Is DOGE All Bark and No Bite?

And is this just a fake man-bites-dog story?

DOGE drama has been one of the more unexpected theatrical hits this winter. It will be interesting to see if it lasts on the big stage through the spring.

I really want the DOGE project to work, but I really fear that it will not. The terms keep changing, though, so maybe it can move the goalposts enough to plausibly claim victory.

I realize I have to set aside my distaste for the sensationalism as that is a judgement-clouding distraction (partly this is by design, but I'm not the intended target unless they are aiming to “own the Libs” but also their own allies). Regardless, it is usually good to separate style and substance.

USAID has for a long time had a grotesque reputation among those opposed to the U.S. government's international interventionism (they might call it the War-and-Disruption-Industrial Complex). The charge is that it takes care of the jobs too messy for the CIA.

This perhaps more balanced assessment from Tyler Cowen using Deep Research among other sources seems to come down on USAID being a highly-flawed agency that was nonetheless doing some important and good work. Ian Vasquez makes the case that USAID is unhelpful at best and counterproductive at worst when it comes to economic development abroad.

As Gene Healy points out, for DOGE to be truly effective at long-term budget reductions, it will need Congress to do the heavy lifting. That is for sure an underappreciated headwind for any efforts at reducing government.

I have two aims in this post. First, I want to force myself to do some harder thinking on defining and then estimating what DOGE success might be. Second, I want to go on record with my initial views. Yes, initial as these are subject to change if not radical change. Unfortunately, I fear the biggest change risk is to the negative.

Let’s approximate the probability of successful outcomes measured on various dimensions, like levels of savings attained, waste reduced, fraud reduced, bad government policies ended, etc.¹ I am considering these for the entire Trump term.

Levels of total savings (reduced spending regardless of tax revenue/deficit impact) in nominal dollars:

• Less than $100 billion - 45%

• Between $100 billion and $500 billion - 25%

• Between $500 billion and $1 trillion - 20%

• More than $1 trillion - 10%

Levels of net savings (deficit reduction) in nominal dollars:

• Less than $100 billion - 50%

• Between $100 billion and $500 billion - 35%

• Between $500 billion and $1 trillion - 10%

• More than $1 trillion - 5%

Levels of waste reduced (more efficient government) - admittedly loose, vague, and indeterminant, but perhaps someone like Cato will put out some research giving this some definition:

• Superficial to no reduction - 15%

• Slight reduction - 50%

• Meaningful reduction - 25%

• Clearly a massive reduction - 10%

Levels of fraud reduced (less money improperly used including criminally stolen) - also loose, vague, and indeterminant:

• Superficial to no reduction - 25%

• Slight reduction - 45%

• Meaningful reduction - 20%

• Clearly a massive reduction - 10%

Levels of abuse reduced (less government itself doing harmful things that are not in keeping with the spirit or letter of the U.S. Constitution) - again loose, vague, and indeterminant:

• Superficial to no reduction - 30%

• Slight reduction - 40%

• Meaningful reduction - 20%

• Clearly a massive reduction - 10%

I think my estimates are generous given the experience in the first Trump administration even prior to Covid—implying I am actually somewhat optimistic DOGE is a break with the past. I just don’t expect it will be a homerun.

I'm happy that some sunlight is being directed on the wasteful (inefficient/expensive things government is doing that it should be doing but doing more cost effectively) as well as the fraudulent (criminal theft) and abusive (things the government should not be doing despite a cloak of legitimacy) activities. Yet, there is only so much work a few sloppy knights can do, and noble lies are still wrong and counterproductive in the long run.

Claims about masking and the effectiveness of vaccines² during Covid were damaging in the long run to public health and the public's confidence in government. The same can be said with Elon's exaggerations about fraud discovered and his fraudulent claims like trillions of dollars supposedly being paid to illegal immigrants or people who have been dead for decades. As Cato's Ted DeHaven points out, these false flags are misleading in a way that allows people to believe the fiscal problems of the federal government are simply fraud and not inherent in the system itself.

Big government is a huge problem that needs to be attacked. To put it in video game terms, its one big boss battle after another. Techniques that work in level one won’t be enough in later rounds. In fact using them might be the quickest way to be defeated as the bosses adapt and just keep getting harder to kill.

1. As always, Jessica Riedl is an essential follow on these matters.

2. They lied about knowing it would stop transmission—it did not and they had no reason to believe it would. The claims about personal health outcome improvement proved correct.