If your goal is to cut spending in the short term, sure, that is easy and can be done. But wait and see where failing public infrastructure and services will lead the country in 5, 10, 25 years and make the balance then.
Just look at where basically every austerity policies lead the countries they were implemented in.
Having been involved in such projects on the corporate level, I do agree that driving efficiency and reducing costs, even when everyone wants and tries to do them, is rather difficult, and very slow to implement. However, once you go down the track and commit to it, a major benefit is it raises the awareness of the importance of frugality and efficiency, and future projects do become more efficient. So maybe if you cannot make a huge dent like $2T, it could help slow down the increase in deficit.
While true for the most part on spending, the deficit arises because we lack a rule requiring revenue to match spending, and we can't agree on what constitutes a fair balance of responsibility for that revenue.
Federal spending was $6.7T USD. Cutting 1/3 of that? Probably impossible.
That said, 5% might be possible. That would cover half of the interest payments on the federal debt in a year.
It also depends if they're going for one-time or continuing reductions. Obviously the latter is preferable. And cost-shifting to the future doesn't count.
You have to inflation adjust the 2019 numbers to get the comparables for 2025. And not using the CPI (which is aimed at individuals), but using an index based on what the government actually spends the money on :)
The “Department of Government Efficiency” isn’t a real government office and as such has no actual power. Musk and Ramaswamy won’t be able to do anything, and the budget is controlled by congress, not the executive.
The executive requests the budget. Congress approves it.
The key thing here is the "Due Care Clause." The administration is required to implement our laws with "due care." If there's a law on the books the administration is required to enforce it. The means and expected effectiveness of that enforcement are often not specified.
The House creates the budget, the Senate votes on it, and the president then signs it into law. Usually, the executive branch will come up with a dream budget that can be considered their starting position in budget negotiations.
this congress will be an extension of the executive, and you know this administration and his legislative and judicial allies don't care about the rules and norms anyways. they feel like their agenda was obstructed last time, they've got a mandate now, and so they're just gonna steamroll anybody standing in their way this time around.
You don’t go against Trump: you infight against someone in government who can’t defend their inefficiency. An Alaskan Senator secures $4m earmark for a small town. Why can’t she support Donald Trump’s vision and the futuristic leadership of the DOGE?
If you want a speedy government and speedy paperwork, it might be worth asking if we could increase headcount to handle tasks, preferably in parallel if possible.
For example, if you require your house to get inspected for code, you may want to increase the size of your planning department so that code inspection can occur within the day.
Can the environmental assessment be done in parallel to other necessary paperwork?
The correct size of a department is probably not 100% utilization of employees, but more like 80% to allow for slack. If you're 100% utilization, the demand is greater than the ability of employees to complete tasks within reasonable time, then you're undersized. At 100%, if demand surge, then waiting time will obviously increases.
If you want a speedy government and speedy paperwork, it might be worth asking if we could increase headcount to handle tasks, preferably in parallel if possible.
A comment like this is kind of bewildering on a tech news site full of software entrepreneurs. Instead of handling more paperwork with more people, why don't we find ways to automate the paperwork processing using computers? Every other competitive industry streamlined their processes decades ago (and continues to do so) - why is the government exempt from this kind of solution as well? Do we have to accept that millions of people must do useless tasks for the US government?
For example, if you require your house to get inspected for code, you may want to increase the size of your planning department so that code inspection can occur within the day. Can the environmental assessment be done in parallel to other necessary paperwork?
It's funny you use this as an analogy, because home inspections are notoriously pointless. They tell you stupid things, such as that the step to the house is 11" from ground, while code is 8" - meanwhile totally missing issues in the crawl space because "it is unsafe for us to go in there". I paid $500 to be lulled into complacency, and no amount of money for more inspectors to do the job "faster" would have convinced someone to find the important issues with the house I was about to buy. I'm not interested in paying even more money for more useless information. That's the point - scrub out these useless checks and parades of stupidity, which there is plenty of in both the home-buying process as well as in government.
* A comment like this is kind of bewildering on a tech news site full of software entrepreneurs. Instead of handling more paperwork with more people, why don't we find ways to automate the paperwork processing using computers? Every other competitive industry streamlined their processes decades ago (and continues to do so) - why is the government exempt from this kind of solution as well? Do we have to accept that millions of people must do useless tasks for the US government?*
Why not both?
Some paperwork aren't boilerplate unnecessary cruft and required human judgement.
There is some paperwork needed but it isn't certainly no paperwork needed.
It's funny you use this as an analogy, because home inspections are notoriously pointless. They tell you stupid things, such as that the step to the house is 11" from ground, while code is 8" - meanwhile totally missing issues in the crawl space because "it is unsafe for us to go in there". I paid $500 to be lulled into complacency, and no amount of money for more inspectors to do the job "faster" would have convinced someone to find the important issues with the house I was about to buy. I'm not interested in paying even more money for more useless information. That's the point - scrub out these useless checks and parades of stupidity, which there is plenty of in both the home-buying process as well as in government.
I am only addressing one part of possibles issues that the government might have. If you want speedy and quality code inspection, you must be willing to staff and pay for it.
Regulation isn't simply a matter of too much or too little but also quality.
