Government Efficiency (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Elon Musk, named by Donald Trump to co-lead a commission aimed at reducing the size of the federal government, is poised to undermine funding for rural broadband services to benefit his satellite internet services company, Starlink.

Musk has long been a critic of the Biden administration’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (Bead) Program, which provides $42.45bn through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill to expand high-speed internet access in rural communities. Starlink, the satellite internet services subsidiary of SpaceX, has largely been shut out of this funding after government agencies deemed it too slow to qualify.

But with Trump’s election, and the deference Trump appears poised to give to Musk’s desired reforms, the world’s richest man could re-prioritize how the federal government provides high-speed internet to rural America, creating an immense conflict of interest.

If Musk recommends cuts to government spending on rural fiber optic broadband – as he has repeatedly suggested – it directly increases the value of Starlink’s satellite internet services.

“We have never had a situation where the leading shareholder of a communications company has both a position – both in terms of influencing the president, but also having an assignment to drive efficiency in government – with so many government contracts,” said Blair Levin, a telecommunications industry analyst with New Street Research and the Brookings Institution. “That is an extraordinary situation. That is unprecedented.”


Levin suggested that Trump could order Bead funding to be withheld indefinitely as soon as he takes office, even though Congress has authorized the funding.

Doing so would violate the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, a law Trump fell afoul of in his first term that ultimately resulted in one impeachment. But Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who will co-lead the commission to reduce the size of the federal government, argued in a Wall Street Journal editorial last week that Trump should pursue impoundment when he deems it necessary.

“Mr Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current supreme court would likely side with him on this question,” they wrote.

Any move like this would tie the program in legal knots as lawsuits abound, Levin said. But the delay is the point. “While states and others could file legal actions to stop such a pause, we think most courts would be reluctant to enjoin or otherwise stop the administration from reconsidering some elements of the program. Even actions of dubious legality can benefit Starlink through delay or through litigation.”……

Musk could use the ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ for self-enrichment

He’s said $42.45bn spent by the US for rural internet isn’t efficient. His Starlink company stands to benefit if he reduces that investment

www.theguardian.com

 

[bird]

Elon Musk, named by Donald Trump to co-lead a commission aimed at reducing the size of the federal government, is poised to undermine funding for rural broadband services to benefit his satellite internet services company, Starlink.

Musk has long been a critic of the Biden administration’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (Bead) Program, which provides $42.45bn through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill to expand high-speed internet access in rural communities. Starlink, the satellite internet services subsidiary of SpaceX, has largely been shut out of this funding after government agencies deemed it too slow to qualify.

But with Trump’s election, and the deference Trump appears poised to give to Musk’s desired reforms, the world’s richest man could re-prioritize how the federal government provides high-speed internet to rural America, creating an immense conflict of interest.

If Musk recommends cuts to government spending on rural fiber optic broadband – as he has repeatedly suggested – it directly increases the value of Starlink’s satellite internet services.

“We have never had a situation where the leading shareholder of a communications company has both a position – both in terms of influencing the president, but also having an assignment to drive efficiency in government – with so many government contracts,” said Blair Levin, a telecommunications industry analyst with New Street Research and the Brookings Institution. “That is an extraordinary situation. That is unprecedented.”


Levin suggested that Trump could order Bead funding to be withheld indefinitely as soon as he takes office, even though Congress has authorized the funding.

Doing so would violate the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, a law Trump fell afoul of in his first term that ultimately resulted in one impeachment. But Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who will co-lead the commission to reduce the size of the federal government, argued in a Wall Street Journal editorial last week that Trump should pursue impoundment when he deems it necessary.

“Mr Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current supreme court would likely side with him on this question,” they wrote.

Any move like this would tie the program in legal knots as lawsuits abound, Levin said. But the delay is the point. “While states and others could file legal actions to stop such a pause, we think most courts would be reluctant to enjoin or otherwise stop the administration from reconsidering some elements of the program. Even actions of dubious legality can benefit Starlink through delay or through litigation.”……

Musk could use the ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ for self-enrichment

He’s said $42.45bn spent by the US for rural internet isn’t efficient. His Starlink company stands to benefit if he reduces that investment

www.theguardian.com

Musk could use the DOGE for self-enrichment? No kidding.

