Hacker News Reader

Comment by DaRealest007 | Hacker News Reader

Interesting. My understanding of what DOGE is doing is getting American debt under control. Trying to save the country from going bankrupt from overspending on programs that do not improve the life of the average citizen. I'm failing to see how that is destroying the American government. Maybe it's just me.

View on HN

If they want to get American debt under control why did they fire a bunch of people at the IRS such that it's predicted we will see half a trillion in fresh losses to tax cheats this season? https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/03/22/irs-tax-r...

> If they want to get American debt under control

I think the 2nd half of your sentence answers the first half.

They don't.

Federal employees cost less than 5% of the fed budget which is $6000B. So if you lay off 10% of employees you are effectively reducing the budget by like $30B which leaves $5970B left.

Laying off employees will not help federal government debt or budget.

American gov was built with checks and balances. Eroding those is destroying American government. Yes, maybe it's just you.

The permanent bureaucracy exists outside of checks and balances.

I'm guessing what Trump is doing is not the most efficient way to do it, but isn't he trying to get rid of the "permanent bureaucracy" - the people responsible for creating policies and spend money, that are not elected and don't have a term limit?

That idea of an unelected policy maker is a work of political fiction. There are two types of federal employee: political appointees and senior executives, who do not have job security, and the merit-based civil servants who have job protection in the sense that they can only be fired for cause. All of them can act only within the bounds that Congress defines – that’s why there are lawsuits about things like whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant because the EPA can’t regulate outside of what the law authorizes.

That’s completely untrue. The bureaucracy follows the rules Congress provides, and there are many checks on their power built into those processes both internal and via the courts.

The reason DOGE are asserting that they don’t need to follow the law is because the cuts they want to make are themselves in violation of the law, not because there’s no other way to do it.

Many such bureaus have been established over the years that have extralegal powers existing basically outside the Constitution. I’m thinking of the NLRB, CFPB, FBI, IRS, and several others.

We as a society have a consensus that we need such agencies to manage the hugely complex country that we have become, but that doesn’t necessarily mean these bureaucratic organizations are themselves properly managed.

Years ago, I read about a man who the IRS was trying to levy extensive fines on. After five years of court battles, he committed suicide.

Perhaps this was an extreme case, but there is nonetheless an important question that arises out of this tragedy: does the government exist to serve the people, or do the people exist to serve the government?

I believe our colonial era checks and balances no longer protect us from a bureaucracy that is automatically funded by the Treasury, that the President has limited control over, and that only an act of Congress can change.

In an era when no one political party has enough control to enact legislation (i.e. a filibuster proof majority), the bureaucracy is effectively out of control and the only real way it can be reformed is by uncovering waste and corruption.

Each of your examples is incorrect. All of them are established legally by Congress with specific powers and responsibilities.

And they have too much power, and sometimes abuse it.

Or do you imagine that these agencies are completely perfect and free of corruption?

You’re shifting the goalposts again. You not liking them doesn’t mean that they’re unconstitutional, it means you have a problem with how Congress has exercised its constitutional authority.

It’s nothing to do with my liking or disliking them. Maybe try formulating an argument that doesn’t have the word “you” in it.

You’re the one making the outlandish claim. Try explaining specifically which agencies you think are unconstitutional and why, citing specific laws.

No it absolutely doesn't. The "permanent bureaucracy" as you call it (or people just doing their jobs as I call it) is the most compliant part of government to checks and balances.

The idea is a sound one. However many see the approach being taken as reckless, lacking in accountability, and based on specious claims (much of what we know of the progress is self-reported by Musk, some of which has been disproven by fact checkers). Moreover, arguments against his actions are often met with straw men arguments about spending reduction instead of addressing his actions specifically.

> what DOGE is doing is getting American debt under control

I'm suprised anyone buys this line. Trump's 2025 GOP budget would increase deficits by $6 trillion [1]. Its end game is to increase tax cuts for the rich.

The cuts DOGE has done are likely to be reversed in costly court battles that will make the single-digit billions [2] Musk may have saved less than the costs of the fights. All of that is before considering the second-order economic effects of e.g. shutting down large sections of our national parks ahead of the summer season [3].

[1] https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2025/2/27/fy202...

[2] https://www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5313853/doge-savings-re...

[3] https://www.npr.org/2025/02/26/nx-s1-5307908/national-parks-...

The Executive does not control what money is spent. That is for Congress to decide, no? I think this is described in a document called the Constitution.

American Government ≠ America, and I think a lot of people mix the two.

Some people want what large, vastly-reaching governments provide. They just need to be aware that the people who run the government can change. The power you give to one "side" can be inherited by the other "side". People should always be wary of giving that power away, because you never know who will have it next.

It's about the separation of powers. Law-making, adjudication, and execution should be separate branches so that no one branch gets too much power, as that will lead to dictatorship. When Trump and Musk are ignoring judges' orders and going ahead with their sledgehammering, it sets a dangerous precedent for what the POTUS can get away with.

Ofc there's more to this story than just DOGE too.

The review definitely needed to happen.

With a scalpel. Not an axe.

And preferably not by a bunch of Silicon Valley chads who call themselves "Big Balls" and who might've been checked for security credentials before taking the job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com