Last November, I wrote that Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency ran the risk of following in the Clinton administration’s Reinventing Government footsteps. That program evaluated all sorts of ways to make government work better, but ended up doing almost nothing but laying off employees. The layoffs lasted only a few years, after which Congress restored the number of employees and agency budgets.
Gallatin National Forest; Forest Service photo.
Instead of simply cutting employees, I wrote, Musk should focus on creating new incentives for agencies to operate more efficiently and more effectively. “Such new incentives would focus agencies on the people they are supposed to serve rather than on simply increasing their budgets,” I added. “More important, if properly designed these would be lasting changes, not ones that would disappear as soon as the next administration takes office.”
Musk obviously didn’t read my article, as he is doing exactly the same thing as the Clinton administration did. The Forest Service recently laid off about 10 percent of its employees, and the Park Service made similar cuts. Rather than make these agencies more efficient or more effective, such indiscriminate layoffs leave the administration open to the charge that it is leaving public lands more vulnerable to wildfire and other problems.
Management of the nation’s federal lands costs taxpayers more than $10 billion a year. These lands are often described as “priceless,” and effectively they are because Congress won’t allow the agencies that manage them to charge fair market value prices for most of the uses of those lands. Only coal miners and oil and gas companies pay true market value; all other users get cushy deals in the form of free or below-market prices. Moreover, the agencies don’t get to keep most of the revenues that do come in, as Congress often earmarks them to some special interest group such as local schools and county road departments.
Musk could have proposed to reform these policies, allowing the agencies to charge market prices for recreation, hunting, fishing, and other resources, and further allowing the agencies to keep a fixed percentage of all the revenues they collect. IF the rest of the revenues went to the Treasury, this would likely turn the agencies from $10 billion losers to $10 billion profit centers for the government.
It would also lead to better management as the agencies would be responsive to users, not to the whims of politicians. On all but 1 or 2 percent of federal lands, revenues from recreationists would outweigh revenues from all other sources, so the agencies would have incentives to promote clean water, diverse wildlife habitat, and other things that recreationists like.
All of these ideas were suggested when the Clinton Administration tried to reinvent government but were rejected because they were too complicated. It looks like Musk is making the same mistake. That means government agencies will continue to perform poorly and any savings from cutting agency budgets will be dissipated in a few years as the agencies and the special interest groups they benefit inevitably seek more money and Congress inevitably gives in.
They’ve only been in existence for less than a Month.
Amtrak, Department Energy, Department Education, etc are 50 years old.
Clinton Administration delivered a Budget surplus, but it’s economy drove that budget. 90s was era relative global peace and beginning digital economy revolution.
But also the foundation of tax regimes and land management.
You’re talking about a group that’s been around month, fighting uphill against organizations entrenched in government for 30-50 years
LazyReader,
The issue isn’t age; it’s strategy. Simply cutting budgets is a bad strategy. If DOGE can kill agencies dead, those agencies may not come back to life and so it might be a victory. If DOGE can restructure agencies so they operate more efficiency, the could save money and that would be a victory. But if all DOGE does is indiscriminately cut budgets or fire employees, the changes will only be temporary and no long-term savings or benefits will result.
Response to IC_deLight:
Strong Towns isn’t against detached homes being the majority or high speed car travel if planned carefully (sunken or parkway)
IC_deLight didn’t post anything here for you to respond to. IC_deLight is now responding to you: You’re completely off-topic and as lost as WrongTowns. As to the substance of your statement, no one asked WrongTowns to begin with. WrongTowns is an entity, not a natural person with housing preferences. No one cares what WrongTowns’ positions are concerning other people’s housing preferences.
LazyReader,
One of the reasons that the federal budget came close to a surplus under Clinton is that he kept vetoing the Republican tax cuts. As it is, the Republicans seem determined to cut taxes and borrow as much as possible. This risks driving the US into unmanageable debt. No data or forecast shows anything else from the current budget proposals. The Republican party has become completely irresponsible as far a budgeting is concerned.
It’s much easier to say “You’re Fired” or to cut budgets 10 or 20 percent and assume that everything you want that organization to do will still happen. It actually requires WORK to determine what functions an organization should no longer do and how to streamline the remaining functions by changing rules and guidelines so that they can be performed faster and cheaper. Musk and his people aren’t interested in actually doing WORK because it’s harder.
with the savings can States then take up the mantle of stewardship….getting the central behemoth out of the way?