An Efficiency Commission Led by Elon Musk Would Be Good for the Government
The idea, proposed by former President Donald Trump, could curb waste and step in where our delinquent legislators are asleep on the job.

During his campaign, former President Donald Trump has proposed his share of bad policy ideas, such as a 20 percent tariff across the board. But tasking Elon Musk with heading a commission to make the government more efficient is one worth considering. In a speech to the Economic Club of New York, Trump said this commission will conduct "a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government."
Efficiency is subjective. Some people believe that empowering the IRS with more powers to collect more taxes is efficient. Some believe that efficiency means putting an end to waste, fraud, and abuse. I have a more extensive definition. Yes, an efficient federal government would be free of fraud and abuse, but it also wouldn't subsidize private sector activities like exports, manufacturing, green energy, or any other sectors, for that matter.
Nor would an efficient federal government subsidize state governments for activities that are not federal in nature. Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute reports that in 2019, $721 billion went from Washington, D.C., to the states for activities that states themselves should oversee, like transportation and education. That number exploded during the pandemic. As Edwards shows, such "grants-in-aid" programs produce irresponsible policymaking as they misallocate resources and undermine accountability and democratic control. Oh, and they also produce larger deficits.
Trump's definition of efficiency is narrower. He said: "As a first order of business, this commission will develop an action plan to totally eliminate fraud and improper payments within six months. This will save trillions of dollars. Trillions."
Trillions? I doubt it. You can't balance the budget on the back of fraud and improper payments alone. But ending this waste is the least that government officials should do. As such, a commission stepping in where our delinquent legislators are asleep on the job is welcomed.
According to the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) latest report on the issue, "Federal agencies made an estimated $236 billion in improper payments in FY 2023, and cumulative federal improper payment estimates have totaled about $2.7 trillion since FY 2003." The GAO also reports that five programs are responsible for 79 percent, or $186 billion, of these improper payments.
My research on this topic suggests that only 5 percent of the improper payments are underpayments, and most of the overpaid money is never recovered. Medicare, Medicaid, and that darling of the right and the left, the earned income tax credit, are all systematically at the top of the improper-payment culprit list every year.
Yet nothing happens except that the improper payments grow. It's another sign that government officials, Republican or Democrat—probably including your own House and Senate representatives, dear readers—have very little respect for our hard-earned dollars. We shouldn't tolerate such abuse.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of billions of dollars are for payments that, while neither fraudulent nor improper, fund activities that are redundant, do not achieve what they set out to, or even backfire.
Nevertheless, an efficiency commission is not without challenges. Political resistance is the first. Programs that shouldn't exist have strong political backing, either because they serve a particular constituency or because they benefit powerful interest groups. For instance, agricultural subsidies—often and correctly criticized as wasteful—persist due to strong lobbying from farming interests. Political realities make meaningful cuts or reforms difficult.
Dominic Pino at National Review reminds us that the Grace Commission under President Ronald Reagan made 2,478 recommendations to save $424 billion over three years (in 1984 dollars). Most of the executive branch recommendations were implemented, but those that required legislative action weren't, likely for the reasons laid out above. Pino writes that "the recommendations that were implemented from the commission have saved the federal government a total of $1.9 trillion between the publication of the report and 2020."
The Grace Commission was a raging success compared to former Vice President Al Gore's attempt to cut waste as part of former President Bill Clinton's plan to "reinvent government." As The Wall Street Journal reports, "the Clinton Administration abandoned the effort amid union opposition and Mr. Gore's desire to appeal to his party's left as he sought the presidential nomination in 2000."
Cutting government spending is hard work. So is sending people into space. Musk does the latter better than NASA, so he might be up for tackling the former. The only question is whether that's the best use of his time, considering that Congress will continue to be an obstacle to efficiency.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I believe we had one of those back in the 90s with Al Gore. And it worked exactly as one would predict.
Yeah, here it is.
Let me guess. It turned out that to make government more efficient, they had to hire another 100,000 government employees.
Nothing would get buy in for layoffs like having Elon lead the charge.
lol
Government firing the bottom 10% of employees every year would be a good first step.
De-incentivizing budget glut would be a good step two. Use all of your budget, next year's budget is 20% less.
... you want to punish accurate estimates and sticking to your budget?
