Wishing for a more orderly disruption may misunderstand government reform

I noticed that Stewart Brand recommended this piece (https://x.com/stewartbrand/status/1868407292418498605), so I've replaced the baity title with the neutral subtitle and re-upped it.

If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're posting thoughtfully, i.e. reflectively* and not reacting reflexively to one of the obvious triggers here. That's how the article is written (not counting the title), so please respond in kind and sail around the obvious icebergs.

* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

One thing I learned while working closely with the (Brazilian) government is that the government itself exists only because a law says so, and the most important difference between public service and private initiative is that the private sector has laws regulating what it can’t do while public sector can only do things (and offer services) that are stated in law. In short, outside the government you can do whatever you need as long as it’s not explicitly forbidden while public servants can only do what’s explicitly permitted.

Governments are not designed (nor should they be) for efficiency. They are designed for safety, accountability, transparency, and universality.

Finally, I must say that I started working with government agencies with the misconception they are lazy, underqualified, people, and nothing is further from what I encountered. The people I worked with were smart, well educated, intelligent, and had an unparalleled sense of public duty I’ve never seen elsewhere.

The first comment on the blog is also illuminating:

> But I would urge you to take seriously the role of the courts in creating this mess. There are bad lawyers. But the good ones often are warning the agency about real hazards that can waste enormous amounts of agency effort. Go read a regulatory preamble from the 1970s. It’s a hoot. The agencies often took a few pages to say “here’s what we’re doing”, offered a minimal justification, and that was it. Now, a rulemaking is a multiyear saga, as the agencies jump through every hoop, and know the courts are at the end of the gauntlet. A lawyer who doesn’t warn the program staff what can happen if, say, you end up in front of a judge in ND Tex, is not doing their job. If you don’t document everything to the nth degree you are going to have to do it again. Period. An agency can spend hundreds of pages documenting its reasons, but if the court doesn’t like the way it handled a few comments? Do it over.

It's one thing to reform regulatory agencies, but it's another to reform the courts. It seems like we now play racquetball with the courts, with each opposing administration appointing judges who are sympathetic to its viewpoints. This leaves the underlying system untouched and just points it back and forth, while the judges themselves are left with the same wicked problem of applying ambiguous laws to specific situations.

But I don't know if DOGE is really about analyzing government operations and producing recommendations for reform. For one thing, we already have the Government Accountability Office, and also the Congressional Budget Office. For another, personnel is policy. Musk and Ramaswamy aren't accountants. They're pundits. I would expect the primary difference between DOGE and previous attempts at government reform will be its strategy in engaging with the public.

Jennifer is a smart, dedicated gal who has been working on this problem since the Obama administration. I _very_ briefly worked with USDS on the DoD-VA hand-off of medical records (the very early stages of trying to fix that train wreck), which had very clear bipartisan support at the time. It was not for lack of political will, nor severity of problem, nor through incompetence that the effort struggled. Most people, from the whitehouse to the hill, very much wanted veterans to stop dying or killing themselves on the waitlist. And yet, there was no smooth path. I saw a very brief glimpse of the problem and understand that there is a whole iceberg under the water line. She has been dedicated to the problem for years. I would listen to her and give her a whole lot of benefit of the doubt about the politics of it all, regardless of your political tribal affiliation. Some times you have to set othodoxy aside.

Well, first off, the number of Federal employees hasn't changed much since the 1960s. It's payments to contractors which are more of a problem.

Second, only defense and entitlements really matter. Here's the top level breakdown of the Federal budget.[1]

Entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, account for about 65% of the budget. Defense, 14%. Interest paid, 13%. Everything else, about 9%. Most of the noise about cuts focuses on that 9%, but that's not where the money goes. About half the federal budget goes to old people.

[1] https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

How is this thoughtful? (I can see how it's reflective.)