 

[UriUT]

I hear what you are saying especially that government is not a business. Okay. Understood.

Our government is a bureaucracy and it is no different than any other large bureaucracy. Just like any large bureaucracy they ALL have inefficiencies. ALL of them. They are run by humans. So to tell me that government should get a forever pass on inefficiencies because they don’t have a profit motive is a weak excuse.

I actually have been part of numerous reorganizations. They are done routinely in this country. It’s a process. It’s not taught in school but there are people out there who know how to do these things.

I can’t tell you how many times people have told me I don’t understand. Told me that there is nothing to cut. Nothing to improve. Everything is necessary. I get it. But here’s the thing. The numbers have to work. We don’t have unlimited resources. Debits have to equal credits.

I don’t pretend to know these areas and these processes better than the people in the field. I don’t come up with the list of efficiencies or process improvements. That’s managements job. If a manager can’t find 10% in his process then maybe the manager is part of the problem. The turnaround guy challenges, pushes management to make hard choices and hard decisions. Thats how you force people to set priorities. Otherwise they will tell me just what you told me. That it can’t be done. And it can. Government is no different than any other thing run by man. To say it can’t be done because it’s government is just an excuse not to try.

That being said. I have heard what you said. It isn’t the first time I have heard that. I get it. I’m just saying that everyone says that and I do mean everyone. But it’s not impossible. And if done right, it’s healthy.

You are doing it again. As RobF explained, your line of reasoning is not logical. What is this nebulas that you can reduce by 10%? You aren't even attempting to define what the problem is. You assume that there's a problem, so therefore there's a solution. What if there isn't a problem? Have you considered that? What if I were to go to your house and rearrange everything. I don't know what your habits are. I don't know anything about your preferences, yet, I still change everything? Is that reasonable to you?

This assumption is precisely why charlatans like Musk, Vivek, and Trump get away with corrupt acts. Hell, the tangent with NPR in this thread is a prime example. In what ways are funding NPR "inefficient"? Did they use the funds to hire friends and family? Did the managers siphon that fund into their private accounts? Is there redundancies? Waste? No!!! It's a budgetary priority question. It has nothing to do with "inefficiencies" yet you are steered to questioning NPR's funding. Less than 1% of their budget! Less than 500 million in a US budget of 6 trillion dollars (edit: I had to do a double take after going over this part through my head....that 500 million is for all public broadcasting, not just npr)!!!! Meanwhile, we give 20 billions to farm subsidies. Or 20 billion to fossil fuel subsidies. I don't question the inefficiencies in those. I question the priorities. I CAN understand the reasons why we have farm subsidies. I don't understand the priority in fossil fuel subsidies to an industry that made TRILLIONS.

Do you see why your unexamined assertions can be manipulated? Political attacks because of NPR's perceived liberal biased is now bundled in with "inefficiencies". I have tried to express and coalesce this thread's premise irl, and failed miserably. This idea of deregulation is tied in with "efficiencies". " 'Reducing red tape' will make business grow." Now broadly it is accepted that regulations are "bad". When have regulations to keep water and our air clean "bad"? Why was banking regulations "bad"? Do you understand that the 2008 financial crash has high correlation to the dismantling of banking regulations that started from reagan's mission to deregulate? There isn't any real attempt to examine the whys, much like your assertions here.

 

[Sendai]

We shall see. I don’t have your faith for sure - I think there is already some caving to Trump, and I only see it getting worse.

Plus Trump does vindictive bullying better than anything else he does. And as president, there will be multitudes of ways he can hurt businesses, foundations and people. Do you disagree with either of those statements?

He’ll certainly attempt to bully. Not convinced he’ll be all that effective at it. His talk is cheap. If He gets too far out of line with Businesses he’ll quickly learn his limits.

 

[TampaJoe]

You are doing it again. As RobF explained, your line of reasoning is not logical. What is this nebulas that you can reduce by 10%? You aren't even attempting to define what the problem is. You assume that there's a problem, so therefore there's a solution. What if there isn't a problem? Have you considered that? What if I were to go to your house and rearrange everything. I don't know what your habits are. I don't know anything about your preferences, yet, I still change everything? Is that reasonable to you?

