[HN Gopher] The story of DOGE, as told by federal workers
___________________________________________________________________
The story of DOGE, as told by federal workers
https://web.archive.org/web/20250925140423/https://www.wired...
Author : rendx
Score : 305 points
Date : 2025-09-25 14:36 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| mlinhares wrote:
| Utter and complete disgrace, I hope people don't forget what was
| done here.
| tines wrote:
| You can't forget what you never knew. Nobody's paying attention
| and nobody cares. If you disagree, then explain how we got here
| in the first place.
| foogazi wrote:
| It's easier to destroy than to build
|
| I see hollowing out of institutions but no one is building
| anything
| benjiro wrote:
| > I hope people don't forget what was done here
|
| Read some of the LeopardsAteMyFace stories on reddit, and there
| are tons of federal workers that voted for this, and still are
| on the Kool-Aid, even as they are financially struggling.
|
| One federal worker that voted for Trump, had his wife die
| during the mess, crossed multiple layers of hell to be rejected
| aid, dropped into poverty levels ... he still thinks that it
| was not Trumps fault. Trump just need "guidance",
| "temperance"...
|
| Side note: he is also heavily religious so the overlap was not
| hard to spot, between religion and zealot worshiping.
| miltonlost wrote:
| Remember: if anyone supported DOGE or still supports DOGE, they
| (both DOGE and their supporters) were not ever serious about the
| debt or government efficiency.
| codexb wrote:
| They were, but the actual cuts needed (to entitlements) are
| politically impossible to make.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Which is why they went the non-democratic/illegal route by
| avoiding congress.
| zzrrt wrote:
| So they did a thing they knew wouldn't work? AKA not serious
| about solving the problem. The OBBBA budget bill did make
| some cuts though, anyway.
| phkahler wrote:
| Elon was serious about the debt. Thats why he and Trump don't
| get along any more. After the initial DOGE efforts, Trump
| raised the debt ceiling a few trillion dollars and got a new
| spending bill passed that increase spending like another
| trillion dollars - obviously not concerned about the debt.
| nerevarthelame wrote:
| Trump and Musk get along fine. They sat next to each other
| and chatted at Charlie Kirk's funeral:
| https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/22/tech/donald-trump-elon-
| musk-c...
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| https://archive.is/TiaSF
| exe34 wrote:
| The whole point of Doge was to fire the agencies that were
| investigating all of Musk's companies that were breaking laws.
| That and getting rid of competent people who might stand up to
| the orangefuhrer.
| corralal wrote:
| Do you have an example of a cut to something that was
| investigating Musk? I'm not saying you're wrong - I have no
| clue and I'm truly curious.
| trymas wrote:
| One internet search away: https://qz.com/elon-musk-doge-
| nhtsa-tesla-neuralink-spacex-f...
| parineum wrote:
| Which one was "investigating" musk?
| exe34 wrote:
| https://democrats-
| judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025.02....
| parineum wrote:
| Broken link.
| exe34 wrote:
| Apologies, it seems to move every few months.
| https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-
| subsites/dem...
| parineum wrote:
| Generously, two of those I would classify as
| "investigating" with only one actually using that word
| but the investigation started in 2023 and I've heard
| nothing of it.
|
| He and his businesses have had several interactions with
| the federal government of varying antagonism but this is
| nothing like Trump firing Comey.
|
| I think that it's pretty apparent that the pdf you linked
| is a pretty partisan document that makes a lot of tenuous
| links between Musk recommending firing the low level
| employees and his interactions with the heads of those
| agencies.
| dfe wrote:
| It is upsetting to me that people have so much trouble
| sifting fact from opinion or narrative.
|
| The fact is that DOGE made cuts to NHTSA. It is also a fact
| that DOGE made cuts to a bunch of agencies, not just ones
| related to something Elon was doing.
|
| There isn't even any evidence that DOGE was more aggressive
| about cutting things related to Elon vs other government
| waste.
|
| Instead, all we have is an opinion by a reporter at an
| organization with a known bias for promoting the increase
| of government. The opinion is that the reason is to cut
| people specifically going after Elon.
|
| And to be clear I gave no opinion on what Elon did or
| didn't do. My problem is I'm tired of living in a world
| where everyone assumes that anyone not in 100% agreement
| with their policies must of course be doing something
| nefarious.
|
| What if instead of repeating everyone know Elon is crazy
| and everyone knows Elon is corrupt and everyone knows this
| and that... what if we actually tried to analyze it
| rationally and sift through the news stories looking at the
| things that are definitely factually true vs. the authors
| opinions we happen to like because we want to imagine some
| people are awful and others are saints.
| trymas wrote:
| > What if instead of repeating everyone know Elon is
| crazy and everyone knows Elon is corrupt and everyone
| knows this and that... what if we actually tried to
| analyze it rationally and sift through the news stories
| looking at the things that are definitely factually true
| vs. the authors opinions we happen to like because we
| want to imagine some people are awful and others are
| saints.
|
| How doge isn't a plain dictionary definition of
| corruption? A private citizen given a power to destroy
| organisations that overlook that citizens businesses?
|
| It used to be that in such cases that private citizen
| then must give up their rights to their businesses (or
| some other way of avoiding conflict of interest).
| phkahler wrote:
| The one they did the most damage to was probably USAID.
| They didnt have anything to do with Elons businesses.
| Meanwhile the FAA was still blocking starship flights.
| rektomatic wrote:
| > A private citizen given a power to destroy
| organisations that overlook that citizens businesses?
|
| Except he had no power to do this? In the end the
| executive branch had to authorize anything coming out of
| DOGE. Like it or not, elected officials (Trump) rubber
| stamped the cuts.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| He didn't pull the trigger himself, so I'm sure it was
| all fine.
| pitched wrote:
| What would a platform that incentivizes rational analysis
| look like? Social media as a whole definitely does not.
| Social media incentivizes immediacy, hot takes, and
| strong opinions. The nature of the medium produces that
| sort of content and getting deeper, more thoughtful
| content requires a different medium. I wonder what that
| might look like.
| tremon wrote:
| https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-
| features/trum...
| c420 wrote:
| It's impossible to prove intent. With the exception of the
| NHTSA, the following agencies were gutted, each whose
| jurisdiction covered his business interests. In the case of
| the NHTSA, about half of the team that oversees autonomous
| vehicle safely was let go [1].
|
| NHTSA, CFPB, DoT (FAA), DoE
|
| [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/21/musk-
| doge...
| nicce wrote:
| Starship ban was immediately lifted once Musk got in power.
| Look the dates.
|
| https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-spacex-doge-
| faa...
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/28/faa-clears-spacex-for-
| starsh...
| 1121redblackgo wrote:
| I think the self-dealing and getting rid of oversight was a
| very welcome bonus, but I think they genuinely thought they
| were the good guys coming to clean up government. Their methods
| were tragically ineffective as every serious person predicted.
|
| We have fiscal issues, clearly, and they thought they were
| doing good work, but it was an absolute failure and many of the
| issues still remain, and were exacerbated by what DOGE did.
|
| That's what C- brains bring to a project.
| Finnucane wrote:
| In other words, their heads were so far up their own asses
| they couldn't distinguish between self-dealing and public
| good.
| lesuorac wrote:
| Well, the guys on the ground might be useful idiots [1]. But
| at the top there's no way they thought they were doing
| anything but dumping stuff into the trash.
|
| Which when the EPA / etc are the only organizations large
| enough to stand up to you is uh very good for you.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
| MengerSponge wrote:
| "You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!"
|
| Kakistocracy edition
| nitwit005 wrote:
| I suspect Musk didn't know what his own goals were. The whole
| thing seemed more about emotion than logic.
|
| I believe you're correct that he viewed the bureaucracy as a
| sort of foe, but that idea is somewhat paradoxical. You need
| employees to do anything. Fire everyone and Trump ends up
| nearly powerless.
