The department of education and the state equivalents have totally failed in their fundamental job which is educating students. Costs continue to skyrocket and test scores continue to crater. I am not smart enough to know how to fix this, but arguing that the education department is doing anything useful is getting to be very difficult.
Generally critical too. Talked to a few friends in states who find some of what they get from parts of the Fed to be helpful. And I strongly believe the federal monies for disabled kids is critical. Issue is there’s a lot of people looking for that money that don’t deserve it in the end. Need good people to keep the quality control. Main point: there are some babies in there. Not all bath water.
Same argument can be made for all federal programs. At what point would you cut off funding? 10% effective? 1%? Quality control for any program consists of searching for more money. Bottom line goal of any bureaucracy.
A - Why is our defense spending 2x to 100x other developed nations - If Trump believes we should not be involved as a global policeman and not be involved in NATO then why the hell does he believe in pissing away so much money on military programs?
B - Tariffs crush farmers so then he bails them out? Take a look at Dept of Agriculture. Because they voted Trump they continue to get massive bailouts - this time 10B dollars? WHY? Partisan politics is why. How about applying the scalpel evenly everywhere.
C - Don't get me started on how bad Trumps Tariff policies are and how much we have benefited as a nation by promoting global free trade or how a true republican believes in "free markets" - which does not include tariffs and/or bailouts! Federal Reserve backstopping financial markets has been the root of all evil.
If you get a subscription to NYT take a look at this and tell me what you think (Oh, wait :):):)
The bureaucracy in question is the Department of Agriculture, and it’s exactly the kind of dysfunctional behemoth that Elon Musk and his waste-whackers at the Department of Government Efficiency, in their new advisory role, ought to recommend for downsizing and reform. Even though only 1 percent of Americans farm, the U.S.D.A. employs five times as many people as the Environmental Protection Agency and occupies nearly four times as many offices as the Social Security Administration.
So far, Mr. Musk’s minions inside the U.S.D.A. have most prominently targeted its nobler activities, including efforts to prevent wildfires and food contamination, respond to the avian flu, improve animal welfare and study methods to make agriculture more productive and less environmentally damaging. President Trump’s agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, suggested last month that the administration expects to make cuts to food stamps for low-income Americans.
Maybe they’ll find some waste in that program. But the real problem with the U.S.D.A. is that its subsidy programs redistribute well over $20 billion a year from taxpayers to predominantly well-off farmers. Many of those same farmers also benefit from subsidized and guaranteed loans with few strings attached, price supports and import quotas that boost food prices, lavish ad hoc aid packages after weather disasters and market downturns as well as mandates to spur production of unsustainable biofuels
I don't challenge you're experience with right-sizing organizations, but the Government isn't an organization. It comes down to fiscally sound budgeting, which if the House is not able to do this, then they shouldn't have the job; taking in the right amount of taxes to fund the government, which we are clearly not doing; having experienced personnel to assess the rightsizing, which clearly all cabinet members do not have requisite government - and in some cases departmental experience, i.e. Dept of Education head; and we already had a fraud detection team in place - bi-partisan with that --- the Inspector Generals. Wrap around all this an unelected individual who bought his way in the front door and a team who are acting like a bunch of vigilantes and there is nothing that can be written to support this. Never mind the downstream economic effects -- canceling leases before their term? You think this regime is going to honor an out clause? Software Licenses - maybe the minimum was 100 seats because isn't this a capitalist society? Too many details missing from the assessment!
Yeah it’s a huge topic so can’t cover it all. I also sympathize with the frustration. ‘Who’s gonna tackle this well’ sounds like a main question of yours. Mine too. We all want competence and to be able to trust what they tell us.
Seems to me the DOGE process is much more than bad style. Wish we could track how much of the claimed savings is eaten up by the effort to piece together the china after the bull has charged through. I have no doubt that Congress can't/won't address the deficit. Saving money isn't something they do well. But using political footballs like DEI to get it done, rather than well structured research and reasoning is going to lead to just as poorly reasoned resistance - and nobody will like the end result.
Dave
The department of education and the state equivalents have totally failed in their fundamental job which is educating students. Costs continue to skyrocket and test scores continue to crater. I am not smart enough to know how to fix this, but arguing that the education department is doing anything useful is getting to be very difficult.
