The unofficial advisory board may not have much actual power, but every finding they make will spotlight Congress’ inaction on waste, fraud, and abuse.
If DOGE is to have anything more than a PR impact, it needs to be congressionally created and ideally structured something like the Base Closing Commission of years ago. They should call Dick Armey.
The very fact that Congress has left things to the bureaucracy - the Executive branch - means that said Executive branch can fix a bunch of the crap going on.
You are letting the desire for the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But that is not the case. The one thing Trump cannot do is impound (withhold) the funds that Congress appropriates. Yes, there are things that the President can do regarding his employees, but without actual budget cuts it results in shifting chairs around on the Titanic. Musk and Ramaswamy have said they want to test the impoundment issue under the belief that the Supreme Court will overturn the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act. However, in recent years, this Court has consistently ruled against executive power that steps in the constitutional role of Congress.
This is why Congress needs to get back to legislating. They should hold votes on eliminating or cutting wasteful programs so the voters can hold Members accountable for their decisions on government waste.
We want the same thing, I think. But my point is that the Constitution requires this to be done a certain way.
You are of course correct that for the most part he can’t spend less.
But he certainly can spend the money on relatively less worse things rather than more worse things, precisely because Congress ain’t been doing its job and lacking specificity.
Putting bureaucrats who have been making things worse into the same rubber room NYC teachers who can’t be fired are sent to might not save taxpayer dollars directly, but it will prevent those heretofore entrenched bureaucrats from doing the harm to the economy they’ve been doing.
That would not just be shifting deck chairs around on the Titanic.
And on regulations themselves he can do a hell of a lot. And even if that doesn’t save tax money, it will help the economy grow faster, which besides being good for people apart from government, it will also help lower the deficit.
Finally, I find it odd that you were non-responsive that he could always refuse to sign those continuing resolution spending bills. In that sense the President has always been just as responsible for spending as Congress is. That is the one way he could indeed force Congress to do their job. [Now personally, I don’t see this happening. But it surely could be done.]
I find it somewhat infuriating that pundits like yourself are already complaining that DOGE isn’t boiling the ocean and solving all problems. The reality is we have a very divided country and Congress, and a somewhat imperfect president (better than the last one by leaps and bounds, of course) who didn’t run on these other things. We should be happy with the great first step of what Elon and Vivek are setting out to accomplish, rather than expect them to instantly conquer all.
You misconstrue my position. I am very supportive of DOGE. I just think people are setting themselves up to expect more than they can achieve unless they are able to put pressure on Congress. I want to for instance, close the Department of Education. But that will take an act of Congress.
I absolutely agree that Trump can do great things on the regulatory agenda - both in repealing Biden-era regulations and NOT issuing new ones.
I wasn't being non-responsive on the President vetoing CRs, but like you I don't see that happening.
The one place it sounds like we disagree is in your assertion that Congress has more power over the purse strings- in terms of overall spending in particular - than the president. In fact they have the same amount in reality (since we are far far far from Congress overrriding any veto). And so in practice “pressure” on Trump is far more likely to generate spending reductions than “pressure” on Congress.
That may not have been how our system was originally designed, but it is the reality of what we have today.
So if you don’t see Trump pushing for spending cuts, you sure ain’t gonna see Congress do so.
And IMO Elon/Vivek have a lot more chance selling cuts to Trump than they do to Congress.
“ two-thirds of all Executive branch programs are unauthorized.”
“ giving the bureaucracy carte blanche to run programs any way they like.”
“ In the absence of authorizations, bureaucrats have more significant influence over how an agency will carry out its mission – and if the committee persists in its failure to pass authorizations, an agency eventually stops paying much attention to it.”
Umm… do you understand there is some contradiction in what you say?
You are of course correct that only Congress holds the power of the purse.
But the Executive (Trump) does indeed have near-total power over the bureaucrats.
Yes, I would far prefer that Congress cut wasteful, let alone outright bad, spending. Yes, I wish they didn’t run the government via continuing resolution
But the programs being unauthorized indeed means that Trump can take the advice of DOGE and run those programs as Elon/Vivek suggest.