This assumption is precisely why charlatans like Musk, Vivek, and Trump get away with corrupt acts. Hell, the tangent with NPR in this thread is a prime example. In what ways are funding NPR "inefficient"? Did they use the funds to hire friends and family? Did the managers siphon that fund into their private accounts? Is there redundancies? Waste? No!!! It's a budgetary priority question. It has nothing to do with "inefficiencies" yet you are steered to questioning NPR's funding. Less than 1% of their budget! Less than 500 million in a US budget of 6 trillion dollars (edit: I had to do a double take after going over this part through my head....that 500 million is for all public broadcasting, not just npr)!!!! Meanwhile, we give 20 billions to farm subsidies. Or 20 billion to fossil fuel subsidies. I don't question the inefficiencies in those. I question the priorities. I CAN understand the reasons why we have farm subsidies. I don't understand the priority in fossil fuel subsidies to an industry that made TRILLIONS.

Do you see why your unexamined assertions can be manipulated? Political attacks because of NPR's perceived liberal biased is now bundled in with "inefficiencies". I have tried to express and coalesce this thread's premise irl, and failed miserably. This idea of deregulation is tied in with "efficiencies". " 'Reducing red tape' will make business grow." Now broadly it is accepted that regulations are "bad". When have regulations to keep water and our air clean "bad"? Why was banking regulations "bad"? Do you understand that the 2008 financial crash has high correlation to the dismantling of banking regulations that started from reagan's mission to deregulate? There isn't any real attempt to examine the whys, much like your assertions here.

If you came into my house and directed me to cut my expenses by 10 percent, I can do it. It’s a matter of setting priorities and looking for savings. As I said before, government is no different than anything run by man. Now I might not like cutting my budget. I might believe that I’m running pretty lean but I can do it.

I have worked in organizations big and small over a 40 year career and I have never worked in a perfect world. There is always room for improvement. I find it hard to believe that the largest bureaucracy in this country spending trillions of dollars each year and running trillion dollar deficits year over year, can’t find improvements.

That’s all I’m saying. There IS room for improvement and Indont fear people asking questions and suggesting changes. That’s a good thing. I can’t guarantee that every suggestion will be good or that every idea will work. That’s an unrealistic expectation for human beings. But we should always be striving for continuous improvement in government. I’m looking for progress not perfection.

And by the way, if you are part of the process, You know what needs to be improved. So you can protect your budget and your turf, or you can offer suggestions for change.

 

[RobF]

If you came into my house and directed me to cut my expenses by 10 percent, I can do it. It’s a matter of setting priorities and looking for savings.

You missed the point, so let's try again.

Let's say you've done that. Let's even put a number on it. Let's say your monthly outgoings are $6,000. And you've just managed to cut it down to $5400. Congratulations, you cut your expenses 10%! Well done!

Now, do it again. Because you can always find 10%! Great. We're at $4,860.

And again. $4,374.

Once more please. $3,936.60.

Yes, cut them 10% again. $3,542.94.

We're only five cycles in and already, the notion that everyone can always cut 10% has turned $600 of cuts into $2,457.06 (40%) of cuts. Do I really need to keep going for you to acknowledge that, actually, the notion that everyone can cut 10% is nonsense?

It is not a matter of "setting priorities and looking for savings" to identify a mythical always present 10%. That's just magical thinking.

It's a matter of understanding your expenses and identifying savings if they're there. Which they may or may not be.

Government spending is not household spending of course.

 

[bird]

Home expenses are not in the same universe as government services and programs. It is never about expenses.

 

[TampaJoe]

You missed the point, so let's try again.

Let's say you've done that. Let's even put a number on it. Let's say your monthly outgoings are $6,000. And you've just managed to cut it down to $5400. Congratulations, you cut your expenses 10%! Well done!

Now, do it again. Because you can always find 10%! Great. We're at $4,860.

And again. $4,374.

Once more please. $3,936.60.

Yes, cut them 10% again. $3,542.94.

We're only five cycles in and already, the notion that everyone can always cut 10% has turned $600 of cuts into $2,457.06 (40%) of cuts. Do I really need to keep going for you to acknowledge that, actually, the notion that everyone can cut 10% is nonsense?

It is not a matter of "setting priorities and looking for savings" to identify a mythical always present 10%. That's just magical thinking.

