Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelnos | Hacker News Reader

> It's not something I would expect a US administration hostile to China to cut.

I think in this case it's just a result of the haphazard approach to all of these cuts where nothing has actually been analyzed and planned. They are cutting things without thinking about repercussions, and of course their knee-jerk response to air-quality measurement is "it has to do with the climate and climate change, so we must suppress it".

Or it's even more "innocent" than that: they were given a target dollar amount or percentage to cut, and they're scrambling to find ways to get there, without really thinking things through.

View on HN

Judging how the US administration has turned against its historic allies, while pandering to authoritarian regimes, I'm pretty sure that it's by design, not reckless.

It’s likely a bit of both in this case: they probably equate air quality to “green, woke stuff,” and so want it gone. The reckless part comes from the decision maker not looking into this and seeing the benefit for Americans in any detail. And by not seeing a difference between air quality and climate change.

> And by not seeing a difference between air quality and climate change

Both of them would increase quality of life if we cared just a little bit about them, so I think in their eyes they're more or less the same? They seem hellbent on decreasing the quality of life as far as I can tell, even being outspoken about that "things will get worse before it gets better", so if you try to empathize with their perspective, it does make sense they see them as the same thing more or less.

It's sad that HN threads on political topics are full of the same low-effort talking point slop that I expect on reddit.

Was that a high effort post?

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).

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

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.

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.

> 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.

OK - I guess we'll see!

Probably not. I have almost no faith that Musk won't cause more harm than good.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

Yes there is, but Elmo fired them all: 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.

Their charter is far narrower than DOGE, and are really only empowered to chase outright illegal behavior.

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

Probably true to be honest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com