Matthew: Clearly DOGE is highly controversial in substantial part because it appears to have authority delegated by the President to implement immediately its views regarding what actions should be taken to reduce Federal Government expenditures. I vigorously challenge that authority. I believe it is unlawful.
I have no problem with creating a DOGE-type ADVISORY committee/commission whose views must be considered by all of the government entities affected AND by the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over such agencies and their expenditures.
I, also, believe that a properly organized DOGE-type advisory-only entity would EITHER retain the human capital necessary to evaluate for each Federal government entity the criteria Congress has established for the spending by such entity OR absent such hiring the DOGE-type entity would make recommendations that consider only efficiency AND defer to the government entities and relevant Congressional committees consideration of whether and how efficiency might properly/should be considered relative to the Congressionally established program implementation criteria.
DOGE _could_ work the way Khan outlines, (although what DOGE's advantage is over the agency's own head is a puzzle) but DOGR seem miles away from actually trying to judge the efficiency of different activities.
"What would be lost from such cuts? Who would feel the pain from these cuts?"
Ideally nothing or less than nothing and no one. Suppose Musk discovered that two police officer were patrolling the same block, leaving the next block over unpatrolled and reallocated one to the second block. Policing output goes up at no cost! Musk is a genius!
This graph cannot show producing wine more efficiently, with fewer input per unit of output but by producing less wine, no longer on the same PPF. Sorry, there is no alternative to doing a cost benefit analysis of the different funding levels. The USAID economist helping remove trade restrictions in Ruritania may not be as valuable when he gets a new job back in the US.
Matthew: Clearly DOGE is highly controversial in substantial part because it appears to have authority delegated by the President to implement immediately its views regarding what actions should be taken to reduce Federal Government expenditures. I vigorously challenge that authority. I believe it is unlawful.
I have no problem with creating a DOGE-type ADVISORY committee/commission whose views must be considered by all of the government entities affected AND by the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over such agencies and their expenditures.
I, also, believe that a properly organized DOGE-type advisory-only entity would EITHER retain the human capital necessary to evaluate for each Federal government entity the criteria Congress has established for the spending by such entity OR absent such hiring the DOGE-type entity would make recommendations that consider only efficiency AND defer to the government entities and relevant Congressional committees consideration of whether and how efficiency might properly/should be considered relative to the Congressionally established program implementation criteria.
Respectfully,
Clem Dinsmore
Wilmington, DE
clem.dinsmore@gmail.com
"slices of pizza are $10 each" -- ouch! Looks like a good place for budget cutting to start!
DOGE _could_ work the way Khan outlines, (although what DOGE's advantage is over the agency's own head is a puzzle) but DOGR seem miles away from actually trying to judge the efficiency of different activities.
"What would be lost from such cuts? Who would feel the pain from these cuts?"
Ideally nothing or less than nothing and no one. Suppose Musk discovered that two police officer were patrolling the same block, leaving the next block over unpatrolled and reallocated one to the second block. Policing output goes up at no cost! Musk is a genius!
https://open.substack.com/pub/publicenlightenment/p/context-dems-cozy-up-to-palantir?r=2xd80&utm_medium=ios
it only took a man with the Midas touch to get Marxist lunatics to show their true colors even more https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/doge-finger
This graph cannot show producing wine more efficiently, with fewer input per unit of output but by producing less wine, no longer on the same PPF. Sorry, there is no alternative to doing a cost benefit analysis of the different funding levels. The USAID economist helping remove trade restrictions in Ruritania may not be as valuable when he gets a new job back in the US.