That’s not how budgeting works in the government, unfortunately. Typically the reverse ends up being true, “If you don’t spend all of your budget, next year’s will be smaller.” It leads to some remarkably perverse incentives, as I'm sure you can imagine.
And it worked exactly as one would predict.
Forgotten by the Trump era so that a moderate Clinton-style democrat could be portrayed as remake of Hitler for modern audiences by a principled, long-standing, steadfast, totally-not-astroturfed, and totally-not-far-more-insane Progressive
MovementCulture?An area to really dig into is federal legislation that provides refundable tax credits. The Child Credit is small potatoes these days. I have acquaintances reducing their tax bill from 38% to 15% based solely on "Clean energy" tax credits. The Inflation Reduction Act supercharged this process and estimates suggest that what was supposed to cost a few hundred billion over ten years has spent upwards of a trillion in less than three- because this is an uncapped benefit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/comments/occxr1/using_the_solar_investment_tax_credit_to_reduce/
Please don’t mess with energy credits until I file my 2024 return and claim the credit for my solar panels.
Obama signed an Improper Payments Act when he cut the Bushpigs $1 trillion deficit in half. No idea why another one needs to be done though. Fatass Donnie probably killed it out of spite.
Which one of his proposed budgets cut that spending shrike? Was it the FY09 he signed? His proposed budgets were always over 1T+ larger than what the House passed.
Oh wait. I forget. You don’t actually know how government works.
Yeah, I don't understand how Pluggo thinks he can get away with that statement here.
My guess would be it's because he's a moron.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Thanks to Reason for finally covering this. I'm generally skeptical of commissions and blue ribbon panels. But with Trump and Musk involved I'm hopeful. Yes getting congress to act even with republican majorities will be nearly impossible. But Trump will be a lame duck with nothing to lose by pissing them off.
When did Donnie ever cut spending?
Thanks for the chuckle even though it was unintentional.
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
So let me see if I got this straight: Cutting spending is hard so fuggeddaboudit - but at least we can try to reduce waste in the spending they shouldn't be doing in the first place? Thanks for that ...
Just fire everybody. Don't need efficiency.
+1
Get Ron DeSantis on that Commission and it stands a chance.
Efficiency depends on what they're doing. I can have some bureaucrats who are very efficient at breaking windows, so that other bureaucrats can efficiently come in and replace them. We're still poorer.
Real life example that's the sword of Damocles hanging over my head - the proposed TTB rules about ingredients and calories on wine. If that goes into effect, it'll close my business down I don't want them to operate efficiently in implementing new regulations. I would prefer that they are so inefficient that they never get around to implementing costly regulation.
Really, the most efficient thing would be to fire all of the rule makers at the TTB, and preferably abolish the TTB entirely.
Some reason you can't put those things on the label?
"An Efficiency Commission Led by Elon Musk Would Be Good for the Government. The idea, proposed by former President Donald Trump, could curb waste and step in where our delinquent legislators are asleep on the job."
This is a great idea providing it is not run by government employees and has teeth to it.
So, you know this would never be approved by the DC ruling elitist turds in power.
Excellent article +10000000000...
And to think; Once upon a time when the people cared about Liberty and Justice for all an improper payment would be any payment NOT *EARNED*...
^THAT is the problem with communism and socialism. Once the mindset of the population changes from "Individual Liberty and Justice for all" to "STEAL from others with 'Gov-Guns'" it's only a matter of time before ZERO-Resources develop ...... because get this ... Guns don't make sh*t and Government is nothing magical; it's just a monopoly of Gun-Force. People will either use it to ensure Liberty and Justice or they'll use it to commit crimes against their fellow man for their own selfishness (pride) and greed.
An Efficiency Commission Led by Elon Musk Would Be Good for the Government
FFS. No it wouldn't. It would merely provide Musk with a ton of information necessary to suck harder on the public teat.
A commission to review spending/efficiency is great idea. But the ONLY way it can work in an oligarchy (which is what we've got) is if the commission is chosen via random selection or sortition. Regular people have all the special skills needed to audit govt. All the incentives and lack of special interests to de facto make any decisions more about the public interest than the private benefit of people on the commission. And the turnover to keep it that way.
