Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Government Waste

DOGE's Chances Are Slim, but It Might Be Our Only Hope

Congress and the president show no interest in cutting government. Maybe outsiders can get it done.

J.D. Tuccille | 11.15.2024 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Elon Musk, who has been tapped to head the Department of Government Efficiency, raises his hands in celebration at a Trump rally. | Jen Golbeck/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
(Jen Golbeck/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

President-elect Donald Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is getting a lot of buzz, much of it tentatively hopeful. There's a good reason for that: Untested though it is, the idea of handing responsibility for dismantling government bureaucracy, slashing excess regulations, and cutting wasteful expenditures to a couple of wealthy tech bros might work where nothing else has. Given that the federal government hasn't balanced its books in decades and the budget deficit just keeps growing and adding to the national debt, it might be our only hope of avoiding catastrophe.

You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

A $1.8 Trillion Deficit, and Growing

"In fiscal year 2024, which ended on September 30, the federal budget deficit totaled $1.8 trillion—an increase of $138 billion (or 8 percent) from the shortfall recorded in the previous year," reports the Congressional Budget Office.

If that sounds familiar, it should. You've heard something similar before, year after year, though the numbers tend to become increasingly dire as time goes on. It's been a very long time since the federal government managed to confine its spending to what it takes in.

"In the last 50 years, the federal government budget has run a surplus four times, most recently in 2001," the U.S. Treasury cheerfully concedes on its national deficit explainer page. In fact, since the start of fiscal year 2025—which began, let's remember, last month—"the federal government has spent $257 billion more than it has collected." That's $191 billion more than the roughly $67 billion deficit our federal government had run up by this time last year.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis puts annual deficits in graph form for easy viewing. Even if you ignore the insanity of pandemic year 2020's spending and deficit, there's a steady widening of the gap between revenues and expenditures over the last decade.

A Spending Problem Crying for an Intervention

What's especially impressive, for a certain value of "impressive," is that federal revenues were up by 11 percent, or $479 billion, from 2023. That $1.8 trillion deficit was accomplished by increasing spending by dramatically more than the rise in revenues: $617 billion. It seems that no matter how much money the U.S. government collects, it spends more.

If the federal government were a shopaholic family member, we'd have held an intervention years ago. Maybe—and here's where tentative hopefulness comes in—a pair of wealthy tech entrepreneurs can stage the intervention that the federal government so obviously needs.

"I am pleased to announce that the Great Elon Musk, working in conjunction with American Patriot Vivek Ramaswamy, will lead the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE')," President-elect Trump announced November 12 on the Truth Social platform. "Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies."

Trump specified that "to drive this kind of drastic change, the Department of Government Efficiency will provide advice and guidance from outside of Government."

That means that DOGE—and yes, you have to wonder if we're being pranked given Musk's connection to dogecoin—won't have any power to actually enforce its will. It will just counsel the president and those inside government on potential improvements in efficiency and cuts in spending and waste. But working outside the government means DOGE, Musk, and Ramaswamy are also freed from the government way of doing things, with all its red tape and bureaucracy.

"All actions of the Department of Government Efficiency will be posted online for maximum transparency," Elon Musk posted on X. "Anytime the public thinks we are cutting something important or not cutting something wasteful, just let us know! We will also have a leaderboard for most insanely dumb spending of your tax dollars. This will be both extremely tragic and extremely entertaining."

In October, Musk insisted "at least $2 trillion" could be cut from the federal budget. That suggests he's not interested in just trimming a bit at the margins or slightly slowing the rate of Leviathan's growth.

Chances Are Slim, but What Are the Alternatives?

Can DOGE work? If I were a betting man, and I am, I'd say there's no chance in Hell. Without the power to enforce its will, the most sincere and ambitious DOGE recommendations will run up against the complete lack of political will in Washington, D.C. to tackle the cost of financially unsustainable entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, and national defense—programs which make up the majority of the budget. That will allow net interest on the debt the federal government has already run up to consume an ever-growing portion of the federal budget until there's nothing else.

But what other option is there? The Democratic and Republican party platforms both promise to "protect" Social Security and Medicare, and boast of their commitment to a "bigger" military (Republicans) and "historic investments in America's military industrial base" (Democrats). That doesn't leave much room for reining in spending through normal legislative channels. And the stakes are high.