The last time the Dems controlled the Presidency and both houses of congress was the first two years of Obama's first term (Jan 2009 - Jan 2011). And prior to that the first two years of Clinton's first term (Jan 1993 - Jan 1995; which had limited success, for the same reason this will have limited success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Reinv... ).

The last time the Reps controlled both houses and the Presidency was the first two years of Trump's last term (Jan 2017 - Jan 2019). Prior to that the first 6 years under Bush II (Jan 2001 - Jan 2007).

And the last time Dem appointees controlled the Supreme court was in 1969.

So I really, really cannot trust the thoughtfulness of any opinions or marshallings of fact in the linked article.

...I've now read the entire article and stand by my more general point. This person is looking at government from one limited perspective, as someone who has worked with people who've tried to work in it and reform it in the past. The fundamental barrier to government reform is in Congress, nowhere else. There's nothing special about Musk's ability to convince Congress to do things it doesn't want to do. Even if he threatens to primary them. Most of these people are in relatively safe districts. They have the name recognition in their districts. They can point to the things they've done for their districts. Most of them are not in any danger from a Musk-funded primary opponent.

The only thing that would truly reform government in more than bits and pieces would be enough Congress people, in both houses, who are not only of the same party, but are basically also of the same sub-caucus within that party. Fat chance getting that. Without that all you get is horse trading, which leads to the bits and pieces reformations.

The problem is the only suggestions for reform that I have heard from Musk and others are firing people and eliminating programs. If there is a push for other kinds of reform that makes things clearer and simpler then I would support them. However, since SpaceX and Amazon have argued the National Labor Relations Board is unconstitutional, I have little hope that the reforms they propose will be the kind I would like to see. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/18/nx-s1-5192918/spacex-amazon-n...

This is a pretty good take on what is likely to be an effort that mostly is in the interests of the extremely wealthy people running it, and is a reply to the posted article:

https://resnikoff.beehiiv.com/p/you-don-t-have-to-hand-it-to...

Also some useful history around "we're just going to eliminate all the waste! Easy peasy!"

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-fraudulence-of-waste-...

Change has directionality it isn't change || !change. In this case change would be weighted toward enabling corporations, and bolstering security required for that. I consider that negative change.

I would like to see change to strengthen communities, improve education, and bolster human health. These will be all be further eroded and decrease through DOGE change.

I think that faith in "disruption" is one of those modern business myths, that's applied in hindsight to famous entrepreneurs. I don't think it's something you can plan, hire, or even hope for. There are two analogies that give me pause:

1. The "insurgency" problem: The people who can overthrow a government are never the same people as, or are even willing to cooperate with, the people who can govern.

2. The "second system effect" described by Fred Brooks. The workings of a bureaucracy seem analogous to a massive, complex software app that must be kept running while it's being completely re-written from scratch.

Recent quote I saw based on the life of the investigator who set up the Pinkerton Detective Agency in 1850:

> If you tell a farmer you’re collecting signatures to cap the salaries of government employees, and you’re a smooth-talking confidence man, the farmer will sign almost anything, even the deed to his own land. This kind of swindle is called “the boodle game”.

which feels closer to what DOGE is doing than any real reform.

The American government can’t do anything because Congress has delegated all its power to the administrative state. But because you can’t really have unelected bureaucrats doing whatever they want, Congress subjected administrative actions to endless judicial review.

To fix this, we need to end the filibuster so Congress can actually make laws. It’s much harder to legally challenge the real laws made by Congress than the fake laws made by administrative agencies. Then we need to repeal the Administrative Procedure Act, and rely on the Congressional Review Act to ferret out bad administrative rulemaking.

The framers really did understand what they were doing. People like it when they can vote and immediately see results. If they don’t like the results, they can vote a different way next time. People don’t like it when voting doesn’t change anything, because all the actual work is being done by unelected people fighting with lawyers in courts.

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is easy, simple, and wrong.

