Connect with us

Business

DOGE Theory

Published

7 minute read

Can Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s plan to slash the bureaucracy succeed?

One of the most intriguing developments following Donald Trump’s election victory has been the announcement of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The initiative, which hopes to cut up to $2 trillion from the federal budget, has generated notable excitement, momentum, and memes. The world’s richest man and a successful biotech entrepreneur, Ramaswamy, have revitalized what seemed to be a mostly dormant libertarianism, drawing on the inspiration of Milton Friedman and promising to slash the bureaucracy to the bone. But what are its prospects for real-world success?

Elon Musk is our era’s most gifted entrepreneur, having revolutionized several industries and run multiple major companies. But the private sector operates on radically different principles than the public sector, which has a way of stalling or disarming even the most determined efforts. I foresee three potential impediments to DOGE’s success.

First is the problem of authority. While President-elect Trump has dubbed the effort the “Department of Government Efficiency,” it is not a government department at all. Rather, Musk and Ramaswamy will remain in the private sector and preside over what is, in effect, a blue-ribbon committee providing recommendations to the president and to Congress about potential cuts. In practice, though, blue-ribbon committees are often where ideas go to die. Politicians who feel the need to “do something” about a given problem often establish such committees to create the perception of action, which masks their true desire or, at least, the eventual result: inaction.

DOGE’s challenge will be to translate its recommendations into policy. It is almost certain that an entrepreneur of Musk’s ambition will not be content with writing a report. His and Ramaswamy’s task, then, is to persuade the president and the director of the Office of Management and Budget to enact real (and politically risky) cuts, and, if possible, to persuade Congress to abolish entire departments, such as the Department of Education, in the face of left-wing backlash.

The second problem for Musk and Ramaswamy is public opinion. Libertarians and small-government conservatives have long promised to reduce the size of government; one reason that they have never done so is that federal programs and agencies are generally popular. All of the major federal departments, with the exception of the IRS, the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice, have net-positive favorability numbers. Congressional members, even conservative Republicans, fear that slashing these departments would expose them to savage criticism from the Left and backlash from voters. They know that Americans complain about the size of government in theory but oppose almost all spending cuts in practice—the key paradox that libertarians have been unable to resolve.

Musk and Ramaswamy have repeatedly appealed to the work of Argentinian president Javier Milei, who has dramatically reduced the number of departments and created flashy video clips of himself stripping down organizational charts and yelling, “Afuera!” But what is possible in Argentina, which has been mired in a decades-long economic crisis, may not be achievable in the United States, which is much more stable, and, consequently, may not have the appetite for such dramatic action.

Which brings us to the problem of politics. Sending a rocket into space requires mastery over physics, but cutting government departments requires mastery over a more formidable enemy: bureaucracy. As Musk and Ramaswamy will see, the relationship between would-be reformers and Congress is vastly different from that between a CEO and a board of directors. To succeed, Musk and Ramaswamy must persuade a group of politicians, each with their own interests, to assume a high level of risk.

DOGE’s first task—identifying the budget items to cut—is the easy part. The hard part will be actually cutting them. They will have to convince Congress, which, for nearly 100 years, has refused to reduce the size of government, even when that notion had bipartisan support, as it did during the presidency of Bill Clinton, who promised that “the era of big government is over.”

This does not mean that DOGE cannot succeed. Though there may not be an appetite for a $2 trillion reduction in government spending, there is a hunger for targeted cuts that would strip the federal government of hostile ideologies that have made our institutions dysfunctional and our national life worse. For example, slashing grant funding for critical race theory would likely win support from voters; cutting the budget for USDA meat inspectors would not, and, given opportunity costs, would probably prove unproductive as well.

Perhaps the name of this committee—the Department of Government Efficiency—is also slightly off the mark. The problem is not only about efficiency, which suggests quantity, but about orientation, which implies quality. The federal government has long been captured by ideologies that misdirect its efforts. Simply making the bureaucracy more efficient will not solve that problem. DOGE must first determine what federal spending is worthwhile; from there, it can focus on creating “efficiencies.”

I hope that Musk and Ramaswamy can dispel my pessimism. Political realities have stifled countless reform efforts before now, and DOGE is an enterprise that would be difficult, if not impossible, under normal circumstances. But these are two remarkably talented men; if anyone is capable of shattering the mold, they can.


Please share your ideas, dissents, and thoughts in the comments. In the next newsletter, we will feature the best material in a“comment of the week” section. In the meantime, have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Leave a comment

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

The Strange Case of the Disappearing Public Accounts Report

Published on

The Audit

 

 David Clinton

A few days ago, Public Services and Procurement Canada tabled their audited consolidated financial statements of the Government of Canada for 2024. This is the official and complete report on the state of government finances. When I say “complete”, I mean the report’s half million words stretch across three volumes and total more than 1,300 pages.

