Live data from Hacker News

DOGE is done. What happened to its records?

ms.now

231–240 of 316 posts

Re: DOGE is done. What happened to its records?

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're spending $15,000 per capita per year on healthcare You’re using a number that includes private and public spending. There are problems with this topic, but it’s a different topic than federal government spending waste. There are some real federal government spending inefficiencies, but you picked a topic that is predominantly private spend.

It's still $8000 per capita just for socialised healthcare. So still more than NL. The US has the worst of both worlds.

The socialized segment of US healthcare is almost entirely the over 65 population and those too disabled to work any job. Obviously, the spending on those groups will be higher than the entire population as a whole.

That it is does nothing to prove inefficiency.

Re: DOGE is done. What happened to its records?

#232
post #6

Any time people talk about cutting government spending, they are exploiting naivety of the audience. When you actually cut, nobody likes it. There isn't really much waste in federal spending. Most programs are important to somebody for good reasons. From this perspective, DOGE was always an obvious con.

> There isn't really much waste in federal spending

I do not believe anyone who has consulted in federal IT or worked on contracts is capable of making such a statement. All of the motivations for all parties are heavily bent towards waste, and in fact any attempt to make things more efficient (reduce headcount, for instance) would be recieved poorly by department heads and contractors.

As one example, a department head who reduces staff by 20% has just reduced their own next year's budget AND kneecapped their resume.

Re: DOGE is done. What happened to its records?

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government doesn't turn a profit, so the main way for middle management to gain influence and seniority is to have more employees. Thus you have the interesting situation that they always have razor-thin budgets for employees in order to maximize the employee count under them and they spend a huge portion of time doing inefficient processes.

This is a profoundly dismissive and even circular take...or at least an intentional misrepresentation of what I said. When I say personnel constraints, I mean there are almost not enough people to do the work that needs to be done. When I say budget constraints, I mean the budgets and projects are funded so lean, that they're always having to cut sections out of projects to get what they can done with the budget they…

I'm referring to things like the DOI rescinding the 2024 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule that allowed private ecologically minded conservation groups to restore and preserve land through leases -- something exploitive resource extracting private entities were already able to do.

Instead the DOI declared their "lean" and "constrained" force would revoke letting private entities lease for conservation. Something at odds with lean employees trying to maximize conservation ROI. Why would they be begging to rip away conservation from private hands into unavailable public hands if they didn't already have the manpower, unless they're playing a political fuck-fuck game?

That reveals the true fuck-fuck game. DOI employees claim they are lean, out of employees, etc while actively pursuing actions that are counter to how those acting in such circumstances are in the interest of acting. But actually their management are rescinding rules that help offload conservation to private actors happy to do it, instead diluting the ability of the DOI to preserve resources by instead tossing additional tasks on already overloaded employees at which point they'll have their spouses on forums complaining and stirring up the voters to try and bring more employees under their grasp. Presuming they're successful, they will then again swamp said employees, and the cycle starts anew.

Which brings me back to my assertion:

>. Thus you have the interesting situation that they always have razor-thin budgets for employees in order to maximize the employee count under them and they spend a huge portion of time doing inefficient processes.

If they were actually trying to unload tasks from employees they'd be happy that environmental groups were trying to take the load off DOI employees and paying them leasing fees to do it, but that's not in the interest of management, as that could reduce their headcount and ability to beg for more money. Thus you can witness from actual acts of the DOI, it doesn't matter how many resources and people they get, their management are acting in ways it will appear to employees like they're broke and thin on people because they're run on ragged edges (something not unique, seen in many other areas of government, that will keep expanding task for current employees to the point they always seem broke and stretched out and then those associated with the organization will beg for more to start the cycle over again).

Re: DOGE is done. What happened to its records?

#234
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as a business This is doubly-bad when the guy at the top's "business" has a nearly 1:1 mapping to the governance of North Korea : An unaccountable dictatorship where the head directly owns everything and cannot be fired for incompetence, he executes/fires people on a whim, and meanwhile relatives and courtiers spend most the time sucking-up and backstabbing to end up with the power when he dies. Why would any Ameri…

This is a tangent, but people who advocate for "government like a business" are mental. Businesses want to profit and grow. The government should never be looking to profit off of taxpayers who are already funding the government. It's always a scheme from the wealthy guy to become more wealthy, and they do a good job of getting people to repeat their nonsense.