Failure Would Be 'Cataclysmic'

"Under current policy, the United States has about 20 years for corrective action after which no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly," economists Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters wrote for the Penn Wharton Budget Model last year. They added that this is the "best case" scenario and the window for balancing the federal government's books could dramatically shrink if people lose faith that the U.S. government will ever address its excesses.

If the U.S. government defaulted, Moody's Analytics concluded, "the blow to the economy would be cataclysmic." The dollar would lose value, financial markets would fall "wiping out $10 trillion in household wealth," jobs and businesses would be lost, prosperity would plunge, and…it would be bad.

So, even if the likelihood of DOGE, under the guidance of Musk and Ramaswamy, succeeding in making the federal government remotely affordable is slim, it might be our best hope. A rotating cast of lawmakers and presidents let spending outpace revenue for decades and show absolutely no interest in changing their habits. Maybe—just maybe—outsiders can get it done.

It will certainly be interesting watching them try.

The Rattler is a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, this is for you.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Review: Like Friday Night Lights, But For High School Mariachi

J.D. Tuccille is a contributing editor at Reason.

Government WasteGovernment SpendingBig GovernmentDebtDeficitsFederal AgenciesFederal governmentDonald TrumpDOGE
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (80)

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.

  1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

    Congrats on being the first Reason editor to reach the acceptance phase. Or are you in the bargaining phase?

    1. Chumby   6 months ago

      Abolish those with TDS.

    2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

      So basically, ‘literally Hitler’ is our only salvation. Thats quite a change from all the shrill bullshit articles over the last two weeks about horrible Trump and all his cabinet picks are, and how they will destroy America.

      On a related note…….

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2024/11/18/morning-joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski-trump-meeting/76400312007/

      Joe Scarborough and his bitch met with Trump and bent a knee. Those pathetic assholes just abandoned the last of what passes for their principles to suck up to Trump. Probably because their ratings are cratering, just like they are for all of MSNBC’s programming, and the network is reportedly on the chopping block. As Comcast is looking to improve their balance sheet, and MSNBC is a liability. Obviously a new owner will take a close look at the bloated salaries and meager viewing figures. Likely firing people like Scarborough, who reportedly earns over $ 11 million per year.

  2. Moderation4ever   6 months ago

    Insiders or outsiders doesn't make a difference because the problem is lawmakers with little incentive to make cuts. Making cuts make people unhappy and some of those people are powerful. Making cuts is also not a one-way street. Want to make cuts then there has to be compromise and I see no interest in that.

    1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

      Which people are unhappy? The Feds who are profiting?

      1. Chumby   6 months ago

        The free riders on the dole. And the govt employees that are paid to facilitate the goods and services to the free riders.

        1. TJJ2000   6 months ago

          ^THIS.... Seriously.
          Take into consideration which people you come across who are getting their paychecks from Government. There is a massive correlation between where one gets their pay and how they vote.

          1. TJJ2000   6 months ago

            Point & Case: D.C. voted for Democrats at over a 90% majority.

      2. sarcasmic   6 months ago

        People like you. Leaches who get paid with federal tax dollars. I’m sure you’d be unhappy if the useless federal contract you work under was cut while getting rid of federal waste. You'd have to get a real job.

        1. Don't look at me!   6 months ago

          There’s a lot of “you” in that post.

        2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

          You keep making this claim, yet I haven't seen a cite. Lol.

          You have to live in a world of your own imagination to justify your authoritarian defense of Democrats the last decade.

          It is amazing. Lol.

          Even yesterday you mocked the killing of babbit. You support political lawfare. You justify 1.5B judgements against your enemy despite award limits. You are literally a nazi piece of authoritarian shit.

          So you make up shit to justify your own beliefs. Often in a form of projection.

          You are an authoritarian piece of shit supporting every government abuse the left makes.

          1. sarcasmic   6 months ago

            Now you’re going to lie about admitting to working for a federal contractor? Wouldn’t surprise me. You lie so much you make cops look honest.

            1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

              I don’t talk about my profession. I do talk about what industry I’m in.

              Try again buddy.