|
| He sort of figured out the basics of how the government worked
| as he went along, but a little late at that point:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/mmt_economics/comments/1jdkz81/elon...
| brandonb wrote:
| For those curious about a more thoughtful model of government
| reform--which is still sorely needed--the original US Digital
| Service team just published a bunch of interviews:
| https://usdigitalserviceorigins.org/interviews/
| nxobject wrote:
| I hope a similar oral history will be done for 18F - it ran
| very, very lean.
| codyb wrote:
| The US Digital Service has done a ton of great work in a
| thoughtful manner. Thanks Obama!
| Covzire wrote:
| What's certainly not going away is that Government waste and
| bloat is a home-run bipartisan issue where the size of the
| government has vastly and consistently outgrown the private
| sector in both times of feast and famine.
|
| Everyone left and right instinctively knows this is, that it's a
| problem that they're both taxed directly for and (I hope) many
| people know they're also indirectly paying for it through
| inflation caused by government borrowing beyond their actual tax
| income.
|
| DOGE may not be the right answer, but it's the first actual
| reduction in spending in my lifetime.
| nxobject wrote:
| > they're also indirectly paying for it through inflation
| caused by government borrowing beyond their actual tax income.
|
| Don't worry - unless we stop giving out tax cuts as well, we'll
| still be running deficits until Social Security and Medicare
| become insolvent. For the average taxpayer, it's about fiscal
| sustainability - "smaller government" may as well be a feel-
| good abstraction compared to that.
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| People are having a tough period where they think their
| government doesn't care about them, to see so much wastage
| ignites the hard feelings that the "elite" has prioritised
| others than their own people.
|
| I believe that is the reason why DOGE was supported by Trump,
| but I do think something like DOGE is needed but perhaps for
| better and less egotistical reasons.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| And there was.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Wait, has there actually been a reduction in federal spending
| in total? Or just in specific agencies?
| kube-system wrote:
| No, federal spending is up by $376 billion.
|
| https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-
| guide/feder...
| lend000 wrote:
| It was the only thing to be optimistic about in this
| administration, but it sure didn't last long. We should all
| know that this was the last attempt that had a chance of
| addressing the national debt -- the only other way out is
| extreme inflation.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Musk was absolutely the wrong guy for the job. He doesn't
| have the patience to spend 4 years carefully poring over
| government expenses, nor the security clearance (AFAIK) to
| address pentagon spending. Plus, I don't think he's humble
| enough to bring in people who actually know what to look for.
| matteotom wrote:
| What metric are you looking at when you say "the size of
| government has vastly and consistently outgrown the private
| sector" - AFAICT, excluding 2020 and 2021 (which I think is
| reasonable), the federal budget has been between 17% and 25% of
| GDP for the past 50 years (where the fluctuations are more a
| function of variable GDP).
|
| The number of federal government employees has also remained
| mostly flat for the past 50 years (and IIRC most growth in
| overall public sector employment comes from schools).
| mondrian wrote:
| Comparing it to GDP doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe to
| government revenue.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| No, the claim was that it has outgrown _the private
| sector_. GDP is in fact a good proxy for that claim.
|
| Outgrowing government revenue is a different claim.
| jhedwards wrote:
| I don't know if this was in your lifetime, but Bill Clinton
| reduced government spending through the National Performance
| Review. Not only did he do it, but he did it in a planned and
| strategic way, that included an initial phase of research,
| followed by education and recommendations, which were send to
| congress for approval.
|
| You'll notice that this approach is consistent with basic
| project planning and execution principles, and follows the
| principles of government set out by our constitution. In
| contrast, DOGE sidestepped the legal and administrative
| principles of the government, which led to cuts followed by
| retractions, which are ultimately more costly and wasteful.
|
| Reference:
| https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/papers/bkgrd/bri...
| Covzire wrote:
| That's true, although that also took an act of congress so it
| was very much a bi-partisan effort, something we're sorely
| lacking today.
| terribleperson wrote:
| The Republican party is literally in control of Congress
| and the presidency. Copying Clinton is something they could
| do. The fact that they don't appear to have made a serious
| effort to increase revenues and reduce spending in a sane
| and organized way raises questions.
| phkahler wrote:
| The Republicans have this idea that cutting taxes and
| increasing spending will reduce the ratio of debt/gdp by
| increasing the denominator. It does increase GDP but I
| think it increases the debt faster, so it can't work.
| Happy to be proven wrong.
| jeffbee wrote:
| They do not actually believe that. What they believe is
| that cutting taxes will give them the short-term means to
| acquire assets that will become much more valuable after
| the nation has been destroyed, to which the escalating
| debt contributes. The crisis is a feature for them.
| delusional wrote:
| > raises questions.
|
| It doesn't "raises questions" it "answers questions".
| Anybody who believes the republicans in America are "the
| party of fiscal responsibility" is a joke.
| pstuart wrote:
| > The Republican party is literally in control of
| Congress and the presidency
|
| And SCOTUS. They have seized power of all three branches
| and "checks and balances" are but a memory.
| zugi wrote:
| The Senate still requires 60 votes to close debate and
| pass legislation, with rare weird exceptions like
| reconciliation. The 1990s had more bipartisanship, so
| Clinton skillfully got enough Republicans to support some
| of his moves.
|
| Whereas these days any Democrat supporting any Republican
| action is likely to get primaried at the next election,
| and vice versa.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| > Whereas these days any Democrat supporting any
| Republican action is likely to get primaried at the next
| election, and vice versa.
|
| Biden passed the bipartisan infrastructure act as well as
| USICA subsidies. The first step act was bipartisan. The
| deficit reduction in Obama's time was bipartisan. The
| american rescue plan wasn't bipartisan, but republicans
| claim credit for its effects. You don't really have much
| evidence here.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| And whose fault is that? Hint: one party has specifically
| focused on eliminating ANYTHING resembling bi-
| partisanship..
| guywithahat wrote:
| The most incredible piece of logical gymnastics I remember from
| civics/history class in high school was that during economic
| downturns, we need government to spend more to help people, and
| during economic growth we of course also need more government
| to manage all the new growth. At no point do we cut the
| spending we've added, because it would always hurt those who
| have jobs.
|
| People like to criticize DOGE for going after smaller amounts
| (like hundreds of millions instead of tens of billions) but
| those are still hundreds of millions that could be put
| elsewhere, or even returned to the taxpayer or put towards
| federal debt. The biggest concern with DOGE is that much of the
| spending is just going to come right back during the next
| election cycle
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Another incredible thing you maybe didn't study in civics
| class is that the US had an "exorbitant privilege" it's now
| pissing away. The ability to borrow at extremely low rates
| from the rest of the world, because the US was so productive.
| We will miss it when it's gone.
| kube-system wrote:
| > The biggest concern with DOGE is that much of the spending
| is just going to come right back during the next election
| cycle
|
| In many cases, because they're slashing things that we are
| realizing that we _do_ need, and we 're going to pay even
| more to reconstruct the things they've destroyed.
|
| The only way to effectively reducing spending and waste is by
| doing things slowly and carefully, evaluating the impact of
| the changes you are going to make carefully. This happened
| successfully in the 90s, but DOGE is not doing things that
| way.
| guywithahat wrote:
| The OMB has been trying to slowly and thoughtfully cut
| spending since the 70's, and they've struggled to see
| success. I think in terms of cutting spending, the slower
| it happens the less likely anything productive will come
| from it. It's why companies tend to cut whole departments
| at once, and the government desperately needs a way to cut
| funding from things that aren't working to reallocate it
| where the money is needed.
|
| From what I've seen the DOGE cuts have been incredibly
| efficient in isolating poorly spent (or corrupt) money.
| Lots of corrupt foreign programs or government donations
| into partisan political groups. Most of the time when
| someone says they shouldn't have cut money, they're talking
| about an NGO or some research that benefits their
| particular partisanship at the cost of fairness or
| scientific rigor; which is exactly what we shouldn't be
| funding.
