Government Efficiency (2 Viewers)

[RobF]

I think this topic deserves its own thread, both to discuss generally the topic of government efficiency, and specifically the so-called 'Department of Government Efficiency' and the incoming Trump administration's aims to "dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal Agencies".

The announcements have been covered in the The Trump Cabinet and key post thread, but to recap, Trump has announced that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will work together on a not-actually-an-official-government-Department of Government Efficiency, which is intended to work with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to "drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before," with the 'Department' to conclude its work "no later than July 4, 2026."

Musk has previously said that the federal budget could be reduced by "at least $2 trillion", and Ramaswarmy, during his presidential campaign, said he would fire more than 75% of the federal work force and disband agencies including the Department of Education and the FBI.

 

[RobF]

For my part, I think government inefficiencies naturally exist, but outside atypical circumstances, are not trivial to address. Where there are seemingly excessive costs, these might be down, sometimes, to corruption, for example the outcome of contract processes being manipulated on the basis of kickbacks or undue influence somewhere, or sometimes they may turn out to just be not comparing like-with-like (e.g. contracts can include additional services and guarantees, or have other constraints that exclude the nominally cheapest options). In either instance, it's not necessarily simple to address it beyond existing processes already intended to minimize corruption and maximize efficiency.

Chesterton's Fence also applies here, the principle that, essentially, something shouldn't be removed unless it is fully understood why it was there in the first place.

I'd also point to the UK's recent experience of deficit reduction programmes, led by a Conservative right-wing government, and aimed at shrinking the state:

United Kingdom government austerity programme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It didn't go well; essentially arbitrary cuts of X% to department funding were not, actually, achievable through nothing but efficiency savings and had large impacts on the provision and quality of services as you might imagine.

 

[TampaJoe]

Government is a bureacracy like any other except it is the largest bureacracy in the country. Maybe the world. Its run by humans managed by a dysfuctional Board of Directors know as Congress and the President. It‘s impossible to believe that it runs anywhere close to 100 percent efficiency. Nobody runs at 100 percent efficiency.

There is nothing wrong with reimagining how certain processes run and looking for efficiency. I do agree that it needs to be done responsibly understanding the reasoning behind processes and programmes.

IMO this is a marathon and not a sprint but it needs to be a mindset. Government bureacracies could benefit from realigning priorities and an attitude of continuous improvement.

 

[RobF]

Government is a bureacracy like any other except it is the largest bureacracy in the country. Maybe the world. Its run by humans managed by a dysfuctional Board of Directors know as Congress and the President. It‘s impossible to believe that it runs anywhere close to 100 percent efficiency. Nobody runs at 100 percent efficiency.

There is nothing wrong with reimagining how certain processes run and looking for efficiency. I do agree that it needs to be done responsibly understanding the reasoning behind processes and programmes.

IMO this is a marathon and not a sprint but it needs to be a mindset. Government bureacracies could benefit from realigning priorities and an attitude of continuous improvement.

I think it's crucial to recognise that mindset is already there. The notion of running things more efficiently isn't a new one, and there are inevitably already processes in place to try to maximize efficiency.

As you say, those do not, and can not, result in a theoretical but not achievable in practice 100% efficiency. So the question is how well are they working, and to what extent they can be improved; understanding not only the processes intended to improve efficiency, but how they interact with other factors (maximising efficiency is a mindset, it's not the only mindset), what obstacles they hit, that limit their effectiveness. It's a question of degree, not an absolute one.

I think it's also important to recognise that even where notional savings can be identified, actually achieving them is another question. For example, you often see things along the lines of, "These people are overpaid, pay them less/cut the workforce," or, "This system is too divided and too old, we can improve efficiency with a new IT system to unify all of this," and actually attempting to address those can be difficult. So, for example, reducing staff costs can not only reduce service levels but also end up increasing staff costs, by (for example) increasing staff turnover and requiring greater use of more expensive agency or temporary staff. Trying to implement new IT systems is notoriously difficult, with it not exactly being unusual for projects to over-run in time and costs while simultaneously failing to achieve their goals.

That doesn't mean those things shouldn't be attempted of course, but it does underline the need to realistically assess the situation and potential outcomes. Too often the savings turn out to be imaginary.

 

[coldseat]

They can start with the military and military contractors. There's tons of inefficiencies there, especially between the branches. But I doubt that will be the focus. Elon makes too much money from that.

 

[MT15]

This isn’t any sort of a good faith effort by Trump to cut down on government inefficiency. Good lord. The initials of this not-government agency are DOGE for crying out loud. It’s a bit coin scam of some sort. I would be willing to bet on that.

 

[bird]

Outside of the military and one service ordering a pice of equipment that could be used by another service but the other service wants one just a little different, would someone kindly provide an example of a government agency or department that is inefficient and what could be done to increase efficiency. We always hear talk about inefficiency and waste so let us see examples.

 

[coldseat]

Outside of the military and one service ordering a pice of equipment that could be used by another service but the other service wants one just a little different, would someone kindly provide an example of a government agency or department that is inefficient and what could be done to increase efficiency. We always hear talk about inefficiency and waste so let us see examples.

There are probably two main areas where I think government could likely be much more efficient. One is redundancy, i.e. different government agency that do the same or very nearly the same type of work. It's smart to have redundancy in some areas of government, but probably not as much as we do have. So streamlining government agency so that multiple agencies aren't doing the same type of work would likely yield efficiency. The problem is that the way government is built isn't conducive to this type of reorganization. And you need people who are diligent and thoughtful in doing this type of work so that government functions aren't hindered and people aren't hurt. This also requires the passage of laws.

