The DOGE approach is to fire en masse, and then see who howls the loudest to determine which cuts have trimmed the fat and which have pierced to the marrow. While crude, it may well be effective.
For that approach to be effective, one must assume that the most vital operations of government "howl" on contact--but the absence of such immediate feedback is one of the most critical features distinguishing traditional governmental responsibilities from the private sector's.
When Musk bought Twitter, he could simply cut the marketing department and within a few weeks have a good sense of how that ultimately affected his bottom line (even if it might take longer to investigate the causal mechanism). But as the recent FAA disaster demonstrates, the risks you run when gutting public safety agencies don't immediately manifest, and by the time they do you can't simply reverse course on a dime.
Don has a lifetime of failed businesses, grifts, frivolous lawsuits, and corruption (read up on his meme coin scam, perhaps his most brazen yet). Someone with Don's record couldn't get hired to run the local Arby's. If he was hired as superintendent of your kids school, you'd protest and move your kid. Only the most naive among us could believe this is about efficiency. And even if it is, Don doesn't remotely have the smarts or skill to accomplish it. Read the scholars who study authoritarian movements, the playbook is time tested. Let's hope that elites in the Republican party and "think" tanks like American Compass find a way to show the character that the young women who worked for Don 1.0 did, and muster the courage to speak up. Good luck America.
Great article, Oren. As an Independent voter who is appalled at times over the means by which cuts are being made, yet recognizes abundant waste and better auditing of our fed government is necessary, the facts and updates you present here are helpful in adding more sane context to the otherwise immature, horror show that is Elon in mainstream media. Thank you!!
I agree that there are better approaches to eliminating waste, but that is assumes that the goal of government is to be efficient. I would hope that it is first effective at achieving the goals "we the people" want from it. Value should be set by the market, right? Unfortunately, I think that the administration sees a "win/win" whether they prove to be the heroes that find waste or the arsons that just burn it all down. Our dependency on them to then "save us all" will grow. I have always wanted government that provides services and protections effectively to the weakest and poorest of our citizens. Is our only choice big government vs. a strong man government? It doesn't have to be.
re: A Time for Choosing | Henry Olsen: Confronting America’s security, fiscal, and aging crises will require making hard trade-offs.
I would like to make a couple of suggestions, which Oren and the people who read him might consider:
One is the possibility of a simpler, more leisurely way of life for ordinary Americans that, while less abundant in terms of the material resources consumed, might nevertheless be richer and more fulfilling than the way we live now: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
The other is the possibility of replacing the current graduated income tax with a particularly simple version of a graduated expenditure tax (i.e., a progressive tax on personal consumption) that has the potential to raise substantially more revenue as a percentage of GDP while at the same time increasing the incentives to save and invest: https://shorturl.at/rSABN
Sorry, Oren; I don't work in a think tank, I'm self employed. Which means I have to go out, find my customers, provide my skills and get paid. So no money for you!
I stopped reading your latest after 3 parags. b/c you're quoting WSJ, and that says a LOT about your bias bordering on advocacy. I did read enough to see that your message is some kind of spin on 'be careeee-fulll'.
Well, the hell with that. Over the last 35 years, every administration was 'carrreee-ffulll'. And now here we are, with the USD on the brink of losing its status as the world's reserve currency which will probably drag the standard of living down to that of England.
You wrote a terrible, terrible piece, that frankly reeks of cowardice. You're afraid...no, really, really scared that when the current status quo disappears BAD THINGS COULD HAPPEN!
As someone who doesn't have perks, and has to earn every god-damn penny I make, then cut checks for thousands of dollars a year to the various governments (municipal/state/federal) I am fed up.
They had their chance.
(For any readers wondering, please watch/read Racket to explain my orientation of the following)
Ten years ago, I was well informed. Read the NYT, watched 60 Minutes, yadda, freaking yadda.
THEY. ALL. LIE. With a regularity that has erased any credibility to a reasonable person.
People such as I have had it.