And then there's the Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety (not sure it's a law), which states, simplified, that a simpler system cannot control a more complicated system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics)

I'm reminded of [Things You Should Never Do Part 1](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...) , but substitute all those rulings and laws and interpretations for all the bug fixes, i.e. they support and provide service for edge cases, i.e. marginal people, organizations, and places. That's what the lawsuits are for; not to protect the ruling but to protect the people who weren't being served. Let's tear it all out just to build it again, adding all new bug fixes for all the same reasons.

I would welcome DOGE focusing on how much velocity it will increase and how many lines of bad policy it will remove. Likewise, cutting inefficient people should instead be replacing them.

It is so hard to make progress within gov, so focusing on firing and demoralizing makes the environment even more afraid to move, and inefficiency even more of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As a counterpoint, I'm happy for the pro-AI discussions as these systems have been difficult to move forward. Many senior people are working to figure out how to legally do it, so dictates cutting red tape for them, not headcount, is welcome, and would let them focus on the project phases they actually want to do.

We work with multiple groups at the federal level, and while some people our peers interact with I do wish were out of the way, those are a minority, and more of a symptom. The ultimate problem is the procedures being tasked, the underlying mandates & regulations driving them, and lack of ability to succeed despite these. Imagine if your IT department was largely run by lawyers who fear jail time for any sign of malpractice because that's what the law says and they've built up defensive practices over the years as different situations came up. Of course the default is 'no'! The solution is not to stop having an IT department, but to fix the policy problems and rotate leadership for the new culture.

I loved the article. And as a non-profit leader, I recognize the challenge of coming into an existing system, learning it, identifying things that need to change, and trying (vainly mostly) to change it.

My dream (but impossible) reforms for Congress would be:

- You can only run for political office if you have (personally) written and passed legislation at a lower level (city, county, state). I understand we need staff to help us draft legislation, but you must be a legislator, not a figurehead, to serve. No idea how to enforce this on any practical level other than a draft tracking system. GitHub for politics?

- If you do not pass one piece of legislation while in office each year, you cannot run for reelection. Your job is to work on legislation, negotiate, and pass laws. If you block a piece of legislation, it does not count. Once out, you must repeat the process - go back to 1.

- Congress get compounded bonuses or raises for passing legislation in consecutive years and can also make a special Legislator All-Star team. Trading cards will be released in schools so young kids can grow up celebrating the amazing legislators in hot streaks. CSPAN will keep a statistical database of legislators accomplishments and reframe politics around class sports narratives, like comebacks and underdogs and unlikely team-ups.

Very interesting and non partisan description of the near hopelessness of trying to make government more effective!

I have yet to see a department of innovation to actually do anything. The only innovation I have seen in any organization has always been from the inside, never imposed. Not giving Musk e.g. Treasury to bully everyone with budgets clearly indicates this is only to flatter his ego, but effectively protect everyone else from him wielding actual power. I am happy US administration remains sane even in these trying times.

> wall of weaponization of the complexities of law, policy, regulation, process, and lore in defense of the status quo

I have yet to meet a veteran civil servant with whom I cannot establish rapport and prepare the groundwork for a project.

The key is to actually increase their agency without needlessly exposing them to risks they cannot mitigate.

Yeah, sometimes you run into egos and people who are used to huge bribes, but that just means marking them for dismissal when possible and adding their favorite sponsor to the delivery team temporarily.

And if all fails, they refuse to budge and insist on protecting the old, unusable, siloed system to protect their bribes? That's where you report to their boss with final word said by the cabinet member. And find another project for 4 years until the situation resolves itself. These people usually don't last long.

But when things go well, public servants can really rip through the red tape and make the project reality. It's just that they need to see the benefit.

>"What if even billionaires can’t disrupt the system we have built"

In theory billionaires should be treated just as your average Joe. What worries me more is that they seem to be able to buy government they want. Not completely there yet but moving in the direction. And while I do not put much trust to government having people's interest at heart I think the government subjugated by billionaires will be a nightmare in the end.

From the article:

> It's really hard to have an accurate model for why change is so hard in large bureaucratic institutions, and specifically for public sector ones, where the differences in governance really do matter.

