D.O.G.E.

[Hound of Heaven]

During the 1990s, an initiative from the Clinton administration led to the termination of 377,000 federal employees through a program known as the National Partnership for Reinventing Government. This initiative aimed to reduce costs and enhance efficiency across the federal government, while also transforming the culture of our national bureaucracy from complacency and entitlement to one of initiative and empowerment.

Clinton proposed a $25,000 buyout for federal workers as part of a strategy to decrease the federal workforce by 300,000 employees. From 1993 to 1998, the initiative led to a reduction of 350,000 in the federal workforce. An archived article from NPR's website, dated 1999, states that the federal workforce was reduced by 426,000 jobs by September 2000.

In 2011, Obama enacted a bill aimed at reducing discretionary spending by $1 trillion through the budget control act, which included $340 billion in savings from entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, along with $250 billion from other mandatory programs. Additionally, President Obama suggested reducing 77 government programs and discontinuing another 52 programs.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, when the Democratic Party had not yet succumbed to the pervasive influence of Wokeness, there was a collaborative spirit among Democrats regarding the reduction of government spending. Now that the Republicans are cutting spending through the department of government efficiency, the progressive left stands firmly opposed to what Trump and Musk are doing, as progressives find it difficult to align with any of Trump's actions.

Progressivism has turned increasingly toxic, and those who subscribe to its ideology seem to have lost touch with reason, opposing Trump regardless of the issues at hand. They are against Trump simply due to his identity as Trump. Making them out to be viewed by the American electorate as spoiled little brats that can't compromise even though compromise might be the best for the American people.

I genuinely think Trump starts his day contemplating how to provoke the progressive faction of the Democrat party, knowing full well that they cannot suppress their resentment towards him. He recognizes that the more he disturbs the unhinged progressives, the greater the likelihood that Republicans will expand their margins in the 2026 elections.

The irrationality emerging from the progressive faction of the party is what will ensure the Republicans remain in power, rather than the genuine Republican platform. People have grown increasingly tired of the progressives, perceiving them as irrational, leading to a reluctance to elect them due to their focus on conflict and negativity.

Progressives have criticized Trump for such an extended period that their credibility has diminished. They have lost the trust of everyone. Progressivism has turned into a laughingstock. In a rational society, the department of government efficiency would receive bipartisan backing, however, due to the progressives opposition to everything Trump undertakes, they feel compelled to oppose DOGE as well. Creating a situation where it appears that the Democrats are against reducing the size of government, while in reality, the Democratic Party has consistently viewed a smaller government as advantageous to our way of life.

Trump is leveraging the animosity that progressives hold towards him to persuade the American electorate that progressives desire a more expansive and intrusive government that permeates every facet of life. He recognizes that the progressives lack the capacity for compromise due to their animosity towards him, and he leverages their disdain to benefit the Republican Party.

Progressivism is set to undermine the Democratic Party, a party that has, over the past 40 years, enacted policies aimed at reducing the size of government, much like DOGE is currently doing. In a rational environment, DOGE would attract Democrats eager to assist Musk in reducing spending, reminiscent of the 90s to early 2000s under Clinton and Obama. However, with Trump at the helm of DOGE, the more extreme progressives are prepared to appear foolish by opposing smaller government, ensuring a Republican victory in 2026 and beyond.

[Molok]

Go ahead and list one single progressive politician in the democrat party with any power, or one single progressive policy. Here's the 2024 Democrat platform since you're far too lazy to actually look up anything you babble on about incoherently:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://democrats.org/wp-content/upload ... 8a2cf8.pdf

I can't help but notice how you never bring up the amount of white supremacists and Christian nationalists that have real, actual power in the Republican party and how that's a bad thing. Gee, I wonder why that is?

[Hound of Heaven]

Go ahead and list one single progressive politician in the democrat party with any power, or one single progressive policy. Here's the 2024 Democrat platform since you're far too lazy to actually look up anything you babble on about incoherently:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://democrats.org/wp-content/upload ... 8a2cf8.pdf

I can't help but notice how you never bring up the amount of white supremacists and Christian nationalists that have real, actual power in the Republican party and how that's a bad thing. Gee, I wonder why

[Hound of Heaven]

Go ahead and list one single progressive politician in the democrat party with any power, or one single progressive policy. Here's the 2024 Democrat platform since you're far too lazy to actually look up anything you babble on about incoherently:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://democrats.org/wp-content/upload ... 8a2cf8.pdf

I can't help but notice how you never bring up the amount of white supremacists and Christian nationalists that have real, actual power in the Republican party and how that's a bad thing. Gee, I wonder why that is?

