Yes, Cutting Government Waste Is Important
Entitlements are a much bigger expense, but that doesn't mean the waste doesn't matter.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) draws two extreme reactions from budget-focused observers.
On one side, you have cynics rolling their eyes and arguing that the truly consequential problem is not overpriced government boondoggles but rather entitlements like Medicare and Social Security and interest on the national debt.
On the other, you have optimists who believe that if we just find and eliminate enough waste, fraud, and abuse, we can balance the budget—unless too much of the savings is handed out as "DOGE dividend" checks. They point to outrageous spending on "gambling monkeys" and luxury pickleball courts as proof that government is a bloated, reckless disaster. Others think the piecemeal savings could wipe out our government's $2 trillion annual deficit.
Both perspectives are half right and half dangerously wrong.
I spend much of my time warning people that ever-larger chunks of the budget are consumed by entitlement spending, about which President Donald Trump's cost cutters can do little without Congress. Around half of the budget is consumed by just three programs: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Add in the growing cost of interest payments on our $36 trillion national debt—thanks to both reckless overspending and rising interest rates—and we're talking about 70 percent of spending being essentially automatic and untouchable unless real reforms happen.
That's why the first group of critics shrugs off the cost-cutting work, arguing that finding waste in discretionary spending is like bailing water out of the Titanic with a teacup. They're missing part of the point.
After all, politicians do spend large sums without restraint, much of it borrowed, on boondoggles that most Americans wouldn't support if they knew what was happening.
It's also a matter of good sense. Imagine telling a family drowning in debt that they shouldn't bother canceling unnecessary streaming subscriptions or eating out less because "the real problem is the mortgage." It's a bad argument when applied to household budgets or the federal budget.
Now to be fair, what one person considers wasteful, another person might see as an essential or efficient investment. But this isn't just a fight over efficiency; it's a fight over what the federal government should be doing in the first place.
As for me, I look at federal dollars being showered on state governments for local projects—whether for infrastructure, education, or pork-barrel transit grants—and see violations of federalism. Should all federal taxpayers really foot the bill for $1.7 million in federal grants to the National Comedy Center in Jamestown, New York, to build holograms of dead comedians?
Defenders of Trump's cost cutting are right that every billion spent by government is a billion taken from the pockets of today's taxpayers or added to our debt. Every grant, redundant agency, and special-interest handout is either a current or future tax hike. This is true for both obvious "waste" and debatable "investments."
Meanwhile, if the cost-cutting team's defenders wrongly insist it can fix the budget, that's no excuse to look away from utterly ridiculous spending. Nor is it a reason to put aside questions about whether Americans should shoulder all these well-meaning programs that make little to no difference in most people's lives.
That's why we should know where all the money goes. Would you support $12 million to fund a luxury pickleball complex in Las Vegas? There are billions more in examples, including $28 million once spent on Afghan Army camouflage uniforms with a forest pattern, chosen based on an Afghan official's personal fashion preference, despite most of Afghanistan being desert.
The Washington establishment has no incentive to stop the spending on small, ridiculous stuff or on large, unpaid-for programs. Congress doesn't have to balance the national budget as the rest of us each must balance our own household's.
Where does that leave us? With the same old truth that we must soon reform entitlement spending to make Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security sustainable. But we must also cut as much as possible of the absurd waste that infects the budget. Rather than endorsing a false choice, we, the people, should simply demand that Congress be the good steward of our tax dollars it was intended to be. Regardless of what DOGE does.
COPYRIGHT 2025 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
On one side, you have cynics rolling their eyes and arguing that the truly consequential problem is not overpriced government boondoggles but rather entitlements like Medicare and Social Security and interest on the national debt.
On the other, you have optimists who believe that if we just find and eliminate enough waste, fraud, and abuse, we can balance the budget—unless too much of the savings is handed out as "DOGE dividend" checks.
Then the rational side saying all the cuts are good. More is needed. Stop complaining about side 1 and applaud what you are getting now while demanding more.
By the way, I doubt your side 2 exists anywhere.
You doubt people who have said DOGE can balance the budget from waste and fraud alone, without cutting entitlements?
Trump has said so. Trump has said DOGE will cut $2 trillion.
Trump is an economic ignoramus. You are too if you believe what he says.
Ok.
Please provide the exact quote then.
Weird claim as he said he is going through Medicaid now, has gone through social security. Medicare soon. Not sure how you expect him to cut interest on the debt. By the way, aren't you part of group 1 demanding him wait for congress?
You're probably misinterpreting what he has said, intentionally, where he stated he can cut half the deficit and then grow the economy for the other half of cuts (see tax revenue growth).
Ill wait for the exact quote you're referring to.
