By Ryan Boyle

Long ago, I had a coworker whose hobby was sculpture.  He spent his weekends sawing and whittling wood and ice.  His toolset ranged from a chainsaw to shape a massive ice block, to the finest chisels for details.

Some of those working to set a budget for the U.S. federal government have been tempted to reach for a chainsaw.  In fiscal year 2024, Washington spent $6.75 trillion, funded by tax receipts of $4.91 trillion.  The deficit was bridged with debt, the total balance of which now exceeds $36 trillion.  The federal government is the nation’s largest single employer, with its three million workers representing almost 2% of total employment.  How can we trim down a bureaucracy of such a size?

A plank of the Trump platform was to establish a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).  Proposed as an outside advisory organization, DOGE promised $2 trillion of annual spending cuts, a lofty and likely impossible target.  Reductions of such a magnitude would require trimming Medicare, Social Security and defense spending, all political non-starters.

Slashing spending is a popular idea and hardly novel.  As far back as 1883, the Pendleton Act made sweeping reforms to dismiss unqualified government workers (undoing the spoils system, which doled out patronage jobs as political rewards).  More recent presidential administrations have made their own attempts at rationalizing federal expenditure.

In 1982, Ronald Reagan tapped business leader J. Peter Grace to “drain the swamp” of waste and inefficiency in the government—a motto and mission similar to the DOGE.  Bill Clinton chartered a National Performance Review, led by Vice President Al Gore, to offer ideas to reinvent government.  Barack Obama appointed the Simpson-Bowles Commission, named for the bipartisan political veterans who chaired it. 

Each of these efforts met their mandate, identifying opportunities for significant budget reductions.  The Grace Commission famously publicized bizarre Department of Defense cost allocations totaling $436 for a hammer and $600 for a toilet seat; Al Gore made a mockery of procurement rules like the ten pages of technical specifications for ashtrays.  These were just the salient highlights of reports that promised billions in annual savings. 

Others are doing the same work with less fanfare.  The Government Accountability Office publishes an annual report of duplication in federal programs, identifying hundreds of millions in potential savings.  Think tanks like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Tax Foundation, Tax Policy Center and American Enterprise Institute offer boundless options for better fiscal balance.

Putting those ideas into action is easier said than done.  The executive branch has some discretion over spending and staffing, but more significant reform requires acts of Congress.  In this forum, proposals will meet opposition.  Many rules were passed for good reason, even if they are costly; others are inefficient, but incumbents will lobby to preserve them.  Legislators may be less eager to cut spending when it entails a loss of benefits to their constituents or fewer jobs in their own district.

Given the foreseeable difficulty of attacking spending, the new DOGE has already changed tack.  A day-one executive order chartered DOGE as the new name of the U.S. Digital Service, a small agency created in 2014 to improve government technology.  The order does not mention costs, and instead focuses on modernizing federal technology systems.  This mandate is better aligned with the agency’s technology-veteran leadership.  While systems enhancements can reduce costs and improve productivity, they require up-front investment and a great deal of planning and project management.  Lower costs may be some ways away, and unlikely to amount to trillions.

Campaign promises to take a chainsaw to government spending will get applause.  In practice, a chisel might be the better choice.  We hope our leaders will choose the right tools to craft a more attractive design.