Together, these volumes provide the most comprehensive and authoritative view of the federal government’s financial management and accountability for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. The tragedy is that no one has the time and energy needed to read and properly understand all that data. But the report identifies problems serious enough to deserve the attention of all Canadians – and especially policy makers.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Following the approach of my Parliamentary Briefings series, I uploaded all three volumes of the report to my AI research assistant and asked for its thoughts. Each one of the observations that came out the other end is significant and, in calmer and more rational times, could easily have driven a week’s worth of news coverage. But given the craziness of the past few weeks and months, they’re being largely ignored.

With that in mind, I’ve made this special edition of the Parliamentary Briefings series fully accessible to all subscribers.

We begin with a summary of the purpose and scope of the three uploaded volumes of the Public Accounts of Canada for 2023–2024:


Volume I: Summary Report and Consolidated Financial Statements

  • Purpose: Provides a high-level overview of the federal government’s financial performance, presenting the consolidated financial statements audited by the Auditor General. It serves as the primary accountability report.
  • Scope:
    • Audited financial statements.
    • Analysis of revenues, expenses, and the accumulated deficit.
    • Overview of assets, liabilities, and financial position.
    • Discussion of economic context, risks, uncertainties, and ten-year comparative financial data​​.

Volume II: Details of Expenses and Revenues

  • Purpose: Presents the financial operations of the government, broken down by ministries and agencies, for detailed accountability.
  • Scope:
    • Financial transactions segregated by ministry.
    • Details of appropriations, revenues, and transfer payments.
    • Summary tables on ministerial expenditures by type, object, and other dimensions.
    • Appendices providing additional details on budgetary authorities and their sources​.

Volume III: Additional Information and Analyses

  • Purpose: Offers supplementary analyses and financial data beyond what is included in the first two volumes, focusing on revolving funds, professional services, and shared-cost programs.
  • Scope:
    • Financial statements of revolving funds (e.g., Passport Canada, Canadian Grain Commission).
    • Expenditure details on acquisitions, transfer payments, and public debt charges.
    • Analyses of federal-provincial shared-cost programs and claims against the Crown.
    • Miscellaneous financial and operational data for broader transparency​.

The Audit: Based on these documents, could you identify the most serious threats to Canada’s economic stability?


From the Public Accounts of Canada 2023–2024, several serious threats to Canada’s economic security can be identified. These threats emerge from the broader fiscal and economic analyses, contingent liabilities, and uncertainties highlighted in the documents.

1. Growing Public Debt and Debt Servicing Costs

  • Observation: Canada’s public debt charges increased significantly in 2024, rising by 35.2% year-over-year, largely due to higher interest rates on debt. The total accumulated federal debt stood at $1.24 trillion, representing 42.1% of GDP, up from 41.1% the previous year​.
  • Risk: Rising debt servicing costs reduce fiscal space for critical public investments, making the economy vulnerable to future economic shocks or downturns.

2. Contingent Liabilities and Indigenous Claims

  • Observation: The government recorded $16.4 billion in contingent liabilities related to Indigenous claims in 2024, reflecting ongoing efforts to address past injustices. These liabilities have been increasing at an average annual growth rate of 30% since 2016​.
  • Risk: The unpredictable nature and scale of these liabilities could create significant financial pressures if settlements or court decisions require substantial payouts.

3. Legacy Costs from the COVID-19 Pandemic

  • Observation: The government recorded $4.7 billion in pandemic-related expenses for 2024, including write-offs for expired vaccines and provisions for unrecovered loans and benefits​​.
  • Risk: These costs highlight vulnerabilities in emergency financial planning and expose the government to further financial risks if similar large-scale public health crises occur.

4. Economic Pressures from High Inflation and Interest Rates

  • Observation: Inflation returned to the Bank of Canada’s 2% target by mid-2024 after 41 consecutive months above this threshold. However, elevated interest rates (peaking at 5%) contributed to a softening economy​​.
  • Risk: Prolonged periods of high interest rates could suppress household and business spending, slowing economic growth and increasing the likelihood of a recession.

5. Climate Change and Environmental Commitments

  • Observation: Significant spending is allocated to addressing climate change, with over $1 billion dedicated to environmental programs in 2024, including pollution pricing proceeds and clean energy initiatives​​.
  • Risk: Canada’s reliance on resource-intensive industries and increasing costs to meet climate targets create economic vulnerabilities, particularly in regions heavily reliant on fossil fuels.

6. Global Economic Instability

  • Observation: Global supply chain disruptions, energy price volatility, and geopolitical events (e.g., Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) significantly impacted Canada’s economy, with slower GDP growth (1.5% in 2023) and reduced trade​.
  • Risk: External shocks could exacerbate domestic economic challenges, such as rising import costs or reduced demand for Canadian exports.

