But the approach is the most egregiously and empirically ineffective element of the whole debacle! Tens of thousands of people laid off for months and then rehired with full back pay because they didn't think it through. Revenue-generating employees fired, leading to increases to the deficit. Jobs cut without consideration for who will take on the corresponding tasks. Entire departments gutted for political or ideological reasons without any empirical analysis of their usefulness.
I think you could logically argue for the STATED INTENT of DOGE, but certainly not for its approach. The worst part: none of this will lead to a reduction in the deficit because that's not their goal. All that will happen is the ultra-wealthy will have more money that will absolutely NOT trickle down.
Nobody's ever used a Magic 8-Ball to make high-level government decisions, either, so how can we know that it's not the best thing for us if we don't try? Novel solutions are easy. Optimal and effective solutions are hard. DOGE isn't doing any hard work. They're not conducting deep analysis and practicing measured applicationтАФthey're just slashing and burning.
It's empirically true that many of the DOGE decisions have backfired almost immediately for lack of consideration or forethought. It's empirically true that economists and other experts are almost unanimous in their assessment that most of these cuts will lead to a temporary reduction in expenses at best and an increase in expenses (and a chaotic outcome for citizens) at worst.
Still, as you said, it's possible that the DOGE approach is just what the doctor ordered. Still, I'd put my money on the Magic 8-Ball over DOGE any day.
Scott Galloway, entrepreneur, author, and professor of marketing at NYU, made an interesting observation in a recent podcast. He said that the pernicious long term effect of this strategy is to stigmatize, delegitimize devalue demoralize and demonize those who work for the public service This might discourage any thinking person from wanting to enter public service. Maybe this is an additional unstated agenda, to cripple the federal public service for the long term.
The fact that I agree with the approach doesn't mean I agree with the actual things they're cutting
But the approach is the most egregiously and empirically ineffective element of the whole debacle! Tens of thousands of people laid off for months and then rehired with full back pay because they didn't think it through. Revenue-generating employees fired, leading to increases to the deficit. Jobs cut without consideration for who will take on the corresponding tasks. Entire departments gutted for political or ideological reasons without any empirical analysis of their usefulness.
I think you could logically argue for the STATED INTENT of DOGE, but certainly not for its approach. The worst part: none of this will lead to a reduction in the deficit because that's not their goal. All that will happen is the ultra-wealthy will have more money that will absolutely NOT trickle down.
How is that empirically proven, when nobody has done that before?
Nobody's ever used a Magic 8-Ball to make high-level government decisions, either, so how can we know that it's not the best thing for us if we don't try? Novel solutions are easy. Optimal and effective solutions are hard. DOGE isn't doing any hard work. They're not conducting deep analysis and practicing measured applicationтАФthey're just slashing and burning.
It's empirically true that many of the DOGE decisions have backfired almost immediately for lack of consideration or forethought. It's empirically true that economists and other experts are almost unanimous in their assessment that most of these cuts will lead to a temporary reduction in expenses at best and an increase in expenses (and a chaotic outcome for citizens) at worst.
Still, as you said, it's possible that the DOGE approach is just what the doctor ordered. Still, I'd put my money on the Magic 8-Ball over DOGE any day.
Scott Galloway, entrepreneur, author, and professor of marketing at NYU, made an interesting observation in a recent podcast. He said that the pernicious long term effect of this strategy is to stigmatize, delegitimize devalue demoralize and demonize those who work for the public service This might discourage any thinking person from wanting to enter public service. Maybe this is an additional unstated agenda, to cripple the federal public service for the long term.