- indiscriminately fire people who have been in long term positions but recently got promoted and so were considered “probationary”
- dismantle the CPFB which was a net gain for revenue
- dismantle 18F which has a track record of improving government efficiency
- fire people who were involved in managing nuclear weapons and bird flu and then try to bring them back
- share spreadsheets on Twitter about really old people in the social security system making people think there’s tons of fraud without learning about the 2023 OIG report that already existed that explained this data
- make a bunch of noise about cutting a bunch of contracts including a third of which were already fully spent and will save nothing
Does this give you confidence that they are genuinely focused on reducing inefficiency and waste? It seems to me like they are rushing in, not bothering to learn what has already been done, arrogantly making assumptions, randomly breaking things and causing chaos, and all for what… a few billion in real savings which is not even a fraction of the proposed increase in spending by the current budget resolutions being worked on by the Republicans in the house?
Why should we have ever thought that an operation literally named after a dog meme was serious about anything?
All of this makes everything more expensive in the future: new contracts are going to have higher overhead to account for new legal and accounting costs, and unless the government will never hire anyone again they’re going to struggle to get skilled employees at all, much less at the same salary, when it’s clear that they’d be signing up to be treated like this. The direct cost is bad but the productivity cost will be even greater and last for decades.
You're probably correct about the employment law. That will take more legal finesse to keep them from having to pay a ton of money. Fortunately for them they also own the judiciary. It's not 100% reliable, but they've for 4 out of 5 needed votes locked in at the top level
And expecting lower federal courts packed with conservative judges to vote in favor of ignoring contracts?
We'll see, but I wouldn't take that bet...
The difference being the overflow after wastes gets spend on society instead of shareholders.
It's not that obvious to me, and is such a broad assertion that I'd require more than an "Everyone knows it. Just look at history" explanation to accept it as fact.
It also implies 2 things that I would disagree with
1) That the inefficiency and waste increases over time. It's likelier to me the ratio of those things stays the same, but it's more apparent as it scales - a company "wasting" 2% of its budget is vastly different than the US government "wasting" 2% of its budget.
2) That it's inherent to "human organizations" themselves - this doesn't seem to explore any other possible explanations. Given the nature of the discussion, I would think it's worth discussing whether other factors (like capitalism) might have an effect
(We'll ignore the vagueness of terms like "inefficiency" and "waste" with regards to government spending; not everyone agrees on what things are efficient or not. There are also many ways of measuring efficiency for both long- and short-term outlooks.)
It's no worse for government than any other large organization. Better than expected, given it's size.
It costs money to save wasted money.
Sometimes, that equation is net positive and other times net negative. But it's never financially efficient to reduce waste to zero.
Nail them down to specifics. Not just improvements, but perfect efficiency.
Guaranteed they will soon start to flounder, because "inefficient government" is a propaganda talking point, not a fact that can be established with any workable economic definition.
And "the deficit" is the difference between what government chooses to spend and chooses not to tax.
A huge proportion of government spending is either/both an investment and/or a direct driver of beneficial economic activity. That includes "unworthy" spending like welfare.