#44 - DOGE and Chesterton's Fence

Forgive me a rehash of a topic I’ve touched on before (and will discuss again). In his 1929 book, The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, the English novelist, essayist, and journalist G.K. Chesterton wrote:

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’”

The meaning of the parable is clear: what already exists may, and likely does or did, serve purposes that are not immediately obvious—you don’t tear down a fence until you understand what it keeps out. The practical takeaway, when it comes to reforming the government, is that it normally makes sense to proceed deliberately and cautiously—to proceed, yes, but to do so with both eyes open and a reasonably thorough understanding of possible collateral effects.

Yesterday, I enjoyed a pleasant written conversation with another lawyer on LinkedIn. He defended the work of the Department of Government Efficiency, noting that significant reform and restructuring is broadly popular—that efforts to root out fraud, waste, and abuse enjoy significant bipartisan support.

I think he’s right—they are popular. However, always, and perhaps especially when it comes to the federal government, there’s a difference between theory and practice. I see at least two key risks:

First, DOGE has been acting quickly. There are reasons for it: public support for presidents often peaks when they first take office, so presidents often go after the more audacious parts of their agendas early, while they still may have broad support; plus, we’re talking about President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, men we would traditionally associate with action, not long, painstaking deliberation. For better and worse, both Trump and Musk are unusually tolerant of risk, and more likely to seek forgiveness after than permission before (and probably not the forgiveness). And, to their credit (or dis-credit, depending on your perspective), though the long- (and maybe short-) term ramifications of the cuts aren’t clear, it’s probably fair to say that, in a month, DOGE has triggered a more significant restructuring of the federal government than has even been attempted in decades.

But there are clear downsides to the speed-run approach, even if you’re looking at this as a committed supporter of the president. On Thursday, Trump administration officials fired more than 300 workers at the National Nuclear Safety Administration; less than 24 hours later, they attempted to reinstate or rehire more than 90% of them “after multiple members of Congress petitioned Energy Sec. Chris Wright to reverse course, explaining the dire national security implications.” It’s the sort of mistake you’re more likely to make when you haven’t taken the time to understand the function of the proverbial fence or gate—it bolsters Democrats’ arguments that Musk and the DOGE tech wunderkinds, as bright as they all are, are acting before they really understand what they’re doing.

It’s certainly possible that issues will extend past the NNSA: the Thursday firings were part of a broader move to fire probationary employees, who typically have been with the government or in a new position for a shorter period, often under one or two years. Forget the morale issues for remaining employees; forget also that 80.2% of federal workers live outside D.C., Virginia, and Maryland, including nearly 900,000 in states that voted for Trump: making firing decisions based on how long employees have been with an agency or in a new role is going to be both over- and under-inclusive—you’re going to get rid of employees you’d be better served to keep, especially since you very well might end up firing employees not just that were recently promoted, but because they were recently promoted, and you’re likely to leave untouched some employees you could actually get by without. Working more slowly can mitigate these issues.

My background is in corporate law. Key to every deal is a robust diligence process: potential buyers want to have a very good idea what they might be taking on, and, in the bankruptcy context, creditors’ committees want to know if there’s any additional money they can capture for their constituencies. Then, transactional documents are negotiated to the last letter: you want an exact understanding of all assets you’re acquiring and liabilities you’re assuming, and an exact understanding of everything excluded. The process is time- and effort-intensive and costs a lot of money, but the alternative is unpalatable. Even under the best of circumstances, and after the most complete diligence and document negotiation process, there are risks: one client acquired a company in the early 2010s for an amount in the low hundreds of millions; in relatively short order, they were hit with massive litigation relating to the key product for which they’d made the acquisition, and ended up paying out over $3.5 billion in settlements over the next seven years. Such results would be significantly more common without thorough diligence efforts. Could any of DOGE’s efforts yield the same negative return on investment?

