecting a different outcome. It also wastes state time and money.

So let’s stop talking about eliminating the treasurer’s office and start talking about restoring it. It is time to map out a plan that returns programs to the treasurer’s office — programs that are failing dismally after being hastily moved elsewhere. …

My staff and I have gone about the business that the people elected a treasurer to do. That included returning nearly $90 million in unclaimed property rightfully belonging to the people. We returned record amounts in 2011 and 2012, in large part because of our brilliant and dedicated marketing and claims staff.

We were on pace to surpass our own record of $36 million the previous year, and to hit $40 million in 2013. Then the unclaimed property program was moved to the state Department of Revenue.

To my dismay, recent news reports show the unclaimed property program now is failing not being properly managed. DOR blames us for handing them a defective program. But that just doesn’t add up if you track the performance of the program while under the watchful guardianship of our office the past four decades.

Just six months after I took office, the Local Government Investment Pool and the state’s college savings program called EdVest also were transferred out of the treasurer’s office. It created a disruption to Wisconsin taxpayers, sounded alarm bells with our county and municipal treasurers, and occurred for no good reason.

I once envisioned a reasonable process for eliminating the treasurer’s office in which all the requirements to amend the constitution took place. Then, and only then, would it make any sense to disperse the office’s duties in an orderly and thoughtful way.

I now realize the most suitable place for these programs and many others is under the watchful eye of an elected official, rather than an appointed bureaucrat. We need a person the people choose to guard their money, their children’s college investments, their local government investments, their state investment pool and statewide banking contract.

The failings Schuller points out demonstrate why government is always inferior to the private sector. Employees who don’t do their jobs get fired in the real world. Employees who don’t do their jobs in government keep doing their jobs, and we’re all paying their salaries.

There is a better solution than keeping Schuller’s office or, worse, the office of secretary of state, which has allowed Douglas La Follette to suck up taxpayer dollars when apparently he has been incapable of private-sector work his entire adult life. The solution is to eliminate the state treasurer and secretary of state positions, and whatever staff and duties need to remain should be shifted into the lieutenant governor’s office. It is unclear to me why the state should waste $5.5 million every year to run those two offices for minimal work.