4 ms·

I honestly don't see how you can cut government spending at this point without being haphazard. Every administration for the last 70+ years has increased real s

I honestly don't see how you can cut government spending at this point without being haphazard. Every administration for the last 70+ years has increased real spending (not to mention expanding executive power along the way, which got us here).

danparsonson 2y ago
Why does that necessitate a haphazard approach? It's surely still possible to make a detailed assessment and prioritise properly?
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  1) A large portion of the government is unable to pass a simple audit. 2) The fundamental basis of government department budgeting is "spend everything you get or you'll get less next year". No department will willingly spend less.
  - danparsonson 2y ago
    I don't understand how either of those assertions answers my question. 1) Having a lot of problems doesn't mean you have to throw up your hands and take a totally unstructured approach to solving them. 2) So work on setting realistic budgets instead of slashing and burning things at random. The problem with both of these is that they require people who a) know what they're doing and b) really want to make things better. The new US administration does not appear to fulfill either of those requirements.
    - BobbyJo 2y ago
      > Having a lot of problems doesn't mean you have to throw up your hands and take a totally unstructured approach to solving them. Having a lot of problems for a long time generally means other attempts have failed. > So work on setting realistic budgets instead of slashing and burning things at random. According to prior governments, the current budget is realistic. According to the current admin, a slashed and burned budget is realistic. > The problem with both of these is that they require people who a) know what they're doing and b) really want to make things better. The new US administration does not appear to fulfill either of those requirements. We ran a deficit the whole way through the greatest economic expansion since the post WW2 era. IMO no admin in the last 25 years has fulfilled those requirements.
      - danparsonson 2y ago
        OK - I guess we'll see!
        BobbyJo 2y ago
        Probably not. I have almost no faith that Musk won't cause more harm than good.
watwut 2y ago
Increases in spending do not imply impossibilitynto think about cuts. That is not how it works. The not think part is a deliberate choice as described in project 2025 - to cause fear and chaos.
thaumasiotes 2y ago
Well, a more normal approach would be to tell various administrators that they're getting a lot less funding and let them figure out what they want to cut. There are some obstacles to doing that with the government, but if you could make it stick it's better in every fundamental way. Whether that would preserve the Chinese air quality program is open to question. It's an extremely cost-effective way to look good (in front of most of the world, but especially in front of China) while making the CCP look bad. But while that may be a goal that the administration supports, it also isn't a goal that lends itself to a lot of hard objective metrics, which makes choosing to keep it a risk in some ways.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Every administration for the last 70+ years has increased real spending This is the logic a Victorian surgeon hacking at a patient, safe in the knowledge that sea sponges do alright with a fraction of a human’s organs. 70 years ago we were reeling from WWII. We were entering the Cold War with fragile new alliances and only had a middle class because of massive government spending. Our real GDP was 10x smaller, our population half as numerous. What we are doing today is recreating the conditions of the Great Depression because our public education apparently can’t teach history. There is waste and fraud abundant. But not where Musk is looking. DOGE itself would be near the top of the list.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  > This is the logic a Victorian surgeon hacking at a patient, safe in the knowledge that sea sponges do alright with a fraction of a human’s organs. Except its not? Every organizational takeover and efficiency push looks pretty much the same as what Doge is doing. He's not resorting to a playbook 500 years old, its today's playbook. Whether or not you agree it needs to be done, there isn't a much better way to do it. > 70 years ago we were reeling from WWII Kinda proves my point tho, no? We spend more per-capita now than we did fighting the most deadly conflict in our countries history. Normally spending increases when you're at war. > Our real GDP was 10x smaller, our population half as numerous. What about the year 2000? What differences between then and now in government services require the federal government to spend 50% more (inflation adjusted) per-capita in 2019? > There is waste and fraud abundant. But not where Musk is looking. DOGE itself would be near the top of the list. I get you're trying to make a point, but you aren't currently auditing the government, and, therefore, that statement is purely performative.
theshrike79 2y ago
Step 1 of cutting spending: get people who know about it to investigate, not randoms from Silicon Valley Step 2: don't speed run it in 4 weeks, give it time and do it properly. You know, scientifically. Adjust, measure, adjust again.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  1) There is no one that knows about it. There is no government agency that specializes in cost saving. Congress is the sole source of austerity, and they have every incentive to increase spending if it helps their district. 2) They have 4 years. Of course they're gonna speed run. They know they'll lose after people feel the pain they voted to feel.
  - theshrike79 2y ago
    Yes there is, but Elmo fired them all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Inspector_General_(United_States)?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Inspector_General_(U... > The offices employ special agents (criminal investigators, often armed) and auditors. In addition, federal offices of inspectors general employ forensic auditors, or "audigators", evaluators, inspectors, administrative investigators, and a variety of other specialists. Their activities include the detection and prevention of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement of the government programs and operations within their parent organizations They do EXACTLY what DOGE is supposed to be doing.
    - BobbyJo 2y ago
      Their charter is far narrower than DOGE, and are really only empowered to chase outright illegal behavior.
surgical_fire 2y ago
Don't worry, government spending will increase anyway. Maybe you just won't have accurate data about it anymore.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  Probably true to be honest.

danparsonson 2y ago

Why does that necessitate a haphazard approach? It's surely still possible to make a detailed assessment and prioritise properly?