| kube-system wrote:
| The Clinton admin _was successful_ in the 90s. They cut
| costs enough to pull the US entirely out of the deficit.
| They did things slowly and methodically over 5 years,
| making sure the things they cut were unnecessary before
| cutting them. They also followed the law, avoiding the
| legal issues and consequential costs that DOGE is
| incurring.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Clin
| ton...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Re
| inv...
|
| Federal spending is _up_ during this administration, the
| deficit is at modern-day averages, and the bills recently
| passed by this administration are going to increase it
| even further. The slash-and-burn style of cuts that DOGE
| is sloppy and ineffective. They are Chesterton 's fencing
| themselves -- cutting things that they later find to be
| important. And on the other hand, not spending the time
| to actually seek out waste that is hard to find. A tech
| company works very differently than the government does,
| and they are slowly starting to discover that the hard
| way.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| > They are Chesterton's fencing themselves
|
| Which is incredibly ironic for people who claim to be
| "conservative."
| mattkrause wrote:
| That's not a fair---or accurate---summary of Keynes.
|
| The claim is that the government should act as a stabilizer:
| spending to drive aggregate demand during downswings
| (especially ones caused by external shocks) and regulating
| during up-swings.
|
| In other words, "more" refers to different things and in
| different proportions in different phases of the business
| cycle; it's emphatically not a "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose"
| sort of thing.
| SantalBlush wrote:
| You didn't learn that in civics/history class; you made it
| up.
| shepardrtc wrote:
| > DOGE may not be the right answer, but it's the first actual
| reduction in spending in my lifetime
|
| On what timeline? The week of the first round of RIFs? The
| first month?
|
| I assure you, as someone who works with in the space where DOGE
| has played, it will NOT be a reduction in costs in the long
| run. In fact, costs will go up because of the indiscriminate
| nature of "cost reduction". When the only people with knowledge
| of a system are removed, the remaining people cannot run it -
| no matter what AI they are given. At that point, you have to
| either hire back the people you fired, with a serious delay of
| important work, or you stumble for years until it can be
| figured out at the cost of delays, protests, lawsuits,
| whatever.
|
| Considering firing everyone a reduction in costs is a shallow,
| short-term view.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| > Everyone left and right instinctively knows this
|
| That's the first sign that a large group of people are going to
| something thoughtless and destructive.
|
| Looking around at actual data from both gov and think tank
| sources, this quote from Pew is a good summary: "While the
| number of federal workers has grown over time, their share of
| the civilian workforce has generally held steady in recent
| years."
|
| But that's not the whole story. The postal service is
| shrinking, the vast majority of those federal employees work
| for the VA, the amount of funding being directed by the federal
| employees has grown (because of budget growth), federal
| regulations touch more private sector activity than in the
| past, and state and local governments employ significantly more
| people than they used to.
|
| DOGE's focus on headcount was wrongheaded because the number of
| federal employees is not the problem. The problem is Congress
| (budgets and laws) and states.
|
| Conventional wisdom is that federal payroll growth is massive,
| and that is just wrong.
| jonstewart wrote:
| I do not instinctively know this, no. I encourage you to take
| an evidence-based approach. The deficit has largely grown over
| the past 25 years because of foreign wars, tax cuts, and
| pandemic response.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| And how much of the work that they did will be out-sourced to
| private contractors at 5x and cost+ rates, lining the pockets
| of right-wing donor's corporate coffers?
| runako wrote:
| > the size of the government has vastly and consistently
| outgrown the private sector in both times of feast and famine
|
| The US government at the start of this administration was
| roughly the same as it was in 1970[1]. This, despite the
| addition of new departments (1970 is pre-EPA, for example),
| many new responsibilities, etc. And obviously the government
| has to perform all these services for 140 million more people
| than in 1970, a 70% increase.
|
| Doing more with the same resources is a textbook definition of
| increasing efficiency.
|
| 1 - Seriously, you won't see the growth you describe in the
| data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001
| rendx wrote:
| I often find myself guilty of not reading the article but only
| the comments here myself, so in case this is you: Go take the
| time and read it, even if it's painful.
|
| I read a lot of heavy stuff, but this collection of quotes makes
| me sick to my stomach.
|
| And even more so: how this inhumane, perverted treatment of
| fellow human beings, regardless of whether you fantasize/reason
| that DOGE does net good for the planet, finds no mention yet in
| the comments here, at all. To add to that, these are people who
| have spent much of their life in public service, for the benefit
| of society.
|
| To be honest, I don't even know what is worse; the quotes, or
| that.
| 47282847 wrote:
| Even if you don't give a f*ck about decency, it is simply
| irrational to do it like that if it were about cost cutting.
| The only goal of this can be to create trauma and more
| violence, like one person in the article rightfully quotes.
| This is to provoke people into violence, plain and simple.
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| That was the explicitly stated goal of the creators of
| Project 2025. "We want to put them in trauma."
| rjbwork wrote:
| Yes. They've said it even more blatantly.
|
| "And so I come full circle on this response and just want
| to encourage you with some substance that we are in the
| process of the second American Revolution, which will
| remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."
|
| These people do not believe in America as it exists or the
| promise of what it could be. They hate us and they want to
| destroy what we have to create something fundamentally
| different.
| dwoldrich wrote:
| I don't know who this person is, but I looked up the
| quote. The quote you've cherry-picked is complaining that
| the left has been especially violent this political
| season. He says the right is winning and will continue to
| win bloodlessly if the left cuts out the political
| violence. Here's where I found it: https://en.wikiquote.o
| rg/wiki/Kevin_Roberts_(political_strat...
|
| Political violence against disagreeable people is
| disturbing and I wish you would condemn it.
| darkwater wrote:
| > Political violence against disagreeable people is
| disturbing and I wish you would condemn it.
|
| If the end game of those disagreeable people is to
| literally ruin one's life, violence as an answer is
| understandable.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Name any act of violence that has been committed by a
| "left" person this "political season," whatever time
| frame that encompasses.
| dwoldrich wrote:
| Are you in the states? ICE protests that get violent.
| Burning Tesla dealerships. Assassinations. The list is
| long and growing.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Just write one down. Any particular place and date.
| Matticus_Rex wrote:
| Huh?
|
| I think it's hard to make a case that the left is
| meaningfully more violent, even weighing in stuff like
| riots/arson/looting (and it's not actually fair to pin
| all that on the left, when we know so much is
| opportunistic and only loosely ideology-driven).
|
| But you can't name an act of violence committed by
| someone on the left recently? Not one?
| dwoldrich wrote:
| Actually, I was wrong. The left has been cool cool since
| forever.
| rjbwork wrote:
| >I don't know who this person is
|
| Pretty much the most important person behind what is
| going on in this country right now from an ideological
| and policy prescription perspective as it relates to the
| executive.
| pstuart wrote:
| The cruelty is the point.
| BearOso wrote:
| > "The vibe they gave was 'So, what is it that you do here?'
| and 'Why can't AI do that?'" --TTS worker
|
| From what I've read, this particular group of children naively
| thinks "AI" can and should do everything. As in, they think
| it's literally magic and have no clue how it or computing
| works. I remember reading about how one was asking on twitter
| how to use AI to convert word processor documents between
| formats, when that's a simple classic computing task. I'm
| afraid the next generation is going to think the only tool they
| need is a sledgehammer.
| codedokode wrote:
| > when that's a simple classic computing task.
|
| In fact it is not simple (e.g. convert PDF to MS Word or MS
| Word to Libreoffice without losses).
| bsder wrote:
| > I often find myself guilty of not reading the article but
| only the comments here myself, so in case this is you: Go take
| the time and read it, even if it's painful.
|
| The problem isn't that we need another document showing how
| terrible these people are.
|
| The problem is that we don't have people proposing effective,
| concrete steps to stop them.