You have the nerve to ask for evidence, when every time I say Trump doesn't understand tariffs or trade deficits, you just cuss and insult and do nothing to prove he does understand economics?
I think not. You're on your own, buddy boy. Find someone else to babysit you. Your credibility is shot.
To think you tried so hard to kiss this guy's ass by attacking me for saying what you are saying right now.
So you don't have an exact quote. Interesting.
As for evidence, I've provided you ample links to buttress my claims. You refuse to educate yourself just like sarc.
He even follows you around buddy.
Lol.
God damn. You're a fucking fool. All projection. Just like sarc. All ignorance. Just like sarc. Inability to actually make an informed argument. Just like sarc. Pretending to now be the victim because of above. Just like sarc.
What a fucking child.
If you had a real and informed argument you'd be able to produce your evidence. But all you do is dismiss all evidence denying your claims. One simple question is all it took to make you look like a fool. Show me the historical data where there is a correlation between tariffs and prices. But you can't. It doesn't exist. A non idiot would go and think on what this means for his bumper sticker economic beliefs. But not you two chuckle heads. Lol.
So please. Continue being sarc.
Amazing.
Trump said DOGE was going to balance the budget. The deficit is in the neighborhood of $2T. It's pretty reasonable to infer that that meant DOGE was going to save $2T. I think that's what SGT meant. Though he's too butthurt by other comments I've made and his failed efforts to gain popularity by being mean to me to acknowledge that what I'm saying might have been his train of thought.
"You have the nerve to ask for evidence, when every time I say Trump doesn't understand tariffs or trade deficits, you just cuss and insult and do nothing to prove he does understand economics?"
No, you TDS-addled shit-pile, we have the nerve to ask for specifics every time you prove to be a LYING TDS-addled shit-pile.
Fuck off and die.
I'm sorry, what was yours, Harris, and the Dem plans? a 2% raise in government spending is a cut to Dems so no plans to shrink.
Trump says a lot. Some good some bad. See how his actions are. It's been less than 2 months.
BTW, 2 trillion cut is just the deficient that Biden was kind enough to leave for this year.
Go suck your thumb now
Has he? I haven't seen that, but I could have missed it.
I know that Elon thought DOGE could find $1 trillion in waste/fraud. Which remains to be seen, but they have only really just started.
Don't you dare ask him to prove his assertion or he'll cry like a bitch. Lol.
You do realize that 2 trillion would just about be rolling back to pre-COVID. No waste, fraud or efficiency reductions required.
Dave Ramsey: Jesse, you need to sell your car, buy a beater, and pay off the loan. You simply can't afford the payment.
Jesse: But I stopped buying a coffee on the way to work!
Terrible analogy.
This is completely retarded lol.
No wonder you were amazed by sharing a half million dollar house rental.
But then again you keep wanting taxes to be raised as your solution as you attack all cuts.
If I want financial advice I'll stay away from someone whose highest monthly budget item is alcohol.
The weird part is I even explained to you how locking spending to 0 growth does eliminate the deficit in a decade ago few years ago and you admitted to it. This is a faster process with cuts included. And you hate it with all your being. Lol.
This is the same induced Nirvana fallacy to attack Trump as you ignored democrats spending growth the last 4 years.
If Trump can't fix 100 years of bad government in a year, he is just as bad. You're a fucking clown.
I was pointing out how you defend Trump not touching 70% of the federal budget while attacking anyone who recognizes the fact that he can't balance it by cutting a nickel here and a dime there. Not that cutting nickels and dimes is a bad thing, but it won't accomplish the stated goal. And you always defend with attacks. Never with facts, reason, or substance. Never anything rational or intellectual. Just attack, attack, attack. And what you attack exists only in your imagination, like everything you attacked in the comment I'm replying to.
At this point you're just a pathetic strawman machine with a bunch of retarded cheerleaders.
Where?
You know for someone who has spent the last month saying everything DOGE is doing is illegal and unconstitutional, your new demand that he reform entitlement programs is hilarious.
I've never claimed he could reform those programs on his own. I've always kept it within his legal boundaries of appropriated funds. I've even pointed out the language of the EOs to do this. But you're so retarded you don't understand this.
How retarded are you?
This just shows your utter dishonesty.
Some of us understand how government works and puts blame on the correct actors. You're not one of these people.
So you're lying while accusing me of lying. Accusing me of what you are doing while you are doing it. Must be a day that ends in 'y'.
Here's something that you will never understand. I don't defend the things you accuse me of because your accusations are all lies.
If you want me to defend something, it needs to be something I actually said instead of some strawman that only exists in your demented mind.
What is the lie sarc?
This is how anyone can tell you don't have an intellectual or valid argument and you realized your argument was retarded. Lol.
