Although I materially agree with the point Megan McArdle is making in her latest Washington Post column:
Elon Musk is the latest in a long series of government reformers to go on the quest for the magic pot of money.
The magic pot of money is a Washington evergreen. Some politician or policymaker theorizes a fantastically large sum of government spending that can be easily excised from programs without affecting deserving beneficiaries or angering powerful interest groups. The belief in its existence has inspired many a politician to go on the hunt, but thus far, the quarry has proved elusive: The Reagan administration failed to find the “future savings to be identified” that its budget counted on to balance massive tax cuts. The architects of the Affordable Care Act failed to find the fabulous cost savings they believed to be hidden in the byzantine recesses of our health-care system.
Yet every generation, a new hero sets out to find these mythical riches so that they can be returned to their rightful owner, the American taxpayer. Musk thinks he is that hero, having suggested that with the support of the president, we can find $1 trillion in deficit reduction. And hey, he has certainly performed many epic feats. So perhaps he will finally slay the dragon of government inefficiency and liberate this pot of money from its hoard.
I’ve written as much here although not quite as sarcastically. Furthermore, I genuinely wish the exercise he’s going through were being done by the Congress. It is their job after all. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any way to get Congress to do its job. Also, one of the things that has been completely overlooked in this discussion is that what is being done now from a process standpoint should be an ongoing process. It is a task that is never completed.
And I have little doubt that 100s of billions in waste, fraud, and abuse will be found. Rather obviously the “Department of Government Efficiency” started with the low-hanging fruit, e.g. USAID, CFPB. I have little doubt that billions of FWA will be found in Defense, Social Security, and Medicare (where the real money is). In each instance the source will be different. For example, I suspect that most of the fraud in the Medicare system is retail rather than wholesale, e.g. billing services that aren’t covered as services that are covered, but that will be extremely difficult to root out.
But here’s the critical question. Okay, I understand you don’t like Elon Musk, how he and his team are proceeding, and what they’re doing. What’s your plan?
The idea of cost savings is mostly BS, especially the methods and limitations of Trump and Musk’s work. But many people in this country believe that there is lots of free beer to be found with no tradeoffs—or, in the case of Musk/Trump, tradeoffs that only affect Democratic voters and constituencies.
Innumerate financial fiction is pervasive. Republicans believe the fantasy that you can cut taxes significantly and they can be paid for with greater economic growth and cuts to bad/unpopular programs. And now, of course, tariffs.
Democrats, on the other hand, believe in the fantasy that we can have a huge expansion in social programs if only the rich and corporations would pay “their fair share.”
Both are very stupid but also widely-held positions that seem to somehow endure even though they are transparently BS at the surface level. But I think the root of the problem is us – Americans want lots of public benefits that benefit them and their constituencies but want someone else to pay for it. Both parties are feeding that desire.
They started with the low hanging fruit largely because it was based on the false belief that we spend a quarter of our budget on foreign. aid. They then lied repeatedly about what they were cutting, meaning the examples they used were not USAID spending or they lied about what was paid for. Nonetheless, it was popular among Trump supporters.
Arent you the guy who criticizes the government when it does something just because something needs to be done? I really doubt the amount of FWA is in the hundreds of billions. I do believe there is that much money being spent that one tribe or the other strongly dislikes. The answer is a functional Congress. No idea how we get that but I would reject the idea that in lieu of that any attempt is valid no bad it is run.
Let’s take just one quick example that the current approach could have used and would have had, I think, a much better outcome, USAID. Its budget is public. You didnt need the Musk 20 y/o kids to find stuff and you didnt need to lie about the findings. They spent years preparing for this. They could have printed out the USAID budget items and said why they considered them FWA.
Steve
Those are both points I have made innumerable times. Now the wheel is beginning to hit the road.
I have opposed EVERY cut in the personal income tax over since Bush II came into office. What I believe needs to happen now is that both political parties need to pull up their big boy pants, the Republicans need to tailor Trump’s tax cuts much more narrowly, and the Democrats need to allow entitlement programs to be reformed. I don’t believe any of those things will happen.
steve:
I think it’s much larger than you do. However, I agree substantially with Andy’s remarks and have posted as much here.
I have consulted for federal, state, and local governments and sat in their internal meetings. The federal government in particular is operating the way U. S. companies did thirty or forty years ago. That must change and, yes, it will mean substantial layoffs.
I am reminded of the adage any plan will beat no plan.
As to Congress reclaiming its prerogatives, my proposal is several constitutional amendments.
1. That Congress may revoke any delegation of its power by majority vote, and a majority is sufficient to override a President’s veto of a revocation.
2. That Congress can override a Presidential veto of any appropriation, taxation bill by a majority vote.
3. An immediate election of all seats in Congress if it fails to pass a yearly budget.
This would transform the US into semi-presidential system, but the point is to give incentives and penalties to Congress to exercise its powers.
“I am reminded of the adage any plan will beat no plan.”
It’s an unfortunate truth.
The DOGE “Plan” includes the DoD being exempt from the hiring freeze but still subject to firing probationary employees (Agencies need to provide specific, individual justifications for every probationary employee not fired – fun!). That does not compute – because the positions are still there and can be advertised and filled by new hires. My best friend, for example, is still on his two-year probationary period, which ends in a couple of weeks. In theory, he could be let go, then reapply and get the same job back because that makes the government so much more efficient due to “reasons.” /s
Another friend of mine has spent the last couple of weeks trying to comply with an order to purge all references to DEI, including from all emails. So the organization is going back through four years of email to nuke anything DEI related, an electronic damnatio memoriae that is entirely a waste of time.
The discovery was soon made, I imagine, that the new Surveyor had no great harm in him. So, with lightsome hearts and the happy consciousness of being usefully employed-in their own behalf at least, if not for our beloved country-these good old gentlemen went through the various formalities of office. Sagaciously under their spectacles, did they peep into the holds of vessels.
Mighty was their fuss about little matters, and marvellous, sometimes, the obtuseness that allowed greater ones to slip between their fingers! Whenever such a mischance occurred—when a waggon-load of valuable merchandise had been smuggled ashore, at noonday, perhaps, and directly beneath their unsuspicious noses-nothing could exceed the vigilance and alacrity with which they proceeded to lock, and double-lock, and secure with tape and sealing-wax, all the avenues of the delinquent vessel. Instead of a reprimand for their previous negligence, the case seemed rather to require an eulogium on their praiseworthy caution after the mischief had happened; a grateful recognition of the promptitude of their zeal the moment that there was no longer any remedy.