Doge has nothing to do with increasing government efficiencies. All it does is just cutting programs Elon doesn’t like but Congress has explicitly budgeted for. It also has nothing to do with balancing the budget either. The new budget that the House just passed will add 5T to the deficit. And Elon is fighting over the 300 unused Microsoft 360 licenses.
2 Likes
Well somebody is actually getting fired.
Jobless claims recede from 3-month high, but unemployment filings jump for federal workers<!-- --> - MarketWatch
Firing 100k federal workers for no reason will do a number on the economy. People are on edge and will go into money preservation mode. So it’s not just the fired workers either.
People cheer for this stuff, as long as it’s not them and their family getting fired.
Paying people to do a lot of nothing doesn’t do anything for the economy in the long run either. Especially when you’re printing money to pay them. The only people going into money preservation mode will be those in government towns like DC.
I’d argue these fired workers aren’t “doing nothing”. Rather, they are doing things that Elon or Trump don’t like.
Increasing efficiency means doing the same amount of work with less resources. Keep the numerator but shrink the denominator. Elon’s approach has been getting rid of the work altogether. Zeroing out the numerator doesn’t make the programs more efficient. You just get rid of the programs.
Some of the programs need to be gotten rid of.
When I was born most of today’s alphabet soup of agencies and bureaus didn’t exist and it’s hard to see how they have added value.
Constitution says Congress controls the purse string. Executive branch cannot just hack away things randomly that Congress has explicitly budgeted for.
Do it properly and lawfully, or don’t do it at all.
1 Like
Congress approves lump sums to agencies and then has little to no oversight over how the money is spent. Congress never approved spending for transgender operas in Columbia.
1 Like
Morons.
ChatGPT 4.5:
Let’s evaluate each statement carefully:
- “Congress approves lump sums to agencies and then has little to no oversight over how the money is spent.”
Assessment: Mostly False.
Explanation:
Congress typically does not hand federal agencies large lump sums without oversight. Instead, Congress approves appropriations through specific spending bills, which include both detailed line-item allocations and broader categories. Agencies then have discretion within certain limits and guidelines. Congress maintains oversight through hearings, reporting requirements, audits by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Inspectors General within agencies, and budgetary reviews.
While it’s true agencies have some discretion, Congress exercises significant oversight and accountability mechanisms.
- “Congress never approved spending for transgender operas in Columbia.”
Assessment: Technically True (but potentially misleading).
Explanation:
This statement references a controversial narrative around government spending. Congress generally does not directly approve hyper-specific expenditures such as “transgender operas in Columbia” explicitly. Instead, Congress approves broader cultural or educational funding (e.g., via the National Endowment for the Arts or USAID), after which grants are issued by the agencies themselves to various projects or organizations. Thus, the spending on particular projects—like a hypothetical or controversial event—is not specifically voted upon by Congress but decided at the agency level within their approved budgets.
No known record exists of Congress specifically voting for or approving an explicit line item labeled “transgender operas in Columbia.”
Overall Evaluation:
• Statement #1: Mostly False (Congress has significant oversight mechanisms)
• Statement #2: Technically True (Congress does not explicitly approve individual grants like this)
These statements, especially combined, often appear in political discourse to suggest misuse of taxpayer funds or lack of accountability. The nuances are important: Congress provides funds and oversight, while specific grant choices are often made at an agency level.
1 Like
I might support a nuanced approach - if we weren’t 36 trillion in debt with deficit to GDP numbers approaching those of Italy.
Again -the only time in recent memory that we ran deficits anything close to sane was during the Sequester. It was a blunt tool but it did the job until everyone decided they just couldn’t live with it. I’d rather cut too much and the restore it later - finances allowing - than just keep going on as we are.
I too want to cut the deficit. But as I wrote before, Trump admin doesn’t care about deficit.
ChatGPT 4.5 again:
The recently released House budget resolution proposes significant tax cuts and spending reductions over the next decade. Specifically, it allows for up to $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and mandates $2 trillion in spending cuts, resulting in a net increase of at least $2.8 trillion in deficits through fiscal year 2034. citeturn0search2 Including interest costs, this could add approximately $3.4 trillion to the national debt over the same period. citeturn0search2 Consequently, debt held by the public is projected to reach 125% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by fiscal year 2034, compared to 117% under current law. citeturn0search2 Annual deficits are expected to average 6.8% of GDP over the decade, exceeding the historical average of less than 4%. citeturn0search9
3.4T additional debt over the next decade, that is assuming the 2T spending cuts materialize.
DOGE is just some sideshow to distract the public. The real deal is the unfunded tax cuts.
2 Likes
What it means is that, no, Congress doesn’t give a lump sum to agencies. They have detailed line items. That hypothetical trans opera may be funded under one of these line items, say, “promote gender equity through art in Latin America” or something.
That is what the “nuance” means in ChatGPT’s answer. From the coarsest level: giving out lump sum and we don’t care; to the lowest level: I want to be notified if you buy a pen with our money, there are many levels in between.
1 Like
An additional 200 billion a year would be a huge improvement in the trajectory. Excepting Trump’s lat year when Covid sent everything to heck he was running deficits of just under a trillion a year. Biden left with it just under 2 trillion year. Add in the stimulatory effects of the tax cuts and more importantly the regulatory reforms and we could easily flatten or reverse the trend.
Under President Joe Biden’s administration, the federal budget deficit experienced significant fluctuations:
- Fiscal Year (FY) 2021: The deficit was approximately $2.8 trillion, or 12.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This elevated deficit was primarily due to pandemic-related spending initiated under the previous administration. en.wikipedia.org
- FY 2022: The deficit decreased to about $1.4 trillion, or 5.4% of GDP, as pandemic-related expenditures declined and economic conditions improved. en.wikipedia.org
- FY 2023: The deficit increased to approximately $1.7 trillion, or 6.3% of GDP, influenced by higher interest costs and increased spending on Social Security and Medicare. Reuters
- FY 2024: The Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit of $1.8 trillion, marking the largest deficit since the COVID-19 pandemic. Reuters
In summary, after an initial decline in the deficit following pandemic-related spending, the federal deficit began to rise again due to increased interest costs and mandatory spending on entitlement programs.
Biden’s trajectory is minus 1T in 4 years. Now Trump is set to blow it up again.
While that 4.5T tax cut is real, I highly doubt the 2T spending cut will come anywhere close. All it takes to derail these cuts are some angry boomers in town hall meetings. 200B a year further in the hole is the most optimistic scenario that’s unlikely to materialize.
The only way yo get minus 1T is to baseline off of his outrageous first year. Like taking Trump’s last year. You need to take Covid out of it.