It's a matter of understanding your expenses and identifying savings if they're there. Which they may or may not be.

Government spending is not household spending of course.

 

[TampaJoe]

Somebody asked me a question about whether I could cut 10 percent from my budget and I answered. If you don’t appreciate the comparison, speak to them.

Magical thinking is somehow equating someone asking or directing people to look for 10 percent savings is akin to asking for something more than what it is.

Government runs on taxpayer money. That’s what pays the bills. So it’s reasonable for taxpayers to question the spending and spending priorities. It’s unreasonable to expect people to just accept them without question. We spend more than we take in every year. It’s perfectly logical for the stakeholders, voters and taxpayers, to question and challenge their government. We are after all a democracy. A “free” country.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I base mine on 40 years experience in finance and several reorganizations. Your mileage may vary. I find it hard to believe there isn’t room for improvement in any process or organization especially the federal government that is run by a legislature than can’t produce a budget on a consistent basis. You may have confidence in such a system to be free of waste and inefficiency but I do not. So if it’s okay with you, how bout we let them look for some just to see what they come up with. That is not to say we have to accept their every recommendation but it doesn’t hurt for them to look and ask questions.

That’s all I’m saying. That okay with you?

 

[bird]

Somebody asked me a question about whether I could cut 10 percent from my budget and I answered. If you don’t appreciate the comparison, speak to them.

Magical thinking is somehow equating someone asking or directing people to look for 10 percent savings is akin to asking for something more than what it is.

Government runs on taxpayer money. That’s what pays the bills. So it’s reasonable for taxpayers to question the spending and spending priorities. It’s unreasonable to expect people to just accept them without question. We spend more than we take in every year. It’s perfectly logical for the stakeholders, voters and taxpayers, to question and challenge their government. We are after all a democracy. A “free” country.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I base mine on 40 years experience in finance and several reorganizations. Your mileage may vary. I find it hard to believe there isn’t room for improvement in any process or organization especially the federal government that is run by a legislature than can’t produce a budget on a consistent basis. You may have confidence in such a system to be free of waste and inefficiency but I do not. So if it’s okay with you, how bout we let them look for some just to see what they come up with. That is not to say we have to accept their every recommendation but it doesn’t hurt for them to look and ask questions.

That’s all I’m saying. That okay with you?

It isn’t that there isn’t room. It is that “wasteful spending” and “big government” are nothing more than memes. They are meaningless. Who gets to decide what is wasteful? You? Me? Some billionaire azzhat? Because the reality is that no one knows what is meaningless beyond their personal belief structures.

I have spent 47 years working for small corporations, large corporations and myself. Cutting expenses never, ever, increased efficiency. It simply made work harder for others.

As for the F.I.R.E. sector? They are notorious for wasting money.

Business is not government. They do not work by the same rules.

Business’s only purpose, with SCOTUS decisions to back it up, is profit, period. It is not to produce/provide goods and services. Government’s purpose is precisely the opposite.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Somebody asked me a question about whether I could cut 10 percent from my budget and I answered. If you don’t appreciate the comparison, speak to them.

Magical thinking is somehow equating someone asking or directing people to look for 10 percent savings is akin to asking for something more than what it is.

Government runs on taxpayer money. That’s what pays the bills. So it’s reasonable for taxpayers to question the spending and spending priorities. It’s unreasonable to expect people to just accept them without question. We spend more than we take in every year. It’s perfectly logical for the stakeholders, voters and taxpayers, to question and challenge their government. We are after all a democracy. A “free” country.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I base mine on 40 years experience in finance and several reorganizations. Your mileage may vary. I find it hard to believe there isn’t room for improvement in any process or organization especially the federal government that is run by a legislature than can’t produce a budget on a consistent basis. You may have confidence in such a system to be free of waste and inefficiency but I do not. So if it’s okay with you, how bout we let them look for some just to see what they come up with. That is not to say we have to accept their every recommendation but it doesn’t hurt for them to look and ask questions.

That’s all I’m saying. That okay with you?

What is the role of government? Is it to serve itself or is it to serve the people? I believe the people that are screaming the loudest about government efficiency are more concerned about finding efficient ways the government can serve itself at the expense of the people.