*sigh*
I don't have the mental energy to break down your posts sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase, to point out the lies. And there's no point anyway because you and your retarded cheerleaders know you're lying. It's what you do. So fuck you, I'm not going to play your stupid game.
By the way, I much prefer you being a passive-aggressive little bitch that snidely responds to me indirectly in the third person. It really shows off your true colors.
What DOGE is doing is fake. Musk is looting the government and you are a moron to support it.
Just as intelligent as sarc. But you two retards probably think this is a compliment.
Why, is he selling the laid off federal workers somewhere?
Looting - Wikipedia
Looting is the act of stealing or taking goods by force, often in times of crisis or conflict.
Please provide your evidence that Musk is looting the government.
DOGE: Keep cutting dead weight.
CONGRESS: Balance the Budget, now; not some 10 years down the road goal, that never materializes actual cuts. And it isn't a revenue issue, need spending cuts to balance the budget. Any excess revenue that comes in do to growth, must go to paying down debt.
TRUMP: Beat the shit out of any GOPer (Ds too but they'll take it as a badge of honor) who stands in the way of a balance budget.
This is the way.
Trump, nor Musk, nor the GOP in Congress cares one bit about a balanced budget. All the savings are going to tax cuts for the rich.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/584190-irs-data-prove-trump-tax-cuts-benefited-middle-working-class-americans-most/
Fucking moron.
A four year old post has little relevance to what might or might not be passed by Congress now.
Also, there should be zero tax cuts as long as our government runs a deficit. It is abhorrent to make future generations pay for our spending now.
Also, there should be zero tax cuts as long as our government runs a deficit. It is abhorrent to make future generations pay for our spending now.
Depends. The Laffer Curve says it is possible that tax cuts can actually increase revenue by growing the economy. Theory is that that economic growth from people keeping more of their own money can result in additional taxes being paid that are greater than the amount lost to the tax cut. Problem with the Laffer Curve is that liars like Jesse use it to lie and claim that any and all tax cuts always increase revenue. Unless they're tariffs of course. Liars like Jesse say that tariffs actually increase economic growth.
The Laffer Curve is nothing more than three obvious data points (zero tax produces zero revenue, 100% tax rate kills the economy, and some taxes produce revenue), and the intermediate value theorem for everything else. It says nothing of value beyond the obvious.
Also, there should be zero tax cuts as long as our government runs a deficit
So you agree that we need massive spending cuts as soon as possible?
Of course not. That would tank the economy. I want to see a gradual decrease in spending and increase of taxes until we have a balanced budget.
Fuck you. Cut spending.
You want a little bit of spending decrease and a massive tax hike.
(1) Elon is already doing the former, he's not touching the big spending.
(2) Massive tax hikes will tank the economy even more than massive cuts to government spending.
(3) That won't balance the budget.
Like I said. Fucking moron.
The tax cuts being discussed are primarily an extention of the current tax code. So the report is relevant.
So you're a fucking moron.
Most income taxes are paid by the rich. So income tax cuts have to be tax cuts for the rich, since they're the ones paying most of the them.
The other side of what Trump is doing is hiking taxes on the poor, since tariffs are a regressive tax in that they take a bigger portion of a poor person's income than that of a rich person.
Fuck you cut spending.
After Trump's previous tax cuts (for taxpayers), government revenues went up 20% in the next 5 years. But spending went up by 50%. The tax cuts didn't "cost" anything. They allowed taxpayers to keep more of their own money.
Yep, there’s that.
I’ve never understood the “tax cuts for the rich” nonsense. How do you give a tax cut to the 40+ percent of tax filers with a zero or negative federal income tax liability?
The Bush “tax cuts for the rich” had a sunset clause ending them in 2010. They were extended by a Democrat majority House, Senate and White House, largely because if they were allowed to expire it would have resulted in a 50% increase in federal income tax rate for those in the the lowest marginal tax bracket (from 10% up to 15%).
You are also correct in the increased level of federal spending from 2019 to 2024, from $4.45T to $6.9T, a 55% increase. All that “one time” Covid spending is now forever baked into the federal “budget” baseline (we haven’t seen an actual budget passed since 1996).
Musk and Trump do not care one bit about cutting government waste. They have not targeted waste, they are going after spending and people they politically don't like. They are destroying government from the inside. Most of what is happening does not make the news. They are not cutting bureaucracy, they are making it worse by making everyone get DOGE approval for even small expenses.
They are looting the government. Musk has ordered the FAA to redirect money from Verizon to SpaceX. Trump wants to put government money into crypto-currancy, which is nothing more than transferring money from the government to rich people. And all the money they might save they will put into tax cuts for the rich, with even more deficit spending.
I know there are loonies who think this is all great and they want the government destroyed, but for the rest of us who want to see the US prosper, this should be very scary.