I gotta say I appreciate the enthusiasm of this venture. It’s great to be excited about more efficiency. But I’m really anxious about whether it will be done without screwing over poor people, raising technical debt, or sacrificing long term infrastructure.
removing collective bargaining would be a fair and gradual upstream strategy the public sector would adapt to and reform itself around.
after spending over a decade consulting in the public sector, I concluded public servants of any kind should not have collective bargaining. it's capture and it creates the perverse incentives at the root of most complaints about it, with existential consequences for the whole society. in several countries, entire agencies get created to get around having to hire unionized staff in existing agencies, and they're just 19th century cartels that aren't fit for purpose.
This sounds nice, but in my experience public unions invariably capture politicians, engage in corruption, cripple the department they work for, and make life worse for the people who have to deal with that department. I think we do have a right to say no when people want to make our lives worse.
a rule should state there will be no new unionized positions in departments or agencies funded by the federal budget, and that individuals in existing roles will be allowed to retire, but when they leave, their replacements will not be in a collective bargaining unit. management roles will also not be part of those units, etc.
the government is not a normal employer and it is not a firm that shares equity. it is an exception. while guilds are viable for trades, and professional societies self regulate, employees of the state have no collective interest other than that as citizens. where they act as a corporate body, they are a literal conspiracy to subvert the consent of the governed, and it deprives individuals of their agency to provide honest service to the public. where employees of the state can both vote in elections and have a collective special interest, they become a privileged class that is antithetical to any democratic principle or equality. they know this, and saying it out loud too often is why their candidate lost.
plus, union leadership savagely betrayed their members over the last 5 years thinking they were about to institute the socialism they were originally founded to deliver but accelerating it without needing the actual working class, so I'd bet a good 2/3 of employees would be glad to have the unions out. it's fairer than even/odd SIN cards, smarter than blunt slashing, and creates the opportunity for serious people to get into public service.
Readit News
Just look at where basically every austerity policies lead the countries they were implemented in.
That said, 5% might be possible. That would cover half of the interest payments on the federal debt in a year.
It also depends if they're going for one-time or continuing reductions. Obviously the latter is preferable. And cost-shifting to the future doesn't count.
Outlays jumped over $2T in 2020 (3rd column, 127th row). We all know why.
Outlays have not come down to anything close to pre-COVID levels. We all know why.
Cutting $2T from a $6.7T budget would not even return to 2019's pre-COVID outlays.
Seems doable to me.
Federal Net Outlays as Percent of GDP have been around 20% since ~1980:
* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S
They jumped to 30% in 2020, and are on a downward trend, with 2023 being at 22%.
Technically true not down to 20% in 2019, but not as horrendous as many people think.
The key thing here is the "Due Care Clause." The administration is required to implement our laws with "due care." If there's a law on the books the administration is required to enforce it. The means and expected effectiveness of that enforcement are often not specified.
For example, if you require your house to get inspected for code, you may want to increase the size of your planning department so that code inspection can occur within the day.
Can the environmental assessment be done in parallel to other necessary paperwork?
The correct size of a department is probably not 100% utilization of employees, but more like 80% to allow for slack. If you're 100% utilization, the demand is greater than the ability of employees to complete tasks within reasonable time, then you're undersized. At 100%, if demand surge, then waiting time will obviously increases.
Why not both?
Some paperwork aren't boilerplate unnecessary cruft and required human judgement.
There is some paperwork needed but it isn't certainly no paperwork needed.
It's funny you use this as an analogy, because home inspections are notoriously pointless. They tell you stupid things, such as that the step to the house is 11" from ground, while code is 8" - meanwhile totally missing issues in the crawl space because "it is unsafe for us to go in there". I paid $500 to be lulled into complacency, and no amount of money for more inspectors to do the job "faster" would have convinced someone to find the important issues with the house I was about to buy. I'm not interested in paying even more money for more useless information. That's the point - scrub out these useless checks and parades of stupidity, which there is plenty of in both the home-buying process as well as in government.
I am only addressing one part of possibles issues that the government might have. If you want speedy and quality code inspection, you must be willing to staff and pay for it.
Regulation isn't simply a matter of too much or too little but also quality.
after spending over a decade consulting in the public sector, I concluded public servants of any kind should not have collective bargaining. it's capture and it creates the perverse incentives at the root of most complaints about it, with existential consequences for the whole society. in several countries, entire agencies get created to get around having to hire unionized staff in existing agencies, and they're just 19th century cartels that aren't fit for purpose.
it's the fairest and most wise path.
the government is not a normal employer and it is not a firm that shares equity. it is an exception. while guilds are viable for trades, and professional societies self regulate, employees of the state have no collective interest other than that as citizens. where they act as a corporate body, they are a literal conspiracy to subvert the consent of the governed, and it deprives individuals of their agency to provide honest service to the public. where employees of the state can both vote in elections and have a collective special interest, they become a privileged class that is antithetical to any democratic principle or equality. they know this, and saying it out loud too often is why their candidate lost.
plus, union leadership savagely betrayed their members over the last 5 years thinking they were about to institute the socialism they were originally founded to deliver but accelerating it without needing the actual working class, so I'd bet a good 2/3 of employees would be glad to have the unions out. it's fairer than even/odd SIN cards, smarter than blunt slashing, and creates the opportunity for serious people to get into public service.