Seems to me that in your quest to boil the ocean and solve all problems simultaneously, you are ignoring - or indeed obfuscating - what the DOGE leaders have: given that Congress has deferred to the Executive branch, that does not HAVE to mean they have deferred to the entrenched swamp bureaucracy; it means they have now deferred to Trump.
[Of course, budgets gotta be signed by the Executive, absent the 2/3rds override which would never happen, and so Trump could stop the spending by refusing to sign those continuing authorizations. But now I’m the one getting off subject.]
I won't repeat what I wrote in your other comment. Suffice it to say that the real power DOGE will have is spotlighting waste, abuse, incompetence, and inefficiency. It will be up to Congress to hold the votes necessary to address those findings. In my opinion, the Supreme Court will not allow the President to withhold (impound) funds for programs he does not like. Congress makes law. The President carries out those laws.
Think of it this way. If the President could ignore Congress and not follow the law while shifting money around as he sees fit, then why have a Congress? That can lead to bad things, especially in the wrong hands.
a) completely ignore the real issue of the bureaucracy itself being a part of the problem that needs to be addressed (and that addressing that problem will be helpful for the economy), and
b) ignore the far simpler mechanism of refusing to sign the spending bills, if he wants to see less spent.
While I don’t think he will do b), as he didn’t run on that and it don’t seem to be his nature, that is the far more straightforward mechanism for spending cuts.
You write as if the unelected bureaucracy being in control is simply not a problem. But we all know better that in fact it is.
The bureaucracy is a huge problem. However, Trump is limited in what he can do without the ability to threaten and enact budget cuts. Take away their money, and then they will respond.
And good luck with both the Administrative Procedures Act and the Civil Service Reform Act. I know they can do some things outside them, but not as many as they think. Their best bet for reform is probably at DOJ and Schedule A attorneys.
If DOGE is to have anything more than a PR impact, it needs to be congressionally created and ideally structured something like the Base Closing Commission of years ago. They should call Dick Armey.
But this is simply not true.
The very fact that Congress has left things to the bureaucracy - the Executive branch - means that said Executive branch can fix a bunch of the crap going on.
You are letting the desire for the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But that is not the case. The one thing Trump cannot do is impound (withhold) the funds that Congress appropriates. Yes, there are things that the President can do regarding his employees, but without actual budget cuts it results in shifting chairs around on the Titanic. Musk and Ramaswamy have said they want to test the impoundment issue under the belief that the Supreme Court will overturn the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act. However, in recent years, this Court has consistently ruled against executive power that steps in the constitutional role of Congress.
This is why Congress needs to get back to legislating. They should hold votes on eliminating or cutting wasteful programs so the voters can hold Members accountable for their decisions on government waste.
We want the same thing, I think. But my point is that the Constitution requires this to be done a certain way.
You are of course correct that for the most part he can’t spend less.
But he certainly can spend the money on relatively less worse things rather than more worse things, precisely because Congress ain’t been doing its job and lacking specificity.
Putting bureaucrats who have been making things worse into the same rubber room NYC teachers who can’t be fired are sent to might not save taxpayer dollars directly, but it will prevent those heretofore entrenched bureaucrats from doing the harm to the economy they’ve been doing.
That would not just be shifting deck chairs around on the Titanic.
And on regulations themselves he can do a hell of a lot. And even if that doesn’t save tax money, it will help the economy grow faster, which besides being good for people apart from government, it will also help lower the deficit.
Finally, I find it odd that you were non-responsive that he could always refuse to sign those continuing resolution spending bills. In that sense the President has always been just as responsible for spending as Congress is. That is the one way he could indeed force Congress to do their job. [Now personally, I don’t see this happening. But it surely could be done.]
I find it somewhat infuriating that pundits like yourself are already complaining that DOGE isn’t boiling the ocean and solving all problems. The reality is we have a very divided country and Congress, and a somewhat imperfect president (better than the last one by leaps and bounds, of course) who didn’t run on these other things. We should be happy with the great first step of what Elon and Vivek are setting out to accomplish, rather than expect them to instantly conquer all.
