Is DOGE Unprecedented?

Please email me 5 things you did last week.  Just kidding! 

Most of us wouldn’t have a hard time telling people what we accomplished in our work week . . . and hopefully, it’s more than 5 things!  As to what the federal government has  accomplished?  Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? 

Whether you like Elon Musk and the newly minted Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) or not, politicians and statesmen have long called for limits and accountability in government spending.   As it seems to be sending shockwaves through the electorate, some might be surprised to learn that there is a long history in the United States of trying to get spending under control.  I thought it might be an eye-opener to look at history and see what is new (and what isn’t) in attempts to rein in federal spending, fraud, and waste. 

As far back as 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt established the Committee on Department Methods . . . otherwise known as the Keep Commission.  It was run by New York banker Charles Keep and was set up to investigate government waste, personnel management, procurement, accounting practices, and the like.  

Fast forward to World War II and the 1940s.  U.S. Senator Harry Byrd, a Democrat from Virginia, wanted to make sure that the war was paid for by reducing non-defense spending rather than by raising taxes.  Thus was established the Byrd Committee whose sole mission was to identify nonessential federal expenditures and recommend elimination or reduction.  According to tax reform advocate Grover Norquist, the committee saw real accomplishments, among them: abolishment of the Civilian Conservation Corps, drastic cuts to the Work Projects Administration (WPA), and the elimination of the National Youth Administration.  After the war, the committee wielded less power but continued to publish monthly reports and statistics on government spending until 1974. 

The private-sector Grace Commission was initiated by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and produced over 2,000 recommendations claiming a potential savings of up to $424 billion over three years.  For two years, corporate executives led an army of 2,000 volunteers on a “waste-hunt” through the federal government.  The nonprofit Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) was established to follow up on the implementation and recommendations of the commission. 

Under Democratic president Bill Clinton, a National Performance Review was initiated to focus on performance metrics and to emphasize customer service.  

Even Barack Obama sought to capture the ire voters have for government spending, bailouts, and the stimuli by floating ideas such as the “Deficit Commission.” 

So, looking particularly at the Byrd Committee and DOGE, for example, what’s the difference?  Both aimed at enhancing government efficiency.  The difference comes when you look at the origins, structure, and tactics of each.   

Those who worry about further government overreach from DOGE may point to the fact that, constitutionally, spending issues are the prerogative of the legislative branch of government.  The Byrd Committee was a joint bipartisan congressional oversight committee established by Congress.  DOGE is a temporary organization set up with the Executive Office of the President by presidential executive order.  

The Byrd Committee also recommended cuts and practices, whereas, through executive order, the President himself initiated an immediate hiring freeze, directed agency heads to begin large-scale reductions in force, and embedded “DOGE team leads” into agencies with specific directions to be followed within 30 days.   

Others argue that the lack of movement by Congress over the years has necessitated that the executive branch take over control of the “power of the purse” and forgo the Congressional budget, authorization, appropriation, and reconciliation process. 

Whatever your opinion on the tactics being used, we can see that historically the idea of restraining government spending has been proposed by both sides of the aisle since the early 1900s.   It is helpful to remember the ultimate purpose and that the goal of reducing government waste is in the best interest of the nation.