The second area is likely information technology. Modernizing government to work more seamlessly in todays environment would likely yield efficiency. For example, the military working across one interconnected system between the branches for purchasing and supply management would likely yield less waste and better price control. The problem is that like with the IRS, this requires investment and Republicans loath doing that. The main concern with doing this (especially when it comes to the military) is that making things more interconnected with information technology also make it more vulnerable to attack. So it would need to be done very thoughtfully.

 

[porculator]

Like in any business, the main expense is people. That is what we're talking about here. People getting fired, good or bad.

This hits home for me, living in the swamp, and it is also why no matter how "red" people think Virginia may get, it will never vote for Trump, since the state employs hundreds of thousands of voting government employees.

All of the following are true:

1. Some of the brightest and most motivated people move from all over the country to the D.C. area and work for a federal department where they truly believe in its mission.

2. Said people's job security is too secure. The amount of whining about going back into the office a year after the private sector did post-COVID was nauseating.

3. There are no repercussions for sucking at your government job. Being "unfair" is the only thing that can get you fired. Being incompetent cannot.


I've asked all the folks I know that have worked for a Musk company, how they feel about all the layoffs that make the news, and whether they seem sensible or arbitrary. They all say that it is generally the folks that you would expect. We all have those people. It would be nice if the government agencies could have that kind of accountability. But the problem of course arises when the people calling the shots disagree with the entire existence of the department. It's one thing to fire the lazy employees at the EPA, its another to fire folks who are effectively fulfilling the mission of the EPA because they are inconvenient to your worldview.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[bird]

If people are high IQ, they aren’t going to work for those two bozos.

 

[Lapaz]

Government is a bureacracy like any other except it is the largest bureacracy in the country. Maybe the world. Its run by humans managed by a dysfuctional Board of Directors know as Congress and the President. It‘s impossible to believe that it runs anywhere close to 100 percent efficiency. Nobody runs at 100 percent efficiency.

There is nothing wrong with reimagining how certain processes run and looking for efficiency. I do agree that it needs to be done responsibly understanding the reasoning behind processes and programmes.

IMO this is a marathon and not a sprint but it needs to be a mindset. Government bureacracies could benefit from realigning priorities and an attitude of continuous improvement.

Do you think Trump is the first person that has tried to re-imagine the government? Nope. It is a continuous process. For example, within the DoD we initiated during the Biden administration efforts to model all parts of the acquisition process. It is a huge re-imagination of the way we do business, and it doesn't seem to be making things better...yet. It is an effort to do business more like the commercial world and to help the DoD to make changes in its products more easily. I think it is a worthwhile effort, but it may not yield great results, but it is an honest effort to re-imagine the government. I don't think Trump is honestly trying to improve government. He wants to destroy the government and use it to his benefit, not re-imagine how it can work better.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

We are going to get a fancy report and nothing will happen.

The change in budget would have to come from Congress. With Trump not on the ballot to drive red turnout, The House is going to flip back to Democrats in 2026 most likely. The Senate will stay Republican, but they are defending 20 seats to the Democrats 13 so there is room if things get bad over the next 2 years (I'm expecting stagflation). Also, if they try to fire tons of people it will be tied up in litigation for months to years.

It will take 2 years just to make recommendations, and that's aggressive. This will be one of those very long reports that die in committee. It's a political stunt, nothing more.

 

[superchuck500]

We are going to get a fancy report and nothing will happen.

The change in budget would have to come from Congress. With Trump not on the ballot to drive red turnout, The House is going to flip back to Democrats in 2026 most likely. The Senate will stay Republican, but they are defending 20 seats to the Democrats 13 so there is room if things get bad over the next 2 years (I'm expecting stagflation). Also, if they try to fire tons of people it will be tied up in litigation for months to years.

It will take 2 years just to make recommendations, and that's aggressive. This will be one of those very long reports that die in committee. It's a political stunt, nothing more.

I hope this “department” which isn’t really anything more than an advisory committee does make a report - then we can find out who actually wants to cut these programs.

All this talk has no accountability - when you start taking away people’s funding, coverage, and benefits, shirt gets real. Get specific and see who’s really on board.

 

[MT15]

Vivek has a plan that would cut through all the red tape, I read about it while riding in the car today, so I don’t have the link. Here it is: everybody whose SS number ends in an odd number is gone, even numbers stay. That cuts the federal workforce by 50%. Then of those who are left - everyone whose SS begins with an odd number is out, even numbers stay. Like magic, a 75% reduction in the workforce.

I kid you not!

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I hope this “department” which isn’t really anything more than an advisory committee does make a report - then we can find out who actually wants to cut these programs.

All this talk has no accountability - when you start taking away people’s funding, coverage, and benefits, shirt gets real. Get specific and see who’s really on board.

If the standards of the previous Trump administration hold it will be filled with misspellings, run-on sentences, and the occasional Sharpie mark. One thing I don't think gets talked about enough is how unprofessional everything that came out of that Den of Illiterates was. I'd fire an intern for the quality of work they were producing.

 

[B4YOU]

Largest employer of veterans = federal government. A 25% reduction in force would crash the economies of the DMV. A 75% reduction in force would make recent college grads on the East Coast near unemployable due to competing against ex-feds with 5-10yrs experience.

House/Senate Rs should push to relocate those jobs to their states before cutting them.

 

[Optimus Prime]