Victoria Guida, an economics correspondent at POLITICO, recently published an interesting column on the different and conflicting missions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). While I will not get into whether the committee can or should reduce the government’s power and slash the size of its workforce, as Guida suggests, one of its two missions and one that is fraught with political and legal obstacles.

I agree with Guida that “DOGE could have real value if it zeroes in on things that should be dealt with, like federal buildings sitting unused, outdated technology systems or the estimated $247 billion in improper payments that went out in fiscal year 2022.”

DOGE can succeed with a clear purpose. Whether we need another blue-ribbon commission to create a more efficient government is not for me to say. But I will say this: The GAO has pages upon pages of recommendations to agencies to help them stop wasting money. What we need is accountability for that efficiency. We need to incentivize proficiency and responsiveness. If it takes another commission or department for that, I am in.

One earlier post highlights how government fraud is staggering and is also often preventable. Another post is about how the government can take affirmative steps to confirm SSNs, but it refuses to do so.

My latest blog highlights earlier posts of mine where I have written about how government fraud is staggering and is often preventable. I have also written before about how the government can take affirmative steps to confirm SSNs, but it refuses to do so.

The Trump Administration can have meaningful impact if it requires government agencies to adhere to common sense efficiencies. Many such efficiencies are work well in the private sector. The private sector offers governments, nonprofits, and businesses substantial fraud prevention tools. While nonprofits and businesses do well in attempting to limit losses, the federal government can and should do better.

An impactful book I read years ago was Reinventing Government by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler. This NYT bestseller was an influential book when it was first published in 1993. The book was a touchstone for the second Clinton Administration, which created a commission, under the stewardship of Vice President Al Gore, to create a more efficient and responsive government.

“The authors [of Reinventing Government] argued that that need not be the case. Government managers and employees could and should, the authors wrote, be as entrepreneurial as their private-sector counterparts. This meant embracing competition; measuring outcomes rather than inputs or processes; and insisting on accountability.”[1] The book offers a “third way” between big government liberals at one pole and anti-government conservates at the other. The authors argue that government need not provide certain services, but that it should see that certain services are provided, regardless of who is providing them.

This is where DOGE can help. The road to government efficiency is littered with the wreckage of books, reports, and committees that fought and lost earlier proficiency battles. Guida points out the Grace Commission as one such example. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan appointed private sector experts to hunt for wastefulness and inefficiencies. Yet, the Regan Library notes that “[m]ost of the recommendations, especially those requiring legislation from Congress, were never implemented.”[2]

A 2002 Report to Congress reviewed “the work and results of a number of 20th century commissions and other similar bodies that have had executive organization and reorganization as central to their mandate.”[3] There was the Keep Commission (1905-1909), the President’s Commission on Economy and Efficiency (1910-1913), the Joint Committee on Reorganization (1921-1924), the Reorganization Authority (1930-1933), the President’s Committee on Administrative Management (Brownlow Committee), 1936-1937, the Reorganization Authority: 1939, the  First Hoover Commission (1947-1949), the Second Hoover Commission (1953-1955), the Study Task Forces on Executive Reorganization (1953-1968), the President’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization (Ash Council) (1969-1970), the President’s Reorganization Project (1977-1979), the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (Grace Commission) (1982-1984), the National Performance Review (1993-1997), and the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (1997-2000).[4]

I am not convinced that we need another blue-ribbon commission to create a more efficient government. The GAO has pages upon pages of recommendations to agencies to help them stop wasting money. What we need is accountability for that efficiency.

Paul C. Light was a professor of public service at New York University. To paraphrase him: The Reinventing Government initiatives of the late 1990s “didn’t make government cool again…but [it] made good management important for a while.”[5]

---

[1] Jon Buntin, 25 Years Later, What Happened to ‘Reinventing Government’?, Governing, Aug. 29, 2016, https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-reinventing-government-book.html.

[2] Christoper Klein, history.com, Nov. 21, 2024, https://www.history.com/news/ronald-reagan-grace-commission-government-efficiency.  

[3] Reorganizing the Executive Branch in the 20th Century: Landmark Commissions, June 10, 2002, Cong. Research Serv., https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20020610_RL31446_6e0e3fa8cba519ab09405d814146687e853294e7.pdf, Introduction.

[4] Id.

[5] Charles S. Clark, Reinventing Government — Two Decades Later, Gov’t. Executive, April 26, 2013.