 

[bird]

What is the role of government? Is it to serve itself or is it to serve the people? I believe the people that are screaming the loudest about government efficiency are more concerned about finding efficient ways the government can serve itself at the expense of the people.

Or serving wealth at the expense of the people.

 

[MT15]

He’ll certainly attempt to bully. Not convinced he’ll be all that effective at it. His talk is cheap. If He gets too far out of line with Businesses he’ll quickly learn his limits.

Well, we’ve been saying some version of that for 8-9 years now. He still managed to pull off Jan 6, and if not for Pence, he might have got away with it.

 

[MT15]

So if it’s okay with you, how bout we let them look for some just to see what they come up with. That is not to say we have to accept their every recommendation but it doesn’t hurt for them to look and ask questions.

Well, we already see that Musk is wanting to stop all rural broadband and use his StarLink system instead. That’s a huge conflict of interest and an example of him serving himself rather than the people. I have zero confidence that Musk intends to do anything except enrich himself at the expense of the rest of us. He’s already used taxpayer money to enrich himself, why would he stop now?

 

[Sendai]

Well, we’ve been saying some version of that for 8-9 years now. He still managed to pull off Jan 6, and if not for Pence, he might have got away with it.

He wouldn’t have got away with it. The Supreme Court would have expeditiously informed Pence his only role is to simply count the votes. If he refused then the President Pro Tem would count.

The states certify the votes. The count is a formality. The twelfth amendment is clear on certification and counting. Congress rather stupidly believes they have a role and can dispute the count.

 

[Dragon]

Somebody asked me a question about whether I could cut 10 percent from my budget and I answered. If you don’t appreciate the comparison, speak to them.

Magical thinking is somehow equating someone asking or directing people to look for 10 percent savings is akin to asking for something more than what it is.

Government runs on taxpayer money. That’s what pays the bills. So it’s reasonable for taxpayers to question the spending and spending priorities. It’s unreasonable to expect people to just accept them without question. We spend more than we take in every year. It’s perfectly logical for the stakeholders, voters and taxpayers, to question and challenge their government. We are after all a democracy. A “free” country.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I base mine on 40 years experience in finance and several reorganizations. Your mileage may vary. I find it hard to believe there isn’t room for improvement in any process or organization especially the federal government that is run by a legislature than can’t produce a budget on a consistent basis. You may have confidence in such a system to be free of waste and inefficiency but I do not. So if it’s okay with you, how bout we let them look for some just to see what they come up with. That is not to say we have to accept their every recommendation but it doesn’t hurt for them to look and ask questions.

That’s all I’m saying. That okay with you?

And as long as Trump want to keep removing trillions from the budget by giving the 1% huge tax cuts, that is going to continue. Just answer one question - Why should a man who earns billions pay less tax on every $ earned than the single mom working 2 jobs to support her family ?

 

[RobF]

Somebody asked me a question about whether I could cut 10 percent from my budget and I answered. If you don’t appreciate the comparison, speak to them.

Who asked you if you could cut 10 percent from your household budget?

And why would you think it's a meaningful question? You surely understand some households could cut 10% - or more! - from their budget without any significant impact on their lives, and for other households even a few percent would be disastrous. Right?

That’s all I’m saying. That okay with you?

Well, you're literally just ignoring the points made and repeating yourself in replying to things that no-one has actually said. Like, I just said, "improving efficiency is complex and requires deep understanding", and you've instead replied to, "You may have confidence in such a system to be free of waste and inefficiency." Which isn't what was said.

That's not my problem, sure, but I'd suggest going back a few pages and seeing what you're missing.

 

[bird]

He wouldn’t have got away with it. The Supreme Court would have expeditiously informed Pence his only role is to simply count the votes. If he refused then the President Pro Tem would count.

The states certify the votes. The count is a formality. The twelfth amendment is clear on certification and counting. Congress rather stupidly believes they have a role and can dispute the count.

He has gotten away with it so far. The actuality is that he continues to undermine the democratic process by his words and actions. Confidence in the system is critical to the functioning of the system. Since he descended down that escalator in 2015 he has infected the system and he continues to infect the system.

Sure, there has always been a segment of the electorate that doesn’t believe that the system works for them but they have never been a huge number. We now have a political party whose base does not believe in anything beyond Trump as god. THAT is what he has done and continues to do.