Why did DOGE fail?

[Allan]

The damage from DOGE is real, but ultimately the ostensible project of saving trillions and "fixing" the budget or making government operate for efficiently has been a dismal failure. It's been a good six months since the DOGE reign of terror kicked off in earnest and two months since Musk himself was booted, so perhaps it's time to reflect on what went so horribly wrong.

Why did DOGE fail so spectacularly?

Musk is what's known in the business world as a 'pigeon'. Flies in, makes lots of noise, shits all over the place and then flies away.

DOGE failed because they didn't take the time to understand the departments they were chopping away at. Not all efficiencies can be realized simply by firing people. Sometimes for example outcomes can be improved by adding resources. Adding auditors to the IRS is one such example. Adding resources that are revenue generating is another, again auditors at the IRS being one example.

Being a tech guy I'm surprised Musk didn't take the time to look at how newer technology could reduce costs and improve outcomes. That's boring, time consuming stuff I guess for a pigeon and I never heard anything from him to suggest he was interested in improving government services for citizens.

Musk and his team were simply to dense to take a nuanced approach.

 

[ttwtt78640]

But the US government has grown over that time so previous income levels are no longer sufficient.

Exactly, and that growth was in the federal government’s spending. Our congress critters have discovered that continuously increasing annual federal deficit (stimulus?) spending results in a re-election rate of over 90%, thus see that as having the approval of the electorate.

 

[Allan]

Exactly, and that growth was in the federal government’s spending. Our congress critters have discovered that continuously increasing annual federal deficit (stimulus?) spending results in a re-election rate of over 90%, thus see that as having the approval of the electorate.

All governments default to "yes" when constituents have asks. Once a program or benefit is added it's very hard to take away.

I see people here on the left and right cheering on spending (seriously people, you need a nuclear reactor on the moon?) while at the same time complaining about the debt.

 

[ttwtt78640]

All governments default to "yes" when constituents have asks. Once a program or benefit is added it's very hard to take away.

I see people here on the left and right cheering on spending (seriously people, you need a nuclear reactor on the moon?) while at the same time complaining about the debt.

Yep, we the sheeple have a choice to support candidates from either the party for a bigger federal government or the party for a huge federal government. That guarantees a continuous increase in the power and expense of the federal government.

 

[rickc]

Yep, we the sheeple have a choice to support candidates from either the party for a bigger federal government or the party for a huge federal government. That guarantees a continuous increase in the power and expense of the federal government.

I am curious. What party do you feel has grown government the most?

 

[gman]

A lack of any good analysis and A one size fits all solution to Preconceived misperceptions.

 

[Dans La Lune]

The damage from DOGE is real, but ultimately the ostensible project of saving trillions and "fixing" the budget or making government operate for efficiently has been a dismal failure. It's been a good six months since the DOGE reign of terror kicked off in earnest and two months since Musk himself was booted, so perhaps it's time to reflect on what went so horribly wrong.

Why did DOGE fail so spectacularly?

Because there wasn't waste, fraud and abuse in the areas they were looking at.

 

[gman]

Because there wasn't waste, fraud and abuse in the areas they were looking at.

Bingo! We have a winner!. Congress would’ve been defunded and everyone given a pink slip.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I think that falls under the "It was a deliberate scam from the start" option.

Yes, it was a scam. The entire right-leaning ideology is a means to loot the government and consolidate power for the rich.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I am curious. What party do you feel has grown government the most?

IMHO, that prize should be awarded to the demorats, since they tend to favor more ‘mandatory’ federal spending.

Recently that’s a tough call, since $7.8T was added to the national debt during Trump’s prior term and $8.42T was added to the national debt during Biden’s term. Of course, the POTUS has only two choices concerning congressional (last minute) increased spending bills - either sign them into law or veto them (risking a federal government ‘shutdown’).

 

[Dans La Lune]

Bingo! We have a winner!. Congress would’ve been defunded and everyone given a pink slip.

