Department of Government Efficiency

https://reason.com/2024/11/13/saint-elon/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elo...ent-efficiency

"The Department of Government Efficiency will provide advice and guidance from outside of Government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before," wrote Trump in his statement announcing the picks. "It will become, potentially, 'The Manhattan Project' of our time."

"All actions of the Department of Government Efficiency will be posted online for maximum transparency," wrote Musk on X. "Anytime the public thinks we are cutting something important or not cutting something wasteful, just let us know! We will also have a leaderboard for most insanely dumb spending of your tax dollars. This will be both extremely tragic and extremely entertaining."

Sounds good to me- especially if it actually works.

Like all of Trump's ideas, we have to wait to see if it is bluster or reality.

Imagine eliminating bureaucrats by creating a new department. Sounds counterproductive, but I appreciate the effort.

The VA should form a college for disabled veterans (or qualified others) that want to study medicine. Add in some AI programming skills too. Make it available online. Quit blowing DEI in my face! It is a waste of money.

I am curious how the Department of Redundancy Department will work out.

In the DoD alone, probably 20% of their budget goes to: waste, graft, fraud, overcharges, and kickbacks.

The last time the Pentagon was audited, IIRC they were unable to account for a few billion, then instead of digging deeper the matter was dropped.

Someone places an order for 50,000 overpriced widgets... which are never used... then 20 years later they're found in a warehouse... and then, of course, there are things like the infamous $15,000 toilet seat, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clint45

In the DoD alone, probably 20% of their budget goes to: waste, graft, fraud, overcharges, and kickbacks.

The last time the Pentagon was audited, IIRC they were unable to account for a few billion, then instead of digging deeper the matter was dropped.

Someone places an order for 50,000 overpriced widgets... which are never used... then 20 years later they're found in a warehouse... and then, of course, there are things like the infamous $15,000 toilet seat, lol.

---

The problem with the DoD is that after auditing, the waste, graft, fraud, overcharges, and kickbacks will remain while important beneficial programs will get cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3beansalad

Imagine eliminating bureaucrats by creating a new department. Sounds counterproductive, but I appreciate the effort.

---

^^^This.

If you're unarmed, you are a victim.

I see there is still a lot of butt hurt and TDS on the forum, not willing to consider new ideas or give anything a chance.

I?ve been working for the Federal Government for a bit now, have held mid level management positions (self demoted because of the dirty business). When you have multiple departments just within one geographical portion of the agency spending 10?s of thousands of dollars on bullshit at the end of the year, just so congress doesn?t cut their budget for the following year, I have a huge problem with that, and if we can get some form of checks and balances, I?m all for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would hardly call two people being assigned to a new oversight agency as counterproductive. Unless someone here has a better idea of what existing government oversight agency should instead have been utilized to reduce the sludge.

Elizabeth Warren made some snarky remark about the irony of having a department of efficiency with two people doing the job one person should be able to do. I think everyone knows she's a moron.

I'll be surprised if Musk takes a paycheck...like Trump in his first term. Either way, I think the benefits of having these two in charge will far, far outweigh the expense of hiring both of them to run the department.

If they can cut the $1T in fraud, and the wasteful needless grant money that goes out for things like studying the effect of gin vs vodka for sunfish, I'm all for it.

We can start by firing 80K IRS agents, slashing the EPA boondoggle, Dept of Education, etc.

It is my understanding that trillions have been spent covering this up. So when do I fly the spacecraft?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzyn6mGAHZk

2.5M federal employees, yeah, there's plenty of room to cut. Just like when a company that's losing money, it's time the US gov had massive layoffs to save money.

The average salary for federal employees is $100k according to the OPM.

Layoff 20%, save $50B per year.

Doesn't make a big dent in the $2T deficit, but it's a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3beansalad

Imagine eliminating bureaucrats by creating a new department. Sounds counterproductive, but I appreciate the effort.

---

I know I don't need to explain myself, but I'm going to attempt to anyway.
I support the incoming administration, and the effort to clean up our bloated government. I hope this is successful. And if it's only Elon and Vivek, I'm sure it will. I doubt they can accomplish this on their own though, no matter their drive and ambition.

This will face major opposition from the swamp, both D & R, that have made federal employment their lifelong home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

It is my understanding that trillions have been spent covering this up. So when do I fly the spacecraft?

---

That coverup goes back to the 1940s and remains ongoing. They are unlikely ever to release that data and continue to gaslight the public.

First of all, there are no "spacecraft." Roswell was a PSYOP, there is zero indication of extraterrestrial origin, we have never recovered any "debris" and never will.

This is a 5th dimensional phenomenon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hurley842002

I see there is still a lot of butt hurt and TDS on the forum, not willing to consider new ideas or give anything a chance.