              Here is a list you’ve created about me in your head.

              sarcasmic 2 months ago
              Flag Comment
              Mute User
              How many data analysts name Jesse age around 57 working for a government contractor, brag about playing sports in college, likely tall and a bully, well groomed, look like a cop, are are on sites that people use to look up people, and haven’t a clue?
              Lucky for you I’m lazy.

              You just make shit up as your truth. A leftist trait. Lol.

              You got tall and well groomed right.

              Still a weird descriptor from your imagination.

              1. sarcasmic   6 months ago

                Could have just said yes.

                1. Don't look at me!   6 months ago

                  That’s what the rapists say.

                2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

                  To what?

                  I’m showing you you have zero idea what my job is. You’ve made shit up in your head.

                  I don’t seek sympathy here like you do crying about the terrible life choices you’ve made.

                  And notice you've gone down this rabbit hole to justify other lies you make constantly.

                  Where do I defend government spending?

                  1. sarcasmic   6 months ago

                    You said you work for a federal contractor and defended it. You can lie about it all day long though, and you will, because you know I’m not a loser like you who bookmarks thousands of comments.

                    1. Don't look at me!   6 months ago

                      Ideas™ !

                    2. TJJ2000   6 months ago

                      I have yet to see where JesseAZ wouldn't be in favor of cutting that 'federal contract' you insist he works under so you really aren't making a point. Just because everyone lives under the LAW doesn't mean they support that LAW.

        3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

          You’re the one on welfare Sarc. Just an alcoholic leech. We all work for a living.

        4. TrickyVic (old school)   6 months ago

          ""Leaches who get paid with federal tax dollars. ""

          If one works for the government, they would not be a leach. They are performing a service in exchange for money.
          A leach would be more like people you defend who jump across the border then demand they be fed and housed on someone else dime.

          1. TJJ2000   6 months ago

            If one "works for" their $ they don't need a Gov-Gun funding it.
            Just saying.

      3. Moderation4ever   6 months ago

        Everyone. They fact is that every dollar the Federal government spends has a supporter. How much Federal money does Elon Musk himself rely about? People buying his Teslaas get a subsidy and the government is a big consumer of his rockets. Seven of ten of the top states getting excess Federal money are Republican controlled. Ask yourself why the military budget Congress approves is always larger than the amount the Military requests. Any economy is a web of interdependency. Ask yourself why politicians want government programs and military bases in their states. It because the Federal money the employees and soldiers pump into the local economies.

        1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

          And how many enjoy taxes?

        2. Don't look at me!   6 months ago

          The government is not a producer, it is a spender. It’s not sustainable. Sorry.

          1. Moderation4ever   6 months ago

            I disagree, the government is more a middleman in the operation. Government don't provide products but rather services and those services are very much in demand. I live in Wisconsin and in a residential neighborhood. After a snowstorm my street is not plowed by the City of Madison. Contractors plow my street and are paid by the City of Madison. City workers do the contracting for the service and pay the business contracted for the work.

            1. Don't look at me!   6 months ago

              Lol

            2. Zeb   6 months ago

              Where the government actually provides useful services used by everyone like road maintenance we could argue about whether there might be a better private sector solution. But I'll grant that services like that actually provide some value. But an awful lot of government is more of a moey disbursement function that adds very little value and mostly serves to enrich the well connected.

            3. TJJ2000   6 months ago

              What part of being “the middleman” requires ‘Gun-Force’ (‘government’)?
              When you figure that answer out you might figure out why this nation is bankrupt.
              Never-mind your obvious; run-for cover in Tiny-Local government when National is the subject.

              "but, but, but ..... ROOAAAADDDDDZZZZ!!!!" /s

    2. sarcasmic   6 months ago

      Show me a cut in government spending, and I’ll show you some pissed off voter who is no longer receiving a check for their job or entitlement. That’s why nobody cuts government. Everything and nothing are on the table at the same time. The most politically feasible way to cut government is to freeze it and let inflation do the work.

      1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

        Can you tell us how borders are collectivist again. That was an amazing take.

        Despite Marxists literally advocating open borders like you do, you call borders collectivist and Jeff calls them communist.

        You two do nothing but project. It is hilarious.

