We used to do the exact same thing for our budget at a big corporation I used to work for. The private sector is no different.
It’s more a question of “Essential right now, to prevent immediate disasters.”
You need firefighters every day. Go without for too long, and cities start burning down. They’re essential right now.
There are lots of other jobs that, while not immediately staving off disaster, still do things of value. Like the patent office. No one has ever had a “patent emergency” in which someone could die if they didn’t get their patent right now, but if you were to cut it, it would cause longer-term problems.
And there’s lots of jobs like that in the US government. Park rangers. Food inspectors. IRS auditors. The list goes on.
It’s exactly this kind of lack of understanding that will make DOGE a boondoggle.
Preach it.
At my previous position in a government agency, we would get castigated if we didn’t spend enough money. I thought it was nuts, and wasteful, of course.
And there’s a lot of people who are No Value Added™ in government. I could write a book on it.
For the sake of argument, run with that wish list.
Are the States expected to pick up the slack or cherry pick from the buffet of diminished Federal services.
Do states generally have the budget to accommodate? Save on Federal taxes and services, pick up the tab at your local city hall?
Could we see task aggregation/consolidation (like say um the Great Lakes Education Authority overseeing a service for several states) or does it explode into internecine rivalries. Are we going to see 50 Anti-Monopoly Commissions?
Don’t ask for details. I don’t know how to say this without getting a warning, but that isn’t an entirely educated list as that exact poster acknowledged minutes after posting. How do you question any of that when poster wasn’t aware of what they suggested should be cut? Rick Perry would be the only one backing their position.
It was off-the-cuff, if it wasn’t already obvious. The bigger and more important point is that there’s a lot of fat and waste in the federal government, and some departments should be shut down, IMO.
Can I ask the basis for that opinion?
IOW: how do you know that
How much time have you spent in any of those departments or agencies? How much time have you spent looking at their reports or the reports about their work? How clearly could you define their roles, missions, scope, personnel, budgets, etc. that informs your opinion?
My beloved brother used to always talk about the “idiots at corporate” while (our mother and) I was one of those ‘idiots at corporate.’
My beloved brother spoke purely from ideology. He had not a fraction of a clue what any of us ‘idiots at corporate’ actually do.
Seriously?
Not a whole lot. But — anything to do with sports.
Anything where the President is getting treated like a king. The Secret Service should refuse to get into Trump’s 33 year old 757 gas gussler and tell him to fly commercial.
Why would you weigh in with uneducated opinions on this topic? Is there anything in your list you have real knowledge of? This isn’t IMHO.
As a retired federal employee, I’d have to agree. When a supervisor, I fired a few of them, but maybe not as many as I should have.
However, Musk and Ramaswamy cannot order unneeded employees to be fired without hitting those who are vital. When Musk fired most of the Twitter employees, there was down time, but it was just Twitter. However, if social security direct deposits are late, causing thousands of retiree checks to bounce, you will be amazed how low a presidential approval polling number can go.
Also, I expect there are No Value Added employees in every big organization, public or private.
Also, the number of federal employees is barely changed since 1970, when U.S. population was only a bit more than half of today.
Absent an act of Congress actually creating this currently fictional office (which won’t happen because there’s no way they’ll get 60 votes in the Senate), they literally won’t be able to order anything.
“The spreadsheet belies the humanity.”
Billionaire corporate guys are the apotheosis of ‘if your only tool is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.’
Cut headcount and work the remaining employees to death. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
How well do you think that will go over? Private sector – particularly publicly-traded – generally offers significant potential economic upside in exchange for your life and your soul.
Public sector, OTOH, stereotypically offered better benefits and more reasonable hours, at the cost of lower pay.
Trying to wring dot-com slavishness out of clock-punching bureaucrats – even the dedicated, talented, passionate, and hard-working – doesn’t seem like a smart strategy to me.
The other half of the question about government waste and inefficiency is whether anything can be done to increase revenues. Out west, for example, government land is leased to ranchers for grazing their cattle. Are the ranchers paying the appropriate rate for use of the land? What about when oil companies lease government land to extract oil and natural gas? I believe this is an area in which cheating is common.
May I introduce you to Chesterton’s fence.
In particular…
Would basically shut down all biotech and drug innovation across the country. I know you probably think that this would all just be privatized, but private companies are a really bad way to do science. Science is all about collaboration and learning from others to advance the field. The private sector doesn’t like to share information since that just help their competitors. So you will have a hundred a each figuring out one or two pieces of the puzzle but not being able to put it together. Big pharm doesn’t do much in the way of science what they do is they do is read the papers from academic institutions (funded by the NIH) and then take it over the finish line with a bit of chemical enginieering and a giant expensive clinical trial to prove efficacy.
Without NIH they basically would have nothing.
I hope you are correct.
It comes down to whether Trump can turn the U.S. government into one of men and not laws. I’m pretty optimistic he will not be able to close down independent media. I’m also confident that 2026 and 2028 elections will be free and fair. However, I’m less confident that he will be stopped from unfairly firing thousands of federal employees. Isn’t that the sort of official duty law violation that the Supreme Court says Trump can do with impunity?
Firing federal employees isn’t an official duty of the president nor is it something he can do directly. That kind of decision has to go through the chain of command - and considering that these are mostly union employees we’re talking about, any attempt at mass firings is gonna get tied up in the courts for years.
Right. Despite the name, what they’re going to do is be a commission, not a department. Which is good, because Musk’s idea of becoming more efficient/saving money is wholesale layoffs. No matter how good or bad a worker those people were.
Best as I can parse it, it’s basically an “advisor to the president” gig. Fancy title, no actual responsibility or authority. Like Ivanka.
Literally the only reason they’re calling it a department is because Lemon Husk is an idiot manchild who still thinks memes from 15 years ago are the height of comedy. I fully expect a press release at some point declaring that government employees can no longer “has cheezburger”.
I assume Ramaswamy got thrown in because Trump wants him to think he likes him.
That’s essentially what commissions are in the federal government. The President is free to follow or ignore whatever recommendations the commissions come up with.
But nothing on the order of the $2 trillion Musk is promising:
The problem, according to the former Treasury Secretary Larry Summer, is that there’s not $2 trillion to be gained from massive government layoffs.
“Respectfully, I think it is idiotic,” Summers said on Fox News this week. “These people think it’s like some business. But here’s the problem: Only 15% of the federal budget is for payroll. So even if you took all the employees, every single person working for the federal government out, you couldn’t save anything like $2 trillion.”