By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, tasked with curbing federal spending, propose eliminating programs lacking explicit spending authorizations, a claim refuted by federal fiscal experts. This misunderstanding stems from conflating authorization (establishing program parameters) with appropriation (allocating funds), which Congress always legally authorizes. Experts argue that lapsing authorizations don’t signify wasteful spending; instead, they often grant agencies flexibility. Ultimately, DOGE’s recommendations are non-binding, leaving final budget decisions to Congress.
Read the original article here
Experts are increasingly concerned that any plans involving DOGE are fundamentally flawed, doomed to fail due to what they describe as a “meme-level understanding” of government spending exhibited by key figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. The sheer incompetence displayed in other ventures, such as Musk’s Twitter takeover, which resulted in massive job losses, a plummeting company value, and substantial revenue decline, serves as a stark warning. This isn’t merely mismanagement; it points to a fundamental lack of understanding of business operations, let alone the complexities of governmental systems and fiscal responsibility.
The proposed drastic cuts to federal spending, touted as a solution, are equally alarming. While proponents highlight specific targets like Planned Parenthood and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the reality is that these cuts represent an insignificant fraction of the overall budget. The true elephant in the room is the sheer size of the defense and Veteran Affairs budgets, which account for a significant portion of federal employment and spending. Attempting significant cuts would inevitably necessitate widespread layoffs, impacting a substantial number of voters, particularly in red states and counties that employ large numbers of federal workers. The inherent political ramifications of such cuts render the plan wholly unrealistic and politically suicidal.
This suggests a deeper problem, beyond simple incompetence. The argument that increased efficiency is the goal rings hollow, particularly considering the political climate. Many suspect that the push for drastic cuts is not a genuine attempt at reform but rather a cynical strategy aimed at dismantling government functions and increasing corporate power. Proponents’ claims of prioritizing efficiency are seen as a mere façade concealing a more insidious agenda. The focus on minor spending items, likened to searching for an “avocado toast” line item, further reinforces the suspicion that the real aim is to create chaos and sow distrust in government.
The underlying strategy appears to be one of deliberate sabotage. Proposing impossible cuts, demonizing government agencies, and fostering dysfunction are not accidental byproducts but rather the explicit goals of this initiative. Decades of similar strategies, such as the Republican Party’s “starve the beast” approach, demonstrate a pattern of actively seeking to undermine government functionality. This approach clearly prioritizes the interests of corporations and wealthy individuals over the well-being of citizens and the effective functioning of the state. The very existence of a department dedicated to government efficiency – the Office of Management and Budget – further highlights the absurdity of creating yet another such entity, suggesting that the intent is less about efficiency and more about political maneuvering.
The proponents of these drastic cuts consistently misunderstand the fundamental nature of government spending. It’s not merely about “spending” but about strategic investment in infrastructure, defense, education, and other crucial areas that build a nation’s future. Instead, the proposed cuts reflect a purely corporate mindset focused solely on short-term profit maximization – cutting costs without regard for long-term consequences or sustainable growth. This perspective, which prioritizes shareholder value over societal well-being, is inherently incompatible with effective governance. The comparison to a household budget is particularly misleading, failing to grasp the vastly different scales and complexities involved.
Ultimately, the entire plan appears to be a calculated scheme of systematic destruction, lacking any genuine intention of improving governance. The lack of detailed plans, the focus on headline-grabbing actions over tangible results, and the transparent disregard for consequences all point to a concerted effort to undermine the American system. Any positive outcomes are purely coincidental, and the true aim is to chip away at the system, to dismantle it piece by piece for the benefit of a select few, further enriching themselves while leaving the country weakened and vulnerable. The supposed “meme-level understanding” of economics and governance is, in fact, a deliberate strategy masked as incompetence, and the ultimate success of this scheme is the destruction of the American system itself. This is not a failure of policy; it is a planned demolition.