By creating the Department Of Governmental Efficiency, the ‘challenge’ that President Trump has given to Elon Musk is to eliminate waste, streamline bureaucracy and make government more “efficient.” This mandate reminds me a lot of what American Business went through during the 1980’s and 1990’s.
After the end of World War II, The United States’ economy experienced a major expansionary boom for over 30 years. Along with that meteoric growth, business infrastructure and personnel also increased exponentially. Profit performance was so strong that no one really noticed or worried about the swelling/swollen corporate bureaucracies.
When an economic downturn (“stagflation”) surfaced in the late 1970’s, the Financial communities began to notice the ‘inefficiencies” in the cost of running/doing ‘business’ in many companies. Organizations had gradually become ‘bloated’ with many unnecessary levels of management, frivolous expenditures and duplications of functions. As a result, many firms were identified as possible “takeover” targets for Mergers and/or Acquisitions by financially stable investors, This was facilitated by low stock prices of those inefficient companies and much capital available via effective “junk bond” financing.
I suggest that we might trace the commencement of the corresponding governmental “inefficiency” movement to the “Great Society” initiatives of President Lyndon B. Johnson in the mid-1960’s. Oh sure, we can also point to the administration of another Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, as being governmentally expansionistic (for example, the W.P.A.) but with significant differences. Roosevelt was dealing with both the “Great Depression” (post-World War I) AND World War II in which each event had desperate, generational consequences for both the Economic and Political realities of the entire nation.
Johnson, on the other hand, was riding upon the apex of the USA’s Economic and Military ‘waves.’ True, he was coming out of the shadow of John F. Kennedy’s assassination of American “Camelot” and maybe his ego needed make its own ‘mark’ (I.E., a tough ‘act’ to follow)? As a result, he created an unprecedented number of new, federal Agencies, ostensibly to make our Social Culture as great as “Wall Street” and the Pentagon.
In these last 60 years, those Agencies have blossomed into Cabinet positions, created Divisions which have grown Departments and those have developed layer-upon-layer of bureaucracies consisting of miles-and-miles of “red tape” comprising millions of administration (non-producing) personnel positions. For example, although not part of the Great Society, I recently learned that we won the Second World War with 4, four-star Generals. We now have over forty of them at a time with no real wars at hand. I think this is emblematic of the governmental ‘bloating’ problem that has gradually, imperceptibly but yet painfully emerged.
I certainly cannot predict where and what Mr. Musk will do most of his cost-cutting but if, in fact, this becomes Deja’ vu from our Business example, the focus will begin on the governmental “fat.” Much like human body fat concentrates around our respective middles (men: just a bit ‘north’ of center; women: just a bit ‘south’ of center), I suspect that is where most of the inefficiencies and waste will be found. In many ways, it is completely natural and understandable that new positions are always added to ease workloads/create additional (unproven) opportunities within organizations when things are going well. Much like obesity, this Human Resouce ‘expansion’ usually happens slowly over a long period of time. This may be “natural” Human Nature for mere “managers” but is NOT NORMAL procedure for the “Leaders” of well-run entities of all kinds.
During the Merger & Acquisition “mania” of the 1980’s, most all of the takeover proponents focused on the advantages of cutting costs in lieu of increasing revenues (America has enough revenue). Quite frankly, that was much easier (low-hanging ‘fruit’) than growing ‘established’ businesses in ‘mature’ markets. Of course, there are always large, successful companies whom “gobble-up” smaller ones fitting into their respective business portfolios. This was different, however, because it was effectively-run companies (maybe even smaller) obtaining inefficiently-run ones (maybe even bigger) based on the concept of “streamlining” them immediately after possession.
Such initiatives were not without some serious individual and collective career pain in the private sector and will not be avoided among federal employees. As far as my own professional experience was concerned, I was certainly a ‘victim’ of direct budget cuts made at my for-profit organization. I was terminated (euphemistically “right-sized”) from a well-paying job of 12 years. This caused a lot of financial, emotional, psychological, and even spiritual (faith in the American “dream’) trauma in my life for a number of years going forward. Looking back over 30 years though, it only made me stronger, worked out for the “best” and was always in God’s “plan” for me so, no regrets!
I can’t say that it did, does or even will work out for everyone; I was both blessed and lucky. Therefore, I am assuming that a lot of good and decent people will lose their livelihoods through no particular fault (but management’s) of their own. Others will be ‘cleared out’ as they have not carried their own ‘weight’ and/or were incompetent/never sufficiently qualified (E. G. bogus appointments). Much like natural disasters (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) some innocent victims are affected along with the weakest, inexperienced, least-prepared and “longest-in-the-tooth.” In my case, as a middle-manager, I was a “dime-a-dozen” MBA with 15 years of “blue-chip” corporate experience. There were 25% more of people just like me that were no longer needed/budgeted for.
This “hard fact of life” has become an unavoidable necessity as a result of a generation of fiscal irresponsibility/incompetence culminating in a ‘crippling’ $35 Trillion national debt. This kind of mismanagement would never be allowed in one’s own personal life and as we saw, was not tolerated within the private business environment. So, the only thing that remains to be seen is not IF the ‘cuts’ happen but Where and How they happen “As Soon As Possible.”
My suspicion is that some entire Agencies, Divisions and Departments will be totally eliminated and in addition, many less-productive members of those areas not eliminated will also be discharged. I am guessing due to the political nature of most of these positions, generous “separation” packages (severance; out-placement; re-training, etc.) will be needed to avoid substantial opposition ‘outcry.’ (“recession” is when my neighbor loses a job; “depression” is when I lose mine). Since this is impending at a “crisis” juncture, my advice for those affected people is to embrace it as a positive (God’s timing) life event and CHOOSE to “turn lemons into lemonade.” Easier said than done but ESSENTIAL for thriving, not just surviving! In my case, I re-invented myself as a University Professor for the best 20 years of my life.
As the saying goes, for me this is “Deja’ vu all over again.” Or, like the title of this blog says: “DOGE’ VU.” The first place always examined is the single largest expense category which can be most quickly and easily identified/impacted: salaries and benefits. In the private, corporate marketplace, that always meant “Middle Managers.” In the public-service, Governmental arena, it will be somewhat different since most of these positions are NOT classified as “right-to-work” jobs. Nevertheless, many of those middle management-‘type’ positions can be identified as “superfluous and/or duplicative.” My guess is that Elon will begin much in the same manner that takeover artists like “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap began in the business world, with some “productivity” indicator measurement ‘determinations.’ I am convinced, however, that there are many well-qualified and productive workers throughout the Federal system just many more than needed/justified.
I am afraid (but hopeful) it is determined that many, many governmental workers who are just taking up space and not contributing very much at all to tax-payer effectiveness will be “down-sized.” To complicate the current dilemma is the entirely new phenomenon of the “remote” employee and the more difficult categorization of their individual, essential efficiency. Concomitant with the payroll question for remote workers is the significant facilities’ expenses associated with the office apace used/spent, (but not required), for possibly 20%-40% more people than are really needed?