You misconstrue my position. I am very supportive of DOGE. I just think people are setting themselves up to expect more than they can achieve unless they are able to put pressure on Congress. I want to for instance, close the Department of Education. But that will take an act of Congress.
I absolutely agree that Trump can do great things on the regulatory agenda - both in repealing Biden-era regulations and NOT issuing new ones.
I wasn't being non-responsive on the President vetoing CRs, but like you I don't see that happening.
Thx. So we are then pretty close.
The one place it sounds like we disagree is in your assertion that Congress has more power over the purse strings- in terms of overall spending in particular - than the president. In fact they have the same amount in reality (since we are far far far from Congress overrriding any veto). And so in practice “pressure” on Trump is far more likely to generate spending reductions than “pressure” on Congress.
That may not have been how our system was originally designed, but it is the reality of what we have today.
So if you don’t see Trump pushing for spending cuts, you sure ain’t gonna see Congress do so.
And IMO Elon/Vivek have a lot more chance selling cuts to Trump than they do to Congress.
“ two-thirds of all Executive branch programs are unauthorized.”
“ giving the bureaucracy carte blanche to run programs any way they like.”
“ In the absence of authorizations, bureaucrats have more significant influence over how an agency will carry out its mission – and if the committee persists in its failure to pass authorizations, an agency eventually stops paying much attention to it.”
Umm… do you understand there is some contradiction in what you say?
You are of course correct that only Congress holds the power of the purse.
But the Executive (Trump) does indeed have near-total power over the bureaucrats.
Yes, I would far prefer that Congress cut wasteful, let alone outright bad, spending. Yes, I wish they didn’t run the government via continuing resolution
But the programs being unauthorized indeed means that Trump can take the advice of DOGE and run those programs as Elon/Vivek suggest.
Seems to me that in your quest to boil the ocean and solve all problems simultaneously, you are ignoring - or indeed obfuscating - what the DOGE leaders have: given that Congress has deferred to the Executive branch, that does not HAVE to mean they have deferred to the entrenched swamp bureaucracy; it means they have now deferred to Trump.
[Of course, budgets gotta be signed by the Executive, absent the 2/3rds override which would never happen, and so Trump could stop the spending by refusing to sign those continuing authorizations. But now I’m the one getting off subject.]
I won't repeat what I wrote in your other comment. Suffice it to say that the real power DOGE will have is spotlighting waste, abuse, incompetence, and inefficiency. It will be up to Congress to hold the votes necessary to address those findings. In my opinion, the Supreme Court will not allow the President to withhold (impound) funds for programs he does not like. Congress makes law. The President carries out those laws.
Think of it this way. If the President could ignore Congress and not follow the law while shifting money around as he sees fit, then why have a Congress? That can lead to bad things, especially in the wrong hands.
You continue here to
a) completely ignore the real issue of the bureaucracy itself being a part of the problem that needs to be addressed (and that addressing that problem will be helpful for the economy), and
b) ignore the far simpler mechanism of refusing to sign the spending bills, if he wants to see less spent.
While I don’t think he will do b), as he didn’t run on that and it don’t seem to be his nature, that is the far more straightforward mechanism for spending cuts.
You write as if the unelected bureaucracy being in control is simply not a problem. But we all know better that in fact it is.
The bureaucracy is a huge problem. However, Trump is limited in what he can do without the ability to threaten and enact budget cuts. Take away their money, and then they will respond.
Yes, taking away their money is best.
But changing the way it is spent is a not-awful second best.
Look at all the ways the a Biden Admin spent money that Congress didn’t specifically enumerate:
student loan forgiveness
COVID-19 relief funds
Border wall funding redirection
Expanded eligibility for EV subsidies
Climate/environmental spending in the Infrastructure Act
invoking the Defense Production Act (DPA) to allocate funds for green energy initiatives
Green Climate Fund without explicit Congressional appropriation or approval
Trump can change all of these with a snap of his fingers.
Then keeping the entrenched bureaucrats from making any substantive decisions, even if he cannot fire them.
And good luck with both the Administrative Procedures Act and the Civil Service Reform Act. I know they can do some things outside them, but not as many as they think. Their best bet for reform is probably at DOJ and Schedule A attorneys.