Elon Musk assumed control of DOGE this January after being appointed by former President Donald Trump. The Biden administration’s infra-PPP proposal has sparked a firestorm of criticism from transportation public policy experts and labor bigwigs. Doge pledged to go big and shave $1 trillion off the budget. Musk’s $150 billion savings claim has raised so many eyebrows that experts across the country are scratching their heads on how he came up with that figure.
Musk’s aggressive approach to slimming down across each of his companies has been challenged from all sides. Public policy experts, including Donald Moynihan, argue that Musk’s vision is fundamentally flawed for someone responsible for enhancing government efficiency. Moynihan stated, “His vision is that there is no way that government employees can produce anything of value.”
As Doge has made the cuts, the damage on state-run programs and services has come into sharper focus. Advocates and critics alike are raising alarm that these types of cuts will undoubtedly increase wait times and make it harder for the people they serve to navigate. Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, emphasized the human cost of these cuts, stating, “There’s this notion that Doge is just cutting line items on a spreadsheet. It’s hurting real lives and real people.”
The Partnership for Public Service recently calculated that Doge’s maneuvers will waste taxpayers at least $135 billion this fiscal year alone. This significant cost burden will weigh heavily on the budget. This figure takes into account the cuts that have already been made. It doesn’t include the associated costs of firings and rehirings, including severance pay, paid leave, and lost productivity. Musk’s assertion of achieving $150 billion in savings appears to be a significant overestimate, as it neglects the substantial costs resulting from Doge’s strategies.
Max Stier, a federal flunky and insider of the first order voiced his opposition to Doge’s approach. He slammed the whims of the firings and the ignorance about how the organization works. “Jack Welch would be appalled by the approach that Doge has taken,” Stier remarked. He added, “It’s not actually about cost-cutting. It’s about capability destroyed.”
Martha Gimbel, Chief of Research and Strategy for Indeed, pointed out the dangers to public health posed by a shrinking federal watchdog. She cautioned that drastic cuts to food inspectors only stand to worsen the chances of foodborne illnesses like listeria and salmonella. Gimbel noted, “They were the ‘department of government slash and burn’.”
Public sentiment is catching up with concern about how well these sometimes inevitable cuts are protecting safety. Many would argue that instead of increasing efficiency, Doge’s moves are contributing to a crisis in the delivery of core government services. Stier summarized the situation succinctly: “It’s hard to offer any rational basis for the decisions that are being made. There certainly aren’t any improvements that the American public will see.“
Musk has faced heavy criticism for all this, he insists that Doge has succeeded in its mission. He admitted that though they might not have worked as well as hoped, at least a start had been made and concrete steps forward had occurred. In the overall big picture, I believe we’ve done a great job. Not as effective as I’d like. We would be, I think a lot more efficient,” said Musk.
Faced with rising complaints about Doge’s effect on public services, advocates press for rethinking its model. Moynihan rejected Musk’s one-note approach of simply cutting costs, claiming it ignores the need to learn how to build new capabilities into government systems. He made it clear that real advancement takes money and a value for developing better, more equitable services in the long term.