Oh, you mean Musk got Congress to pass the EV credit, THEN he started building EVs?
Oh, you mean providing such cheap and reliable access to orbit that the governments sends more of their business his way than his half-assed competitors?
Exactly which government teat is he nibbling at?
All of them
Then you don't understand government teat.
A government teat is when you get money for doing nothing productive. Windmill and solar farm subsidies are great examples. Providing actual useful services, like SpaceX does, cheaper than the competition and without subsidies, is not sucking at the government teat.
Similarly, if government offers every EV car buyer a $7500 tax credit, it is not sucking at the government teat to build such cars, any more than having children to get a tax deduction.
Just compare Space X to Boeing Talk about milking the government. Musk pales in comparison to the thieves at Boeing .
You don’t understand ‘conflict of interest’ and ‘audit’ do you
Not a surprise that Trump managed to find no conflict of interest at all re Musk and a government spending audit. But hey – at least Trump was ‘promised’ $45 million monthly in contributions to his America PAC. So he’s not a cheap two-bit whore.
You OTOH.
Why are you lying?
Similarly, if government offers every EV car buyer a $7500 tax credit, it is not sucking at the government teat to build such cars, any more than having children to get a tax deduction.
Jesus Fuck, Ken “EVs are just really popular!” Schultz is that you?
This is some socialist “I don’t care about actual freedom, I care about the *illusion* of freedom.” bullshit. If you don’t believe carbon is going to doom the planet, then EVs are a waste of electronic resources that could be doing something else and this is widely acknowledged, now, even among the most environmentally conscious/carbon doom believers.
And, in order to compare EVs as waste to human children as waste, up front, you have to assert some pretty fucking disgustingly immoral and grotesque anti-liberty and pro-common good arguments as unassailable. Which, again, even without such grotesqueness, you’re still invoking the socialist core, Labor Theory of Value in a nonsense or paradoxical fashion.
Oh, you mean Musk got Congress to pass the EV credit, THEN he started building EVs?
Uh… The Energy Policy
Act of 2005 and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 both contain subsidies for plug-in hybrid and electric drive vehicles and the Roadster launched in 2008 (ultimately selling less than 3,000 units) and the Model S in 2012. And the US, by far, wasn’t the first market to create electric vehicle subsidies.
That’s certainly not to say that Elon was in anybody’s pocket, but the insinuation that he was making cars for years before the subsidies came along (and therefore clearly not a suckling newborn at the teat) rather than specifically supporting environmentalism and ramping up production within a runway’s distance of subsidies seems an awful lot like a stupid trick governments would pull… or a trick stupid governments would pull… or something.
I don’t at all disagree that Space X is saving money and could viably stand on its own, but the idea that Elon doesn’t have even one socialist or unlibertarian or corporate crony bone in his body or leaning in his head is a hefty bit of hero worship with a fair amount of evidence that even he, seemingly, doesn’t agree with.
No it wouldn’t. It would merely provide Musk with a ton of information necessary to suck harder on the public teat.
JFree you stupid fucking DNC propaganda spewing tit. Musk has never sucked on the public teat. Everything was developed using Musk's own money or capital he raised. Falcon 9, Starshi, all out of pocket.
Selling rocket rides at the lowest price and cars to the government is in no way sucking the public teat. Nor when politicians put consumer subsidies on all electric cars including his.
You guys just have to lie and lie and lie.
"Yes, an efficient federal government would be free of fraud and abuse, but it also wouldn't subsidize private sector activities like exports, manufacturing, green energy, or any other sectors, for that matter."
... and you think Musk is the person to do that?
Does anyone need an explanation of why that's laughable?
And that's before we even get into why expecting Trump to be serious about such a thing is similarly laughable.
In fairness, the opposition isn't exactly not saying, "Damn the efficiency and the spending! More Green and Diversity at any arbitrarily inflated cost!"
Just take the list of current cabinet level organizations, then beside each one, cite the US Constitution provision that authorizes it. Then completely eliminate all organizations without a corresponding authorization.
The interstate compact clause can authorize a fed govtl entity for any purpose. No state shall, without the consent of Congess, enter into any agreement or compact with another state eg if two states wanted to recognize retiree medical or pensions across state lines that requires the consent of Congress.
That can allow for funding because that is Congress purview.