| rendx wrote:
| Judging from many of the comments here and in other threads,
| it seems like no document is actually making people _see_ how
| terrible these people are. Not even here of all places, where
| one could assume a decent capacity for rational thought. They
| either don 't want to see the violence, or cannot see it, or
| condone or even support it. Which doesn't make rational
| sense, since it only leads to more violence, which I doubt
| can seriously be the end goal, to escalate us into
| extinction.
|
| You don't even need to bring morals into it or care about
| anyone else than your own peers. It just doesn't make any
| sense other than self-harm and a comprehensible yet pointless
| expression of own pain.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Vote in enough Democrats in the midterms to take control of
| Congress. Most of what the president has been doing is only
| possible because Congress hasn't stepped up.
| keanb wrote:
| Maybe make the other side less horrible so people vote for
| them?
| debo_ wrote:
| Lyn Alden had a good, terse analysis of why DOGE was unlikely to
| be effective in this newsletter[0]. The math was simple, the
| folks behind DOGE must have themselves known that their stated
| mission was impossible.
|
| It starts with these paragraphs, if you want to seek to it:
|
| "This is the goal of the newly proposed Department of Government
| Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. This is
| an advisory commission rather than an official government
| department. Musk has famously vowed to cut "at least $2 trillion"
| in federal spending--roughly 30% of last year's federal budget.
|
| Although this sounds good on paper, achieving such a target will
| be quite challenging, given the composition of government
| spending. Last year, the government spent $6.75 trillion, with
| $4.1 trillion (61%) classified as mandatory spending."
|
| [0] https://www.lynalden.com/full-steam-ahead-all-aboard-
| fiscal-...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Classifying some spending as "mandatory" is a ruse to make
| people ignore the potential for any savings there.
|
| The largest component of "mandatory" spending is health
| spending (e.g. Medicare), and it certainly isn't the case that
| Medicare is fully optimized. For example, is it overpaying for
| anything? Paying for things that are ineffective or
| unnecessary? Would it be better to means test certain benefits
| so that the government isn't making big social assistance
| payouts to recipients with a net worth over a million dollars?
| Is there any Medicare fraud?
|
| The next largest and almost as big is social security, so what
| happens if we means test that program, or even just get rid of
| the _reverse_ means testing in the existing program which makes
| larger payouts to people who made more money?
|
| These things would all reduce "mandatory" spending, potentially
| by a significant amount, and there is nothing preventing that
| from happening except for the false insistence that it can't be
| done.
| rincebrain wrote:
| The problem with means-testing benefits is that it often will
| cost more to means-test than to just accept nonzero fraud
| rates past a very minimal point, and there is a significant
| amount of friction introduced when you add more friction to
| people who do not have time or energy to spare.
|
| e.g. if I ask you to submit receipts for literally everything
| that you bought in the last week, in order to give you a $20
| stipend weekly, you will probably not bother, even if you
| could use the $20, and it will probably cost more than $20 to
| pay me for the time processing that.
|
| I'm not saying there's no waste, but I am saying that the
| optimal amount of waste to reward is nonzero.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| They do say that the US is a country where people will
| happily spend $10 to ensure no one gets $1 they weren't
| entitled to..
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Right, which is why broadly-available old-age insurance
| programs like Medicare and Social Security work. Everyone
| pays in their own money, to which they are entitled. So
| there's not really any reason to spend that extra $10.
|
| It's also why "Medicare For All" runs into opposition.
| It's hard to make the case that a healthy 22-year-old is
| entitled to a lifetime of free health care before paying
| a dime into the system.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| That's just status quo bias. Countries with fully
| socialized healthcare systems make the same "everyone
| pays taxes and then everyone gets it" argument for
| including the healthy 22-year-olds and you can make the
| same "this person doesn't deserve public money" argument
| for not providing government benefits to people who have
| their own wealth.
|
| Moreover, it doesn't have anything to do with whether you
| could modify those programs to cost less money if your
| primary goal was to lower spending.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I am describing factors that have produced the status quo
| in the U.S., not arguing that the American status quo is
| correct.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| It's very easy to make that case: healthcare should be a
| human right, and our society should provide it to every
| person to the extent that it can.
|
| We can just decide to make things public services. No one
| ever says "wait a minute, kids shouldn't be get to use
| roads for free before paying a dime into the system." It
| sounds ridiculous! But for some reason, people buy that
| logic when it comes to healthcare and college.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > healthcare should be a human right
|
| If you are by yourself, who is obligated to fulfill that
| right?
| nenenejej wrote:
| We are not by ourselves though. Sure compared to 1000AD
| we might be being a little... precious. But hopefully we
| can enjoy the fact we invented all this technology to
| make our lives better and dream for bigger rights than is
| possible in a dog eat dog barbaric world.
| Avicebron wrote:
| You seem new, don't mind Walter, he rode the "right place
| right time" train through the period of time in the US
| when selling out future generations was easy money. I
| don't think he really understands or has the capacity to
| understand. So it's usually not worth engaging.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > It's hard to make the case that a healthy 22-year-old
| is entitled to a lifetime of free health
|
| The economic future potential of a healthy 22-year-old is
| way higher than an aged 68-year-old. I don't think it's
| very hard at all to make the case we should be spending
| money on keeping the 22-year-old healthy, in fact I think
| it's very easy to tilt so far into claiming it's so that
| you'd be justifiably accused of cruelty ("what if
| everyone over 70 were tossed into the Soylent Green
| vats," etc.)
| tverbeure wrote:
| > It's hard to make the case that a healthy 22-year-old
| is entitled to a lifetime of free health care before
| paying a dime into the system.
|
| What is so hard about it?
| snowwrestler wrote:
| It's objectively hard, as demonstrated by the fact that
| Medicare For All is not the law.
|
| I'm describing why it has not been enacted in America,
| not making an argument about how I think things should
| be.
| izzylan wrote:
| So then lets say a healthy 22-year-old graduates from
| college at the top of their class. Life's looking up for
| them. They've already got a job lined up that starts in
| two weeks and they're excited and energetic about
| entering the workforce and living on their own as adult.
|
| Then suddenly, some random guy in a mustang doing 150 in
| a 30 jumps the curb and runs over our optimistic 22-year-
| old, and continues speeding into the distance. A random
| onlooker witnesses the event and calls an ambulance, who
| rushes them to the hospital. Thanks to the hard work ICU
| doctors and surgeons spanning days, our 22-year-old
| miraculously lives, but is in bad shape. They're never
| gonna walk again, and they're gonna need weeks of
| physical therapy just to retrain the fine motor skills
| required to write and type.
|
| All of this, for a variety of factors is gonna cost
| hundreds of thousands of dollars. On top of the massive
| hospital bill they're about to be saddled with.
|
| I take it that our now not-so-healthy 22-year-old should
| just go fuck themselves then? They've never paid a dime
| into the system so why should they be entitled to health
| care?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| It's quite true that means testing has an efficiency cost.
| One of the best ways to improve the _efficiency_ of social
| security would be to convert it into a UBI.
|
| But that's a _very_ different question than whether it
| would lower the budget, and we 're talking about programs
| that are paying out a lot more than $20. If doing means
| testing means you can stop paying $1000+/month to someone
| who is already a millionaire, that's still a savings even
| if it adds $20 in overhead. Meanwhile _we 're already
| paying the cost of doing the means testing_, because we do
| it in reverse, and _removing_ that would increase
| efficiency _and_ lower spending.
|
| Moreover, other taxes require keeping track of that stuff
| regardless. You already have to track the value of your
| assets for the purposes of capital gains tax and property
| tax. Doing that calculation to begin with isn't free, but
| the incremental cost of copying that line from the other
| tax forms onto the Medicare form would cost _far_ less than
| it does to pay benefits to people who don 't need the
| money. And it also has an efficiency benefit whenever it
| isn't a cash payment, since insurance is a moral hazard --
| if the government is paying for something then you take it
| even if you value it at a third of what it costs, whereas
| if you're paying your own money you don't buy things that
| cost more than they're worth, so having less insurance
| coverage for people who could afford to pay out of pocket
| increases efficiency.