A business has one boss who decides everything and is personally responsible if things go to shit. The employees pack up and leave to get another job.

None of this is applicable to a government- unless any American wants to find out what it means to be a refugee at the Canadian border.

Re: DOGE is done. What happened to its records?

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

test scores have actually gone down in a number of states I don't think whatever the department of education is doing is actually working.

State governments administer education separately, the Department of Education's job is to make sure they are following federal law. The Department mainly administers federal programs that dish out funding to states. Y'all really don't understand how education works in America and your comments make it clear for all to see.

By what yardstick should we then measure the DoEd's performance-per-dollar, or determine whether it represents "waste"?

Because it seems to me that a chief indicator that waste likely exists is an inability to show ROI.

Re: DOGE is done. What happened to its records?

#236
post #6

Any time people talk about cutting government spending, they are exploiting naivety of the audience. When you actually cut, nobody likes it. There isn't really much waste in federal spending. Most programs are important to somebody for good reasons. From this perspective, DOGE was always an obvious con.

> There isn't really much waste in federal spending. When there is no profit motive, there is no motive to be efficient.

And when there is a profit motive, and no meaningful competition, there is also no motive to be efficient or effective. This is what you'll find in many of the large DOD contracts.

So it's a compounding effect. It's down to whether the overseers of the contracts care enough to rein in the contractors, or to do just enough to stay on this side of legal. And the contractors certainly aren't doing charity work, so they'll balloon the costs up to the point of significant pushback and then tighten it down a bit.

Re: DOGE is done. What happened to its records?

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also about destroying the government's investigative/enforcement capacity. USAID's destruction was ideological, but protecting Tesla and SpaceX was existential.

> protecting Tesla and SpaceX was existential Don't you miss the simpler times when people could just frantically applaud Musk's genius and not be inconvenienced by the truth of how big of a role deception, grifting, and outright fraud played in his success?

Anyone who thought this guy was a genius is probably still frantically applauding.

Re: DOGE is done. What happened to its records?

#238
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overthrowing democratic rule feels like an overreaction.

Calling the current regime "democratic rule" feels like a stretch. Wouldn't democratic rule first require that the ruler respects other democratic institutions such as the press, the courts, and the Constitution?

Democratic rule primarily means that those who win elections get to rule.

That's really the by far most important aspect!

Re: DOGE is done. What happened to its records?

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the elected representatives have the balls to actually go after the DOD or the security apparatus. And that is assuming that they will actually get access to the budget anyway. Much easier to just gaslight everyone saying the money goes to black single moms or liberal homosexuals or whatever the latest cause is.

I agree with the sentiment here, however, back in the 90s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a reduction in military spending. Military bases were closing; many of my friends/peers were discharged from service, and so on. And then 9/11 happened and military spending has skyrocketed ever since. Coincidence? Hmmm?

Trump was famously elected as the big isolationist candidate and we know how that went...

Re: DOGE is done. What happened to its records?

#240

DOGE fired a whole bunch of NIH staff that processed high scoring grants to get them ready for Notices of Awards (the official document that starts moving funds, etc). Meanwhile, the administration now requires final approval of any grant by non NIH political staff. Consequently, Science is slowing down (and that is outside of other shenanigans). What used to take 3 months is taking 9 or more. For the many medical re…

> What used to take 3 months is taking 9 or more.

Yep. You used to apply for a few relevant grants ahead of time, wait for your talented grad student to wait a few months whilst they continue their summer project, and you'd have an answer on whether or not you can take them on right as they finish.

Now? You apply continuously for a whole host of different grants, some of which are tentatively related to your field, at least a year in advance and hope that at least one of them pans out so that you can hire a potential grad student who might just wait around enough for the funding to come through.

The competition for funding is fierce, and I'm seeing a depressing pattern of profs taking on post docs who secured their own funding and needed a complimentary signature, to then take it from them and kick them out as soon as the money comes through

Post reply on HN