Second, how much do people actually dislike government spending? No one wants fraud, waste, or abuse, but there’s a reason for the old joke that what the government giveth, it can’t taketh away (not sure that’s actually an old joke—if it isn’t, I’d like credit for the phrasing): people seem to really enjoy spending that benefits them personally. I interned for a Democratic state senator during Utah’s 2015 legislative session—my boss was one of just five Democrats in the 29-seat Senate. The Republican senators were, unsurprisingly, focused on cutting spending, but when I noted to one that no one seemed willing to give up anything that benefited their constituents, he responded, laughing, “We’re all socialists when it comes to our own districts.” J.D. Vance-aligned conservative writer Oren Cass made a similar observation in his terrific Valentine’s Day article about the difficulties Republicans are running into in coming up with a passable tax bill:

“We have here a classic case of politicians searching in vain for political solutions to what is a substantive problem: The U.S. tax code does not raise enough revenue to pay for the spending that U.S. voters want the government to do. No amount of clever legislative drafting will get around that. As House Budget Committee chairman Jodey Arrington observed in the Wall Street Journal last month, ‘Our deficit is unsustainably high, and without a course correction it will undermine efforts to promote economic growth and reduce inflation.’ Last year, underscoring the need for a balanced response that considers both higher taxes and lower spending, he acknowledged, ‘It’s only fair to have both revenue and expenditures on the table.’

This problem could be solved, American Compass [CASS’S THINK TANK] showed in our The Return of the Fiscal Conservatives collection, if leaders had the courage to pursue such a combination of tax and spending measures that shared the burden of closing the fiscal gap. They could place the nation on much firmer footing from which to invest and grow in ways that would share the ensuing prosperity. But capitulating to pressure from anti-tax activists and Republicans who seemingly care not a whit about governing responsibly, the GOP has now moved forward a budget framework that would lower tax revenue by as much as $4.5 trillion over the next ten years.”

I sometimes get the impression that people believe our fiscal situation—$36.22 trillion in national debt and an $840 billion deficit for fiscal year 2025—is due largely to bad spending, not good spending—that by eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse, we’ll be able to balance the budget, even as we keep taxes low or cut them further. It also completely makes sense why people would want to believe that—frankly, I want to believe that.

But I think making real cuts to spending is going to be pretty hard in practice. So far, DOGE has used its limited authority–the Trump administration can fire certain employees, cancel certain contracts, and undo much of what has been done by prior executive orders, but the true power of the purse sits with Congress—to go after what seem like low-hanging fruit, including foreign aid, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (a target of Republicans for years), and science and medical research. And even the limited cuts so far have already provoked serious questions from Republican lawmakers—apropos of nothing, perhaps it’s worth noting that Republicans currently enjoy the smallest House majority since 1931.

Plus, eliminating foreign aid entirely, which we’re not trying to do, would reduce spending by around 1%; cutting all science and medical research, which we’re also not trying to do, would take you down another 1%; eliminating all employees, which, again, isn’t happening (Congress would be included), would take you down another 4.3%. It’s a bit like trying to deal with tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt by canceling your cable TV, Netflix, and Apple TV+ subscriptions: federal spending isn’t going to drop materially without changes to Medicare and Medicaid (24% of spending), Social Security (21%), defense (13%), benefits for federal retirees and veterans (8%), economic security programs (7%), or education (5%—aha! Another low-hanging fruit!). Plus, to continue the metaphor, you might very well end up missing those subscriptions.

It is absolutely true that significant potential spending cuts remain and would merit broad support if applied successfully: reducing Medicare and Medicaid-related waste and fraud could save over $100 billion a year, and a perfectly efficient system would likely save much more.

But it’s all easier said than done, and it’s going to get harder and harder as the pressure on congressional Republicans from their constituents increases; it’s going to get harder and harder as Democrats are able to piece together a better narrative that DOGE’s work is inhibiting the good and valuable work of the government. How much more can the administration touch without affecting you? Your parents? Your grandparents?

As fun as this last month has been for supporters of the president, the new term glow and post-election vibe shift aren’t going to stick around forever of their own accord—for Trump to keep the momentum, the government needs to work.

Random Recommendation

Ling Ling frozen potstickers from Costco. There’s some dark magic in the sauce—a seductive blend of sweet and savory—that enables you to eat 15 or more of the delicious dumplings before you notice that anything has hit your stomach. Five out of five stars.

Random Fact

Just one month until the Dodgers and Cubs kick off the 2025 Major League Baseball season in Tokyo.