        1. sarcasmic   6 months ago

          Tell us, what indispensable work do you do while getting paid with federal dollars as you post on Reason all day?

          1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

            Lol. How does your non sequitur make up for your retarded defense of Marxist ideals buddy?

            Where do I defend government spending?

            You’re the one defending welfare to the world. You’re the one upset Trump is looking to cut spending. You’re the one joining dem media to attack those goals.

            You’re projecting yet again. It is all you do.

            A hypocritical moron with an authoritarian defense of state abuse against your enemies.

            Your attacks don’t work because the drip in jealousy of me and others. It is always projection with you.

            Not all of us chose to become homeless alcoholic druggies and actually created a successful career and that pisses you off. You think yourself a victim despite the consequences being from your own actions and decisions.

            Put the anger and blame where it belongs, on yourself. Maybe you'll finally improve yourself.

            1. sarcasmic   6 months ago

              I really hope the useless federal contract that pays your useless ass to post useless comments on Reason while you pretend to do a useless job is one of the first useless things Trump and Musk cut from the federal budget.

              1. Chumby   6 months ago

                I really hope you get sober and get professional help for your raging case of long TDS.

              2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

                It’s 730am here buddy. Not shocked you don’t understand time zones.

                Now can you defend your retarded Marxist claims borders are collectivist.

                So much anger. Please direct it to where it belongs, on yourself. I'm sure you think I'm the reason people realize you're retarded. But they read your posts too.

                1. sarcasmic   6 months ago

                  I don’t defend strawmen that only exist in your useless mind.

                  1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

                    Still don't understand words you use. More evidence of how dumb you are lol.

                2. Moderation4ever   6 months ago

                  You know before I retired I have an hour of work in by 0730. What is your excuse.

                  1. sarcasmic   6 months ago

                    He works for a federal contractor.

                    1. TJJ2000   6 months ago

                      …yet doesn’t support ‘federal contracts’.
                      Your accusation lacks merit because it doesn't consider willful support.

              3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

                You’re a welfare hobo. So stop bitching.

        2. Stupid Government Tricks   6 months ago

          Uhhhh .... what? Borders could be individual, if parcel owners were free to deal with trespassers. But when the government takes control of borders, what else can it be but a group effort controlled by central planners? Collectivist, in a word.

          When was this thread? Maybe I missed something.

          1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

            Yesterday.

            https://reason.com/2024/11/14/trumps-immigration-picks-are-terrible/?comments=true#comment-10801859

            Him and Jeff use the terms to call others communists if they believe in borders.

          2. sarcasmic   6 months ago

            According to Jesse it is not collectivist to say the government owns all of the property in country, which makes people without proper government papers trespassers.

            He also says that it’s not collectivist for the government override the decisions of individuals when they say it’s ok for someone to rent from them, work for them, and buy stuff from them, if that someone lacks proper government papers.

            His stupidity makes my head hurt.

            1. Don't look at me!   6 months ago

              Ideas™ !

            2. Stupid Government Tricks   6 months ago

              Just skimmed it. Jeffy thinks all collectvism/statism is communism. I stopped skimming there. Sarc probably joined in, as is his wont.

              Hell, every contract is a collectivist document. Every construction crew is collectivist.

              Doesn't make it communism.

              1. sarcasmic   6 months ago

                Jesse lacks the intelligence to discern the difference between saying "That was a collectivist statement" and "You are a collectivist communist." To him they are equivalent statements.
                Another example would be when someone says "You know, when Trump talks about immigrants poisoning the blood of the nation it reminds me of how Hitler would use demagoguery to unite his followers against the Jews" he hears "Trump is Hitler."

                He's just dumb.

                1. Stupid Government Tricks   6 months ago

                  Uhhh ... wrong again. Here's your buddy Jeffy, "correcting" BigT:

                  it is granted by the owners of the property – the citizens through their elected representatives.

                  Tell me you’re a communist without telling me you’re a communist.

                  1. sarcasmic   6 months ago

                    I’m not defending jeff, asshole. And way to miss the point. Do you share Jesse's mental retardation? Is that why you go out of your way to defend him? Or is it a tribal thing?

                    1. Stupid Government Tricks   6 months ago

                      JDS, a new variant not spawned by Fauci.

