Every Member of Congress will have a DOGE in the fight.
As in DOGE, the incipient but still unofficial “Department of Government Efficiency.” Congress hasn’t voted to create such a department. There’s been no presidential executive order. But quasi-President Trump-elect advisers Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are spearheading the enterprise.
“It’s unclear to me what exactly the objective is related to this so-called DOGE initiative,” said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
Incoming President Trump, Musk and Ramaswamy say the goal is to cut spending. Perhaps by as much as $2 trillion in the next two and a half years. Slates of congressional Republicans met with Musk and Ramaswamy on Capitol Hill late last week. The message? ‘Tis the season to be frugal.
“Elon and Vivek talked about having a naughty list and a nice list for members of Congress and senators and how we vote and how we’re spending the American people’s money,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.
TIDE TURNS IN FAVOR OF TRUMP DOD PICK PETE HEGSETH AFTER MATT GAETZ FAILURE
Elon Musk, Co-Chair of the newly announced Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), left, and Vivek Ramaswamy, chairman and co-founder of Strive Asset Management, on Thursday, Dec. 5, 2024. (Left: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images; Right: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Republican expectations for DOGE are stratospheric.
“We need to start cutting our budget and cutting it soon,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla.
“Every single Republican wants to get about the business of cutting fraud, waste and abuse,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.
“We can’t just continue to do everything for everyone,” said Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla.
But Republican political aspirations for DOGE and spending cuts could soon slam into legislative reality.
“It’s going to require not only statutory authority to do it, which means it’ll have to go to the committees of jurisdiction. But then it has to go to where everything gets funded,” said Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. “And how we can get enough votes to actually put it into force.”
Cuts don’t just happen magically in Congress. There’s no magic wand. Implementation of everything requires votes on the floor. And Republicans barely control the House.
“It’s clear that the incoming House Republican majority will not be able to do much without us,” said Jeffries.
House Republicans begin the new Congress in January with a 219-215 advantage over the Democrats. But that slips to a margin of one vote in late January after Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., leaves to become National Security Adviser. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., will depart after the Senate confirms her for United Nations Ambassador. So Republicans have no votes to spare to do things on their own.
Plus, many Democrats aren’t enamored with Elon Musk.
“Elon Musk has largely proved himself to be an efficient liar and self-serving plutocrat. And so I don’t have high hopes for him having anything other than pretty awful ideas,” said Rep. Greg Casar, D-Tex., the incoming chairman of the House Progressive Caucus.
Musk and Ramaswamy are political icons. But this is not the first ambitious effort to slice substantial federal spending. Some “blue ribbon” commissions lacked the star power wattage of the dynamic duo of Musk and Ramaswamy.
President-elect Donald Trump arrives to speak at a news conference at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, Friday, Oct. 25, 2024, in Austin, Texas. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
One of the most ballyhooed – and successful – efforts to pare the federal government came in 1993. President Clinton and Vice President Gore promised they were “reinventing government” and planned to change things in Washington. Their initiative wasn’t focused so much on debt reduction – but reducing the size and scope of federal influence.
“At the end of six months, we will have real results and real proposals to offer,” said Gore in March, 1993. “Write it down. Check back with us. We’ll be checking back with you. We don’t need another report to put on the shelf to collect dust. We do need a real plan for action.”
In the end, the Clinton-Gore approach sliced more than 400,000 federal jobs and shrank the size of 13 of 14 federal departments. But over time, those jobs crept back up to where they are today. The federal government currently employs about three million workers.
In 2010, late Sen. and Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and late Clinton Budget Director Alice Rivlin assembled a budget plan known as “Domenici-Rivlin” in the Washington vernacular. The package was designed to help the U.S. recover from the 2008 recession and curb the debt. They tried to address exploding health care costs. Lawmakers adopted a few components of their recommendations over the years, but the impact was minimal.
In 2011, the U.S. faced a debt ceiling crisis. Congress created a “supercommittee” comprised of bipartisan, bicameral lawmakers to concoct a plan to reduce spending – or force a set of Draconian, mandatory cuts known as “sequestration.” It would chop about $1 trillion in federal spending each year. Well, the committee failed to forge an agreement. Thus, the panel became “the committee, formerly known as super.” The automatic sequestration spending cuts then set in.
President Obama signed an executive order to establish the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Former Senate Majority Whip Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles co-chaired the commission. Its proposals were known simply as “Simpson-Bowles.” The panel recommended a host of cuts, including a reduction in military spending and tax hikes – plus a levy on gasoline. Congress later adopted a few individual recommendations from Simpson-Bowles. The House even soundly defeated a budget modeled on Simpson-Bowles in 2012.
But what about cutting actual spending? Expect some lawmakers to attempt to dodge the DOGE. Denting the debt could mean trimming popular programs. On Meet the Press, NBC’s Kristen Welker asked President-elect Trump about his plans for the most expensive government programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
“We’re not touching Social other than we make it more efficient. But the people are going to get what they’re getting,” said the next president.
“So the entitlement’s off the table?” asked Welker.
“And we’re not raising ages or any of that,” replied Mr. Trump.
“Off the table?” followed up Welker.
“I won’t do it,” said the President-elect.
THE SPEAKER’S LOBBY: THERMONUCLEAR FRACAS
Entitlements consume more than 60% of all federal spending. And despite what Trump says, multiple congressional Republicans have called for altering the retirement age for eligibility for programs. It’s believed that such an approach would stabilize entitlements, making them more solvent.
“There is some waste, abuse and fraud in Medicare,” said Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo. “And on the front end on Social Security, I think there’s a way when people are living longer, they’re retiring later that on the front end, we can move that retirement age back a little bit.” said Alford.
Half of all money Congress allocates annually goes to the Pentagon. Congressional Republicans want to even boost military funding next year.
Rep. Chip Roy attends a press conference on the debt limit and the Freedom Caucus’s plan for spending reduction at the U.S. Capitol on March 28, 2023, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Democrats say there’s not enough money available to cut from other areas to make up the difference.
“You’re not going to be able to extract the kind of savings that you need to actually balance the budget just from government efficiency,” said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., on Fox.
Still, the GOP says it must get serious about spending cuts and not just talk about it.
“You can’t campaign on freedom and limited government and low taxes and low spending and cutting the deficit and then not do it,” said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Tex.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
That’s why congressional budget cutters face tough challenges. Voters will watch what lawmakers keep. And what they eliminate. And there could be political consequences for cutting too much. Or not keeping promises.
