You've basically put together an FAQ that summarizes the talking points from one party. I'm sure it's quite helpful if people are looking to understand the views of that party, but I'd hardly call it an authoritative FAQ on the issue at hand.
> A1: There's nothing wrong with making the government more efficient, but (1) there are good and bad ways of cutting spending (and DOGE, IMO, is really bad), (2) the federal budget is massive [1], 1B or even 10B USD is practically peanuts, so a real cost-benefit analysis is critical while knee-jerk "that's too much money" reactions are usually short-sighted, and (3) the Trump administration is planning to spend FAR MORE on massive tax cuts - a government that's serious about reducing the deficit would not spend 5-10 trillion USD on tax cuts.
You don't actually provide much rationale or provide a broad perspective on the issues at hand.
"DOGE is bad" because we should have a small d "democracy" approach. This completely ignores the Constitution and division of powers with the President in control of the Executive and all the agencies that report to it. Yes, Congress controls spending, and the Supreme Court will likely need to rule on exactly where the line divides between Executive/Legislative powers, but it's not accurate to say that spending cuts should be a small d democracy exercise.
Then you mention how 1B or 10B is practically peanuts (this is a talking point directly from one of the political parties) which isn't a great argument at all because DOGE isn't cutting 1B or 10B and stopping, the intent is to cut hundreds examples of 1B or 10B in spending, which is certainly not peanuts.
Then you mention how "tax cuts are bad and you wouldn't do that if you were serious about the deficit", but that's not true at all. Removing wasteful spending is 100% a goal in and of itself. We have no idea how much wasteful spending will be cut, and if we reduce it by $2T, and Trump decides to cut taxes by $1T, we're still reducing the deficit. That is also a "policy choice", not some universal rule that you can never cut taxes and be financially responsible.
As I said in the beginning, "feel free to disagree", so thanks for taking me up on that. As for coming across as one-sided, I didn't feel the need to represent both sides - I don't think I can fairly represent your point of view, and that's the value in having a discussion after all. However, I disagree with your implication that my viewpoint is partisan. Truth is neither Democratic nor Republican. If the facts line up on one side, then perhaps one side is right on a particular issue (while they could still be wrong on another issue). Again, feel free to disagree about what the facts are, but let's not make this about partisanship.
As to your response, I'll try to describe your points and then reply. Let me know if I mischaracterized anything you said.
1. Spending cuts shouldn't necessarily be a small-d democratic exercise.
Yes, they should. I am well aware that the President is the chief of the executive branch and its agencies. On the other hand, these agencies are also established by laws passed by Congress (e.g., the Department of Education was established by a 1979 law [1]). Sure, judges can rule on the division of powers; judges can also issue injunctions to halt what the administration is trying to do, until it has had time to consider its rulings. In the meantime, DOGE is still in government servers, and it's not even clear to me if DOGE will always follow court orders.
And for the purposes of discussion, instead of solely appealing to the future authority of the courts, we can also reason about what happens if all of this is deemed constitutional. If Congress can establish agencies, through laws signed by the Nth president, but the N+1-th president can simply ignore Congress and tell the agency to cease and desist... what exactly is the role of Congress?
And pray tell, why can't spending cuts be a democratic exercise? Trump is a democratically elected president with a House and Senate controlled by his own party. He can absolutely pass spending cuts that are agreed to by Congress, especially given that no congress member in the Republican party seems to have any backbone to stand up against President Trump. Here's my answer: it will be long, drawn out, and politically damaging, because too many people will have a chance to realize what these spending cuts are really taking away. Trump, Musk, and the crew are trying to pull a fast one on the American people, and this kind of anti-democratic maneuver is exactly what the framers were worried about when they wrote the Constitution in the first place.
2. DOGE wants to cut 1B or 10B times 100.
Umm, okay, good luck. Here's a breakdown of YTD US federal spending according to treasury.gov [2]:
- Social security (21%)
- National defense (15%)
- Health (14%)
- Net interest (13%)
- Medicare (13%)
- Income security, i.e., various financial assistance programs for the poor (9%)
- Veteran benefits and services (6%)
- Everything else (9%)
Cut "everything else", and that's ~600B off the budget. Great. See A1 in my original post: that's not going to pay for the tax cut Trump wants. And what do you give up? All science funding? All "education, training, employment, and social services"? (All while AI might start to displace more and more jobs?)