I?ve been working for the Federal Government for a bit now, have held mid level management positions (self demoted because of the dirty business). When you have multiple departments just within one geographical portion of the agency spending 10?s of thousands of dollars on bullshit at the end of the year, just so congress doesn?t cut their budget for the following year, I have a huge problem with that, and if we can get some form of checks and balances, I?m all for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Having worked for the state, i agree. They find more ways to waste time and $$ doing what we'd consider simple task.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

2.5M federal employees, yeah, there's plenty of room to cut. Just like when a company that's losing money, it's time the US gov had massive layoffs to save money.

The average salary for federal employees is $100k according to the OPM.

Layoff 20%, save $50B per year.

Doesn't make a big dent in the $2T deficit, but it's a start.

---

As i've said before. If their non-essential employees, they're also better off elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .455_Hunter

The problem with the DoD is that after auditing, the waste, graft, fraud, overcharges, and kickbacks will remain while important beneficial programs will get cut.

---

You're one of the few that get it across the GOV. And it's not just waste/fraud/graft/etc. It's also how government employment flat out works.

Sure, a ton of federal employees should be trimmed back. But they won't.

They can cut budgets and layoff people, but they'll keep the dead wood and layoff contractors left and right (the ones that do the work), then ask the poor (contractor) souls that remain to do the work of 8 people for 1/2 the pay.

Then when essential services that the contractors uphold fall apart, they'll blame the budget cuts.

The Federal dead wood isn't going anywhere, their wages and raises aren't going anywhere, it's all legislated, protected, etc....

In our gov, federal employees hold a lot of meetings and charge timecards. Most departments it's the contractors that do the "real work", in part to conceal the # of true federal employment, but more importantly, to f* people over. Contractors usually get bottom-barrel benefits and lowest-bid wage categorization. Then it's the "federal employees" who decide how to "direct" the contractors. On average you're looking at 1 fed to 2 contractors or more.

99% of the fed employees will still be there even if we do trim a full T. [And it's this category that needs the most reduction, TBH]

None of it will amount to a thing compared to the big three- Social Security (1.3T), Medicare and Medicaid (1.7T) and welfare (780B), and no one is willing to touch those entitlement programs.

National defense could surely use a trimming (820B) but as what cost?

Total Federal payroll is around 280B so even firing everyone would do very little to affect the 6.75T spending.


*Edited the social security and medicare numbers from B toT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddiememphis

None of it will amount to a thing compared to the big three- Social Security (1.3B), Medicare and Medicaid (1.7B) and welfare (780B), and no one is willing to touch those entitlement programs.

National defense could surely use a trimming (820B) but as what cost?

Total Federal payroll is around 280B so even firing everyone would do very little to affect the 6.75T spending.

---

Big 5 now... the interest on the debt being one of them...

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/amer...ing-categories

-John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddiememphis

None of it will amount to a thing compared to the big three- Social Security (1.3B), Medicare and Medicaid (1.7B) and welfare (780B), and no one is willing to touch those entitlement programs.

National defense could surely use a trimming (820B) but as what cost?

Total Federal payroll is around 280B so even firing everyone would do very little to affect the 6.75T spending.

---

Screw it, I guess we just keep spending like we have been. Some of you won?t be happy no matter what.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arbol

Big 5 now... the interest on the debt being one of them...

---

True but you can't lower the interest due through a mandate or new department. Need to cut the deficit spending first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hurley842002

Screw it, I guess we just keep spending like we have been. Some of you won?t be happy no matter what.

---

I certainly haven't said that. Any cut in spending is generally a good idea.

A billion here, a billion there... pretty soon we're talking real money.

However, without addressing entitlements, they will still be over budget.

Total Federal tax income is around 4.5T. Spending is near 7T.

That spending gap will not be closed by shutting down the department of education and firing 80,000 IRS employees, although that is a great place to start.

Where is Tom Sowell when we need him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddiememphis

None of it will amount to a thing compared to the big three- Social Security (1.3B), Medicare and Medicaid (1.7B) and welfare (780B), and no one is willing to touch those entitlement programs.

National defense could surely use a trimming (820B) but as what cost?

Total Federal payroll is around 280B so even firing everyone would do very little to affect the 6.75T spending.

---

If your numbers are correct, SS + M&M + welfare = less than 800 billion or less than 20% of 4.7T tax revenue.

Plenty of room to cut needless spending before tackling "big 3" or defense(another approx 20% as related to tax revenue). Not saying they dont need addressed, just plenty of other expenditures that are just fukking stupid and could be cut immediately.

Cutting .gov workers/payroll may be a "small" number but it will also cut people who spend and all the ancillary costs of employing them. Those costs are probably much greater than their payroll.

Substantial revenue could be generated just selling off the real estate/infrastructure where those employees "work".

If you're unarmed, you are a victim.