7. Labor Market and Productivity Challenges

  • Observation: While job creation remained positive, population growth outpaced employment gains, leading to an increase in the unemployment rate to 6.5% by October 2024. Productivity improvements have been uneven​.
  • Risk: Labor shortages in key sectors and declining workforce participation among certain demographics (e.g., aging population) could undermine economic resilience.

8. Dependence on Resource Revenues

  • Observation: Volatile global commodity prices impacted nominal GDP growth, with gains slowing to 2.9% in 2023 after double-digit growth in prior years​.
  • Risk: Fluctuations in resource revenues leave Canada exposed to external shocks, particularly in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, heavily reliant on oil and gas.

These challenges underscore the need for proactive fiscal and policy measures to safeguard economic stability, manage liabilities, and address emerging risks.


The Audit: What would you recommend as the three most urgent areas to address to avoid deepening the economic crisis?


1. Manage Rising Public Debt and Debt Servicing Costs

  • Why It’s Urgent: The rapid increase in public debt charges (35.2% in 2024) is crowding out fiscal space for essential programs. The federal debt, at 42.1% of GDP, has become a significant liability, with interest rate fluctuations posing an ongoing threat​​.
  • Recommendations:
    • Introduce stricter fiscal discipline by prioritizing expenditures that yield long-term economic benefits (e.g., infrastructure, innovation).
    • Develop a comprehensive debt reduction strategy to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio in the medium term.
    • Explore debt refinancing strategies to lock in lower interest rates where feasible.
  • Impact: Reducing debt servicing pressures will free up resources for critical investments and improve Canada’s fiscal resilience.

2. Mitigate the Economic Impact of Contingent Liabilities

  • Why It’s Urgent: Contingent liabilities related to Indigenous claims have grown exponentially (30% annually since 2016), creating fiscal unpredictability and potentially overwhelming future budgets​.
  • Recommendations:
    • Accelerate settlement negotiations to limit litigation costs and interest on outstanding claims.
    • Establish a transparent reserve fund specifically for contingent liabilities, ensuring predictable future payouts.
    • Increase collaboration with Indigenous communities to address systemic issues and prevent further claims.
  • Impact: Resolving liabilities promptly will reduce fiscal uncertainty and demonstrate Canada’s commitment to reconciliation.

3. Address Structural Labor Market and Productivity Challenges

  • Why It’s Urgent: Despite job creation, rising unemployment (6.5% in late 2024) and productivity stagnation threaten long-term economic growth. Labor shortages in critical sectors further exacerbate vulnerabilities​.
  • Recommendations:
    • Expand skilled immigration programs to address labor shortages in healthcare, technology, and green industries.
    • Increase investment in workforce retraining programs, particularly for sectors undergoing automation or transition due to climate policies.
    • Promote workplace flexibility and childcare access to increase labor force participation, particularly among women and aging workers.
  • Impact: Enhancing workforce productivity and participation will strengthen the economic foundation and support GDP growth.

Rationale for Prioritization

These areas represent the most immediate threats to economic security and fiscal stability. Addressing them proactively can reduce vulnerabilities and position Canada for sustainable growth.


The Audit: What are the most surprising and disturbing details in these documents?


1. Rapid Growth of Public Debt Charges

  • Detail: Public debt charges increased by 35.2% year-over-year to $47.3 billion, representing one of the fastest-growing expense categories. This reflects a combination of higher interest rates and the significant size of Canada’s debt​​.
  • Why Disturbing: Such a rapid increase in debt servicing costs could divert funds from essential public services and programs. It also signals limited fiscal flexibility in the event of future economic shocks.

2. Ballooning Contingent Liabilities

  • Detail: The federal government recorded $16.4 billion in expenses for Indigenous contingent liabilities in 2024. This is part of an ongoing surge, with liabilities increasing by 30% annually since 2016​​.
  • Why Disturbing: While reconciliation efforts are vital, the sheer scale and rapid growth of these liabilities are fiscally unsustainable without structural changes or dedicated funding mechanisms. The risk of further liabilities emerging adds to fiscal uncertainty.

3. Significant Write-offs and Provisions for Pandemic Programs

  • Detail: The government wrote off $1.2 billion in expired COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics and recorded $3.5 billion in provisions for unrecovered pandemic-era loans​​.
  • Why Disturbing: These figures highlight inefficiencies in planning and administration during the pandemic response, leading to substantial financial losses. The scale of unrecovered funds also raises questions about accountability in the deployment of emergency programs.