            3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

              He never said that. The stupidity in your head said that. As you are stupidi.

              You’re also a worthless drunk.

            4. TJJ2000   6 months ago

              “His stupidity makes my head hurt.”
              LMAO… That’s just your “My Liberty to Your Stuff” polluted brain.
              Pretending the very entity that titles property an ‘owner’ is communism.

              Your own criminal tactics make your head hurt; nothing else.
              Precisely because your thoughts are a contradiction.

    3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

      ‘Compromise’ to a democrat is Republicans caving in to the democrat agenda.

  3. Adans smith   6 months ago

    So much to get rid of, so little time.

    1. Alberto Balsalm   6 months ago

      "All actions of the Department of Government Efficiency will be posted online for maximum transparency," Elon Musk posted on X. "Anytime the public thinks we are cutting something important or not cutting something wasteful, just let us know! We will also have a leaderboard for most insanely dumb spending of your tax dollars. This will be both extremely tragic and extremely entertaining."

      This will awesome.

  4. Chumby   6 months ago

    Some illegal aliens may try to steal the barbecue the DOGE. Beware.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   6 months ago

      Childless doge ladies hardest hit.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   6 months ago

        Do we really want retarded narcissists like Chelsea Handler reproducing?

  5. Yuno Hoo   6 months ago

    "Under current policy, the United States has about 20 years for corrective action after which no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly," economists Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters wrote for the Penn Wharton Budget Model last year.

    "This is unsustainable, just as it has been for the last forty years."

  6. CindyF   6 months ago

    It's not that the government agencies will not cut a LOT of spending. It's that they will not cut ANY spending. If a department's yearly budget increase is 3% instead of 4%, they yell "we will perish due to budget cuts"!

    Let's start with the low-hanging fruit. Let's cut funding for stupid studies such as "the sex habits of quails on cocaine", "the effects of Covid on Russian Women", and "how climate change effects taxi drivers in Cairo". We can then move to completely eliminating all tax dollars to NGOs for transporting illegals from various countries to the U.S.

    We can definitely cut items such as the NIH's three million dollar study to watch hamsters on steroids fighting each other.

    We have several gov agencies with the same mission. Combine those agencies into one and streamline those departments. Stop no-bid contracts that pay ridiculous amounts to someone's bro-in-law for goods or a service that can be provided elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.

    Pretty soon the savings will add up to real money.

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   6 months ago

      "" Combine those agencies into one and streamline those departments.""

      Wasn't that the idea behind creating the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11?

    2. Lester75   6 months ago

      There isn't enough money in hamster studies to make a dent. You have to cut real stuff people want.

  7. Dan S.   6 months ago

    It really can't be a "Department" if it is "outside of government". Maybe the "Directorate of Government Efficiency"? That way, Musk can keep the DOGE acronym.

    1. Rossami   6 months ago

      Wait, there can't be any "departments" outside of government? All those corporate 'Department VPs' are going to be so upset. And think of all those 'department store' owners who've been misled for years!

      Pedanticism can be fun but you do have to be right first.

    2. Aspiring Statesman   6 months ago

      Exactly what I was thinking!

  8. creech   6 months ago

    With about 90% of House seats being in safe districts, one would think that one could cobble together a simple majority of representatives who understood the need for fiscal sanity. After all, these guys all love America, don't they?

    1. Zeb   6 months ago

      Well, "safe" only goes so far. I think they are more safe for a party than for a particular office holder. If you stop delivering, they can always primary you.

  9. TrickyVic (old school)   6 months ago

    Remember the sequester?
    Both parties hated it.

    1. Will Nonya   6 months ago

      or both parties said they did. Useful when you want the public to think its a problem even if it isnt.

  10. PeteRR   6 months ago

    We're well past the point of cutting the frivolous or the "nice to fund if we have the extra cash lying around" programs. We also need to cut things that are important, popular, and, in many cases, constitutional. We simply can not afford to keep piling on the debt.

  11. Lester75   6 months ago

    Leaving taxes the way they are, capping Social Security if you have plenty of $$ to retire, not wasting military $$ on boondoggles, not going to Mars... Those are things that would start to work, but the Republicans, their donors and a lot of older taxpayers are allergic to these kinds of corrections.

