Can Elon And Vivek Defy History With DOGE?

A government commission will cut waste, reduce headcount, chop a quarter of federal spending, eliminate entire agencies, and improve efficiency.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before.

Hmm. Would that be President Taft’s Commission on Economy and Efficiency? Most recommendations were ignored, except for the introduction of the federal budget process in 1921, which put the executive in charge of budgets. That worked well until FDR doubled federal spending by 1940.

Wait, you mean the Hoover Commission? Two commissions really, reporting in 1949 and 1955. They were so effective that spending jumped 152% between the first report and 1961.

Richard Nixon proposed reorganizing the government into four main departments. Instead, he ended up creating four new entities, including the EPA. He also tried to control spending through impoundment, but it led to the 1974 budget process reform, where the U. S. avoided a deficit only four times since.

Jimmy Carter’s “zero-based budgeting” was too complicated and was soon abandoned by Ronald Reagan. Reagan did cut non-defense spending early on but did not eliminate programs like the Departments of Energy and Education.

His Grace Commission aimed to find ways to cut costs but, according to Reagan’s library, many of its recommendations were never followed. Reagan's proposals to cut Social Security and offer tax reforms faced overwhelming opposition in Congress.

Not long after came Gramm-Rudman, designed to balance the budget automatically. Its original version was declared unconstitutional and it never balanced the budget.

Al Gore’s “Reinventing Government” had some success, eliminating about 250,000 federal positions, but spending kept rising during the 90s.

During George W. Bush’s presidency, the OMB Director’s Program Assessment Rating Tool aimed to grade agencies on effectiveness. Results were mixed, and his proposals, including Social Security privatization, ran into significant resistance.

Simpson-Bowles did not get enough votes from the commission to move forward. Even a bill based on its ideas failed in the House. The sequesters introduced in the 1990s aimed to manage spending but were ultimately avoided, causing spending to rise again.

What explains the mixed results of these reforms? There are three main points to consider. First, the appropriations process allows funding to continue through resolutions when bills aren’t passed. This often leads to excessive spending in large omnibus bills filled with earmarks.

Second, every program targeted for elimination will have defenders, including some in the GOP. Certain state or district programs are too important to cut.

Lastly, lobbyists will be ready to fight against any elimination effort. They provide facts on how essential funding is for their interests, and sympathetic stories are shared with lawmakers.

In essence, there is a significant challenge in cutting programs and spending in Washington. There are deep-rooted habits that resist change.

Despite this, there is still some hope for progress, but it will require further analysis.

There is a call for support to continue this mission of honest journalism. Donations are welcome to help keep efforts ongoing. 

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/12/09/can-elon-and-vivek-defy-history-with-doge/