Summary
Elon Musk’s DOGE faces mounting pressure to show achievements amid criticism. Staffers, under pressure from Trump administration officials, seek public relations wins to counter negative headlines.
Cuts to federal offices led to mass layoffs, and efforts to modernize government services have been chaotic. DOGE prioritizes speed over security and protecting sensitive information.
Trump has distanced himself, stating agency chiefs, not Musk, control department cuts, preferring a “scalpel” over a “hatchet” approach. Public opinion has turned against DOGE, with 48% disapproving versus 34% approving, according to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll.
With limited time before their tenure ends, DOGE officials are desperate to show results.
But there’s the root problem - why are you capping the speed at all? Why are you making inferior products?
To leave room for others to make money. That is the taint in the idea… Why do they need to make money if they can’t provide a better service than what the government can do at cost? Or lower even, for the essentials
It’s looking at it backwards. People don’t need to make money - money is the sign that you’re providing value to society. If you can’t beat out the government, which is presumably focused on the things everyone needs, why does someone deserve money for it?
It’s ok if the government becomes the largest food distributor, hopefully that means everyone eats. It’s ok if telcos go out of business, so long as people pay less to get online
Companies should be able to challenge the government, but that doesn’t mean they should be given special privilege - making money is a sign you’re doing something valuable. If you’re carving out room for people to make money you’re doing it wrong
I have been approaching this from a middle of the ground standpoint. Basically I know that a large enough percentage of Americans would reject this as “evil socialism” so putting caps on the government industry at first would be a Trojan horse to get a footing and get society comfortable with the idea.
Ultimately I would like to see companies have to compete with government offered products and services, but I just don’t see it being feasible in our current political climate. Sadly I think it will either take generational change to get it done, or a more kinetic change that would harm the country and take far longer to recover from.
That’s the kind of middle ground with fascism the Democratic party is engaging in…
You can make compromises, you can find a middle ground. But that ground has to be stable, it can’t be compromised from the get go - that’s how you get Obamacare, a payout to insurance companies that has a few positives baked in
If it’s compromised from the start, you haven’t done anything positive - you’ve just opened the floor to bastardize it further
I guess I’m just stuck in the 90’s mindset of trying to find compromise. I know that idea was on the decline then, but I still, maybe foolishly, hold on to it.