The areas of waste and fraud are in the private sector that take advantage of these programs. Look at Rick Scott's Medicare Fraud Scheme. I'd also look at things like properly funding the IRS if I wanted to get to the heart of Waste, Fraud and Abuse. Which would also collect revenue from fraudsters and alleviate the burden on the Middle Class.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Exactly, and that growth was in the federal government’s spending. Our congress critters have discovered that continuously increasing annual federal deficit (stimulus?) spending results in a re-election rate of over 90%, thus see that as having the approval of the electorate.

So you mean the country supports the spending then.

 

[The Brad Dad]

MHO, that prize should be awarded to the demorats, since they tend to favor more ‘mandatory’ federal spending.

Historically, Republicans outspend Dems in office. Tax cuts never seem to pay for themselves.

 

[Visbek]

The spending for the 2025 budget year was already decided in 2024. It's not Trump's budget.

How convenient. So all that DOGE stuff and recissions don't count?

Future budgets trim a trillion dollars from Medicaid over the next decade.

Future budgets will add $4 trillion to the debt. And that includes the effects of Medicaid cuts.

And that Medicaid "trimming?" It's going to remove health insurance from around 10 million Americans, and will cause a wave of rural hospital bankruptcies. Any reason you aren't crowing about that?

 

[Visbek]

Even if 50% of federal ‘discretionary’ spending was cut (obviously, mission impossible) there would still be annual federal deficit (stimulus?) spending. Federal ‘discretionary’ spending was about $1.8T for FY 2024.

Without significant cuts to federal ‘mandatory’ spending, which only congress critters can cut, there’s no hope of having a balanced federal “budget”.

Okay then. What do we cut?

Social Security?
Medicare?
Medicaid?
Defense?

Is there some strange reason you didn't even mention the mere possibility of increasing taxes, notably on corporations and the ultra-wealthy? Even though the US has been cutting taxes, mostly for corporations and the wealthy, for decades, a policy which has significantly increased federal debt? Why is it only cuts?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Okay then. What do we cut?

Social Security?
Medicare?
Medicaid?
Defense?

Is there some strange reason you didn't even mention the mere possibility of increasing taxes, notably on corporations and the ultra-wealthy? Even though the US has been cutting taxes, mostly for corporations and the wealthy, for decades, a policy which has significantly increased federal debt? Why is it only cuts?

Federal revenue (for a few decades) has remained fairly constant at about 17% of GDP, while federal spending has increased from about 20% of GDP to about 23% of GDP.

I have no objection to increasing federal revenue (as you propose), yet the donor class obviously does.

 

[eohrnberger]

No, it hasn't failed. You are correct.

Determining whether DOGE failed, or not, doesn't one have to examine what it was doing and under which constraints it was operating?
I think that'd be a 'yes'.

DOGE was never able to make cuts to spending (DOGE liberal / progressive myth #1 exploded). All DOGE was able to do was to examine processes and data, point out inefficiencies, and suggest cuts and changes to be made to the cabinet sec. who over saw the agencies and departments in question.

The realized outcomes for DOGE depend on congress and agencies acting on DOGE's recommendations. There are also legal challenges. Make no mistake about it, highlighting government waste and bloat and attempting to eliminate it is a win for the taxpayer.

Indeed. DOGE pointed out and suggested spending which should be cut, and other recommendations, some of which could be done in the executive branch, and some of which needed congress' vote.

One could even reasonably argue that everything which DOGE had publicized is buried in some IG report on some shelf, universally ignored by congress.

In all the government fraud, waste and abuse which DOGE did publicize Congress could only manage a measly $9B spending cut, and therein demonstrates the government spending problem: Congress, more specifically, The House - controls the purse strings.

The US federal government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, clearly.

From my view, there is no justification for the US federal government spending a single cent more than what they did pre-COVID, and yet, the spending levels remain significantly higher than that.

Making government more efficient should now be considered a public policy.

Agreed.

 

[Visbek]

DOGE failed because they didn't take the time to understand the departments they were chopping away at.

They didn't even try to understand it.

Musk and his sycophants are arrogant ignoramuses who think that they're smarter than everyone else, refuse to listen to anyone, and refuse to acknowledge (let alone learn from) their own mistakes.

In this case, though, "improving efficiency" was never the plan. Musk's primary goal was to destroy any agency that could hold him and his companies accountable, or offered functions that competed with his companies, and then steal as much critical data as possible. In that sense, they mostly succeeded.

