I Fought the Swamp... and the Swamp Won!

If you favor an ever-growing out-of-control federal government, with a voracious spending appetite and no checks on WFA (Waste, Fraud and Abuse), then go ahead and take a victory lap!


It’s a DOGE Eat DOGE World

Elon Musk and Donald Trump set out to shrink big government. They did not succeed.

By Jeffrey Tucker
Nov. 25, 2025 5:58 pm ET


The Department of Government Efficiency is officially disbanded - with eight months remaining in its mandate. Some DOGE employees are now staffing other agencies. The federal budget is still growing dramatically, exactly as we’ve come to expect, and bloat is still a problem.

The Trump administration assures us that the vision of DOGE lives on, but one does wonder. The story of DOGE reads like another failed attempt to restrain and contain that which is institutionally implacable.

Let us recall those exciting days in late 2024 when Donald Trump and Elon Musk teamed up with the intention to create DOGE, a clever homage to Mr. Musk’s favorite meme coin. Old-style analog government would be subject to the discipline and cold logic that drives the digitizing private sector.

Two years before Mr. Musk had freed Twitter from bloat and mismanagement by cutting nearly four-fifths of employees and creating something that worked better. Together with businessman Trump, the plan was to bring that spirit to government itself. Such a prospect eased the fears of many fiscal hawks who wanted to support Mr. Trump but worried that his first term was not a model of frugality.

The original vision of $2 trillion in cuts inspired awe. Enthralled, I personally commissioned David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s own legendary budget cutter, to map out how it could be done. The result was a book that we distributed to every sitting member of Congress.

Mr. Musk recruited for DOGE with a public call for tech-savvy nerds to work long hours at low pay. Many stepped forward, a young army of budget-slashers.

After the inauguration, the $2 trillion figure was replaced with $1 trillion. Still the team got to work immediately. They camped out in various bureaucracies, literally sleeping in the office and having food delivered. They cracked open the vaults of the U.S. Treasury for the first-ever outside audit. They began using modern AI tools to locate waste and order cuts.

DOGE agents had unprecedented access and were feared by legacy civil servants. Then came the daily announcements and receipts documenting scandalous spending outrages, not all of which lived up to their original billing. But they were posted to DOGE’s new website and on X, then shared with great enthusiasm by me and many others.

In line with the DOGE ethos, the White House ordered a hiring freeze. The Office of Personnel Management began sending emails to the entire civil service asking what it is they actually do. They offered incentives to bureaucrats to retire immediately.

An internal tension always threatened the plan. Article 1 of the Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress. Over a century of legislation, Congress created some 400 or so agencies to spend the money. They are, however, technically classified as executive agencies. Article 2 gives the president the power to be the administrator of this branch.

How can Congress mandate the executive branch to carry out its spending ambitions in every detail even as Congress takes no responsibility for managing the process or outcome? And how can the chief executive bear responsibility for agency management without touching the spending itself?

The conflict directly affected DOGE’s work. They could not make real cuts without having them ratified by Congress, which requires another layer of politics. DOGE’s work triggered at least 20 significant court cases that are trying to thread the needles of authority.

We await final judgments on the legal status of the administrative state in general. Exactly who is in charge?

The director of OPM Scott Kupor says that perceptions of DOGE as defunct are wrong. “DOGE may not have centralized leadership,” he writes, but “the principles of DOGE remain alive and well.”

That might be so, but it is impossible not to be disappointed with the gap between the initial dreams and the results. In October, DOGE claimed to have saved American taxpayers $214 billion, or 5% to 10% of original estimates. Was it worth the effort? Certainly. The dream to clean up big government, however, awaits another opportunity.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/its-a-do...world-9d770b96

Theoretically, couldn't Republicans right size federal government next year in a budget reconciliation bill? Practically Congressmen don't have the stomach for it, and I don't think Trump does either.

Theoretically, couldn't Republicans right size federal government next year in a budget reconciliation bill? ... Originally Posted by Tiny

Let us recall the other side of the DOGE coin. They also reduced the size of government somewhat, flushed out a number of sewer rats (EDVA comes to mind) and are moving functions out of some departments to elsewhere. Not to forget, they shut down a whole-heaping bunch of the illicit NGO fund sourcing pipeline.