That's because I'm not WOKE! Your discussions regarding white supremacy are hurting the Democratic Party. The overwhelming number of Americans do not believe that the Republican Party is controlled by white supremacists. In fact, the more you attempt to persuade the American electorate that a group of white supremacists is controlling the Republican Party, the more you are effectively driving independents and moderate Democrats toward the Republican Party. Do you not understand?

Many individuals are weary of the constant negativity that seems to surround your perspective, often resorting to untruths in an effort to portray Republicans unfavorably, regardless of whether their actions may actually benefit Americans. Progressives have become so irrational that they oppose Trump solely due to his identity as Trump.

In essence, Trump is putting forward plans aimed at benefiting Americans, fully aware that progressives will likely oppose them solely due to his involvement in suggesting these initiatives. This approach causes progressives, and consequently the Democratic Party, to appear as if they harbor animosity towards Americans.

I genuinely think that progressives will oppose Trump in 2025 because they view it as a form of therapy, a cathartic pursuit that alleviates their mental distress.

[canpakes]

.
The current so-called ‘cost cutting’ chaos by DOGE is very different from what happened in previous years.

…]the (Clinton Administration’s) Reinventing Government project was nearly the opposite of the abrupt, chaotic Musk effort, say those who ran it or watched it unfold. It was authorized by bipartisan congressional legislation, worked slowly over several years to identify inefficiencies and involved federal workers in re-envisioning their jobs.

“There was a tremendous effort put into understanding what should happen and what should change,” said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, which seeks to improve the federal workforce. “What is happening now is actually taking us backwards.”

As part of Musk’s effort, the Trump administration has fired thousands of federal workers without warning. It offered government employees a “ deferred resignation” program that wasn’t authorized by Congress and gutted agencies without similar legislative authorization, though sometimes judges intervened. The technology mogul and world’s richest person has pledged to save trillions of taxpayer dollars by cutting costs.

Those familiar with the Clinton-era Reinventing Government push say it holds lessons for both how to remake the federal bureaucracy and the comparatively meager savings that can be achieved from such an effort.

“We did it without a constitutional crisis,” said Elaine Kamarck, who ran Reinventing Government as a senior Gore adviser in the 1990s. “Unlike these people, we didn’t think there were vast trillions in efficiencies. ... Their mandate is only to cut. Our was: Works better, costs less.”

Kamarck said the initiative grew to a 400-person staff recruited from existing workers within the federal agencies. They set about making the government more efficient and focused on customer service, introducing private sector-style metrics such as performance standards for workers.

The Reinventing Government team also pushed the workforce to embrace a brand new technology — the internet. Many governmental web sites and programs, including the electronic filing of income taxes, date back to the Reinventing Government initiative.

Gore appeared on the David Letterman late night television show and smashed a government ash tray with a hammer to symbolize his crusade to eliminate waste. The government ended up giving out “hammer awards” to employees who came up with ways to cut red tape and improve service, recalled Don Kettl, an emeritus professor of public policy at the University of Maryland.

“Liberating employees and seeing employees as a better part of the system was a big piece of it,” Kettl recalled. “One important difference is the Trump administration sees federal employees as the bad guys, and the Clinton administration saw federal employees as good guys.”

The Clinton administration also worked with Congress to authorize $25,000 buyouts for federal workers and ended up eliminating what Kamarck said were more than 400,000 federal positions between 1993 and 2000 through a combination of voluntary departures, attrition and a relatively small number of layoffs.

Kettl said the job cuts didn’t save money because the government had to turn around and hire contractors to perform the tasks of workers who left — something he worries will happen again if Musk and Trump continue to slash the federal workforce.

Chris Edwards, who edits DownsizingGovernment.org at the conservative Cato Institute in Washington, said buyouts symbolize the important difference between the Clinton effort, which he called “moderately successful,” and the current DOGE campaign — the involvement of Congress.

The Republicans who control Congress today have let Musk move ahead with his changes without them, even though the Constitution states that the legislative branch approves spending and federal law prohibits the president from cutting programs Congress has authorized without its permission. Clinton was the last president to successfully seek that permission, with Congress accepting $3.6 billion in cuts he proposed.

Trump and Musk have made only vague promises about submitting cuts to Congress. Without its involvement, any savings will be fleeting, Edwards said: “None of these changes DOGE wants to make will be permanent,” he said.