4. Rising Unemployment Despite Job Creation

  • Detail: While 475,000 jobs were created in 2023, the unemployment rate rose to 6.5% by late 2024 due to population growth outpacing employment gains​​.
  • Why Surprising: Despite strong job creation, an inability to keep pace with population growth signals structural issues in labor force integration. This poses a risk to Canada’s economic competitiveness and social cohesion.

5. Declining Corporate Income Tax Revenues

  • Detail: Corporate income tax revenues decreased by 0.7%, driven by reduced taxable income despite an overall increase in total revenues​.
  • Why Surprising: The decline in corporate tax revenues during a period of economic recovery raises concerns about potential tax avoidance, economic inequality, or over-reliance on other revenue streams, such as personal income taxes.

6. Substantial Environmental and Climate Spending

  • Detail: Over $1 billion was allocated to environmental programs, including pollution pricing proceeds. However, the documents note Canada’s slow progress toward net-zero targets and risks to resource-dependent provinces​​.
  • Why Disturbing: While necessary, this spending may be insufficient given the scale of the climate challenge. The mismatch between spending and measurable progress on climate goals risks long-term environmental and economic consequences.

7. Unanticipated Costs of Indigenous Reconciliation

  • Detail: Beyond contingent liabilities, the government is facing unpredictable settlement costs due to increasing litigation and the complexity of claims. These have already exceeded $60 billion since 2016​​.
  • Why Disturbing: The ongoing financial impact of these settlements reflects Canada’s historical neglect of Indigenous issues. Resolving these claims is essential, but the lack of predictability or dedicated funding highlights systemic shortcomings in reconciliation strategies.

8. Softened GDP Growth and Inflation Challenges

  • Detail: Real GDP growth slowed to 1.5% in 2023, and inflation remained high throughout the year, only reaching the Bank of Canada’s 2% target by mid-2024​​.
  • Why Disturbing: The prolonged inflationary period and sluggish growth signal a fragile recovery. These economic conditions could exacerbate income inequality and lead to further fiscal strain.

9. High Provisions for Unrecovered Loans

  • Detail: Provisions of $3.5 billion were recorded for emergency loans provided during the pandemic. The government continues to face difficulties in recovering these funds​.
  • Why Disturbing: This provision raises serious questions about the efficiency of loan administration and the government’s ability to safeguard public funds during emergencies.

10. Heavy Dependence on Volatile Resource Revenues

  • Detail: Nominal GDP growth slowed to 2.9% in 2023, largely due to easing commodity prices after a surge in 2022. Resource dependence remains a key economic vulnerability​.
  • Why Surprising: Despite global shifts toward renewable energy, Canada’s reliance on resource revenues remains high, posing long-term risks to economic diversification and stability.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Audit, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

 

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Business

Trump Tells Supreme Court He Wants To Resolve Tik-Tok Controversy

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

President-elect Donald Trump filed a brief Friday with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block a law requiring that the social media platform TikTok either be sold or shut down by Jan. 19.

In April, President Joe Biden signed legislation allowing the ban of the Chinese-owned social media platform unless it is sold to a non-Chinese company within the year. Despite the company’s attempts to challenge the legislation as the shutdown date approaches, a panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled unanimously on Dec. 6 that the ban would be upheld, citing TikTok as a potential national security risk due to the Chinese government’s involvement with the app.

In his new filing, Trump argued against the ban, seeking to resolve the issue “through political means once he takes office.”

“President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal-making expertise, the electoral mandate and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the government — concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged,” the brief said.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 18 agreed to hear TikTok’s challenge against the ban, with oral arguments set to begin Jan. 10. In its emergency application to the high court, the social media platform argued that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which is the basis for the ban, will not only “shutter” the U.S.’s “most popular speech platform the day before a presidential inauguration,” but will also “silence the speech of Applicants and the many Americans who use the platform to communicate about politics, commerce, arts, and other matters of public concern.”

Despite attempts to ban the app through executive orders, Trump publicly opposed legislation targeting TikTok, stating that the move to ban the social media platform could potentially benefit Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook.

“If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!” Trump posted to Truth Social in March.

In addition to his request to handle the issue once in office on Jan. 20, the brief noted Trump’s large following on TikTok, arguing that it allows him to “actively” communicate with supporters.

“President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific and influential users of social media in history,” the brief said. “Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, allowing him to evaluate TikTok’s importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech.”

TikTok additionally filed a brief Friday to the Supreme Court claiming the law being used to aid the ban was a violation of the First Amendment.

“The government has banned an extraordinary amount of speech; demands deference to unsubstantiated predictions a future risk will materialize; and gets facts wrong when it bothers to provide them,” the brief said.

“Congress’s unprecedented attempt to single out petitioners and bar them from operating one of the nation’s most significant speech venues is profoundly unconstitutional,” the brief continued.

Continue Reading

Trending

X