| saynay wrote:
| > means you can stop paying $1000+/month to someone who
| is already a millionaire, that's still a savings even if
| it adds $20 in overhead.
|
| Only if these hypothetical millionaires you are stopping
| make up more than 1/50 of the people you are means-
| testing. You are not only paying for those who fail the
| means-test, but for all those who are passing it.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Only if these hypothetical millionaires you are
| stopping make up more than 1/50 of the people you are
| means-testing.
|
| Then why don't we use the non-hypothetical numbers? More
| than 10% of retirees are millionaires and the $1000+ in
| payments is actually $2000+ on average and even more for
| the people who made enough money to be millionaires.
| ares623 wrote:
| How much will the optimization and means testing cost? Will
| it end up starting an entire division of workers to review
| and verify? There is no free lunch. This is like optimizing
| by shaving single digit milliseconds in uploading artifacts
| for your build time, but 10 minutes is spent somewhere else.
| debo_ wrote:
| Right, but DOGE was told by the current government that they
| weren't allowed to touch Medicare. This is covered in the
| article I linked.
| runako wrote:
| One reason those programs are not means tested is because it
| means that everyone can depend on them. Once they are means-
| tested to only apply to poor/middle class people, they will
| begin to be aggressively cut like the other means-tested
| programs.
|
| Also worth noting net worth "over a million dollars" is not
| extravagant for a Medicare-age person who did not have a
| pension, for example. This is basically a median home and
| $600k in savings. Not poor, but also not likely to be able to
| pay anything close to rack rate for health insurance for an
| older person.
| acdha wrote:
| I'd also add that there's a powerful benefit to having
| something like Medicare as a right of citizenship: it
| builds social cohesion and avoids the stigma which is often
| attached to social programs. Some landlords go to great
| lengths to avoid section 8 tenants, for example, and that
| has a substantial negative cost to society.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The Medicare budget is approximately $1400/month for each
| person over 65. A completely plausible means testing
| approach isn't "if you have a million dollars you have to
| go pay a billion dollars for healthcare" but rather that if
| you have that much money you have to pay the $1400 to get
| Medicare. Someone with $600,000 and earning 5% APY would be
| getting more than that in _interest_ , not including
| appreciation or imputed rent on the $400,000 house, and
| would stop having to pay the full rate if their net worth
| fell below the threshold anyway.
| runako wrote:
| > you have to pay the $1400 to get Medicare
|
| This is a political non-starter as it opens the
| possibility that younger people could also just buy into
| Medicare instead of paying more for private insurance,
| something which has been declared strictly off-limits.
| (Although it would help offset costs to have a lower-risk
| pool of insureds come into the program, in addition to
| the other societal benefits.)
|
| > earning 5% APY would be getting more than that in
| interest
|
| Remember that we are largely talking about retirees. That
| $1400 + their Social Security is how they pay living
| expenses. If they have to pay it for healthcare, they
| have to find another way to pay living expenses.
|
| > imputed rent on the $400,000 house
|
| They live in the house, which lowers their monthly
| expenses to a level where they can pay them using Social
| Security and the interest from their savings.
|
| Larger point here is that the suggestion to means test
| for seniors represents a clawback, a violation of
| promises made decades ago, around which people planned
| their elderly (perhaps non-working) years. And we're
| talking about doing so before we ask the rich to pay (as
| Warren Buffet says) the same tax rates as their
| secretaries, and before we trim the military budget back
| to the levels requested by the military.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > This is a political non-starter as it opens the
| possibility that younger people could also just buy into
| Medicare instead of paying more for private insurance,
| something which has been declared strictly off-limits.
|
| Whether something would have a particular policy outcome
| and whether you have the votes to pass it are two
| different things. Moreover, you could obviously require
| wealthy retirees to pay for Medicare without allowing
| younger people to do it. Stranger things have happened.
|
| > Remember that we are largely talking about retirees.
| That $1400 + their Social Security is how they pay living
| expenses. If they have to pay it for healthcare, they
| have to find another way to pay living expenses.
|
| They do have another way to pay living expenses. They
| have $600,000+ plus a house, and as soon a they only had
| $599,999 plus a house they would no longer have to pay
| the full rate for Medicare.
|
| > Larger point here is that the suggestion to means test
| for seniors represents a clawback, a violation of
| promises made decades ago, around which people planned
| their elderly (perhaps non-working) years.
|
| You can just as easily make the contrary argument. These
| programs were never funded -- social security started out
| making payments to people who never paid in and there
| isn't anywhere near enough in the "trust fund" to make
| existing payouts. The people paying the taxes to make up
| the shortfall were too young to be eligible to vote or
| not even born when those promises were made, so by what
| right does an older generation have to bind them to a
| promise it made to itself and then never actually funded?
|
| > And we're talking about doing so before we ask the rich
| to pay (as Warren Buffet says) the same tax rates as
| their secretaries, and before we trim the military budget
| back to the levels requested by the military.
|
| How about we do this _and_ trim the military budget back
| to the levels requested by the military so that we can
| lower the taxes on the secretary to the same rates paid
| by Warren Buffet?
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| This is quite the comment.
|
| 1) You start off saying the mandatory spending is a ruse.
|
| 2) You provide no evidence for it.
|
| 3) You ask some pretty basic (still good) questions that each
| department already undergoes.
|
| 4) You conclude the spending must not be mandatory after all,
| just by the mere existence of your questions. Almost assuming
| the worst case answer to each question you raised.
|
| Do you understand this is Seagull budget planning? I am no
| government defender, but I am consistently flabbergasted by
| people who think government fraud detection started and ended
| with DOGE. Do you guys seriously write "Are we paying for
| unnecessary things" as though it's an insightful question
| nobody in government has looked into before? Even after we
| have confirmed DOGE did fuck all and likely made this whole
| process even worse?
| daveguy wrote:
| > The largest component of "mandatory" spending is health
| spending (e.g. Medicare), and it certainly isn't the case
| that Medicare is fully optimized. For example, is it
| overpaying for anything?
|
| Yeah, it's over paying for private equity vultures who
| overcharge to extra maximum profit from healthcare. But
| that's reform that sorely needs to happen _by the government_
| reigning in those private companies not _to the government_.
| By trying to "drown [the government] in the bathtub" like
| Norquist advocated, project 2025 asshats are damaging our
| country.
|
| Some things are mandatory only if you love your neighbor.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > But that's reform that sorely needs to happen _by the
| government_ reigning in those private companies not _to the
| government_.
|
| So the government passes regulations that cause private
| equity asshats to jack up prices, e.g. by making it
| infeasible to start new companies to compete with them, and
| then the government overpays to buy things from them, but
| this is somehow _not_ the government 's doing?
|
| Bad regulations passed at the behest of private asshats are
| still bad regulations and the solution is still to repeal
| them.
|
| > Some things are mandatory only if you love your neighbor.
|
| And some things aren't mandatory at all, like having the
| government overpay for stuff which is nevertheless
| classified as "mandatory" spending.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Changing the deal of social security after people spent a
| lifetime paying into it seems like a non-starter.
|
| That's on top of the fact that it would require Congress to
| change the law to make that happen, no department of
| government efficiency can do it.
| pstuart wrote:
| Striving for efficiency is laudable, but that wasn't the goal.
| It was to dismantle institutions that the Oligarchs and their
| minions wanted to destroy.
| estearum wrote:
| > the folks behind DOGE must have themselves known that their
| stated mission was impossible.
|
| this assumes these people aren't actual complete dumbasses in
| this domain
|
| (they are)
| charcircuit wrote:
| >She was literally wailing, inconsolable, because she could not
| get into a childcare facility she could afford on such short
| notice. She literally had to choose between her little child and
| working.
