Tag Archives: Musk

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 6.

Posted on by
Reply

            President Donald Trump tasked “Special Government Employee” Elon Musk with downsizing government.[1]  Musk, it is often pointed out, is an “unelected billionaire.”[2]  Musk immediately exhibited the drive and ruthlessness that made him a billionaire in the first place.  In his own offensive phrase, he and his myrmidons “spent the weekend feeding US AID into the wood chipper.”[3]  He also sent his people into the Treasury Department Finance section, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Education.  In most cases, they seemed to be after the computer and record systems.[4]  Along the way, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.) e-mailed federal employees offering a choice between resigning now and receiving eight months’ pay or risking being fired at some point in the future. 

            Criticism followed.  Senator Charles Schumer warned that “an unelected shadow government is conducting a hostile takeover of the federal government.”  Yale historian Timothy Snyder called it “a coup.”  Journalist David Rothkopf warned of the approach of “the worst form of malevolent dictatorship.”  Senator Elizabeth Warren insisted that “Elon Musk is seizing the power that belongs to the American people.”[5]

            Lawyers saw the Musk task force’s actions as “wildly illegal” and unconstitutional.  Neither they nor President Trump can close down federal agencies created by Congress or impound funds appropriated by Congress. 

            A final, perhaps revealing, criticism is of the people doing Musk’s work.  They are “a coterie of engineers barely out of college.”  They are “young” and they are “engineers.”  In contrast, Charles Schumer is 74, Elizabeth Warren is 75, Dick Durbin is 79, Mark Warner is 70, Amy Klobuchar is 64, Tammy Baldwin is 62, Cory Booker is 55, Chris Murphy is 52.  All are lawyers.  Many of the younger-than-them people on their staffs doubtless are also lawyers. 

            Do engineers and lawyers think in different ways?  Not being one or the other, it’s difficult to say.  However, law schools instill a reverence for precedent.[6]  Engineering schools emphasize problem-solving and simplification.[7]  On the second issue of older versus younger, there are both stereotypes and more evidence-based analyses.[8]  It should surprise no one that young engineers think and act differently from aged lawyers.  One thing that is clear is that the “Old Order” is unable to address our national problems.  Will a “New Order” make them worse? 

[1] Musk is commonly identified as “the world’s richest person,” rather than as the “creator of several massively innovative companies—including one that may have to bring back two astronauts stranded on Gilligan’s Satellite.

[2] All Cabinet members are “unelected.”  According to a 2021 article in Forbes, the median wealth in the “poor man’s cabinet” of Joe Biden was $5.5 million; average wealth was $6.8 million.  The figures were far higher for the first Trump cabinet, and for the first Obama cabinet.  Musk isn’t a cabinet-member, but the principle is the same. 

[3] Bing Videos  Well, he likes the Coen Brothers. 

[4] “Musk launches offensive on government agencies,” The Week, 14 February 2025, p. 4. 

[5] Although, in fact, the American people delegated all those powers to their elected government.  The current head of the Executive Branch of that government is Donald Trump. 

[6] Precedent – Wikipedia 

[7] There is an interesting analysis at Do Engineers Think Differently? Yes, Learn The 6 Ways | Engineer Calcs

[8] See: Old Versus Young: The Cultural Generation Gap | The Pew Charitable Trusts and II. Generations Apart — and Together | Pew Research Center 

Ruthless.

Posted on by
2

            Here’s the rot at the heart of the Republic: American voters of both parties have come to love “free stuff.”[1]  In a Democracy, politicians and political parties see the road to their own success running through giving voters what they want.  For Democrats, it means Tax-Spend-Elect; for Republicans it means Tax Cut-Spend-Elect. 

            As a result, in 2023, federal spending hit $6.75 trillion, with the federal deficit (not debt, just one year’s worth of spending above revenue) hitting $1.8 trillion.[2]  That deficit is 6.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  That isn’t a record.  It has been surpassed before.  However, those other peaks occurred during some kind of emergency: wars, recessions, etc.  Those conditions don’t apply at the moment. 

“Goo-goos” hate this trait.[3]  In the present day, all sorts of experts and commissions offer warnings of coming catastrophe and plans to avoid same.  The trouble is that this is like trying to talk a drunk into giving sobriety a spin.  It isn’t going to happen until they “hit bottom” or have a “moment of clarity.”[4]  What might bring on such a change? 

            Can you cut federal spending by shrinking the federal government?  YES!  And this idea is supported by a majority of Americans.[5]  Can you cut a LOT of federal spending simply by shrinking the number of civil service employees?  NO! 

First, the cost of salaries for all civil servants runs in the area of $200-$250 billion a year.  You will recall (from just above) that this year’s deficit is $1.8 trillion.  So, $200-$250 billion is about one-eighth of the deficit. 

Second, there’s interest on the debt at $882 billion.  An actual default, not just cuts to existing spending, may be coming.  We’re not there yet and we may be able to fend it off. 

Then there’s “discretionary” spending.  This includes the defense budget and everything else.  This comes in at around $2 trillion.  You can cut the defense budget a bunch.  You just have to believe that we are entering an era of peace and tranquility in which no other country will seek to challenge American interests. 

            Third, there’s the elephant in the room: “mandatory” spending on Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and related programs.  This amounts to $4.1 trillion, more than double “discretionary” spending.  “So taming mandatory spending means reining in benefits.”  Ouch! 

            It seems impossible for either Congress or the American people in their present state of desiring “free stuff” from the government to address this issue.  Nor will they raise taxes. 

However, there is scope for executive action.  For example, one “Goo-goo” estimate suggests that as much as $1.4 trillion could be saved by reversing Biden administration executive actions.  All we need is a ruthless lame-duck president who doesn’t care about established traditions or Beltway verities or even what he may have promised to get elected. 

[1] This has become a cultural force.  How and why this has happened is worth exploring. 

[2] Greg Ip, “Cutting Deficits Is Easy—Just Unpopular,” WSJ, 27 December 2024. 

[3] See: Goo-goos – Wikipedia 

[4] You might think that the recent unpleasantness with inflation fueled by deficits would have awakened ordinary Americans to this issue.  It doesn’t seem to have done the trick.  Or perhaps the pre-existing interest groups and political habits were just too strong for a not-yet-crystalized change of attitude.   

[5] According to an Ipsos poll, 57 percent of Americans favor downsizing the federal government.  “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 17.