It cannot allow for anything general in executive branch because an interstate compact is managed by the states in compact not by the feds.
99% of any mandating authority by the feds also disappears.
It can allow for competing compacts on the same issue – eg different models for how Medicaid might work across state lines.
It basically requires that either Congress or the states themselves hold that govt entity accountable.
Small govt advocates have been 100% ineffective at getting rid of any federal agency where that functionality would simply be replaced by an interstate compact. So stop trying that approach. Transfer that authority to a compact and let the states manage the compact. If the function is valuable to the states, they’ll keep it up (and maybe take over funding over time). If it’s not valuable, states will let it die
We had one during the Reagan presidency called the Grace Commission, headed by Peter Grace. It accomplished nothing. Peter Grace was no paragon of business acumen, but compared to Elon Musk Peter Grace was a saint with principles and integrity. Anything headed by Elon Musk will overnight become the chief Saturday Night Live comedy skit for years, and the multiple late night talk show hosts will have monologue feast days for a very long time. Musk may be among the world's wealthiest people but on a respect and credibility meter he barely registers.
PayPal, Telsa, SpaceX, Boring Company, X... yeah, the world's richest man can't run a business...
Stupid fucking DNC shill.
Oh, look! A MAGAt licking Musk's balls!
Anything headed by Elon Musk will overnight become the chief Saturday Night Live comedy skit for years, and the multiple late night talk show hosts will have monologue feast days for a very long time.
This feels like an oblivious-to-reality “Obamacare will run as efficiently as the Post Office.” accidental own-goal.
You mean SNL and late night monologues will start lampooning the wasteful spending that Elon misses? That Musk will be a part of that spending and they’ll be lampooning him for it? That they’ll start criticizing the government and become funny enough for people to start watching again?
Unless the joke is that late night comedy writers are worthless, I’m not seeing the “Because Late Night writers will try to write jokes we shouldn’t care about efficiency.” argument here.
There is zero chance an efficiency commission headed by Elon Musk would achieve anything except making government less efficient.
Well, the oblivious question is would it be more efficient for the government to save the money by not have and Efficiency Commission (EC)? A commission does little good if it writes a big report that is filed away and never looked at again.
I will support the of an Efficiency Commission if it has broad buy-in from the start. Trump preposing it and Elon Musk heading the EC is likely non-starter for many. The EC is therefore inefficient from the start.
He is my suggestion. Select a commission of retired political office holders. The House's Ways and Means committee sponsors the commission with the chairman and the ranking member selecting an equal group of members.
“… Congress will continue to be an obstacle to efficiency.”
Here’s a thought: The inefficiency of Congress stems less from bills themselves and much more from riders on those bills. Congress has never—despite calls for it from numerous presidents—allowed a line item veto on bills that reach the Oval Office. How about vetoing ~every~ bill with any rider at all that reaches the president’s desk? It takes a 2/3 majority of both Houses to override a veto. That means that either Congress shapes up, bipartisanship happens, or Congress finally stops making laws against America’s interests.
I suggested this years ago. Nobody listened.
I suggested this years ago. Nobody listened.
Probably because the way you’re framing it makes you look like a historically retarded moron or Joe Biden-style dementia patient.
Congress actually passed a line-item veto bill in 1996 literally called “The Line Item Veto Act of 1996”. It was struck down 2 yrs. later by the SCOTUS and The City of New York (Clinton v. NYC) because it granted the President undue power to void legislation duly passed by Congress. Section 230/”To Serve Man”-style, Congress could pass "A Law Protecting American Citizens From Goose-Eating Haitians” and the POTUS could sign “A Law Protecting
American Citizens FromGoose-Eating Haitians” into law.Since then, numerous Presidents have threatened both to veto much more liberally as well as use their pen and phone to act without Congress. In the former case, a bill is proposed or rider attached that is enormously popular and/or with bi-partisan support and the POTUS is portrayed as a villain, even within his own party/constituency, for vetoing.
I recall when Reason's suggestion for getting rid of marijuana was to nationalize the industry, give it a billion-dollar subsidy and appoint Lee Iacocca to run it. What's changed is that Vero wants girl-bullying Tesla Boy Lonnie Muskovite, not Lee, to run a nationalized bureaucracy into the ground.