Musk-Ramaswamy DOGE initiative overdue and full of challenges: Fortier

The Department of Government Efficiency could improve government, with lessons to be learned from past spending cuts. — Image credit: AP Images

After winning the U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump announced his plans for a proposed presidential advisory commission he calls the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, DOGE’s mission would be to trim government budgets, reduce regulations and shrink the federal workforce. Many Republicans view the initiative as overdue, while many on the Left are concerned about DOGE’s priorities and believe its goals are unattainable. Even so, some Democrats are signaling a willingness to cut spending on some items.

Watch the video above as Straight Arrow News contributor John Fortier highlights DOGE’s objectives, examines potential roadblocks, and shares insights from past attempts to rein in government spending.

Be the first to know when John Fortier publishes a new commentary every Thursday!

Download the Straight Arrow News app and follow John to receive push notifications.

The following is an excerpt from the above video:

Kudos to the incoming Trump administration for its focus on cutting government spending and regulation by bringing Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy and other dynamic outsiders to the problem. There was a greater focus on these issues than we’ve seen in a long time.

No one is under the illusion that this will be easy. Among other obstacles, two stand out. First, while the top-line government spending numbers are high, a very large percentage are in the category of entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, which are seen as a political third rail that President Trump has made clear that he will not cut. Cuts to spending will come from discretionary and defense spending which, while still substantial, are less than half of the overall federal budget.

Second, each government program is often backed by a specific legal authorization, and that means that cutting spending will often bring in courts who may stop or delay cuts and which, more importantly, have backing among special interest groups and in Congress itself, where individual members of Congress and committees are champions of specific programs.

Kudos to the incoming Trump administration for its focus on cutting government spending and regulation by bringing Elon Musk, Vivek, Ramaswamy and other dynamic outsiders to the problem,

dthere was a greater focus on these issues than we’ve seen in a long time. No one is under the illusion that this will be easy, among other obstacles, two stand out. First, while the top line government spending numbers are high, a very large percentage are in the category of entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, which are seen as a political third rail that President Trump has made clear that he will not cut. Cuts to spending will come from discretionary and defense spending, which, while still substantial, are less than half of the overall federal budget. Second each government program is often backed by a specific legal authorization, and that means that cutting spending will often bring in courts who may stop or delay cuts, and which, more importantly, have backing among special interest groups and in Congress itself, where individual members of Congress and committees are champions of specific programs, assembling congressional support for cuts, even among Republicans who espouse a general fidelity to smaller government, may run up against individual members of Congress with particular interest, regional affiliation and history with specific programs. The new Department of government efficiency, would also do well to recognize the work of scholars of public administration such as Paul light and John diulio and groups who study the inner workings of the federal government, to name only a few lessons that they highlight. First, don’t focus only on cutting the number of government employees. It may seem satisfying to impose caps on the number of government workers, but this ignores the fact that the true size of government is much larger. There is a shadow government of outside contractors and organizations that often carry out the functions of federal government. It would be self defeating to cut government workers only to find that the functions of government are transferred to often more expensive government contractors. Second focus on the functions of government. True cutting of government spending would mean to eliminate or reshape government functions. Otherwise, a cut here will mean that other parts of government take up that function, that courts enforce congressionally authorized functions, or that a reduced agency grows again after cuts, because the core function is still part of its mandate. Third positions in government often spread throughout the government. The creation of a new kind of Assistant Secretary in one department often leads other departments to copy them. The incoming Trump administration has indicated that they know this with respect to positions in government related to dei but they may find that other bureaucratic and administrative functional titles have also spread throughout all the departments. And in general, the administration should consider both cuts and titles in the civil service, but also in politically appointed positions and politically appointed positions that require Senate confirmation. And a few lessons from recent experience. First, consolidation of departments and agencies is difficult. Take, for instance, the creation of the Homeland Security Department after 911 the department brought together agencies that had been in other departments and created new functions as well. But it takes a long time to integrate new functions. Existing agencies simply moved under different department head to not necessarily change or gel well with each other, and the congressional committees that oversee agencies are often jumbled, confused and unhappy with the new arrangement. Consolidation is possible, but it involves many moving parts, so it should be done with eyes open. Second, there is a temptation to send federal government functions to the States while consistent with Republican ideology. This is more difficult than it seems, and can often lead to government programs with one foot in the federal government and another in the States. Sometimes this can lead to both state and federal pressure to increase spending and no clear responsibility for the program, while not impossible, this transferring of functions to the States should proceed with care. If. Third, one area that doe should pursue is the sale of government property and assets, while it is likely not a huge source of income, there has not been a major focus on what the federal government owns with an eye to divesting itself of key properties in many years. But these difficulties and lessons from scholars in history should not deter Doge from being bold in its aim to reduce spending and increase government efficiency. Past efforts such as the Clinton administration’s reinventing government and the Reagan administration’s Grace commission show that there is a need for periodic scrutiny of the way that our federal government operates, the American people will be grateful if the talent and energy of the doge effort lives up to its potential.