|
| People need to understand that the world doesn't revolve around
| themselves. Your employer doesn't have to bend to your every will
| and need. She also had the opportunity to get 8 months of
| severance if she was that short on money.
| zugi wrote:
| This is the quote that bugged me the most too, as it's an
| obvious attempt at pure emotional manipulation. Working from
| home as a federal employee was always a limited time privilege,
| not some sort of fundamental right.
|
| And it sounds like she actually did find a place to drop off
| her child: "Her explaining to her manager the way her child
| cried and begged Mommy to stay home broke me." Yeah, most
| employed adults have to leave their children somewhere when
| they go to work.
| hkhanna wrote:
| a16z and certain Sequoia partners specifically supported this
| during the 2024 election.
|
| If haphazard, cruel dismantling of state capacity bothers you,
| avoid raising money from venture capital firms that supported it.
| delusional wrote:
| > If haphazard, cruel dismantling of state capacity bothers
| you, avoid raising money from venture capital firms that
| supported it.
|
| And maybe (just maybe) raise your voice in _actionable_ support
| for dismantling the complexes these money ghouls use to wage
| war against you and regular society.
| codyb wrote:
| Peaceful protests, calling your reps, voting, and donating to
| organizations that have lawyers in the courts and lobbyists
| on Washington repping your interests are all super helpful
| relatively low effort steps that have impact when done en
| masse.
| Mc_Big_G wrote:
| Respectfully, I've not seen any of these actions make a
| measurable difference in the last 10 years.
| otikik wrote:
| I have seen _not_ making these actions _not_ make a
| measurable difference.
| pstuart wrote:
| That is an issue, but it's important to signal to those
| paying attention that the resistance is there and to not
| give up.
|
| We've entered Civil War II and I fear it will have to get
| much worse before there's any chance of turning things
| around. Regardless we can _never_ give up.
| epsilonic wrote:
| What signals make you so certain that we are in another
| civil war? Just curious.
| 20after4 wrote:
| The national guard rolling into multiple major US cities
| is serious warning sign.
| pstuart wrote:
| It's practice. Our next October surprise very well may be
| a false flag attack that will be the pretext for martial
| law.
|
| 10 years ago that would sound crazy but today it's very
| real. I wish very much to be wrong in my prediction.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| The army and national guard had started preparing during
| the Obama years.
|
| [1]:https://youtu.be/JEjU-X57Wrc?t=5815
|
| It seems sometimes that they have mapped out how things
| are going to play out years in advance and are ready.
| After all what is the American government but just a
| group of fellow countrymen with all the data and
| resources?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The military preemptively deployed to multiple US cities
| isn't a great sign.
|
| Generally speaking, we don't deploy our military in
| peacetime. So unless there's a natural disaster in
| Chicago or D.C. right now, there aren't but so many
| conclusions to draw...
| jfengel wrote:
| The invasion of the Capitol, to overturn an election that
| they claim was fraudulent, followed by the pardoning of
| the invaders, is kind of a doozy. It suggests that one
| side or the other (or possibly both) is rejecting
| democracy and willing to use violence when they don't get
| the result they want. Not just the individuals involved,
| but the tens of millions who supported pardoning them.
|
| Or alternatively, they were in fact correct, and tens of
| millions on the other side subverted democracy, at least
| temporarily (and would surely do so again if not
| prevented).
|
| Either way, it sounds like you've millions of people each
| convinced that millions of others are about to start a
| civil war. Which sounds like it makes that war
| practically unavoidable.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I 've not seen any of these actions make a measurable
| difference in the last 10 years_
|
| I've literally gotten language I drafted written into
| state and, twice now, federal law.
|
| If you pick a hot-button issue, no, you probably won't
| move your elected. But on issues they didn't even
| consider to be on their plate? You can get attention.
| (Better yet if you can convince them you have other
| motivated voters beside you.)
| miltonlost wrote:
| Also helps when you're a private equity investor and can
| bribe I mean contribute to politicians so they listen to
| you
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _helps when you're a private equity investor_
|
| It does. But every single case where I got to draft
| legislation occurred before I made money and before I'd
| given anyone any money. (I never gave either of the
| federal electeds I worked with money.)
|
| I called about a bill that wasn't getting attention. The
| elected thought it was interesting, but their staff were
| overworked. (They're always overworked.) I suggested some
| edits; they appreciated the free work. In a minority of
| cases, they introduced those into the working copy of the
| bill, and in a minority of _those_ cases the bill
| actually passed.
|
| Civic engagement is a power transfer from the lazy and
| nihilistic to the engaged. In terms of broadly-accessible
| power, I'd argue it's one of the fairest.
| burkaman wrote:
| You don't think any election in the last 10 years has
| made a measurable difference? Elections are the result of
| voting en masse.
| adastra22 wrote:
| In the gerrymandered district in which I live, no.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| You're seriously claiming you had _zero_ competitive
| elections of consequence where you live? No local
| elections? Referenda? Competitive primaries?
| adastra22 wrote:
| Some school district and property tax measures. That's
| why I vote (and just for the general principle of it).
| Even my state and local reps are gerrymandered into
| lifelong stability.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Even my state and local reps are gerrymandered into
| lifelong stability_
|
| Your leverage is in surfacing primary challengers. Even
| if they win, it's a drag on time, energy and capital.
|
| Elected will pay attention to groups that can petition
| for and support a primary challenge. Even if they're
| gerrymandered.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| People keep saying this. But the fact is it doesn't matter.
|
| Between gerrymandering, the electoral college, two senators
| per state, and lobbying, votes don't matter unless you are
| in a purple state or a purple district. Most people aren't.
|
| And then we have the Supreme Court giving the President
| unlimited power.
| estearum wrote:
| and yet the center of political power oscillates - with
| real consequences - every two and four years...
| coincidentally around the time we have elections!
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| And those same purple states have decided where it
| oscillates - like I said.
|
| Whether you are a Republican or Democrat in California it
| doesn't matter who you as individual votes for for
| President. If you are in Los Angeles county, it also
| doesn't matter who you vote for in the general election
| as your representative.
|
| The primaries matter though. California sends the same
| number of Senators to DC as West Virginia and half as
| many as North and South Dakota combined even though they
| don't have nearly the population.
|
| How long and what strike of luck will it be based on
| timing that you think this country will see a liberal
| Supreme Court? Especially since justices nominated by
| Democrats refuse to leave when a Democratic President is
| in office? But then again, we are in this mess we are in
| ruddy because the Democrats were too cowardly to pressure
| Biden not to run sooner.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Between gerrymandering, the electoral college, two
| senators per state, and lobbying, votes don't matter
| unless you are in a purple state or a purple district_
|
| I've knocked on doors for judicial elections in Manhattan
| where a single tenants' association's turnout out swung
| every election on the ballot. (In another case, the judge
| who went to Koreatown with us after a meet and greet
| swung our eight top to turn out, which was more than the
| margin for an off-cycle mid-week judicial primary.)
|
| There are _always_ elections on the ballot that matter.
| And civic engagement isn't limited to voting.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Should be obvious. If you want a smaller government, you'll
| need to privatize the tasks / services which government
| agencies used to provide. Venture capital / private equity /
| etc. owned companies will stand in line to get those contracts.
|
| And with deregulations, "move fast and break things" startups
| can move even faster.
|
| What puzzles me about the SV venture capital crowd, though, is
| that they're usually a somewhat socially liberal crowd. They
| enjoy social freedoms which the current gov. would rather see
| go away...so, talk about selling their soul to the devil.
| nerdponx wrote:
| It often comes down to freedom for _me_ , not freedom for
| _everyone_.
| 11101010001100 wrote:
| also known as power.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| _> What puzzles me about the SV venture capital crowd,
| though, is that they 're usually a somewhat socially liberal
| crowd._
|
| SV _workers_ , sure. But "socially liberal" is absolutely not
| my impression of SV venture capitalists.
