Monthly Archives: November 2024

Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency with Elon Musk — failure or fearful?

Disciplined enough to run the federal government?

Earlier this week, Donald Trump announced that he would create a new Department of Government Efficiency when he gets into the White House next year. Trump stated that this agency would be led by Elon Musk and businessman turned Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. First of all, it seems comically ironic that (a) an entire new government department would be created to show how to make government more efficient, and (b) it would need to be headed by two people instead of one. So much for Republicans claiming for decades that they are “the party of smaller government.”

Along with that funny part, if it were to be a true Cabinet-level department (Defense, Education, Justice, etc.), or a federal agency (Federal Communications Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, etc.), generally this Department of Government Efficiency would need to be created and funded by Congress. That could take a long time, and run into many objections and amendments. So more likely, it would be an “Office” or some other Executive Branch or White House creation well below the Cabinet Department level.

If that happens, some folks might not take this office seriously. However, a quick look at a similar office from a few decades ago might indicate that a Government Efficiency Office, Agency or Board could have real power and do real damage. Specifically, in 1989, President George H.W. Bush created the Council on Competitiveness, and put Vice President Dan Quayle in charge of it. This innocuous-sounding Council was described as having “responsibility for reducing the regulatory burden on the economy.”  Essentially it was a White House back door for Republican corporate executives and lobbyists to come in with deregulatory wish lists, from environmental rules to health and safety rules and more.

The council worked closely with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget to carry out OMB’s regulatory review and the development of the regulatory program.

Not every destructive government action requires Congress to legislate. A lot of good or bad can be done in the process to implement, or repeal, rules and regulations that govern much of our lives. It is no secret that the incoming Trump administration seeks to repeal all kinds of regulations that Americans rely on for their safety and security, in areas such as the environment, transportation, workplace health and safety, food and drug safety, etc. Corporations obviously want such regulatory unburdening to reduce their costs and increase their profits. It’s a good bet that, as with the previous Council on Competitiveness, such corporate deregulation would be the principal function of the new “Department of Government Efficiency.” And if legislation is further required to allow companies to run amok, our Congress is about to be fully majority Republican, and no doubt will be standing by to serve their corporate overlords.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that this new proposed government office fails to deliver due to the egos, incompetence and inattention of those in charge.

Photo by Steve Jurvetson, used under Creative Commons license. https://is.gd/xlJwF8

 

The Democrats lost the election to the Republicans — what’s next?

Kamala Harris did her best

On Tuesday night, Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. Republicans also won back a narrow majority in the U.S. Senate. U.S. House results are still coming in, and Republicans hold a small lead over the Democrats. Many people are in shock about the results, and are asking what went wrong for the Democrats, as well as how the party can do better going forward. There are so many possible answers, and it will take some time to sort through them and come up with new ideas. But we want to focus on one area that reflects the mission of Messaging Matters.

That area is communications and media. Specifically, we need to look at what the big corporate “mainstream media” did in this election, and how badly they served us. One obvious place to point to is the number of major newspapers, including ones that traditionally have a Democratic editorial viewpoint, that failed to endorse any candidate this time. Axios has a dramatic chart here, with an accompanying article, demonstrating how the number of such endorsements has plummeted by about 80 percent just since 2004.