Elon Musk and DOGE: A False Equivalence in Cutting Government Costs

In recent discussions, the idea of a federal 'Department of Government Efficiency' (DOGE) has come up, suggesting it as a solution to cut government costs and bureaucracy. However, such a notion is not only impractical but also politically fraught, as demonstrated by the historical and constitutional underpinnings of governmental spending and oversight.

The Myth of DOGE as a Solution

The name 'DOGE' itself is a play on the meme, referring to the cryptocurrency Dogecoin, originally named after a Shiba Inu cartoon image. While it might catch the public's attention, DOGE is inherently a punchline rather than a serious strategy for addressing fiscal challenges.

The United States government, in its current form, is already one of the most efficient it has ever been. As discretionary spending has been minimized, the main drivers of deficits are rooted in past fiscal policies, particularly ill-conceived tax cuts from the administrations of Trump and Bush. These cuts have undermined the financial stability of the nation and, despite pretenses, the pathways to reform are constrained.

Efforts to create a 'Department of Government Efficiency' would essentially be a Republican version of the Simpson-Bowles commission. There will be much noise and little substantive change, as the legislative process requires a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate for any meaningful policy changes. The current political reality does not provide the necessary votes to enact such significant reforms.

Constitutional and Historical Context

According to the U.S. Constitution, the power of the purse is exclusively vested in Congress. The executive branch does not have the authority to unilaterally cut government spending, making any such proposal subjugated to the legislative process. Any attempt to create a 'Department of Government Efficiency' would need to pass through Congress and involve the approval of both the House and Senate.

The notion of eliminating 2 trillion in spending, while appealing as a soundbite, is unrealistic under current legal constraints. Spending is voted on by Congress, and any cuts must be approved by both chambers. The President does not have the power to sequester funds without Congressional approval, and no personnel can be eliminated without their respective authorizations being passed through both Houses of Congress.

Historically, the federal government has been staffed through the 'spoils system,' where appointments were made based on personal connections and political loyalty rather than merit. This system resulted in a high level of corruption, leading reformers to push for civil service reforms. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 established merit-based hiring, tenure protection, and prohibited political firings. These measures aimed to promote fairness and efficiency within the government, ensuring that hiring and firing were based on performance rather than political allegiance.

Realistic Alternatives and Challenges

Unless the upcoming Republican Congress fully embraces the principle of limited government and overhauls the political process, any talk of cutting personnel and spending is little more than rhetoric. Any such reforms would face significant hurdles, including the need for a supermajority in both houses of Congress, which is unlikely given the current political landscape.

The real challenge is structural, geared towards ensuring that fiscal policies are sustainable and that tax cuts are aligned with long-term economic stability. This involves a nuanced approach to taxation, spending, and the operational efficiency of government, rather than the vague promise of an efficiency department.

Conclusion

While the idea of a 'Department of Government Efficiency' might appeal to those frustrated with the current state of government spending, it is a false equivalence rooted in the realities of the political system and the Constitution. A more realistic strategy would involve targeted reforms to the tax code, structural Fiscal Stability, and a commitment to merit-based governance.