The idea of cutting five (or whatever number) regulations for every new one adopted sounds attractive in the context of what I think we all agree can be a redundantly labyrinthine federal regulatory regime.
Similarly, the notion that someone competent should institute sweeping government job cuts to transform an immobile, bloated leviathan into a nimble, lean cheetah is hard to argue if you accept as valid a caricature of the federal bureaucracy as a Kafka-style, impersonally oppressive monolith.
Do note, though, that in asserting what Elon Musk and Donald Trump would have you believe are “self-evident truths,” we’re actually making a number of questionable assumptions. For example, we’re assuming the goal should be fewer regulations rather than better regulations, and we’re assuming the federal bureaucracy is in fact bloated. The former’s obviously wrong and the latter depends heavily on who counts as a federal bureaucrat.
Long story short (because I’ve already written more in a week about DOGE than I wanted to in a month), Musk and Trump are asking you to accept one of the more astoundingly brazen efforts to reshape the civil service along hyper-partisan lines in modern history on the notion that what they’re doing is axiomatic — “super obvious,” as Musk put it recently.
Let me ask you this: If your spouse works for the federal government in some non-essential capacity, is it “super obvious” to you that your significant other’s redundant and thus not deserving of a paycheck for the work they do?
That’s a rhetorical question, or at least I hope it is. I can’t imagine even the staunchest MAGA disciple going to their wife and saying, “You know what, honey? Elon’s right. You serve no purpose whatsoever and it’s best for the country that you’re laid off.”
It’s with all of that in mind that Trump’s now prepared to instruct federal agencies to conspire with Musk on an effort to cut even more government jobs on top of those Musk tried to eliminate through the buyout program no one’s quite sure why he was authorized to implement in the first place.
Specifically, Trump on Tuesday was poised to issue yet another executive order, this time mandating a “significant reduc[tion] in the size of the government” by way of layoffs and hiring caps for all but “essential positions.”
More specifically still, federal agencies will only be allowed to hire one new employee for every four workers who exit their roles, with some carveouts for natsec positions, police and, of course, immigration enforcement.
I want to be clear: I’m not a lawyer (although I did ok on the LSAT, particularly considering how drunk I was when I sat for it), and as such, I’m not in any sort of position to assess this order, or any other E.O., from the perspective of an attorney. Further, I don’t have any sort of deep insight into just who should be cut and where in order to produce the leanest, meanest, most efficient version of the US government possible.
That said — and this brings us quickly full circle — I’m confident in the assertion that a ratio-based rule for federal regulations and hiring isn’t the way to go here.
Trump and Musk are mistaking campaign rhetoric for policy. You might run on a slogan that says, “We’re going to eliminate five regulations for every new one we adopt” or “We’re going to whip the government into shape on Day One.” But those aren’t the kind of campaign promises you want to keep if keeping them means running the US government like Musk ran Twitter in the first six months after he bought it, which is to say into the damn ground.
Is there a good source to track the number of wrongful termination suits that get filed? Just today, President Musk fired some FEMA folks for distributing congressionally approved funds to help shelter migrants. I hope the government ends up paying bigly to all the people getting fired illegally. Let’s hope they get back pay and their jobs back.
“You can’t just ignore what the commander in chief has said via executive order,” said Representative Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican from Staten Island. Ah yes, I forgot the President has final say on everything as long as he signs it in big letters with a sharpie.
I am one to turn logic around in order to see possibilities. Much like inspecting a diamond from all it’s faces.
The G7 has the most wealth, it also has the most regulations.
One super obvious narrative to those who have never designed systems in highly regulated enterprises, is that there are too many regulations. Typically this is proffered by all knowing individuals like Clarence Thomas or others of his ilk that likely have not applied a single regulation to a design in their life.
I ask two questions. 1. Are the G7 prone to lots of regulations because they are wealthy? 2. Or are regulations somehow the source of the G7 wealth?