 

[Greenbeard]

The US federal government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, clearly.

From my view, there is no justification for the US federal government spending a single cent more than what they did pre-COVID, and yet, the spending levels remain significantly higher than that.

I suspect that telling retirees that Social Security check values and Medicare benefits are returning to 2019 levels, as well as being further adjusted downward to account for the larger population of retirees today, wouldn’t go over well.

 

[roguenuke]

If you ran a business with two more employees then you needed....would you lay them off? Or just sit them down somewhere in back room and take their pay as a write off?

If you ran a business thinking you had 2 extra employees than needed because you don't know what you really needed, fired them, then realized you have to hire them or someone else to do that job, likely at a higher pay, are you really saving money? Or if you lose business because it turns out those people you fired were needed and your business goes down or is hacked, then how is that saving money?

 

[roguenuke]

DOGE has brought a laser focus on excesses of government that are more than just waste and fraud.

No, they didn't. They tried to use a wrecking ball to pinpoint a steam leak.

 

[eohrnberger]

I suspect that telling retirees that Social Security check values and Medicare benefits are returning to 2019 levels, as well as being further adjusted downward to account for the larger population of retirees today, wouldn’t go over well.

Nice dodge to avoid talking about the lack of justification of government spending, fraud, waste and abuse, remaining high after COVID has passed.

"But, but, but the seniors . . . ." - those are mandatory spending, not the fraud, waste and abuse being discussed.

 

[Greenbeard]

Nice dodge to avoid talking about the lack of justification of government spending, fraud, waste and abuse, remaining high after COVID has passed.

"But, but, but the seniors . . . ." - those are mandatory spending, not the fraud, waste and abuse being discussed.

Spending on Medicare and Social Security will be more than $900 billion higher this year than it was in 2019, you’re going to need to do a lot more than hand wave about “fraud, waste, and abuse” to rewind the clock back to 2019 spending levels.

 

[eohrnberger]

Spending on Medicare and Social Security will be more than $900 billion higher this year than it was in 2019, you’re going to need to do a lot more than hand wave about “fraud, waste, and abuse” to rewind the clock back to 2019 spending levels.

What part of 'Social Security being mandatory spending' confuses you?

When any spending cuts are even mentioned, why do you always run to push narrative that 'Social Security will be cut' (yes, it is the single largest expenditure) again, its mandatory, rather than cutting the obvious fraud, waste and abuse some of which was identified by DOGE, and others which are buried in universally ignored IG reports?

The US federal government, Congress specifically, has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

After all:
Since 2019, U.S. federal spending has increased by 40%, rising from $4.45 trillion to $6.21 trillion in 2023. This growth has been driven by various programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, and education aid, with spending projected to continue rising in the coming years.

https://www.cato.org/blog/federal-spending-40-2019

Government Spending Just Keeps on Growing | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

2024-06-21-The latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

www.crfb.org

What justification do you offer for this 40% spending increase since 2019, much less justifying that this government spending level needs to be maintained?

 

[Greenbeard]

What part of 'Social Security being mandatory spending' confuses you?

Mandatory spending is the part of the budget that’s growing. Well, that and interest payments.

When any spending cuts are even mentioned, why do you always run to push narrative that 'Social Security will be cut' (yes, it is the single largest expenditure) again, its mandatory, rather than cutting the obvious fraud, waste and abuse some of which was identified by DOGE, and others which are buried in universally ignored IG reports?

Because if you don’t recognize that our largest, fastest-growing spending categories are the problem if it’s indeed the case that “we have a spending problem,” then I don’t know what we’re doing here.

As your own source notes, virtually all of our long-term fiscal issues are driven by retiree benefits:

But beyond 2029, the rising costs of Social Security, Medicare, and interest payments are projected to overtake this downward pressure, boosting spending to 24.9 percent of GDP by 2034.

“We have a spending problem” = “We have a spending on retirees problem”

But this exchange is a good illustration of why DOGE was never going to produce the $2T in savings it promised. The anti-spending brigade is loathe to acknowledge the actual source of our problem.