BobbyJo 2y ago
1) A large portion of the government is unable to pass a simple audit. 2) The fundamental basis of government department budgeting is "spend everything you get or you'll get less next year". No department will willingly spend less.
- danparsonson 2y ago
  I don't understand how either of those assertions answers my question. 1) Having a lot of problems doesn't mean you have to throw up your hands and take a totally unstructured approach to solving them. 2) So work on setting realistic budgets instead of slashing and burning things at random. The problem with both of these is that they require people who a) know what they're doing and b) really want to make things better. The new US administration does not appear to fulfill either of those requirements.
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    > Having a lot of problems doesn't mean you have to throw up your hands and take a totally unstructured approach to solving them. Having a lot of problems for a long time generally means other attempts have failed. > So work on setting realistic budgets instead of slashing and burning things at random. According to prior governments, the current budget is realistic. According to the current admin, a slashed and burned budget is realistic. > The problem with both of these is that they require people who a) know what they're doing and b) really want to make things better. The new US administration does not appear to fulfill either of those requirements. We ran a deficit the whole way through the greatest economic expansion since the post WW2 era. IMO no admin in the last 25 years has fulfilled those requirements.
    - danparsonson 2y ago
      OK - I guess we'll see!
      - BobbyJo 2y ago
        Probably not. I have almost no faith that Musk won't cause more harm than good.

watwut 2y ago

Increases in spending do not imply impossibilitynto think about cuts. That is not how it works. The not think part is a deliberate choice as described in project 2025 - to cause fear and chaos.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

Well, a more normal approach would be to tell various administrators that they're getting a lot less funding and let them figure out what they want to cut. There are some obstacles to doing that with the government, but if you could make it stick it's better in every fundamental way. Whether that would preserve the Chinese air quality program is open to question. It's an extremely cost-effective way to look good (in front of most of the world, but especially in front of China) while making the CCP look bad. But while that may be a goal that the administration supports, it also isn't a goal that lends itself to a lot of hard objective metrics, which makes choosing to keep it a risk in some ways.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Every administration for the last 70+ years has increased real spending This is the logic a Victorian surgeon hacking at a patient, safe in the knowledge that sea sponges do alright with a fraction of a human’s organs. 70 years ago we were reeling from WWII. We were entering the Cold War with fragile new alliances and only had a middle class because of massive government spending. Our real GDP was 10x smaller, our population half as numerous. What we are doing today is recreating the conditions of the Great Depression because our public education apparently can’t teach history. There is waste and fraud abundant. But not where Musk is looking. DOGE itself would be near the top of the list.

BobbyJo 2y ago
> This is the logic a Victorian surgeon hacking at a patient, safe in the knowledge that sea sponges do alright with a fraction of a human’s organs. Except its not? Every organizational takeover and efficiency push looks pretty much the same as what Doge is doing. He's not resorting to a playbook 500 years old, its today's playbook. Whether or not you agree it needs to be done, there isn't a much better way to do it. > 70 years ago we were reeling from WWII Kinda proves my point tho, no? We spend more per-capita now than we did fighting the most deadly conflict in our countries history. Normally spending increases when you're at war. > Our real GDP was 10x smaller, our population half as numerous. What about the year 2000? What differences between then and now in government services require the federal government to spend 50% more (inflation adjusted) per-capita in 2019? > There is waste and fraud abundant. But not where Musk is looking. DOGE itself would be near the top of the list. I get you're trying to make a point, but you aren't currently auditing the government, and, therefore, that statement is purely performative.

theshrike79 2y ago

Step 1 of cutting spending: get people who know about it to investigate, not randoms from Silicon Valley Step 2: don't speed run it in 4 weeks, give it time and do it properly. You know, scientifically. Adjust, measure, adjust again.

BobbyJo 2y ago
1) There is no one that knows about it. There is no government agency that specializes in cost saving. Congress is the sole source of austerity, and they have every incentive to increase spending if it helps their district. 2) They have 4 years. Of course they're gonna speed run. They know they'll lose after people feel the pain they voted to feel.
- theshrike79 2y ago
  Yes there is, but Elmo fired them all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Inspector_General_(United_States)?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Inspector_General_(U... > The offices employ special agents (criminal investigators, often armed) and auditors. In addition, federal offices of inspectors general employ forensic auditors, or "audigators", evaluators, inspectors, administrative investigators, and a variety of other specialists. Their activities include the detection and prevention of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement of the government programs and operations within their parent organizations They do EXACTLY what DOGE is supposed to be doing.
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    Their charter is far narrower than DOGE, and are really only empowered to chase outright illegal behavior.

surgical_fire 2y ago

Don't worry, government spending will increase anyway. Maybe you just won't have accurate data about it anymore.

BobbyJo 2y ago
Probably true to be honest.