Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy just announced their plan, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is supposed to cut federal spending by $500 billion annually. This announcement follows an election victory by Donald Trump and places Musk and Ramaswamy center stage in what might prove to be an overhaul of government spending. The musings have drawn widespread interest and debate over the feasibility of this proposition and where those cuts would occur.
Justification of spending cuts
Musk and Ramaswamy believe that a large part of federal spending is unauthorized or misaligned with the intent set by Congress. Their strategy is to seek inefficiencies in the federal budget-especially in discretionary spending, which makes up a smaller piece of the overall budget compared to mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare. They argue that unauthorized spending, if tapped into, can realize major savings without touching the essential services many Americans depend on.
Key areas targeted for cuts
In an opinion in the recently published Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy have pinpointed a number of specific areas where they feel cuts can be impacted. Among them:
- Corporation for public broadcasting: It would get roughly $535 million a year, money they say could be axed.
- International organizations: an additional $1.5 billion in grants to various international organizations would also be cut.
- Planned parenthood and similar organizations: They propose the deletion of almost $300 million in funding for what they call “progressive groups.”
What’s more, they have created a catch-all category of programs whose authorizations have expired that can be considered for actual cuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, there are roughly 491 programs, totaling more than $516 billion that do not have current Congressional approval but are continuing to receive funding.
Impact on federal employment
A central part of the DOGE endeavor entails federal workforce cutbacks. Musk and Ramaswamy have remarked that their work could mean “mass head-count reductions” in numerous federal agencies. Presently, there are more than **2 million federal employees**, many in important sectors like Veterans Affairs and national security.
Proposed strategies for workforce reduction
The two men have floated a number of ways to achieve workforce reductions:
- Early retirement incentives: Early retirement incentives would also be available to help ease the transition of affected employees into private sector jobs.
- Mandatory in-person work policies: They would also force federal employees to work five days a week in person, which they feel will force involuntary resignations among those not willing to do so.
- Auditing federal contracts: They would do so by freezing the payments on contracts for top-to-bottom audits likely to find many more inefficiencies.
These could be game-changing measures against the federal workforce, raising job-security anxieties for millions of employees.
Constitutional and legislative challenges
Those are ambitious plans, and there’s a lot standing in the way for Musk and Ramaswamy. For instance, federal spending cuts typically fall under Congress’ authority, raising questions over whether an executive program like DOGE would effectively make those changes. Critics say attempts to withhold funds appropriated by Congress could lead to a slew of legal battles similar to other fights over executive authority.
Second, because major reform of mandatory spending programs, including Social Security or Medicare, would require legislation, the DOGE’s goal of $500 billion would be highly unlikely to happen without more general bipartisan agreement.
The larger economic context
This comes at a time when the U.S. is facing an expected federal deficit of up to $1.7 trillion in 2024. The high expenditure on obligatory spending-for example, Social Security and Medicare-is also taking away the possibility of any administration intent on reducing overall spending without interfering with these two very vital programs.
Possible impact on public services
With Musk and Ramaswamy forging ahead with their plans, many are concerned about how such cuts could impact public services. Employing a reduction in funding for such basic programs, critics say, may dent vital support systems for some of society’s most vulnerable people without touching root inefficiencies in how government agencies work.