Few Republicans have suggested greater involvement by Congress.

“It requires speaking out. It requires saying, ‘That violates the law, that violates the authorities of the executive,’” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Kamarck estimated the total savings of Reinventing Government at $146 billion — a considerable amount, but still only a tiny sliver of the federal budget. She contrasted the slow, deliberative and collaborative approach her team took with Musk’s breakneck pace, led by a team of young outsiders he has brought in to slash agencies and their workforce.

The reason Reinventing Government moved slowly, Kamarck said, was that it didn’t want to interfere with the myriad crucial roles of government while restructuring it. Musk seems to have few such concerns, she fears.

“The stakes in federal government failure are really, really high in a way they’re not in the private sector,” Kamarck said. “We really worried about screwing things up, and I don’t think these guys are worried enough about screwing things up, and it’ll be their undoing.”

https://apnews.com/article/Trump-musk-d ... 065c1b0a6d

By the way, Hound, you really a new angle.

… I'm not WOKE!

[Hound of Heaven]

This is an example of what my party might resemble if the progressive wing were not afforded as much attention. If moderate and conservative Democrats could come together, common sense would prevail in the party, countering the disruptive influence of the more extreme progressives who are undermining the Democratic Party.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5143 ... rats-musk/

[Kishkumen]

It seems like Hound of Heaven is looking for any excuse or justification to support Trump. Everything HoH has brought up thus far has been a flat failure. There is a world of difference between experienced politicians and bureaucrats carefully and deliberately combing through programs and expenditures to identify ways of saving money, and a drug-addled billionaire with his coterie of traitor tots hacking and slashing indiscriminately through employees, programs, and expenditures without the least inkling of understanding what they are for.

Quit excusing transparent incompetence and corruption, Hound of Heaven. Wokeness may drive you around the bend, but it is nothing in comparison with the wrecking ball of Trump and Co. I really don't get your eagerness to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

[canpakes]

This is an example …

In the week following that article, Phillips has grown more critical of Musk’s thrashing about.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=95uhQc50lTM

”Where’s the beef?”, as Phillips notes, is a fair question to pursue if we’re going to have to deal with Musk’s chaotic and questionable approach.

[Hound of Heaven]

This is an example ...

In the week following that article, Phillips has grown more critical of Musk’s thrashing about.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=95uhQc50lTM

”Where’s the beef?”, as Phillips notes, is a fair question to pursue if we’re going to have to deal with Musk’s chaotic and questionable approach.

It seems we might be viewing different videos, as the link you shared displays Dean Phillips in agreement with Trump!

He emphasizes that Congress should be the last group to be entrusted at DOGE, as they are the ones who have accumulated over 30 trillion in debt. He asserts that Congress has had plenty of opportunities to tackle the issue, yet they consistently fail to do so.

He suggests that occasionally, a bull in a China shop is necessary to tackle such a significant matter.

It seems you are reaching for justifications to alleviate the unease of recognizing your position on this matter may not be the correct one.

As I mentioned, Democrats have historically valued a smaller, more effective, and efficient government until the extreme progressives began to dominate the narrative within the Democratic Party. Currently, we are perceived as a group of entitled individuals who only seek to receive, yet are unwilling to contribute.

[Molok]

Go ahead and list one single progressive politician in the democrat party with any power, or one single progressive policy. Here's the 2024 Democrat platform since you're far too lazy to actually look up anything you babble on about incoherently:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://democrats.org/wp-content/upload ... 8a2cf8.pdf

I can't help but notice how you never bring up the amount of white supremacists and Christian nationalists that have real, actual power in the Republican party and how that's a bad thing. Gee, I wonder why that is?

That's because I'm not WOKE! Your discussions regarding white supremacy are hurting the Democratic Party. The overwhelming number of Americans do not believe that the Republican Party is controlled by white supremacists. In fact, the more you attempt to persuade the American electorate that a group of white supremacists is controlling the Republican Party, the more you are effectively driving independents and moderate Democrats toward the Republican Party. Do you not understand?

Can't help but notice you are still unable to name a progressive politician / policy. So, to sum up your ludicrous position :

Endlessly kvetching about progressives ruining the Democrat party while presenting absolutely no evidence of that = GREAT, WELL THOUGHT OUT POSITION

Pointing out that people with real policy making power are obvious fascists and white supremacists = Woke BS

Who is this even supposed to fool at this point? Yourself?