| epistasis wrote:
| There are quite a few socially liberal VCs, perhaps even
| most. But there are also more libertarians, which is quite
| common among those who make fortunes managing money rather
| than building things.
| rektomatic wrote:
| >you'll need to privatize the tasks / services which
| government agencies used to provide
|
| Most of what DOGE cut was stuff no one wanted or needed in
| the first place. Just scroll their twitter feed, cutting this
| stuff shouldn't be termed as "smaller government".
| 20after4 wrote:
| If you take their claims at face value then you might
| believe that, however, if you look into it even just a
| little you find that they drastically misrepresented what
| was cut.
| epistasis wrote:
| Privatization of those functions results in the government
| paying consultants more than they would pay staff, with less
| institutional knowledge, and far less efficiency than if the
| functions were directly in the government.
|
| Generally, the government doesn't do things that private
| industry could do on their own. There are specific times
| where this isn't true. For example, there were small commuter
| buses in San Francisco for a while that the existing MUNI
| service could not accomplish. But these are quite rare!
|
| For example, private industry is never going to fund basic
| research that is the foundation of the US's wealth and
| strength, except through taxation. The idea is ludicrous.
|
| We could have private highways, private roads, perhaps, but
| we would be handing off public decisions to a private company
| that is almost certainly a monopoly. There are only rare
| cases where roads and highways are not inherently
| monopolistic.
|
| SV venture capital is not one type of person, there are both
| liberal and libertarians among them. The libertarian variety
| got suckered in by the Dark Enlightenment propaganda and
| thought they could be the puppetmasters controlling the world
| with propaganda. They should have looked to what happens to
| their ilk in places like Russia before backing someone who
| wants to turn the US into an autocracy like Russia:
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/02/business/russian-oligarchs-
| de...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What puzzles me about the SV venture capital crowd,
| though, is that they 're usually a somewhat socially liberal
| crowd_
|
| Silicon Valley has had a monarchist element for at least a
| decade now. I've been commenting on it for a while. It masked
| itself in the language of libertarianism. (Note: not all
| libertarians are monarchists.) But 2024 outed them
| (Andreessen, Musk, the _All In_ crowd, _et cetera_ ) for the
| bastards that they are.
| lovich wrote:
| I mean it was barely masked. They dropped mentions of the
| dark enlightenment like name dropping Curtis yarvin/mencius
| moldbug pretty frequently if you listened to their talks.
|
| Sam Harris is the only intellectual in that space that I
| know of who was repulsed by their actual views and pulled
| back but maybe there are others.
|
| The libertarian party itself got taken over by a less
| sophisticated group of these guys in a Mises Caucus mask
| from a coup orchestrated by the overstock.com ceo in 2022
| apercu wrote:
| They cosplay as socially liberal but they want to be free
| from the responsibilities of belonging to a decent society.
| Ancalagon wrote:
| Or raise the money and spend it frivolously.
| dcreater wrote:
| so like the average silicon valley startup right now?
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| "right now"?
| nenenejej wrote:
| Or to really piss them off, raise money and become ramen
| profitable and stay that way.
| icedchai wrote:
| This happens more often than not anyway. Overpriced office
| space, expensive furniture, extra layers of management
| because we're "structuring to scale the organization", fancy
| and expensive titles for people who barely do anything. I
| worked at one place that raised 70 million, then spent 10
| renovating a rented space, only to close up barely 1 year
| later. I had left by that point.
| fancyswimtime wrote:
| Action Jack
| yonran wrote:
| > a16z and certain Sequoia partners specifically supported this
| during the 2024 election.
|
| Support for DOGE _before_ it was implemented is not a bad
| thing. Ro Khanna (Democrat from Silicon Valley) supported it
| too. https://khanna.house.gov/media/in-the-news/opinion-
| democrats...
|
| It is the act of supporting DOGE _after_ the dumb
| implementation (e.g. 1 /28/2025 Fork in the Road letter) that
| would concern me (which I think a16z has continued to do).
|
| In my opinion, Elon Musk approached DOGE all wrong because he
| is used to running companies where payroll is the #1 expense,
| and cutting workers is how he has always cut costs at his
| previous companies when they were strapped for cash (e.g.
| SolarCity, Tesla). He did't realize that the US Government is
| mostly an insurance company, so cutting office staff is a drop
| in the bucket. A tragedy of his own juvenile ignorance.
| CPLX wrote:
| > Support for DOGE before it was implemented is not a bad
| thing.
|
| Of course it is. It shows terrible judgment this was easily
| foreseeable.
| carabiner wrote:
| These are sad stories but you have to wonder how many such
| stories you might collect from any mostly-functional
| organization. Certainly there were people who had unjust firings,
| toxic interactions before Trump and Musk. People who work at big
| tech companies also have experiences like this (layoffs while on
| maternity leave, while getting treated for terminal illnesses
| etc.). This isn't a sign of any grave malice and is inevitable in
| a large org. What I do wonder is whether DOGE achieved any
| significant savings, and that is not addressed in the article.
| tedmaj0rPeye wrote:
| Apples and oranges.
|
| The fallout of a few employees being screwed by Google or
| similar is a lot different than the fallout of everyone being
| screwed by government.
|
| Your concern for an illusory fiat ledger is noted.
| estearum wrote:
| > What I do wonder is whether DOGE achieved any significant
| savings
|
| The answer is no.
| zugi wrote:
| Indeed the article is less an article and more a random
| collection of gripes and quotes. The third paragraph betrays
| that they're not really doing any analysis...
|
| > The government would likely end 2025 with about 300,000 fewer
| employees... The total figure amounted to one in eight
| workers... In recent weeks, _hundreds_ of the employees DOGE
| pushed out have reportedly been offered reinstatement.
|
| "Hundreds" coming back is portrayed as if it offsets the
| 300,000 gone. They continue:
|
| > The true scope of DOGE's _attack_ on the federal government
| remains unknown. While there is no reason to think it achieved
| meaningful cost savings or operational efficiencies...
|
| and then go on to complain about an immigrant database, which
| has nothing to do with the reduction in the federal workforce.
| Simple quick math would suggest $60 billion or so a year in
| savings from the workforce reduction. Of course the larger
| savings is in the whole programs that were eliminated, not just
| the salaries and benefits savings.
|
| DOGE saving $2 trillion / year is indeed impossible. That kind
| of savings would require a national conversation about what
| federal roles we no longer need. But DOGE likely achieved
| hundreds of billions a year in savings. USAID alone had a $50
| billion budget that was mostly eliminated, though a few billion
| just moved over to State.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| > But DOGE likely achieved hundreds of billions a year in
| savings. USAID alone had a $50 billion budget that was mostly
| eliminated, though a few billion just moved over to State.
|
| A lot to unpack here ----
|
| If you're an institutionalist: Does the executive now hold
| power of the purse?
|
| If you're a humanitarian: was $50B for millions of lives and
| god knows how many more of massive quality of life
| improvement worth it?
|
| If you care about evidence: "Likely hundreds of billions a
| year in savings" is insufficiently rigorous to throw around
| such large numbers. I've heard its as low as $2B and likely
| lower.
| stouset wrote:
| > What I do wonder is whether DOGE achieved any significant
| savings
|
| I don't think you actually wonder this because this information
| is easily and widely available with essentially zero effort.
|
| Not only were there no real cost savings, but it was painfully
| and mathematically obvious that it was impossible for this
| approach to produce that kind of outcome.
| Drunkfoowl wrote:
| I hit my senator very hard with information when this happened.
| It was clear to anyone with a brain and understanding of physics
| that they had no plans of doing anything other than installing
| crawlers and access control permissions.
|
| Our leadership is so inept it hurts.
| dimal wrote:
| I still feel like people are missing the deeper problem with
| DOGE. Yes, they're dismantling the government, and throwing the
| baby out with the bathwater. It's stupid, reckless and cruel. But
| most Americans want the government reduced, and so we end up
| arguing over "effectiveness". Notice how half the comments here
| follow that track.