From the discussion of organization types by Mintzberg, it seems a natural consequence. Bureaucracies are the efficient, right answer to stable circumstances - you make a stable organization, figure out the right answers and make everyone follow these answers. Non-compliance is a problem - the culture you aim for is "what's our accepted answer to this". When you think about it, what is change but non-compliance with the previously accepted rules?

(Software development is in the opposite category. The bread and butter is change and chaos.)

The fundamental problem is that there is no „wall“ but a labyrinth with many walls. Some of real value, some outdated, misunderstood and some a real problem. We can all agree on that.

Now how does Elon decide which ones to smash?

People like Peter Thiel are not so interested in government reform and efficiency so much as toppling "the ancien [sic] liberal order" and replacing it with techno-fuedalism.

In 1947, the US congress attempted exactly the same thing with the National Security Act of 1947. There were inter-service rivalries during WW2 that needed to be addressed. The Air Force was separated from the Army, but the Army quickly re-established their own air operations with the helicopter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947

"POSIWID". The purpose of the system is what it does.

> What if even billionaires can’t disrupt the system we have built?

Had this read "What if successful businessmen leading a unified government can't disrupt the system?" I'd raise an eye brow and see what they had to say.

Instead, without the flowery language of helping out, this argues directly that we ought to dismantle the distribution of power and give it to one man - ordained by wealth - in the name of efficiency.

It looks like, swims like, and quacks like fascist ideology.

we need startup mentality and efficiency in the governmental structures that are built for redistributing valuable resources in a system that exists in opposition to the outside world. Competition still does exists and we have internal and external dangerous forces that might make human life on the planet uncomfortable. To prevent this sudden wake up call to the broader society we must engineer incentives that will make the society slightly feeling the urge to do something productive that brings value. This force will be embedded into the economic model and will keep propagating further. Bringing a more just efficient and lean government that is working purely for the society's greater good.

I don't always subscribe to someone's Substack, but when I do, it's Jennifer Pahlka.

What a weird eulogy. Why does she want to hide her infatuation with the incoming administration rooted in the explicitly far-right faction of the US one-party state?

Would it somehow hurt her economically or socially?

I would recomment Americans watch a bit of David Starkey who largely comments on the British horror show as it sort of gets in to some of what is wrong with the US (largely the move to put power in the hands of unelected bodies).

"Reform" is itself too ambiguous to be a target. I don't think anyone wants the government to more efficiently murder their own citizens, or oppress their minority population, yet if you simply settle for wanting "reform" that would have to count.

What we want is not simply "reform" not simply "efficiency". What we want is more good things. And therein lies the problem for DOGE. We don't believe that they are going to make good things efficient.

Beurocratic inefficiency is rooted in trust. The beurocratic network of controls and accountability departments are established when the existing system fail, and are slowly dismantled again (usually by the logic of "why are we doing this when we never catch anything") when it's no longer needed. The problem for the American beurocracy is that the American people neither trust each other, nor act in a way that would foster that trust.

The very existance of billionaires is a glowing example of why American beurocracy exists. Something has to stop their otherwise uncompromised power.

Meanwhile the DOD will continue vaccuuming up taxpayer money and doing god knows what with it for god knows what reasons

I’m just going to watch and hold on to my opinions, as time and time again, Musk has championed his will.

I am cautiously optimistic about what Elon Musk is attempting with DOGE. But half my friends are convinced he will fail and that his legacy won't be Tesla or sending rockets to Mars but failing to reform the government. The other half think two trillion is too small a target.

I think two trillion is way too high a target but I am pretty certain they will achieve meaningful cuts that will make our government more nimble and faster. I just wished that Trump had not promised they wouldn't be allowed to touch social security or Medicare and Medicaid. I think there are hundreds of millions of dollars of Medicare and Medicaid fraud that could be rooted out in two and a half years. But I do plead guilty to being an optimist.