Can we please stop calling SS an "entitlement?"

I now it's like getting twisted up on clip vs magazine, but still irritating. You guys, of all people, should know better.

I pay heavily into SS and Medicare over a lifetime of hard work and it's going to be partially distributed back to me as a "benefit" until I die. I could have done better investing those funds myself, but here we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buffalobo

If your numbers are correct, SS + M&M + welfare = less than 800 billion or less than 20% of 4.7T tax revenue.

Plenty of room to cut needless spending before tackling "big 3" or defense(another approx 20% as related to tax revenue). Not saying they dont need addressed, just plenty of other expenditures that are just fukking stupid and could be cut immediately.

Cutting .gov workers/payroll may be a "small" number but it will also cut people who spend and all the ancillary costs of employing them. Those costs are probably much greater than their payroll.

Substantial revenue could be generated just selling off the real estate/infrastructure where those employees "work".

If you're unarmed, you are a victim.

---

You are correct.

SS and M&M should be Trillion, not Billion. I edited my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutal

Can we please stop calling SS an "entitlement?"

I now it's like getting twisted up on clip vs magazine, but still irritating. You guys, of all people, should know better.

I pay heavily into SS and Medicare over a lifetime of hard work and it's going to be partially distributed back to me as a "benefit" until I die. I could have done better investing those funds myself, but here we are.

---

You believe because you want to.

You paid (and/or are paying) a TAX.

Directly from the US government.
https://www.ssa.gov/people/materials...N-05-10297.pdf

?FICA is a U.S. federal payroll tax. It stands for the
Federal Insurance Contributions Act and is deducted
from each paycheck.?

A tax is being taken out of people?s paychecks and then given to others as entitlement.

Whether you deserve the entitlement, the taxation is ?fair?, etc is a moot point. It is still a tax with an entitlement .

The ?paid in? is just to make you feel better about paying the tax and collecting the entitlement when the time comes.

Vivek did an interview a year ago, it's a good blueprint for where he sees the waste and largess coming from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Obr5HIKK4Y

https://www.cato.org/blog/time-face-...ocial-security
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis...h#introduction

For nearly 90 years, a widespread misconception has shaped how Americans view Social Security. Many believe that their payroll taxes are saved in a trust fund, to be drawn down when they retire. But in reality, Social Security has never operated as a savings system. Instead, it functions as an income transfer program, where the taxes collected from today’s workers immediately fund the benefits for current retirees.

In the 1930s, the idea of government assistance was unpopular, and policymakers needed a way to sell Social Security to a skeptical public. Positioning it as an “earned” benefit convinced Americans that they had a personal stake in the program. But in truth, it was always a government transfer program.

The notion that people are simply getting back what they paid in makes it politically difficult to reduce benefits.

Today, all benefits are paid by current tax collections or borrowing since Social Security taxes no longer fully cover the cost of benefits. Based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, the government will borrow $4.1 trillion, including associate interest costs, between now and 2033 to pay for Social Security benefits.


Another article states it will take 75 years of annual 4.5% budget cuts to break even on the unfunded liabilities that are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

This is the largest problem facing the nation that no one, including Trump, will seriously address.

I'm surprised the media hasn't suggested a Department of Sex & Money. Sorta like Infowars was bankrupted and bought out by "The Onion". Hell just form a Department of Death and be done with it. Sarc...out

I have no misconceptions about what SS (FICA) is or how it's collected, funded, and distributed.

I paid into SS, it's not an "entitlement" program like Medicaid or welfare benefits paid from other sources of funding that don't have a contribution qualifier.

If you never worked or paid into SS, you generally cannot collect (with limited exceptions, i.e. disabled children). I'm aware of most of the disqualifiers including the minimum number of work credits. I also know approximately when I'm going to max out on paying every year.

The last couple decades have seen an expansion of "circumstances" in which people can draw from SS.

Entitlement (potato v potahto) or not, SS is a tax and fund scheme which does not work mathematically. Never has.

If you're unarmed, you are a victim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutal

I have no misconceptions about what SS (FICA) is or how it's collected, funded, and distributed.

I paid into SS, it's not an "entitlement" program like Medicaid or welfare benefits paid from other sources of funding that don't have a contribution qualifier.

If you never worked or paid into SS, you generally cannot collect (with limited exceptions, i.e. disabled children). I'm aware of most of the disqualifiers including the minimum number of work credits. I also know approximately when I'm going to max out on paying every year.

---

I know when I am going to max out also. Well unless the cap is gotten rid of.

2008.

So I have been funding a lot of people for a long time.

And the amount of jobs I have created.

Well let’s just say I contribute more than my fair share to the tax pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutal

Can we please stop calling SS an "entitlement?"

---

No.

It is a proper term.

By paying into it, you are entitled to receive benefits.