When some half-witted, half-baked politician in Georgia is able to land a TWO BILLION DOLLAR GRANT and yet does not have any idea how to spend it (see Stacy Abrams on Racket) I'm done.
Finished.
I don't want the government finessed. I want it gutted to the rafters. Gutted. Take every penny out of it. Just like a major renovation, or an engine rebuild (yeah, see what I did there; used manual labor metaphors? Y'know why? Because they are easily described and results seen) tear it down, junk what's crap and put it back together.
I do enjoy much of your writing. But this callow and wimpy piece needs to be stomped on.
Grow a pair, man. You're better than this. You're not Thomas Friedman, you're fucking Orren Cass.
Hi Jim, also a self-employed person here. I don’t subscribe to Matt Taibbi, so I can’t read the article you’re referencing, but I did just do a Google on the Stacy Abrams grant and posting here what I found on Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/2-billion-grant-stacey-abrams/
I would just caution you to read Matt’s writing with a grain of salt. I think he’s motivated by some anger at his former colleagues in the mainstream news that colors his reporting unfortunately. I don’t know him personally, but I am worried that his desire to burn things to the ground is motivated by animus and not a positive commitment to the common good.
As a federal employee, you’re right about them firing new hires. I only have a few years in and other young hires are the motivated people. If DOGE was serious they would buy out the people who are within 5 years of retirement.
To be fair, the polarization was already there and DOGE is just the current thing. Ruy Texiera warned his fellow Democrats against a blind defense of the status quo. They didn't heed him because Orange Man Bad. It is true that there needs to be a long-term approach as well but in the meantime the blitzkrieg through the institutions must continue.
Oren, no matter how hard you try to come across as reasoned and measured, coupling Social Security and our dysfunctional version of ‘health care’, and the new DoD clown’s ‘balanced’ budget aspirations, in a deficit scolding analysis, is yawn worthy.
This may not be what you thought you were voting for, but it's exactly what we were voting against.
Personally, I think the goal is to fire as many educated liberals as possible, simply out of spite. That's it.
The DOGE approach is to fire en masse, and then see who howls the loudest to determine which cuts have trimmed the fat and which have pierced to the marrow. While crude, it may well be effective.
For that approach to be effective, one must assume that the most vital operations of government "howl" on contact--but the absence of such immediate feedback is one of the most critical features distinguishing traditional governmental responsibilities from the private sector's.
When Musk bought Twitter, he could simply cut the marketing department and within a few weeks have a good sense of how that ultimately affected his bottom line (even if it might take longer to investigate the causal mechanism). But as the recent FAA disaster demonstrates, the risks you run when gutting public safety agencies don't immediately manifest, and by the time they do you can't simply reverse course on a dime.
No, it won’t. It will produce chaos, which is what Mobster Don relishes.
Don has a lifetime of failed businesses, grifts, frivolous lawsuits, and corruption (read up on his meme coin scam, perhaps his most brazen yet). Someone with Don's record couldn't get hired to run the local Arby's. If he was hired as superintendent of your kids school, you'd protest and move your kid. Only the most naive among us could believe this is about efficiency. And even if it is, Don doesn't remotely have the smarts or skill to accomplish it. Read the scholars who study authoritarian movements, the playbook is time tested. Let's hope that elites in the Republican party and "think" tanks like American Compass find a way to show the character that the young women who worked for Don 1.0 did, and muster the courage to speak up. Good luck America.
Great article, Oren. As an Independent voter who is appalled at times over the means by which cuts are being made, yet recognizes abundant waste and better auditing of our fed government is necessary, the facts and updates you present here are helpful in adding more sane context to the otherwise immature, horror show that is Elon in mainstream media. Thank you!!
I agree that there are better approaches to eliminating waste, but that is assumes that the goal of government is to be efficient. I would hope that it is first effective at achieving the goals "we the people" want from it. Value should be set by the market, right? Unfortunately, I think that the administration sees a "win/win" whether they prove to be the heroes that find waste or the arsons that just burn it all down. Our dependency on them to then "save us all" will grow. I have always wanted government that provides services and protections effectively to the weakest and poorest of our citizens. Is our only choice big government vs. a strong man government? It doesn't have to be.
