The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has become a political spectacle, but let’s get one thing straight—it’s not going to save or destroy the world. The dramatic headlines, social media firestorms, and sense of urgency surrounding its actions have created the illusion that we’re either on the brink of salvation or collapse. But in reality, DOGE is neither the hero nor the villain of some grand political endgame—it’s just an intensified version of traditional Republican budgetary policy.
DOGE: Apocalyptic Incrementalism in Action
On a recent Sunday show, a Republican argued that incrementalism hadn’t worked, so DOGE had to take a more aggressive approach. That’s an overstatement.
DOGE’s actions, while swift and attention-grabbing, are still small-scale in budgetary terms. It has identified some genuine inefficiencies and wasteful spending, but the idea that another round of layoffs or program eliminations will bring about a fundamental restructuring of the federal government is misguided.
The core issue? DOGE doesn’t have the authority to touch the biggest drivers of federal spending—entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Trump himself has made it clear that he won’t support cutting these programs, and any real movement on that front would require congressional action, which remains highly unlikely.
Traditional Republican Budgeting—On Steroids
For decades, Republicans who wanted to cut government spending but lacked the political will to reduce popular programs leaned on the classic strategy of targeting “waste, fraud, and abuse” along with foreign aid. That’s exactly what DOGE is doing—but on a much larger and more chaotic scale.
The difference this time? Elon Musk. His oversized personality, combined with the right’s eagerness to dismantle the administrative state, has created a perfect storm. With Musk at the helm, DOGE’s work has unfolded in real-time, amplified by social media and bolstered by a deep desire to challenge Washington’s status quo.
As a result, every revelation of government waste has felt like a scandal, and every action taken has seemed like an existential battle between good and evil. This perception has fueled both enthusiastic support from the right and hysterical pushback from the left, reinforcing the idea that the stakes are impossibly high.
The Pitfalls of Rushed Reform
While DOGE has exposed legitimate government inefficiencies, the rush to act has led to exaggerations, errors, and reversals. The department has had to walk back multiple claims and adjust course on numerous initiatives. Its decision-making process has been murky, its leadership structure unclear, and its legal standing uncertain.
Put bluntly, DOGE’s approach to government efficiency has often been messy and haphazard. It has produced real changes, but at times, it has felt more like a political stunt than a well-orchestrated reform effort.
Musk’s infamous chainsaw-wielding moment at CPAC, courtesy of Argentina’s libertarian President Javier Milei, was the pinnacle of this dynamic. While it was an entertaining symbol of disruption, it also underscored the dangers of an overly aggressive approach. Now, even Trump is suggesting that DOGE should take a scalpel instead of a chainsaw.
The Path Forward: Institutionalizing Reform Through Congress
After recent pushback from Congress and internal discussions within the administration, DOGE appears to be shifting toward a more measured approach. Instead of unilateral action, coordinating with cabinet leaders and engaging with Congress could help turn short-term gains into long-term reforms.
One promising avenue? The rescission process under the Impoundment Control Act.
This process allows the president to submit a formal request to Congress to rescind previously approved spending. Congress then votes on the cuts, and if they pass, the budget is legally adjusted.
Historically, this has been an effective tool for controlling spending:
Ronald Reagan used the rescission process aggressively, securing over 100 budget cuts in 1981 that amounted to $11 billion—equivalent to over $100 billion today.
George H.W. Bush also used rescissions successfully, leveraging them to negotiate with Congress.
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump largely abandoned the practice, despite occasional attempts to revive it.
Now, Senators Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham are calling for a return to this process, arguing that Congress should formally vote on DOGE’s proposed spending cuts. Their reasoning is sound: the Constitution gives Congress control over federal spending, and using the rescission process would bring legal clarity and political buy-in to DOGE’s efforts.
A Realistic Approach to Reform
Let’s be clear: DOGE alone will not balance the budget or fundamentally reshape the federal government. True fiscal reform requires tackling entitlement spending and making structural changes through the appropriations process.
However, DOGE can play a valuable role in eliminating wasteful spending, streamlining bureaucracy, and shifting the narrative on government efficiency.
To do this effectively:
Musk should work with Congress to craft a rescission package with clear, specific spending cuts.
Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Republicans need to rally support for a unified vote.
The administration should focus on discipline and execution, ensuring that DOGE’s efforts are legally sound and strategically implemented.
If done right, DOGE could achieve what previous Republican administrations failed to: a practical, incremental approach to cutting government waste.
Conclusion: Reform, Not Revolution
The hype around DOGE has led some to believe it’s either the dawn of a new era or the beginning of the apocalypse. The truth is far less dramatic. DOGE is not a revolution—it’s an experiment in aggressive reform.
By shifting from chaotic, headline-driven governance to a structured, cooperative approach with Congress, DOGE could leave a lasting impact. A well-crafted rescission package would mark a step toward genuine government efficiency—not through spectacle, but through smart, incremental reform.
.jpeg)
