Kind of impressive to ignore the massive cuts to the IRS, which will likely lead to massive revenue losses that will swamp any budgetary savings that eventually accrue.
You nailed it on how DOGE has increased bureaucracy. DTS was a fine system before. Post DOGE, there have been 3 external processes added that have probably added 10 hours of staff time to my week.
Also, on the 5-points email. It revealed how Elon doesn’t know anything about the civil service/government. I sit next to my supervisor, so he already knows what I do everyday. We have a weekly update to our division chief, a biweekly update to our SES, and a monthly update to our agency head.
My favorite part of all was Kelly Loeffler walking around an empty government office earlier this year asking where everyone was. Idk Kelly maybe they all went home after you received a behind closed doors senate briefing in 2020 about the COVID lockdowns, told the president to do the lockdowns and bought stock in Cisco and other remote work companies.
Let's be more clear. It was a complete effing amateur/patsy hour, that mostly set back any potential for government reform. The marquee accomplishments are cutting developing world vaccine spending, resulting in needless illness and death, and IRS tax enforcement, resulting in lower revenue.
I understand your thoughts on the effectiveness of their policy choices. However, I really think you should abstract away from policy outcomes a bit and consider if any of this was actually legal. I understand the focus on state capacity in this newsletter, but a system where an executive can usurp the power of Congress is going to create long-term problems in policymaking. This is without considering if each decision was good or bad.
This was a case study in terrible planning and communication. If DOGE Musk had said something more like, "We think we can fix important inefficiencies in government spending, but until we really know where the opportunities are, we're going to set a 2025 goal of $100B, and once we hit that, we can take a step back from a position of deeper knowledge and understanding..."
When you set an unachievable bar, you set everyone up for failure.
A metaphor for the problems is the elimination of the Presidential Management Fellow programs which brings bright young people into the government. It was a low cost, self-run program. Notwithstanding the need to downsize the federal government, every organization, especially one the size of the federal government, has to continue to recruit new talent.
Musk was partly inspired by Milei's reforms, had multiple talks with him and his ministers, and was famously gifted a chainsaw by him. I think a comparison of why Milei succeeded where Musk failed would be really interesting.
Appreciate the self-reflection here. I found it pretty clear-eyed in terms of best cases when you first wrote your predictions but also thought you might be overly optimistic! I was too. It remains necessary to have something like DOGE even if the way it has unfolded so far has been discouraging (and I say this as someone with intimate experience with IGs, GAO, and past government efficiency efforts. I still think this concentrated model can work).
One thing I hope DOES NOT happen is related to this point:
“I also rather overrated the level of talent entering DOGE. Not by a huge amount — there were some genuinely impressive technical minds on the team — but there were not all that many of them. I reasoned from too few examples here. Also, plenty of them were not asked to put those talents to full use, or directed them toward the wrong goals.”
One of the discouraging things has been seeing some of the folks recruited pilloried for being too young and inexperienced. Certainly, that’s proven true with some of THIS batch, but I do think seeking out young talent and fresh perspectives remains important to assessing government objectively. There is too much subject matter knowledge and talent with new technology being left on the table by the presumption that you need “time in seat” to make an impact.
DOGE is still active and apparently working on the NRC now. Given the track record of DOGE, I'm concerned. My job is reforming the NRC, we've made good, bipartisan progress thanks to the ADVANCE Act and I'm worried DOGE could set us back. Staffing and morale is already low, DOGE could screw up bipartisanship.
The thing that makes me still reluctant to extend you any patience for how “murky” things supposedly appeared at the beginning of this year is…
It wasn’t all that murky. Any old Trump supporter is just gonna say I have TDS, but even if that’s true, MY case of TDS is not ANYTHING like whatever my local No-Kings-Protest-attending Shitlib Boomer’s is. I’m not in the same league as them.
And all that is to say… I saw all of this coming. PLENTY of us saw it coming. You held out the faintest sliver of hope that the face-eating leopard would eat just the right faces this time… and all it did was give people much dumber than yourself excuses to delude themselves that DOGE would EVER accomplish anything worthwhile.
I’m really trying to be welcoming here. It’s just hard, because this stuff was so predictable.
Good overview but think it misses a few points, mainly how DOGE uncovered how money is spent more generally, not just the fraud. My father was a government employee, is an immigrant and an extremely hard worker. He would routinely talk about the vast waste due to entitlement programs, over reaching DEI policies, and just the sheer apathy of many workers. If nothing else, a light was shown on this ever more inefficient system.
I think the argument there goes that Vivek (before the divorce) was focused on getting regulatory changes done. Doing that would have lasting impact: it defines the process, products, leads to the staffing requirements, etc that have a stubborn barnacle like impact on the ship of state.
So, rather than bolting on bad adds (like the 5 bullets, like the $1 limit on govcc, like taking over the opportunities portal, like requiring agency head review of every contract, etc, like just ignoring legal prohibitions or lying about them), which on their own do not change the fundamental demands on the agency and its workers or capitalize on opportunities, we might have had an aggressive regulatory review led by folks with WH and tech world cachet.
Kind of impressive to ignore the massive cuts to the IRS, which will likely lead to massive revenue losses that will swamp any budgetary savings that eventually accrue.
You nailed it on how DOGE has increased bureaucracy. DTS was a fine system before. Post DOGE, there have been 3 external processes added that have probably added 10 hours of staff time to my week.
Also, on the 5-points email. It revealed how Elon doesn’t know anything about the civil service/government. I sit next to my supervisor, so he already knows what I do everyday. We have a weekly update to our division chief, a biweekly update to our SES, and a monthly update to our agency head.
