This isn't a hate post on DOGE, but I look at their tracker, news, etc. A lot of this is just making more noise and usual for what happens every time a gov't changes hands. Its nothing new, its just yelling it out loud. Now some of it is, reviewing databases, etc. that's not common per gov't change over.
But a lot of it is. At-least here in Canada, when a gov't changes, they slash and close out programs from the last gov'ts initiatives and mandates. Theycut gov't departments back or completely, you take something like NRCAN renewable funding , when Polly wins I am sure he will cut that back, certain research departments, etc. Its always been the ebb and flow of gov't.
How much of this is really just common for gov't cycles vs actually new? Obviously the reviews of databases is, tracking how money flows is, etc, and for the most part you see little actual fraud review on gov't changes so that's also new but I would have expected all the DEI stuff, contract cancellations , certain govt departments, etc. to be gutted regardless of DOGE existing or not just because of the gov't change over, wouldn't everyone else? I don't attribute any of that to money saved by DOGE, I am fairly certain it would have happened anyways as just normal gov't changeover.
I think total misappropriation of assets and fraud are the biggest things that would be different if uncovered, and that's more the value proposition of DOGE. Or at-least what I would value them for.
Not much actually. Point to an administration during the last 25 years that has attempted anything of this scale. Point to when there were hundreds of thousands of fed job cuts? The thing is, it's too early to actually judge if DOGE was a success or failure. For one, they don't actually have the power to cut anything, and I've already posted about this. They can expose waste but congress through reconciliation will make the changes. Bigger spending cuts I.e. defense, maybe Medicare?, those proposals will take awhile to work out and be debated and so on, you're not going to see that materialize and be finalized in a few months. So really, we need ~1-2 years to see how much is actually cut and if they managed to put any serious dent into the deficit.
Bill Clinton was the last president to actually try anything of this magnitude and seriously cut the deficit, one of the reasons why he should be considered a great president even by republicans. He was the best president of the last 30 years and it's not particularly close, his spending cuts eventually led to actually posting a budget surplus. If only we can get back to old school democrats that valued fiscal responsibility.
Quote
Clinton submitted a budget and corresponding tax legislation (the final, signed version was known as the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993) that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending
This post was edited by ofthevoid on Mar 1 2025 10:20am