What they are doing also violates the Constitution, federal civil service laws, the APA, and federal procurement regulations, which is there to try to prevent waste.
And moronic articles like this that pretend that DOGE is legitimate just makes everything worse.
STFU and find a new hangout
No. I will fight fascists with everything I have in any way I can. I have no mercy for those who are destroying our country.
I will fight fascists with everything I have in any way I can.
Government-destroying fascists?
The worst kind of fascist.
Lol.
God damn you people are pathetic.
Funniest shit I've seen all day. I bet you have big glasses, blue hair, and a pierced septum.
Hey now, let's not be gettin' all stereotypin' in here. I have a pierced septum. And, yes, a mohawk. Though, it's just my natural color. Which, I will admit, makes me quite the sight around the nuclear weapons lab. 😉
Fascists who reduce the size, payroll, scope, power, and reach of the government are the best kind.
“No. I will fight fascists with everything I have in any way I can. I have no mercy for those who are destroying our country.”
Are we to look forward to your disavowing of FDR and your fellow democrats then?
Vance accidentally told the truth a little while back when he said that the purpose of DOGE is not to save money or shrink government. The purpose is to purge the federal workforce of Democrats and replace them with people who will pass a Trump loyalty test. Because loyalty to Him is what matters. If you're loyal to the Constitution and the law, you need not apply.
Have a link that quote?
They are destroying government from the inside.
Best news I've heard all day.
They seem to care a lot more about cutting waste than anyone in recent memory.
Lol. Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair!, molly.
You my new EISTAU cow.
Maybe you are tony after all. Hmmmm…..
You're at a libertarian site. Why should we mourn the government being destroyed?
Your side wanted to defund cops, the ONE legitimate function of government. But you mourn the death of USAID, which sent money on nonsensical research and terrorists.
"But we need that for soft power" - Wow, when did lesser countries being beholden to US become progressive agenda?
This could have just been a memo to Reason staff vs a story on the website. most everyone here (non-trolls) gets it.
Lol. So fucking accurate.
...
Not to discount the argument as applied to government, but that's actually not a bad argument as applied to the family. Harry Browne made the point that too many people never stop to think that one of the reasons they're in financial difficulty is the time they waste considering small expenses. If the mortgage is the real problem, why deny one's family such pleasures as eating out or streaming videos? Why not proceed to the harder problem, the mortgage, directly?
Yeah, people worry about how much they spend on lattes and cell phone plans, when the easiest places to save a lot of money are on the rent/mortgage, car payment, and annual vacation.
The problem is you use that excuse to indulge in the little wastes "it's so minor it (by itself) doesn't matter" x100 and then you come up with some other excuse for the mortgage (school district, convenience, etc). The point of focusing on how the little wastes are doled out is it makes all spending deliberate and forces you do do a reasonable evaluation of the expense and ultimately makes it easier to make those big changes that are necessary.
Easy solution. Raise FICA tax to 80% on workers and assure them that it's all going into a entitlement trust fund that will take care of them at the end of their working days. The debt will be paid off in a few years, and we'll leave the unfunded mandates for the yet to be born generation to worry about.
Can Reason make up its mind between "these cuts are too small to matter" and "every cut is a worthy step in the right direction?"
A million is a thousand thousands.
A billion is a thousand millions.
A trillion is a million millions.
A million here and a million there needs to be done a million times to add up to anything meaningful.
You guys have already declared economics to be leftist.
See if you do that with math too.
Poor sarc.
If it was up to sarc, it wouldn't be any millions anywhere. So...
Fuck you (worthless piece of shit), cut spending.
Exposing waste, fraud and abuse is necessary to change the minds of many people sitting on the fence about reducing entitlements. There may be more dollars wasted in entitlements, but not going after the low hanging fruit is akin to doing nothing at all.
Entitlements will be a tougher slog to work through and nearly impossible to start with even if it hold the most potential savings. Going after the obvious fraud, waste and abuse opens the door. Both need to be done, but at least it's starting even if it's not fast enough, deep enough, and wide enough.
Far better than simply adding to the pile of waste, fraud, and abuse that I've witnessed in every other administration in my lifetime including Trump's first term. Losing in 2020, had produce a better President Trump than the 2016 Trump, especially considering the abysmal failure of the Biden regime.
I may not have voted for Trump, but the country is far better off with Trump v2 than Biden v2 (Harris) even if Trump v2 is only mediocre.
Waste is a tired euphemism for corruption, but the media isn't allowed to say the "c" word. That's just one small reason why corruption is sop in federal government and why the people will continue to be victims.
Deleted.
Gee, thanks, Big V -- it's always nice to have the obvious confirmed by An Expert.