DOGE's mass firings will only make government less efficient
By: Michael A. Cohen (MSNBC. com)
Will there be hell to pay? Donald Trump has publicly demonstrated that he ain't nearly as slick as the original Willie. Elon Musk has proven, beyond any doubt, that he is grossly incompetent compared to Al Gore. Slick Willie and Little Willie didn't have to twist arms and make threats like the Chinese mafia to destroy the civil service. And defenders of Bill Clinton have become the institutionalized embodiment of modern journalism. (Yes, seeding an article from MSNBC is a bit of sarcastic mockery.)
Bill Clinton and Al Gore gutted the Federal civil service, balanced the Federal budget on the back of Social Security, tore down the guardrails protecting the public from financial malfeasance, offshored the industrial base of the United States, created a disadvantaged grievance society, and transformed the Federal treasury into a magic money tree. Clinton and Gore were lauded for their accomplishments. Slick Willie and Little Willie are credited with ending the era Big Government, forcing 300,000 'damned gubmit' workers onto the unemployment lines, and making bankers the kings of commerce.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk have proven they're too stupid and incompetent to repeat what Slick Willie and Little Willie accomplished. If we're lucky these magnificent morons will force a default and we can write off $20 to $25 trillion of the Federal debt. But it looks more likely that we'll be paying a heavy price for Ukraine's magic rocks far into the future. Stupid is as stupid does. And there's no way to hide Donald Trump's stupidity now.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Over the past two weeks, nearly 300,000 federal workers have lost their jobs. When all is said and done, it could amount to the largest job cut in American history.
The Trump administration — notably Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency — has described these firings as cutting the fat within the federal government. In reality, they are likely to have a more destabilizing effect, fundamentally and perhaps irretrievably weakening the federal government and its workforce. What is being touted as an effort to make the government more streamlined and efficient will likely have the opposite effect.
When all is said and done, it could amount to the largest job cut in American history.
I spoke to Max Stier, the founder and president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan nonprofit group that advocates for the federal workforce and public service, about these changes. Stier was practically apoplectic about the damage that Musk and his unvetted and unaccountable DOGE workers have already wrought. "If there were a real 'Department of Government Efficiency,' the number one thing that would be on their list to cut is what DOGE is currently doing. They have harassed and undermined the people who are doing the work of the federal government without any understanding of the consequences. There is no legitimate reason for any of this."
Indeed, of all the places to look for savings in the federal budget, the government workforce is probably the single worst place.
Wages and benefits for the federal workforce equals about $270 billion. That seems like a lot of money, but when one considers that the total federal budget last year was close to $7 trillion, it's around 4% of what the government spends annually. Quite simply, the benefits in terms of saving taxpayer dollars associated with laying off 300,000 employees are more than outweighed by the huge costs — both now and in the future.
DOGE's indiscriminate job cuts, which appear to have no rhyme or reason other than reducing the number of federal workers by any means necessary, are already reaping an ugly whirlwind.
Employee reductions at the Veterans Administration could mean that veterans are stuck with longer waits for medical care. And since military veterans make up nearly one-third of the federal workforce, they are already paying a disproportionate price for Musk's firing spree. Social Security claims could go unanswered. Food and drug inspections may not occur. Cuts to the Federal Housing Association could mean delays in mortgage approvals for potential homeowners.
Federal parks are already seeing longer lines and fewer services for visitors. The planned firing of nearly 7,000 IRS employees in the midst of tax season could mean longer phone waits and delayed refunds for taxpayers. For the rich and well connected, there is less chance of getting caught if they pay less than their fair share in taxes.
At the National Institutes of Health, where an estimated 1,200 employees have been laid off, 10 percent of the staff at NIH's Center for Alzheimer's and Related Dementias were let go. The impact on research focused on developing a cure for this disease is almost too awful to consider.
From a global standpoint, the near-total decimation of the U.S. Agency for International Development's workforce has stopped the provision of life-saving foreign aid. It's not hyperbole to suggest that many people around the world will die as a result.
One of the paradoxes of Musk's firing spree is that pushing out newly promoted workers will undermine DOGE's stated goals.
Musk's DOGE has taken direct aim at the federal government's probationary employees, or those with less than two years of federal service. The reason they are being targeted is not hard to discern: They are the easiest employees to fire.
But when you consider that the federal government spends $5,000 to $10,000 in recruiting and hiring federal employees, DOGE is squandering millions of dollars already spent to push these employees out the door.
But probationary employees are not just the youngest and freshest new hires across the federal government; this group also includes workers who have been promoted to new positions — the best and brightest of the federal bureaucracy.