    1. TJJ2000   6 months ago

      Try lobbying to move SS (with current-only gov promissory notes) to a Co-op launch which would actually have to do those things in order to balance their budget. The results might be as surprising as the last election was for Democrats.

      The problem resides in the contradiction-of-interest in Justice when the “halls of justice” (Gov-Gun enforced) have been corrupted into service providers. There is no “halls of justice” for the people to turn to in such cases.

  12. Aspiring Statesman   6 months ago

    I don't do X, so maybe some of you can forward this to Mr Musk?

    IDEA #1: Modified Across the Board Cut

    Each department / agency is handed a 25% cut. It must find that amount of savings, BUT -- If it can find (and prosecute) savings in ANOTHER department, then it can preserve more of its own budget.

    Set some rules: Each agency has first-dibs on its own cuts (nobody else gets credit), and if multiple departments finger the same cut in another, then they split the credit.

    Then set them all at each other's throats and sit back to watch the fur fly! Not only will each department be motivated to dismantle all of the others, but each will be motivated to confess its own most vulnerable money-pits!

    Pass the popcorn!

  13. Aspiring Statesman   6 months ago

    I don’t do X, so maybe some of you can forward this to Mr Musk?

    IDEA #2: Ask a Farmer

    Start with the premise that the "Farm Bill" should be the last thing that Congress will cut... but it *will* be cut / killed / reduced to zero.

    Then ask America's farmers what should be cut *before* the farm bill. [ Imagine that we can ID all farmers and set up a web site where they can log in and respond ]

    Any farmer can nominate any spending "pot" for reduction. It will be listed with a slider where every farmer may choose any spending level from 0-100. At the bottom of the list will be the farm bill, set to zero and greyed out -- It'll be the last to go, but go it must.

    At some date, nominations would be closed and all farmers would be reminded to review / adjust their sliders. At a later date, the median value of every slider (the deepest cut supported by a scant majority of farmers) would be applied to last year's budget to calculate line-items in the budget for the coming year (and appropriations bills etc).

    Why farmers? Because all 50 states have'em, and because they must operate in the real world, and because they're heavily subsidized but really must have all their subsidies taken away -- so they're ideally positioned to tell us all of the *other* grants and subsidies and privileges that should be taken from other special interests.

    1. TJJ2000   6 months ago

      In the scope of “2024, the government spent $6.75 trillion”.
      $22B is hardly “heavily subsidized” (22B / 6.75T = 0.326%)

      And most of it goes to ‘corn’ due to the ‘ethanol’ environmentalist BS.
      Not to mention, farmers don’t want farm-bill subsidies as has been stated numerous times.

      1. Will Nonya   6 months ago

        If you think farmers don't want subsidies then you clearly don't know any farmers.

  14. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   6 months ago

    "...Congress and the president show no interest in cutting government. Maybe outsiders can get it done..."

    Someone other than a steaming pile of TDS-addled shit might have noticed this was an initiative of a POTUS-elect, TDS-addled steaming pile of shit.

    1. Will Nonya   6 months ago

      It was part of his agenda last time too yet he grew government instead. It isn't TDS if you're basing it on the difference between things he says and what he actually does.

  15. Will Nonya   6 months ago

    While I am all for cutting government to the bone if my only hope of even modest cuts are musk advising Trump then there is no hope. Trump really shows little interest in it, especially on the fiscal side. Musk is notoriously un-serious and what you end up with is one giant pile of incompetence and ignorance advising a big flabby pile of apathy and chaos.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump Deletes Database Containing Over 5,000 Police Misconduct Incidents

C.J. Ciaramella | From the June 2025 issue

Brickbat: Tough Guy

Charles Oliver | 5.29.2025 4:00 AM

Are We Headed for Another Disaster With Fannie and Freddie?

Veronique de Rugy | 5.29.2025 1:10 AM

A Federal Court Just Blocked Trump's Tariffs

Eric Boehm | 5.28.2025 7:50 PM

Can Schools Ban This 'There Are Only Two Genders' Shirt? Supreme Court Declines To Hear Free Speech Case

Billy Binion | 5.28.2025 5:21 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!