Or should we cut one of the other items? Sure, let's hear some proposals. My original point was, there's a cost-benefit analysis to be made, and DOGE is circumventing that cost-benefit discussion completely undemocratically. Spending 10B or even 100B isn't "too much" or "too little" unless we know what we're buying.
3. You can cut taxes and still trim the deficit.
Sure, please do the math and show me how this is going to happen. Where are $2T in spending cuts going to come from? I can reduce power usage in a datacenter by 50% by randomly unplugging half the machines, but I'm pretty sure that will get me fired. Show me what you think should be cut, and we can have a discussion. And again, why can't this go through a Republican- (and in reality, Trump-) controlled Congress?
> I disagree with your implication that my viewpoint is partisan. Truth is neither Democratic nor Republican. If the facts line up on one side, then perhaps one side is right on a particular issue (while they could still be wrong on another issue). Again, feel free to disagree about what the facts are, but let's not make this about partisanship.
"Facts line up on one side"? I didn't see much facts, I just saw what one party is repeating again and again when interviewed. Saying cutting small amounts is nothing while factual, is an attempt at arguing any small cuts are worthless, which isn't true. Saying money is "spent" on tax cuts is not factual it's an opinion, since you're presupposing taking less money from someone is "spending" on them when it's their money in the first place.
But I agree, let's not make this about partisanship.
> And for the purposes of discussion, instead of solely appealing to the future authority of the courts, we can also reason about what happens if all of this is deemed constitutional.
I find it funny to say "appeal to the authority of courts", when in fact the court are the authority. If they decide the President has the powers to impound wasteful spending, then that's what the Constitution says. That's how things are done until the Constitution is changed (or the court rule differently).
> Here's my answer: it will be long, drawn out, and politically damaging, because too many people will have a chance to realize what these spending cuts are really taking away. Trump, Musk, and the crew are trying to pull a fast one on the American people, and this kind of anti-democratic maneuver is exactly what the framers were worried about when they wrote the Constitution in the first place.
Every change the government tries to do is a long, drawn out and politically damaging (look at ACA!). I think the American people have looked at Congress and the President "try" for decades and decades to rein in government spending and any approach the relies on Congress agreeing to substantial cuts has resulted in trimming around the edges and usually more spending added at the same time.
It's one of the reasons why Trump was elected. He's willing to try something different. I see lots of people on HN recoil at the stories of the DOD failing audit after audit. You're not going to fix an almost 1T budget that can't pass audit with a few nips and tucks here and there, it's going to require radical action to fix.
And I don't agree that DOGE is undemocratic (the courts will make the decision in the end) and I would argue the framers would spin in their graves if they saw what the government had become and abdication of powers by the various branches.
> Umm, okay, good luck. Here's a breakdown of YTD US federal spending according to treasury.gov [2]: - Social security (21%) - National defense (15%) - Health (14%) - Net interest (13%) - Medicare (13%) - Income security, i.e., various financial assistance programs for the poor (9%) - Veteran benefits and services (6%) - Everything else (9%)
Cut "everything else", and that's ~600B off the budget. Great. See A1 in my original post: that's not going to pay for the tax cut Trump wants. And what do you give up? All science funding? All "education, training, employment, and social services"? (All while AI might start to displace more and more jobs?)
DOGE has already said it's going to take DOD and CMS (healthcare), so that's another 29% that can be cut. And presumably once we move to budget surpluses, that 13% were't spending on interest won't be quite so large any more. Suddenly we are talking real change to government spending.
> Sure, please do the math and show me how this is going to happen. Where are $2T in spending cuts going to come from?
Where does the $2T come from? I'm reading $3T over 10 years, or $300B per year, or a 6% reduction in federal revenues in 2024.
Thanks for the discussion, and for agreeing to not let partisanship get in the way. This will be my last reply in this thread, but I'll still check back and read your reply if you'd like to get in the last word.
> I find it funny to say "appeal to the authority of courts", when in fact the court are the authority.
You're taking my words out of context and omitting a critical "future". My point is threefold:
(1) Courts are already issuing injunctions (e.g., [1]) and in at least one case having to double down because the administration is failing to comply with an earlier injunction [2], which indicates which way they are leaning.
(2) Because the courts haven't made any sort of final ruling yet, there's no way to appeal to their present authority (apart from 1), and trying to appeal to their future authority is rather silly.
