Can Musk and Ramaswamy’s DOGE Plan Really Slash $2 Trillion—or Is It All Bark?
Elon Musk and entrepreneur-politician Vivek Ramaswamy presented their ambitious proposal to shrink federal spending and reduce government inefficiencies in Washington this week. Dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), their initiative proposes saving $2 trillion in federal spending, though specifics were notably scarce. The pair met with members of Congress, primarily Republicans, to gauge support and discuss the viability of their plan. Among those in attendance was Representative Tom Cole, a seasoned Republican from Oklahoma and the incoming House Appropriations Committee chair, who offered measured skepticism.
Cole, reflecting on his conversations with Musk and Ramaswamy, noted their effort to understand "the full scope" of their proposal and the extent of executive authority they might wield. His remarks hinted at the constitutional limitations the duo could face. "How much would be done by executive action?" he asked, underscoring Congress's constitutional role in appropriations.
Appropriations remain at the heart of federal spending, requiring Congress's active involvement. Legislative attempts to bypass this process, such as impoundment, often encounter resistance from the judiciary and Congress itself. The 1974 Budget Control and Impoundment Act, a legislative response to President Nixon's unilateral actions during his impeachment crisis, fortified Congress’s role in spending decisions. Musk and Ramaswamy’s DOGE initiative must therefore navigate not just political, but legal constraints.
History suggests that lofty goals to overhaul federal spending have faced immense challenges. The proposed $2 trillion in savings is ambitious, but the absence of specific strategies raises doubts about its feasibility. To understand the hurdles facing DOGE, it’s crucial to examine the lessons of past efforts to reform government spending.
Efforts to reform federal spending have long been central to Republican policy agendas. During his 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan criticized the ballooning federal debt, which was nearing $1 trillion at the time—a figure that seemed unthinkable then. Reagan entrusted his first Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director, David Stockman, with implementing steep budget cuts. Stockman targeted social programs with fervor, equating budget excesses to moral failings. Yet, Stockman’s efforts quickly ran into opposition from Democrats and even some Republicans.
Reagan’s broader fiscal policy, which included large tax cuts and increased military spending, further undermined his administration's deficit-reduction goals. By the end of his first term, the national debt had doubled, and by the time Reagan left office, it had tripled. Stockman, disillusioned, exited the administration and later published a memoir, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, chronicling his frustrations.
Reagan’s later attempts to streamline government included appointing J. Peter Grace to lead a commission on government efficiency. Though the commission unearthed useful recommendations, its impact was marred by revelations about Grace's company, W.R. Grace & Co., having paid minimal taxes. These optics undermined public confidence in the commission’s efforts.
South Africa