My favorite part of all was Kelly Loeffler walking around an empty government office earlier this year asking where everyone was. Idk Kelly maybe they all went home after you received a behind closed doors senate briefing in 2020 about the COVID lockdowns, told the president to do the lockdowns and bought stock in Cisco and other remote work companies.
Late empire stuff.
Yes indeed, too late for the Empire. Elon indeed sees the Federal Government, and the Civil Service, so do we.
Let's be more clear. It was a complete effing amateur/patsy hour, that mostly set back any potential for government reform. The marquee accomplishments are cutting developing world vaccine spending, resulting in needless illness and death, and IRS tax enforcement, resulting in lower revenue.
I understand your thoughts on the effectiveness of their policy choices. However, I really think you should abstract away from policy outcomes a bit and consider if any of this was actually legal. I understand the focus on state capacity in this newsletter, but a system where an executive can usurp the power of Congress is going to create long-term problems in policymaking. This is without considering if each decision was good or bad.
This was a case study in terrible planning and communication. If DOGE Musk had said something more like, "We think we can fix important inefficiencies in government spending, but until we really know where the opportunities are, we're going to set a 2025 goal of $100B, and once we hit that, we can take a step back from a position of deeper knowledge and understanding..."
When you set an unachievable bar, you set everyone up for failure.
A metaphor for the problems is the elimination of the Presidential Management Fellow programs which brings bright young people into the government. It was a low cost, self-run program. Notwithstanding the need to downsize the federal government, every organization, especially one the size of the federal government, has to continue to recruit new talent.
Recruit the Criminals who are taking Medicare for a ride. We 🇺🇸 deserve a better class of … Civil Servant
Musk was partly inspired by Milei's reforms, had multiple talks with him and his ministers, and was famously gifted a chainsaw by him. I think a comparison of why Milei succeeded where Musk failed would be really interesting.
I just realized as a government employee how valuable it would be to read your articles on a regular basis. Keep 'em coming.
Appreciate the self-reflection here. I found it pretty clear-eyed in terms of best cases when you first wrote your predictions but also thought you might be overly optimistic! I was too. It remains necessary to have something like DOGE even if the way it has unfolded so far has been discouraging (and I say this as someone with intimate experience with IGs, GAO, and past government efficiency efforts. I still think this concentrated model can work).
One thing I hope DOES NOT happen is related to this point:
“I also rather overrated the level of talent entering DOGE. Not by a huge amount — there were some genuinely impressive technical minds on the team — but there were not all that many of them. I reasoned from too few examples here. Also, plenty of them were not asked to put those talents to full use, or directed them toward the wrong goals.”
One of the discouraging things has been seeing some of the folks recruited pilloried for being too young and inexperienced. Certainly, that’s proven true with some of THIS batch, but I do think seeking out young talent and fresh perspectives remains important to assessing government objectively. There is too much subject matter knowledge and talent with new technology being left on the table by the presumption that you need “time in seat” to make an impact.
Great post!
DOGE is still active and apparently working on the NRC now. Given the track record of DOGE, I'm concerned. My job is reforming the NRC, we've made good, bipartisan progress thanks to the ADVANCE Act and I'm worried DOGE could set us back. Staffing and morale is already low, DOGE could screw up bipartisanship.
Appreciate you admitting where you were wrong. I had low expectations, DOGE went even lower.
Great post—don’t start posts off w apologies!
The thing that makes me still reluctant to extend you any patience for how “murky” things supposedly appeared at the beginning of this year is…
It wasn’t all that murky. Any old Trump supporter is just gonna say I have TDS, but even if that’s true, MY case of TDS is not ANYTHING like whatever my local No-Kings-Protest-attending Shitlib Boomer’s is. I’m not in the same league as them.
And all that is to say… I saw all of this coming. PLENTY of us saw it coming. You held out the faintest sliver of hope that the face-eating leopard would eat just the right faces this time… and all it did was give people much dumber than yourself excuses to delude themselves that DOGE would EVER accomplish anything worthwhile.
I’m really trying to be welcoming here. It’s just hard, because this stuff was so predictable.
Good overview but think it misses a few points, mainly how DOGE uncovered how money is spent more generally, not just the fraud. My father was a government employee, is an immigrant and an extremely hard worker. He would routinely talk about the vast waste due to entitlement programs, over reaching DEI policies, and just the sheer apathy of many workers. If nothing else, a light was shown on this ever more inefficient system.
Wow, sounds like you’re right. Reform failed, the system won.
“The recurring inability to read federal contracts, “
What a gem.
Perfect statecraft.
A perfect crystalline picture of the Systems mind.
However…
The Federal Government is not the world, nor even America.
But the young men did see other young men rise, and be defeated by the system.
So… you’re in their way.
Run for your lives.
I don’t see how you can say Vivek would’ve done a better job with the evidence available to you
Approximately anything would have been better.
I think the argument there goes that Vivek (before the divorce) was focused on getting regulatory changes done. Doing that would have lasting impact: it defines the process, products, leads to the staffing requirements, etc that have a stubborn barnacle like impact on the ship of state.
So, rather than bolting on bad adds (like the 5 bullets, like the $1 limit on govcc, like taking over the opportunities portal, like requiring agency head review of every contract, etc, like just ignoring legal prohibitions or lying about them), which on their own do not change the fundamental demands on the agency and its workers or capitalize on opportunities, we might have had an aggressive regulatory review led by folks with WH and tech world cachet.