One of the paradoxes of Musk's firing spree is that pushing out newly promoted workers — and in such a callous and inhumane manner — will undermine DOGE's stated goals. These individuals can likely find good jobs in the private sector. Those with fewer options outside the federal government, who are more likely to view public service as little more than a steady paycheck rather than a calling, will be the ones who remain.
Even more difficult to explain is Trump's decision this month to end the Presidential Management Fellows Program, a nearly 50-year-old federal initiative that brings talented graduate students into the civil service.
How is closing off a pipeline of top-level talent serving the American people or enabling a more effective federal workforce? Getting rid of the fellows program — like so many of the firings that have already taken place — makes no sense. It is destruction for the purpose, it seems, of being destructive.
Indeed, while the near-term impact of all these firings is uniformly negative, the longer-term effect will likely be worse.
As Stier pointed out, with these firings, "you lose incredible institutional knowledge and relationship capital." Musk is pushing out the "people who know how to get stuff done across the federal government."
Who will want to remain in a workplace where those in charge treat you with such glaring disrespect? Who will want to enter a workplace in which an unelected billionaire is sending out late-night, weekend emails demanding that federal employees list five things that they've accomplished that week — and failing to do so means getting axed?
While the near-term impact of all these firings is uniformly negative, the longer-term effect will likely be worse.
But the frustration for many federal workers runs deeper. As in every workforce, there is dead weight and employees merely going through the motions. However, those who sign up to work for the government eschew better-paying private-sector jobs out of a commitment to public service. I spoke to a current federal employee, who said: "What many feds find so frustrating is that we all know the score and understand that the president gets to set the agenda. We've signed up to execute it and willingly did so during Trump 1.0 and are prepared to do it again. If you don't ask us to break the law, we are at your service."
It seems, however, that Trump and Musk simply don't care. Six decades ago, a newly elected president challenged Americans to "ask what you can do for your country." But now the president and the richest man in the world are essentially telling America's would-be civil servants that they don't respect them or their work — and that the most talented among them ought to do something else with their careers.
Tags
Who is online
33 visitors
After Slick Willie and Little Willie gutted the civil service, the work of government was mostly done by middle managers who would pimp their sisters. That's who wrote the plans to downsize the workforce. The real world Hunger Game ain't won on merit, folks. The real world is nothing like the movies.
Slick Willie and Little Willie did away with efficiency in government through public/private partnerships. That's why the Federal government has chased bad investments, wasted tons of money, and bankrupted itself with private sector favors. The more the Federal government functions like a business, the worse the service has become. That's because government focuses more attention on money than on constituents. Slick Willie did it first, did it better, and made it last. Trump will make it worse but Trump won't have institutional defenders to hide what he has done.
The cuts will have zero actual effect on the functioning of the federal government, but everything that isn't perfect will be blamed on them, regardless of causation.
That's why we have a two trillion dollar deficit during peace and prosperity. Any suggestion of an sort of cut (even when the "cut" is simply a reduction in the rate of spending increase) leads to hysteria, media coverage about how the cuts will cause starvation, doom and the widespread deaths. So the easy thing is too just keep borrowing money, getting elected and kicking the can down the road.
Did you know that interest on the Federal debt is now $1 trillion? Half of the Federal deficit is paying for all the deficits since Reagan was inaugurated in 1981. Who owns the Federal debt? And what are the owners of that Federal debt going to do with the $1 trillion the taxpayers are giving them?
Reducing the cost of government to match government revenue will still leave us with a $1 trillion deficit. Balancing the budget by cutting $2 trillion of spending won't pay down the Federal debt and taxpayers will still be throwing $1 trillion away for nothing.
That is some really impressive bullshit artistry you've got Norm...
Now figure in giving the wealthy two trillion in additional tax cuts .
1. Japan
Japan held $1.09 trillion in Treasury securities as of November 2024, beating out China as the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt.
2. China
China gets a lot of attention for holding a big chunk of the U.S. government's debt. Given that its economy expanded rapidly in the last decades, perhaps this shouldn't come as a surprise. China takes the second spot behind Japan among foreign holders of U.S. debt with $768.6 billion in Treasury holdings as of November 2024.
While Chinese-owned debt is frequently drummed up as a political talking point, there's nothing particularly sinister about an export-oriented economy investing in Treasury securities. Treasuries are a logical investment for a country with high foreign currency reserves.
3. United Kingdom
British investors hold $765.6 billion of U.S. debt as of November 2024. The U.K.'s investment in U.S. debt may be linked to its difficult economic situation .