DOGE and musk should have been required to watch "Office Space" before they started to downsize.
Hi Oren, I’ve been reading you for a few years. I don’t understand why you don’t advocate for higher taxes on the top 10% given your goals.
re: A Time for Choosing | Henry Olsen: Confronting America’s security, fiscal, and aging crises will require making hard trade-offs.
I would like to make a couple of suggestions, which Oren and the people who read him might consider:
One is the possibility of a simpler, more leisurely way of life for ordinary Americans that, while less abundant in terms of the material resources consumed, might nevertheless be richer and more fulfilling than the way we live now: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
The other is the possibility of replacing the current graduated income tax with a particularly simple version of a graduated expenditure tax (i.e., a progressive tax on personal consumption) that has the potential to raise substantially more revenue as a percentage of GDP while at the same time increasing the incentives to save and invest: https://shorturl.at/rSABN
Sorry, Oren; I don't work in a think tank, I'm self employed. Which means I have to go out, find my customers, provide my skills and get paid. So no money for you!
I stopped reading your latest after 3 parags. b/c you're quoting WSJ, and that says a LOT about your bias bordering on advocacy. I did read enough to see that your message is some kind of spin on 'be careeee-fulll'.
Well, the hell with that. Over the last 35 years, every administration was 'carrreee-ffulll'. And now here we are, with the USD on the brink of losing its status as the world's reserve currency which will probably drag the standard of living down to that of England.
You wrote a terrible, terrible piece, that frankly reeks of cowardice. You're afraid...no, really, really scared that when the current status quo disappears BAD THINGS COULD HAPPEN!
As someone who doesn't have perks, and has to earn every god-damn penny I make, then cut checks for thousands of dollars a year to the various governments (municipal/state/federal) I am fed up.
They had their chance.
(For any readers wondering, please watch/read Racket to explain my orientation of the following)
Ten years ago, I was well informed. Read the NYT, watched 60 Minutes, yadda, freaking yadda.
THEY. ALL. LIE. With a regularity that has erased any credibility to a reasonable person.
People such as I have had it.
When some half-witted, half-baked politician in Georgia is able to land a TWO BILLION DOLLAR GRANT and yet does not have any idea how to spend it (see Stacy Abrams on Racket) I'm done.
Finished.
I don't want the government finessed. I want it gutted to the rafters. Gutted. Take every penny out of it. Just like a major renovation, or an engine rebuild (yeah, see what I did there; used manual labor metaphors? Y'know why? Because they are easily described and results seen) tear it down, junk what's crap and put it back together.
I do enjoy much of your writing. But this callow and wimpy piece needs to be stomped on.
Grow a pair, man. You're better than this. You're not Thomas Friedman, you're fucking Orren Cass.
CASS UP.
Hi Jim, also a self-employed person here. I don’t subscribe to Matt Taibbi, so I can’t read the article you’re referencing, but I did just do a Google on the Stacy Abrams grant and posting here what I found on Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/2-billion-grant-stacey-abrams/
I would just caution you to read Matt’s writing with a grain of salt. I think he’s motivated by some anger at his former colleagues in the mainstream news that colors his reporting unfortunately. I don’t know him personally, but I am worried that his desire to burn things to the ground is motivated by animus and not a positive commitment to the common good.
As a federal employee, you’re right about them firing new hires. I only have a few years in and other young hires are the motivated people. If DOGE was serious they would buy out the people who are within 5 years of retirement.
To be fair, the polarization was already there and DOGE is just the current thing. Ruy Texiera warned his fellow Democrats against a blind defense of the status quo. They didn't heed him because Orange Man Bad. It is true that there needs to be a long-term approach as well but in the meantime the blitzkrieg through the institutions must continue.
Oren, no matter how hard you try to come across as reasoned and measured, coupling Social Security and our dysfunctional version of ‘health care’, and the new DoD clown’s ‘balanced’ budget aspirations, in a deficit scolding analysis, is yawn worthy.