Generally critical too. Talked to a few friends in states who find some of what they get from parts of the Fed to be helpful. And I strongly believe the federal monies for disabled kids is critical. Issue is there’s a lot of people looking for that money that don’t deserve it in the end. Need good people to keep the quality control. Main point: there are some babies in there. Not all bath water.
Same argument can be made for all federal programs. At what point would you cut off funding? 10% effective? 1%? Quality control for any program consists of searching for more money. Bottom line goal of any bureaucracy.
A - Why is our defense spending 2x to 100x other developed nations - If Trump believes we should not be involved as a global policeman and not be involved in NATO then why the hell does he believe in pissing away so much money on military programs?
B - Tariffs crush farmers so then he bails them out? Take a look at Dept of Agriculture. Because they voted Trump they continue to get massive bailouts - this time 10B dollars? WHY? Partisan politics is why. How about applying the scalpel evenly everywhere.
C - Don't get me started on how bad Trumps Tariff policies are and how much we have benefited as a nation by promoting global free trade or how a true republican believes in "free markets" - which does not include tariffs and/or bailouts! Federal Reserve backstopping financial markets has been the root of all evil.
If you get a subscription to NYT take a look at this and tell me what you think (Oh, wait :):):)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/opinion/elon-musk-doge-agriculture-farm-waste.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2d_YLIM2Fc_mKPxc0ztuZ4SmyHPI5f4_wGrtQw7855qBGfn7xeXh4tGzU_aem_doBqSdICTK7cpaulh-Gdyg
The bureaucracy in question is the Department of Agriculture, and it’s exactly the kind of dysfunctional behemoth that Elon Musk and his waste-whackers at the Department of Government Efficiency, in their new advisory role, ought to recommend for downsizing and reform. Even though only 1 percent of Americans farm, the U.S.D.A. employs five times as many people as the Environmental Protection Agency and occupies nearly four times as many offices as the Social Security Administration.
So far, Mr. Musk’s minions inside the U.S.D.A. have most prominently targeted its nobler activities, including efforts to prevent wildfires and food contamination, respond to the avian flu, improve animal welfare and study methods to make agriculture more productive and less environmentally damaging. President Trump’s agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, suggested last month that the administration expects to make cuts to food stamps for low-income Americans.
Maybe they’ll find some waste in that program. But the real problem with the U.S.D.A. is that its subsidy programs redistribute well over $20 billion a year from taxpayers to predominantly well-off farmers. Many of those same farmers also benefit from subsidized and guaranteed loans with few strings attached, price supports and import quotas that boost food prices, lavish ad hoc aid packages after weather disasters and market downturns as well as mandates to spur production of unsustainable biofuels
I don't challenge you're experience with right-sizing organizations, but the Government isn't an organization. It comes down to fiscally sound budgeting, which if the House is not able to do this, then they shouldn't have the job; taking in the right amount of taxes to fund the government, which we are clearly not doing; having experienced personnel to assess the rightsizing, which clearly all cabinet members do not have requisite government - and in some cases departmental experience, i.e. Dept of Education head; and we already had a fraud detection team in place - bi-partisan with that --- the Inspector Generals. Wrap around all this an unelected individual who bought his way in the front door and a team who are acting like a bunch of vigilantes and there is nothing that can be written to support this. Never mind the downstream economic effects -- canceling leases before their term? You think this regime is going to honor an out clause? Software Licenses - maybe the minimum was 100 seats because isn't this a capitalist society? Too many details missing from the assessment!
Yeah it’s a huge topic so can’t cover it all. I also sympathize with the frustration. ‘Who’s gonna tackle this well’ sounds like a main question of yours. Mine too. We all want competence and to be able to trust what they tell us.
Hi Dave -
Seems to me the DOGE process is much more than bad style. Wish we could track how much of the claimed savings is eaten up by the effort to piece together the china after the bull has charged through. I have no doubt that Congress can't/won't address the deficit. Saving money isn't something they do well. But using political footballs like DEI to get it done, rather than well structured research and reasoning is going to lead to just as poorly reasoned resistance - and nobody will like the end result.
Yep — i hear this loud and clear.