After a career working in highly regulated industries including: Oil refining, power, mining, gas processing, automotive and nuclear weapons. I think 2 is the correct answer. Reason is that we IGNORE the primary benefits of regulations when doing cost-benefit analysis. The primary benefit is productivity of the workers who are not killed, maimed or otherwise incapacitated on the job. Not only physical, but mental productivity of those lessons learned.
I intend to do some pedagogical work putting together an analysis to see if there is sufficient data to show regulations are the actual source of our wealth. Not only by saving lives but by allowing us to take on increasingly more complex business models. I have went from volunteering to be on someone’s team to that of intending to organize and fund an effort to validate this proposition.
Agreed. Not to mention the benefits of breathing clean air, drinking clean water, and having medicine that is safe and effective.
I want to be a libertarian, but I do like to drive on paved roads in a town that has snow plows.
People live longer with clean, clean water and with pharmaceuticals that work. Show me a successful investor I will show you some grey hairs, investors get better with age.
Everyone is a libertarian until the government benefits them.
Snow plows also contribute to productivity.
The effort I have outlined will be massive.
The federal government’s civilian workforce is about 1.7% of the total civilian workforce in the US, and has been there for about 20 years. Through most of the past century, it was much higher, e.g. 3.0% in the 1970s, 3.5% in the 1960s.
Whacking “non-essential” federal workers isn’t going to move the deficit needle much. Whacking Medicaid could, and that’s next. I’d be interested to see what portion of Medicaid recipients and Medicaid service providers are R vs D.
JL – for almost 20 years the US has seen a steady stream of hospital closures in rural areas. Most hospiitals and other healthcare providers in those areas rely on payments from Medicaid rather than private insurers. Cutting Medicaid only serves to undercut the rural Healthcare system in the US. Not that it matters to voters in those areas who routinely vote for the GOP and now Trump.
But if you were thinking of setting up a business in those areas, that might make you think twice, no?
I don’t claim to know much about running a government, but I do have firsthand experience with corporate cost-cutting measures, such as offshoring jobs to countries like India or eliminating non-essential support staff in banks. The results, in my experience, are always the same: the short-term savings achieved are far outweighed by the long-term consequences. Productivity often plummets, as the remaining employees are stretched too thin or lack the necessary support to perform their roles efficiently. Morale within the organization takes a significant hit as workers feel undervalued and overburdened. For customers, the experience invariably deteriorates as service quality declines and inefficiencies mount.
From Elon Musk’s perspective, however, this might look entirely different. As an industrialist, he likely views American productivity levels as far from optimal, perhaps even uncompetitive when compared to global benchmarks. In his view, having a larger pool of unemployed workers could be a deliberate strategy to drive down labor costs, forcing wages to align more closely with the perceived value of work in a globalized economy. While this might seem cold and ruthless, it reflects a certain logic when approached from the lens of pure industrial efficiency. However, the broader societal and economic implications of such strategies are far more complex and far-reaching.
Woody Z – Thanks for sharing your real world experience.
Perhaps Musk does look at the world through the prism of an industrialist, but the industrial sector no longer dominates the US economy. It would seem that he is willing to impoverish most Americans who work in the service sector to force down factory wages to match those in Vietnam or Guatemala.
Musk was a huge beneficiary of cafe rules which caused his competitors to pay Tesla for production. It seems that Musk is increasingly unbalanced.
The Republicans don’t think much of government, so although whacking and hacking will make government worse, I suspect the view of government’s ineffectiveness will just be reinforced. The disenchanted rural and working class won’t suddenly believe that a more careful, ponderous, compromising government will save them; and the wealthy business types will continue to promote the use of private enterprise contractors to do the work. Fox News won’t change its tune. The more people suffer the bigger the market for blaming, hate,and greed.
I hope you are wrong.
Well, I read this and got out my copy of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Here we go.
“We’re going to find billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse,” said POTUS on Fox this past weekend, before the audit has even begun.
Shurely he was referring to his long pending tax audit?