Entitlement is not a pejorative, is simply a definition meaning having the right to something.

Would you feel better if we said "earned benefit"? Same thing.

Regardless of terms, I have planned on never receiving a penny from it. If it is still somehow solvent when I choose to retire and I get a couple bucks from it, great. I will earn much more from my investments than I ever would from the Government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT951

I know when I am going to max out also. Well unless the cap is gotten rid of.

2008.

So I have been funding a lot of people for a long time.

And the amount of jobs I have created.

Well let’s just say I contribute more than my fair share to the tax pool.

---

>>For 2024, an employer must withhold:
>> 6.2% Social Security tax on the first $168,600 of employee wages
>> (maximum tax is $10,453.20; i.e., 6.20% ? $168,600)

That barely covers a very low payout for one social security recipient.

SSA.gov says my SS payout at full retirement age will be ~$45K/year (4x the max SS deduction),
assuming social security is not bankrupt by then.

I never expected to receive much from social security and have maxed out 401k for the last 25 years.

If all the years of my social security deductions had been deposited into my IRA or 401K and
invested and grown like the IRA and 401k, I could have retired 10 years ago.

https://reason.com/2024/11/15/the-na...to-control-it/

On Friday, the Treasury Department issued another reminder about the cost of doing nothing to change course. The national debt hit $36 trillion—less than four months after surpassing the $35 trillion mark.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that it would take nearly $8 trillion of budget cuts (spread across the 10-year budget window used by the Congressional Budget Office and other official estimates) to keep the debt from growing faster than the economy over the long term.

Can Elon and Vivek accomplish that?

Not without a willing Congress authoring and passing an actual budget, instead of extending previous budgets, as they have done since 1996.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asystejs

>>For 2024, an employer must withhold:
>> 6.2% Social Security tax on the first $168,600 of employee wages
>> (maximum tax is $10,453.20; i.e., 6.20% ? $168,600)

That barely covers a very low payout for one social security recipient.

SSA.gov says my SS payout at full retirement age will be ~$45K/year (4x the max SS deduction),
assuming social security is not bankrupt by then.

I never expected to receive much from social security and have maxed out 401k for the last 25 years.

If all the years of my social security deductions had been deposited into my IRA or 401K and
invested and grown like the IRA and 401k, I could have retired 10 years ago.

---

Should i be sorry that i am "only" paying for one other person? How many should i pay for?

You forgot medicare portion doesnt have a cap..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddiememphis

No.

It is a proper term.

By paying into it, you are entitled to receive benefits.

Entitlement is not a pejorative, is simply a definition meaning having the right to something.

Would you feel better if we said "earned benefit"? Same thing.

Regardless of terms, I have planned on never receiving a penny from it. If it is still somehow solvent when I choose to retire and I get a couple bucks from it, great. I will earn much more from my investments than I ever would from the Government.

---

My retirement plan is also not dependent on SS benefits, though I intend to start withdrawing at 67 if it's still alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asystejs

>>For 2024, an employer must withhold:
>> 6.2% Social Security tax on the first $168,600 of employee wages
>> (maximum tax is $10,453.20; i.e., 6.20% ? $168,600)

That barely covers a very low payout for one social security recipient.

SSA.gov says my SS payout at full retirement age will be ~$45K/year (4x the max SS deduction),
assuming social security is not bankrupt by then.

I never expected to receive much from social security and have maxed out 401k for the last 25 years.

If all the years of my social security deductions had been deposited into my IRA or 401K and
invested and grown like the IRA and 401k, I could have retired 10 years ago.

---

It goes without saying that the system is built with an expectation that retirees die relatively quickly. Working from 18-65 traditionally was 47 years of earnings. Then the average life expectancy used to be that they could count, on average, that recipients only lived for 7-10 years after that.

Thus, benefits of 4x the wage deduction means that effectively, you are paying your own SS benefits, and in fact, it would've been profitable for the GOV.

What borks this up is people living too long. If they figure out how to cure cancer and trim back the affects of aging, it WILL bankrupt the retirement system. Of course, having 1 kid to 1 retiree will eventually, despite the 47 years of ongoing deductions of the "kid", because the system is not properly funded and previously got raided, so it doesn't have the resources that it should to be sustainable.

That said, these entitlement programs are not going to go away, the country will just go into further deficiet spending until we are eventually bankrupt.

Why? Most voters have close family members on social security. The politician that keeps those retired relatives in their own homes, and not on the doorstep of their employed relatives, will always win the vote over every other issue.

I suspect the major change that will occur to SS is that it will becomes “means tested”

Basically those that have paid a lot of taxes will be told they get no entitlement.

It is the easiest cut because those people don’t have enough votes (how many single earners have over $168k income ?) and the argument will be made “they have enough money and don’t rely on SS”