(3) The courts are indeed the authority, but relying on being able to say "the courts said so" is still a fallacious appeal to authority [3]. We should respect the courts and what judges have to say, but we can also analyze their thought processes critically. We also know that even the Supreme Court has been egregiously wrong in the past (e.g., [4]), never mind lower courts. (Yes, I know this applies to my first point, which is why there are the second and third points. :))
All this to say, you're dodging my question of how DOGE defunding these agencies could possibly be constitutional.
> Every change the government tries to do is a long, drawn out and politically damaging...
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here. So let me tell you where I think we agree. I agree that Congress has been shamefully dysfunctional for the past, oh, 15 years. I agree there's waste in the government - certainly in the DoD. I agree Trump was elected because the people wants something different. And I agree, the framers would be horrified at the current state of Congress.
Where we disagree is that I see the current administration making the worst assault on the American democratic system since perhaps 1861, with DOGE being the tip of the spear. I too want a more effective, less wasteful, less deadlocked government. But not an autocratic one. The great danger is that autocracy is appealing precisely because it can appear at first to be more efficient, more decisive, cutting through all that democratic nonsense. Never ends well, though.
Sure, we can hope the courts settle these debates. Curious, though, why Vice President Vance and Elon Musk feel the need to already start laying the groundwork for ignoring court orders. [5][6]
> And presumably once we move to budget surpluses...
Thanks for giving me a laugh (not really, I'm still feeling quite grim). Last year's deficit was $1.8T. Tack on some tax cuts and we're looking at $2T or more this year before spending cuts.
> Where does the $2T come from?
That's what Musk was promising, wasn't it? It's also the size of the current deficit. Apologies if I was being confusing there - I was referring to the promised spending cuts, not the size of the anticipated tax cut. I hope you'll agree that if Trump cuts taxes by $300B and cuts spending by, say, $500B, that's not a meaningful dent in the deficit.
Anyway, time for closing arguments - I'd like to think these as fact-based arguments, but you'll probably accuse me of only offering opinions regardless. :)
- Shutting off funding to agencies established by Congress, where the money has already been appropriated by Congress, is unlawful. There have been multiple injunctions against Trump and DOGE, and they are already floating the idea of defying court orders. It remains to be seen how judges rule in the end, but the law and the constitution are there for all to read; I've made my arguments, but I've yet to hear yours (besides "I don't agree").
- US federal spending has hovered around 20% of GDP since ~1975 (see my original post). Running a persistent and growing deficit is not great (just my opinion - some economists think it's fine) but it's not a five-alarm fire that justifies unconstitutional actions.
- Letting unvetted members of Musk's circle get access to sensitive code and data carries a lot of risks that are neither justified by their goals (see previous point) nor by their current results.
- Based on the top-level breakdown of the federal budget, it's hard to see how this administration can turn a budget surplus without raising taxes, never mind if they go through with cutting taxes. Defense, health, and "everything else" as I mentioned adds up to 38%, or about $2.6T. If you think we can dial defense spending down to $0...
At the end of the day, honestly, I hope I'm wrong, and history proves you right. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
> A1: There's nothing wrong with making the government more efficient, but (1) there are good and bad ways of cutting spending (and DOGE, IMO, is really bad), (2) the federal budget is massive [1], 1B or even 10B USD is practically peanuts, so a real cost-benefit analysis is critical while knee-jerk "that's too much money" reactions are usually short-sighted, and (3) the Trump administration is planning to spend FAR MORE on massive tax cuts - a government that's serious about reducing the deficit would not spend 5-10 trillion USD on tax cuts.
You don't actually provide much rationale or provide a broad perspective on the issues at hand.
"DOGE is bad" because we should have a small d "democracy" approach. This completely ignores the Constitution and division of powers with the President in control of the Executive and all the agencies that report to it. Yes, Congress controls spending, and the Supreme Court will likely need to rule on exactly where the line divides between Executive/Legislative powers, but it's not accurate to say that spending cuts should be a small d democracy exercise.
Then you mention how 1B or 10B is practically peanuts (this is a talking point directly from one of the political parties) which isn't a great argument at all because DOGE isn't cutting 1B or 10B and stopping, the intent is to cut hundreds examples of 1B or 10B in spending, which is certainly not peanuts.
Then you mention how "tax cuts are bad and you wouldn't do that if you were serious about the deficit", but that's not true at all. Removing wasteful spending is 100% a goal in and of itself. We have no idea how much wasteful spending will be cut, and if we reduce it by $2T, and Trump decides to cut taxes by $1T, we're still reducing the deficit. That is also a "policy choice", not some universal rule that you can never cut taxes and be financially responsible.