With Donald Trump’s election win now a few days behind us and the GOP all but confirmed to have swept both houses of congress as well it would appear that at least for two years we should have a truly unique and remarkable opportunity to make meaningful change in a variety of areas. Of highest priorities would be the economy and border security, both of which were clearly the major issues the American people looked to when deciding their next government.
Within that discussion of economic improvements, Trump has now tapped Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head an informal operation to be known as the Department Of Governmental Efficiency (with the excellent acronym of D.O.G.E.):
Government bureaucracy, spending, and outright bloat have become an absolute travesty over the last five years (and really the last 30, but I digress) when the government went from a $4.4 trillion dollar operation in 2019 to an astounding $6.8 trillion dollar operation now. Reason published an excellent article discussing how to cut $2 trillion from the budget with minimal impact simply by tightening loopholes, implementing efficiency suggestions from the Government Accountability Office, and a few other regulatory and procedural changes. An excellent start, but more can be done.
The next step would be ending federal agencies that have shown themselves to be either redundant or that have disrupted the states in their role as the true custodians handling day-to-day matters for American citizens. These would be the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Education (DOE), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
FEMA probably just wrote its own obituary with the revelation that a FEMA official in Florida told workers to “avoid houses with Trump signs” in the wake of Hurricane Milton, leading to loud calls for defunding the agency. The truth is that emergency disaster relief should not be handled by yet another agency with large layers of bureaucracy.
Instead, states should be able to request emergency disaster relief funds directly from Congress, with the appropriations then used to purchase necessary resources and materials, ideally from private vendors who can compete for the contracts. This would lead to increased efficiency and better prices for the taxpayer. Of course, this would also the government to engage in strict accounting to ensure federal funds go where they are supposed to go.
The DOE is on Donald Trump’s list of agencies that should be removed, and it’s been on Republican lists back to the Rick Perry days. The Department of Education (“DOE”) has long been a target of many who feel the government’s meddling in education, and its one-size-fits-all approach is ultimately detrimental. To quote Reason, “Take, for example, federal grants to state education departments. Federal aid incentivizes schools to shift their priorities to meet federal grant requirements rather than local educational needs.”
That’s 100% correct. Removing the DOE would enable states to be solely responsible for how their state’s students are educated and allow for greater freedom to enact school choice while also limiting (if not outright eliminating) how federal lobbying groups such as the National Educators Association (NEA) and other teachers’ unions disproportionately affect federal elections and then force regulatory requirements on states. This would provide a viable road to school choice for dozens of states no longer beholden to federal funding requirements.
The FBI, originally created as an “emergency agency” in response to organized crime during the Prohibition era, has become a bloated, redundant, and ultimately useless organization that essentially serves as the outdated grandfather of other agencies conducting operations on the ground, such as the U.S. Marshalls or the Drug Enforcement Agency. One of my personal favorite YouTube commentators did an excellent video on the topic. There are also arguments to streamline the Department of Homeland Security and some of its sub-agencies, notably that walking expression of “security theater” known as the Transportation Security Administration.
I know the Trump administration has already discussed reviving Schedule F, a program designed to cut the federal workforce in “policy-related” positions. This may see significant pushback from the federal unions.
One workaround would be to convert more positions to being contractor based. For those who may not know, contractors are private workers, usually hired by a contracting company (BAE, CACI, etc.) to provide a service for the government. These companies are often necessary, as many government agencies have limits on full-time employees and use contractors to make up the difference.
The companies for which they work pay the contractors’ benefits, and it requires significantly less red tape to get on contract. My average time from the initial interview to the contract start date was about two weeks to a month. Meanwhile, with government employment, the wait for a start date has never been less than a minimum of months.
While there would be savings on benefits from hiring contractors, other factors destroy that savings quickly. The problem with the current contracting structure is that contracting companies, using lobbying, milk the government for 3 times the salary that the contractor would ordinarily receive. They claim that they need the extra money for “operational expenses” and “recruiting costs,” but that’s nonsense because so many contracts, as we’ve recently learned, are “non-compete” contracts.
Often, too, an inappropriately close relationship develops between Contract Office Representatives (COR) and their Contract Program managers. It’s not uncommon for the Program Managers to befriend the COR personnel, possibly even providing gifts and incentives to ensure their company remains in the contract slot.
My proposed solution would be to change dramatically how the government handles employment contracts. Allow contracts to be filled out one-on-one between workers and the government, where negotiations are done at the individual level instead of the company level (which is where contract bloating usually occurs).
This would eliminate the middlemen of contracting companies, remove their lobbying incentive, and get workers quickly and effectively on an individual basis who could also be removed on an individual basis just like every other corporate entity in the country. If a company like Amazon can hire their employees like this, I refuse to believe the government cannot do the same.
For those who don’t know, in most cases, units and organizations are incentivized to spend their entire proposed budgets every year without fail. Only in this way can the organization justify asking for more money the following year, often with minimal oversight or even justification for what the money will enhance on return. The flip side of this is even worse: An organization that doesn’t spend its whole budget is often penalized with a reduction in budget the next year.
Ending this practice would go a long way in changing the culture of governmental spending within the federal employee ranks while also promoting efficiency from within. One option would be to take any leftover money and split it. Part would go to the agency as a “backup operational fund,” while the would be returned to Congress for further appropriation.
Speaking from the inside, I recommend that D.O.G.E.’s most important target is to create a requirement forcing agencies to adhere in a timely fashion to their proposed changes. The GAO often has good recommendations but it’s toothless.
Finally, Musk and Ramaswamy must ensure that D.O.G.E. doesn’t end when their participation ends. A reckoning within the runaway spending in the government is long overdue, and D.O.G.E. will no shortage of targets.
American Thinker