|
| The deeper problem is that the richest man in the world bought
| his own department of the federal government of The United States
| and was allowed unchecked power within it. Nothing like this has
| ever occurred before in American history. The only thing that got
| him out was that Washington isn't big enough for two egos as big
| as Musk and Trump, and one had to go. And since Musk's people are
| still embedded in there, I would bet that he still has plenty of
| influence.
|
| For those in the red tribe that support this, would you support
| George Soros or Bill Gates buying their own department and using
| it to rearrange the government to fit their will? Well, shit like
| that is now on the table. Good job.
| lovich wrote:
| Yea man, I cannot fathom why they would carry out actions like
| this knowing that their opponents could do the same thing next
| time they are in charge.
|
| It's almost like they're governing with the expectation of
| never losing an election
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Or they expect the other side to fold like a wet towel since
| that is all that they have seen since forever?
| malshe wrote:
| Exactly this. Democratic politicians are beyond
| incompetent.
| 1718627440 wrote:
| > never losing an election
|
| There are two ways: never loosing or ...
| XorNot wrote:
| Most people love generic platitudes with no details though.
|
| So when you say they "want smaller government" it's that they
| are literally agreeing with that statement verbatim rather then
| any plausible version of what that could be (and that's giving
| them credit: more cynically it's just "take away services from
| people who aren't me").
|
| See Brexit for another national scale example of this: had
| anyone been forced to vote for a specific policy, it wouldn't
| have happened.
| kiitos wrote:
| > But most Americans want the government reduced,
|
| facts not in evidence
|
| tldr: no they do not
| jimt1234 wrote:
| Exactly. I'm not concerned with the _size_ of government.
| However, I would like to see better ROI - that is, a
| government that is more effective at delivery services. The
| "burn it all down" mentality never takes into account the
| vast amount of services provided by the government, and
| simply reducing the _size_ of government won 't help that.
| krapp wrote:
| >The "burn it all down" mentality never takes into account
| the vast amount of services provided by the government, and
| simply reducing the size of government won't help that.
|
| People with that mentality tend to believe most services
| provided by the government are waste by definition
| (especially any "social" services) and should be
| privatized. At the extreme end, they believe the only
| legitimate role of government is violence - war, policing
| and enforcing contract law. But somehow not taxes.
| yibg wrote:
| Pretty clear a large portion of Americans want smaller
| government. But they also want the benefits (sometimes only
| for themselves) that comes with a larger government (and
| spending).
| oblio wrote:
| > But most Americans want the government reduced.
|
| I also want to lose weight but I still want to eat lots of
| burgers with fries.
|
| People want all sorts of things but they don't really want all
| the nasty details needed to make them happen and they
| definitely do not want the negative consequences of their hasty
| decisions.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| Saying "red tribe" is a pretty dead giveaway of, say, a certain
| way of thinking.
|
| George Soros or Bill Gates will never be able to buy their own
| department for reasons that the people with the tribalist lens
| can't seem to grasp: the democratic coalition is FAR more
| principled and fractured / diverse than the republican
| coalition. I can already hear people howl for evidence; for
| evidence, look no farther than the party platforms for the last
| few electoral cycles.
| zazar wrote:
| Obama did far more severe cuts and re-orgs in his second
| term.
|
| https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/12/11/preside.
| ..
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/government-
| job...
|
| Nobody cared because we weren't in the sensationalist era
| where one becomes a "nazi" for wanting a smaller government.
|
| Did you know that Obama deported more people than Trump as
| well? Was he somehow a fascist for respecting the border?
|
| Your certain way of thinking is simply ignorance.
| dimal wrote:
| A lot of things that seemed impossible a few years ago are
| now old hat. The Democrats wouldn't be so hamfisted, but
| never say never.
|
| And my point wasn't that the Democrats _would_. It's that the
| Democrats _could_ and may even be forced to, in order to win
| an election. If JD Vance is selling a department for $500M,
| from a game theoretical perspective, the Democrats may have
| no choice.
|
| The whole problem is that all the norms that allowed the
| republic to function are being stripped away, and this is one
| of the biggest violations of our norms to date, yet no one
| has even mentioned this aspect.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| This makes a fair bit more sense when you realize that
| hierarchy and the resulting feudalist structures are
| basically the core tenets of right-wing ideology. On paper,
| the right should have a harder time working together: The
| fascists, theocrats, and kleptocrats have wildly divergent
| worldviews. However, more fundamental than any of their
| specific views, they all believe in rigid power hierarchies.
| Which means to bring one branch of the right into the fold of
| whichever group currently holds the most power, all they
| really have to do is win over the upper echelons of the
| weaker faction, and then secure them a place (not necessarily
| even that highly ranked of a place) within their power
| structure.
|
| Meanwhile, across the isle, a vague alignment in short term
| goals is basically all that keeps the left and the liberals
| together as a coalition. Whereas the right can say and do
| just about anything as long as it doesn't jeopardize their
| direct underlings' position in the overarching power
| structure, even small, strategic concessions can obliterate
| what little trust leaders have built up over the years.
| JackYoustra wrote:
| Still looking for the people on hn who eight months ago said that
| this would be a good thing to come out and admit not only that
| they were wrong, but the model of the world and their way of
| absorbing info that led them to such a conclusion is also wrong.
| Looking at you, geohot.
| ohyoutravel wrote:
| The venn diagram of that group and the group that immediately,
| with zero evidence, following the Charlie Kirk incident,
| declared war on "the left" is a circle.
| nenenejej wrote:
| They will never admit they are wrong.
| sp4cec0wb0y wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43261941#43268908
|
| Man I love being right.
| ugh123 wrote:
| The spirit of the "program" leaned in the right direction, but
| Elon was absolutely the wrong guy to put in charge of it.
| Misplaced incentives, lack of interpersonal skills, lack of
| respect and empathy, lack of organizational skills when he does
| not have strong, professional lieutenants that will implement
| changes.
|
| Edit: and who TF would have thought putting "big balls doge
| kid" in a position of power would be a good thing? That kid,
| along with whomever hired him, would be tossed out of any
| professional corp env swiftly.
| EasyMark wrote:
| It was an effort in spirit only. It was aimed almost entirely
| at damaging those agencies that Trump hated and that Musk
| wanted to muck up so he could gain advantages from less
| government oversight and regulations. In the end it had
| almost no effect on overall government spending, but it
| certainly helped Trumps aims to damage the government
| departments he didn't like, undo what Biden had done, and
| gain some advantages for Elon's companies.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| The whole thing seemed to me to be a quid pro quo for Elon to
| get Trump elected via Twitter. I'm fairly sure everyone but
| DOGE knew it would not accomplish anything.
| dnissley wrote:
| He also lacked the authority to realize the full vision,
| being only a guest of Trump. Hence the inevitable conflict
| when it came to the big beautiful bill.
| zazar wrote:
| DOGE did great work, and continues to do great work.
|
| An emotionally charged hit piece from Wired, meant to tug at your
| confirmation bias, doesn't change the facts.
|
| Unsurprised to see the usual suspects fall for it. Remember when
| these same hacks claimed the government was going to collapse in
| April? That social security was finished? Give me a break.
|
| Don't be gaslight by these troglodytes.
| nenenejej wrote:
| How much money did they save? And how much money did they waste
| by penny pinching on essential work?
| programmertote wrote:
| >DOGE did great work, and continues to do great work.
|
| Ok, prove it. Your claim warrants that. From what I've seen,
| DOGE's claims of savings are mostly made-up or erroneous. Not
| saying the federal government doesn't need efficiency
| improvements. I'm just saying the way DOGE (and musk) went
| about is just the typical musk's way of doing things (b.s.
| claims not backed up by actual facts).
|
| P.S. I rarely get involved with political discussions on HN.
| But you got me interested first time.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-09-25 23:00 UTC)