4. Luxembourg
Luxembourg is the fourth-largest holder of U.S. debt among foreign countries while having one of the highest GDP per capita —$128,678 as of 2023, the latest data available. 7 This ranking may be due to Luxembourg's status as a tax haven , where wealthy investors park their funds in local holding companies. Much of this wealth is then invested in various securities, including Treasuries. 8
As of November 2024, Luxembourg held $424.5 billion of U.S. Debt. 2
5. Cayman Islands
The Cayman Islands is a global tax haven. Additionally, many investment firms are headquartered in the Cayman Islands, holding much of the chunk of U.S. Treasuries. As of November 2024, the Cayman Islands holds $397 billion of U.S. 2
Other holders of U.S. national debt include U.S. banks and investors, state and local governments, mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, and investors in savings bonds. Various agencies and entities within the U.S. government also own debt, which is known as intragovernmental debt.
Most US debt is not foreign owned.
97 pct of the Federal debt has been created since 1981. So, what has the social spending since 1981 accomplished? The economy certainly hasn't been able to sustain all the social programs.
Government spending has displaced the need for businesses to produce things for profit. Why is that a good thing?
Over 20 pct of the Federal debt is owned by foreign governments. Is that supposed to make the interest payments acceptable?
Why is being utterly dependent on foreign governments a good thing? Is it a good thing to be held hostage by foreign owners of our Federal debt? Doesn't that create a mechanism for foreign governments to influence and coerce our government?
Which social programs are you referring to?
We're not. The debt does not change that. If anything it means they are more dependent on us.
Describe how you think that's happening.
Not at all.
Haven't the social warriors figured out that Slick Willie raised taxes and then gave the money back through public/private partnerships? And the deficits only sweeten the grift.
All the Federal spending floats to the top. The poor pay for business taxes the same way the poor pay for tariffs. Those wonderful government assistance checks never make it into the back accounts of the disadvantaged poor. After 40 years and $36 trillion in debt, the poor are just as poor and the disadvantaged are just as disadvantaged. But the rich are definitely a lot richer.
Bill Clinton raised taxes on Peter so he could pay Peter with government contracts. Clinton's public/private partnership created a lot of churn but really didn't redistribute any money.
Why are you asking me those questions seeing as I only replied to your query and did so without editorialising?
All of the debt is going to mature and will have to be paid. Foreign governments don't have to buy reissued debt; they can get out. And foreign governments can dump their US bonds onto the market anytime they choose. Foreign governments can get out.
The United States is stuck with the Federal debt no matter what. The only option the United States has is to stop reissuing debt (paying down the debt) or defaulting. The Federal debt has become so large and our economy has become so dependent on Federal spending that we can't afford to pay down the debt without triggering a depression. Defaulting of the debt would trigger a global depression so the playing field would be a little more level.
Drive-by factoids are supposed to be a distraction which is, itself, editorializing. Who owns the Federal debt? The editorial drive-by factoid creates a misleading impression to influence opinion. That's a passive aggressive editorial comment.
And I can exploit your drive-by factoid for my own editorial purposes. See how that works?
Or rolled. Yes.
Yes. And no.
They run into the same problem as the Social Security trust fund. What are you going to do with all that money? It's not like you can put $500billion in a bank somewhere. They buy US Govt debt because it's the safest investment in the world. You can't replicate that safety anywhere else.
If the BoJ sold all of it's US treasuries over the next year, where would they put the money? No other investment gives them the security they need.
We can't default. Constitution.
And realistically we can't stop issuing debt without starting said global depression, as you say.
What we can do is start slowing that process. We didn't get $30 trillion in debt overnight, we're not going to get out of it overnight.
To your point, no, it does not appear we are headed in that direction under Trump any more than we were under Biden. I personally find that mildly disappointing, but I'm not surprised.
You're full of yourself ... ?
Interest on the Federal debt is currently about $1 trillion which is half the deficit. Balancing spending to revenue would still leave us with a $1 trillion deficit.
Run the numbers yourself. The four largest government expenditures are healthcare, pensions, defense, and servicing the debt. Those four budget items accounts for almost $5.8 trillion or 80 pct of the Federal budget. The other 20 pct of the budget pays for everything else. That 20 pct amounts to $1.5 trillion which is less than the deficit. Eliminating everything except Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending won't balance the budget.
Musk ain't gonna get there with phony efficiency. So, who gets whacked? Do we punish workers paying FICA taxes? Or do we punish financial institutions running healthcare and dodging taxes at every turn? Or do we pair back on cost+ military contracts for gee whiz tech that is obsolete before its deployed? Any one of those choices will likely trigger a recession.
You betcha. I was a damned gubmit worker.
I think we probably need to do a little of each.
I don't think we're actually going to do any of that.
"Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency ..."
Amy Gleason must be the most confused person in DC.
And that is the goial.