Shrinking the government?

 

The CATO Institute has produced a detailed study of how the proposed Department of Government Efficiency, or D.O.G.E., could go about its work.

DOGE shouldn’t limit itself to making the delivery of existing government services more efficient. Supplying more destructive government programs at a lower cost is nonsensical and counterproductive. Delivering more muscular DEI initiatives or more efficiently targeted transfer payments via near-insolvent entitlement programs, for instance, would counter DOGE’s intent. In President-elect Trump’s words, DOGE’s goals are to “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” DOGE should view itself as an entrepreneurial pressure agent for eradicating all existing government-created inefficiencies across the American economy and society. This means a much smaller government.

Congress and the president must ultimately shrink the economy- and society-wide inefficiencies identified by DOGE. That outcome can be aided by DOGE bringing entrepreneurial, intellectual, and political energy to bear on popularizing this mission in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget, other public servants, policymakers, and think tanks that want DOGE to succeed. In that spirit of cooperation, the Cato Institute’s submission of policy reform ideas to the DOGE is grounded in clear principles designed to enhance the liberties and prosperity of Americans:

Constitutionally limited government: The federal government should only undertake constitutionally enumerated actions. Limiting government to these core functions will focus its attention and, more importantly, enable individuals, families, businesses, and state and local governments to provide solutions to economic and social problems.

Reduced regulation: The existing rules and regulations overseen by the administrative state hold back economic growth with few benefits. The number of regulations and their burden should be reduced as much as possible. To make that deregulation stick, we need to reform the processes that make the ongoing growth of the regulatory state possible. New and emerging technologies should be permitted to develop and thrive, and existing price, entry, social, labor, medical, antitrust, environmental, and other controls should be eliminated or significantly revised.

A smaller and more effective bureaucracy: American taxpayers, and their dollars, deserve respect. That means eliminating unnecessary duplication of bureaucracy, installing cutting-edge technologies to reduce overhead, creating a truly meritocratic and accountable civil service, and preventing the growth of unnecessary government.

Executive orders: The federal government is increasingly characterized by a strong president wielding powers through executive orders and other directives that are occasionally overseen by the judiciary. This trend in American governance is lamentable, in general, but it also means the president has enormous power to roll back expensive and destructive rules, regulations, and orders issued by earlier presidents that are contrary to the efficient functioning of the economy, the protection of individual rights, and, in many cases, the limited, proper functions of the government itself.

Reduce government spending to make government solvent and reduce economic distortions: Averting a fiscal crisis will require significant reductions to government spending, especially runaway entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Additionally, reducing spending in most instances will increase economic efficiency because most government programs distort economic activity.

Tax efficiency: The federal government should raise revenue to fund its legitimate functions as economically efficiently as possible. That means a simple tax code with broad base taxes, low rates, and no special interest deductions, which would provide good incentives for work, saving, and investment.

There's much more at the link.  The full report is lengthy, but worth your time.

I'm not sure how successful DOGE will be:  after all, career bureaucrats are used to "managing" politicians, and are past masters at holding onto real power while allowing politicians to pretend they're holding pretend reins.  As the British TV series "Yes, Minister" put it:

I agree that the only way to rein in the "Deep State" is to make it a lot shallower - and that means slashing the bureaucracy.  Will DOGE succeed?  We'll have to wait and see.

Peter