It was a jerkoff for a rich man, by a megalomaniac who worships wealth above all also.

Sure, they gutted some agencies, many irreparably, but also defecated our sense of propriety. Yeah, the Musk jerkoff was that kind of humiliating.

And his kid got to wipe boogers on the resolute desk.

Proud?

Coming for someone that sees big over bloated gumment as a virtuous and good thing...I wouldn't expect anything less.
As President Reagan said over 40 yrs ago...the Gumment is over bloated and spends to much money. It has only gotten much worse since then and will continue to get so.
The left worships at the alter of big Gumment!!!

But the left has spell check.

Explain how the debt and the deficit both skyrocket under Trump and other Republicans before him. Now connect the dots, if you are able.

Drink less Kool Aid.

It was a jerkoff for a rich man, by a megalomaniac who worships wealth above all also... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The word you are seeking is "philanthropy" A-N-D also your lucky day, in that Amazon has a Black Friday deal on the Oxford Dictionary. Boogers included at no extra charge, P-L-U-S you can get it for $0.00 if you sign up for a free Amazon VISA card!

philanthropy (hit tip to: The American Heritage® Dictionary)

1. The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.
2. Love of humankind in general.
3. Something, such as an activity or institution, intended to promote human welfare.

The word you are seeking is "philanthropy" A-N-D also your lucky day, in that Amazon has a Black Friday deal on the Oxford Dictionary. Boogers included at no extra charge, P-L-U-S you can get it for $0.00 if you sign up for a free Amazon VISA card!

philanthropy (hit tip to: The American Heritage® Dictionary)

1. The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.
2. Love of humankind in general.
3. Something, such as an activity or institution, intended to promote human welfare.

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Ingles, por favor.

Your responses are always so insightful.

The word is bribery.

Another case study for history of hiring a butcher to do brain surgery.

This should be a 5 star thread. Well, I single handedly boosted it from one to three.

Let us recall the other side of the DOGE coin. They also reduced the size of government somewhat, flushed out a number of sewer rats (EDVA comes to mind) and are moving functions out of some departments to elsewhere. Not to forget, they shut down a whole-heaping bunch of the illicit NGO fund sourcing pipeline. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Please note from LL's article that the $2 trillion goal got cut down to $214 billion.

Another case study for history of hiring a butcher to do brain surgery. Originally Posted by Brot

Not the best analogy Brot. Please think in terms of plastic surgery. They should have lipo sucked about 100 pounds out of that pig, but instead they just whacked off some moles and cysts. While that improved its overall appearance, they cut off some beauty marks too, like mRNA vaccine research and aid to Africa. The pig actually gained weight. And it's still pretty damn ugly.

Theoretically, couldn't Republicans right size federal government next year in a budget reconciliation bill? Practically Congressmen don't have the stomach for it, and I don't think Trump does either. Originally Posted by Tiny

This was the best thing said in response to another post of WSJ column clickbait.

The thread should have stopped right there.

Theoretically, couldn't Republicans right size federal government next year in a budget reconciliation bill? Practically Congressmen don't have the stomach for it, and I don't think Trump does either. Originally Posted by Tiny

If these patriots weren't so afraid of losing their phony baloney jobs, they'd do just that. They are more concerned with that than fulfilling the promise of their campaigns to cut the waste. (this isn't new btw)

I think that would be a great goal for them in 2026... that is, if they want to keep those jobs.

Otherwise, they'll continue to cement their reputation as the least effective congress ever.

Gentlemen, This is a bipartisan failing. Other than Rand Paul and Chip Roy, I can't think of any Congressman or Senator who consistently favors spending cuts. Paul has floated the idea of an across the board cut of 1% or 2% per year in all programs for several years. Do that for a little while, and with inflation and GDP growth you could make a big difference. Could the politicians actually get away with that for Medicare or Social Security? Probably not. For those programs a solution might require something like what Reagan and Tip O'Neill did back in the 1980's--increase payroll contributions. Or better yet reform our wasteful health care system and transition from Social Security to individual retirement accounts, something like Australia's superannuation scheme. Your average Australian draws more out of his superannuation account than an American gets from Social Security. And it's his account, not some pay-as-you go Ponzi scheme.