Elon Musk is frustrated with Republicans wasting DOGE's effort to cut. So am I.
Elon Musk is frustrated with Republicans wasting DOGE's effort to cut. So am I. | Opinion It took him a few months, but Elon Musk now knows what I've always known. Congress is afraid to truly cut our spending.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Elon Musk 'disappointed' with Trump's tax bill
Elon Musk told CBS he is 'disappointed' with President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill.
I wrote a column in March arguing that Elon Musk's DOGE efforts to cut federal spending would accomplish nothing as long as Congress continues to spend money we don't have. It seems that Musk now agrees with me.
'I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,' Musk said in a recent interview, referring to the so-called "Big Beautiful Bill", which is set to add $3.3 trillion to the deficit if passed.
It took Musk just four months of being a part of the government to realize how futile the effort of cutting spending truly is. Regardless of what the executive branch does, Congress will only exacerbate the problem.
Musk sees that the government can't be fixed without Congress
Balancing the federal budget is a noble goal. As much as I agree with the mission of DOGE in theory, I realize that in practice, it can do very little for balancing the budget without Congress.
Musk and DOGE could not cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or defense spending – the areas that actually make up significant portions of the U.S. budget.
In a perfect world, DOGE should operate as an advisor to Congress, sending cuts that cannot be accomplished through executive power for legislators to slash. The GOP is waking up to that fact, as it was reported on May 28 that the White House plans to send a package of cuts to Congress for approval soon.
Opinion: Trump's administration is off the rails because it's unqualified to do the job
However, none of this matters so long as Congress continues to spend.
I do think Musk is genuine in his aim of cutting government waste, and I imagine it is rather disheartening for him to watch his work be outspent by a factor of trillions.
Congress has no incentive to cut spending
Congress scores points by claiming to be against reckless spending during election season, but never has the political courage to cut programs once they are in office. It is far more desirable for them to try to buy votes than it is for them to yank back federal dollars from people.
If nobody is willing to take the political hit of clawing money back, then deficit spending will only increase.
The Trump-endorsed 'Big Beautiful Bill' is estimated to add $3.3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next ten years. If you compare that with the money Musk saved from DOGE, experts have only been able to pinpoint roughly $2 billion in actual savings.
It appears that DOGE, functionally, was a charade and has been used by Republicans to act as if they are cutting spending while actually worsening the deficit.
Just two Republican House members could muster up the courage to vote against the legislation on the grounds of deficit spending. While the Senate is reportedly planning significant changes to the legislation, the fact that it has reached this point is disheartening.
Only Congress can solve the spending problem, but to do so would require our elected representatives to grow a spine. The much more likely outcome is that we continue to spend to the point that our descendants are saddled with an insurmountable national debt.
The GOP used Musk to pretend they actually care about spending, rather than actually accomplish a balanced budget. It's a shame his seemingly genuine effort is to be wasted.
Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Mike Pence Accuses Donald Trump of Ignoring Constitution
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Former Vice President Mike Pence has accused President Donald Trump of supplanting Congress' constitutional authority over trade and commerce, following a federal court ruling that sought to void the majority of his tariffs. "The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs," Pence wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "Article 1, Section 8 provides that the Congress 'shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.'" "The president has no authority in the Constitution to unilaterally impose tariffs without an act of Congress," he added. Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment outside regular hours. Why It Matters The potential economic effects of Trump's tariffs, such as high consumer prices on foreign goods and increased overheads for import-reliant businesses, have drawn scrutiny from Democrats and members of the president's own party. Trump has announced numerous tariffs since returning to office in January, including a 10 percent "baseline" tariff on almost all U.S. imports, arguing that the duties were necessary to fix trade imbalances and revive American manufacturing. However, critics have questioned the constitutionality of the president's trade policies, saying tariffs are fundamentally a legislative power granted to Congress and that their unilateral imposition represents an example of executive overreach. What To Know "To restore the power to levy Tariff's back to the American people, Congress should take immediate steps to reclaim their Constitutional authority On Tariffs," Pence wrote on Thursday. The former vice president has made similar arguments in the past. In April, he told attendees at a Grove City College event, "Wherever you come down on the risks or merits associated with tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration, the president has no authority in the Constitution to unilaterally impose tariffs without an act of Congress," the National Review reported. Pence has also criticized the tariffs on economic grounds, arguing that resultant price increases on foreign-made goods—specifically dolls—run counter to the "American dream." Former Vice President Mike Pence at the Jerusalem Post's New York conference on June 3, 2024. Former Vice President Mike Pence at the Jerusalem Post's New York conference on June 3, Pence highlighted on Thursday, Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the structure and powers of the legislative branch and grants Congress authority over taxes and duties. However, Congress has ceded certain tariff powers to the presidency over the years, primarily through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962; Sections 122, 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974; Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930; and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. Wednesday's ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade concerned Trump's invocation of the latter. The Manhattan federal court argued that neither the fentanyl crisis—which Trump used to justify tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico—nor the unfair trading relationships that his reciprocal tariffs were intended to fix constituted sufficient emergencies to override Congress' constitutional powers. "Because of the Constitution's express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President," the three-judge panel wrote in its decision. "We instead read IEEPA's provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers." The administration called the decision a "judicial coup" and swiftly filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which has now paused the lower court's ruling, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect pending the outcome of the appeal. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday: "The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly. If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power—The Presidency would never be the same! … The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm." Senator John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, told CNN: "Under the Constitution, Congress has tariff authority. We gave—for better or worse, Congress gave some of that authority to the presidency. The president has been exercising that authority. The issue before the courts—and it's appropriate for them to decide—is whether he has exceeded that authority. I don't think he has, but that's up to the courts to tell us. In the meantime, nothing's going to change. These [trade] talks are not going to stop, nor should they." Political economist Veronique de Rugy said in comments shared with Newsweek: "The president's power is limited, even in emergencies. Declaring a trade deficit isn't an emergency; it's economics 101. Trump's tariffs weren't just economically destructive, they were legally baseless. Courts rightly refused to hand over unlimited power to a single person. This ruling drew from conservative judicial doctrines like nondelegation and major questions, these philosophies embraced by Trump's own judicial nominees. The ruling restores constitutional order by reminding everyone, including Trump, that tariff power belongs to Congress, not to the president's whims." What Happens Next The appeals court's decision means Trump's tariffs remain in place while the case is considered. It has ordered the plaintiffs to respond by June 5 and given the government until June 9 to issue a reply. White House adviser Peter Navarro has said the administration is prepared to take the appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary. He told reporters on Thursday, "Even if we lose, we will do it another way."
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Inspect the ICE detention facility in Aurora. Repeat.
A sign in support of Jeanette Vizguerra, a nationally known immigration rights activist who is detained in the ICE facility in Aurora. (Lindsey Toomer/Colorado Newsline) Few Trump administration agencies are so out of control as Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE in recent months has disappeared people from American communities, a hallmark of unaccountable authoritarianism. The agency releases scant information to the public about its activities, and it withholds information even in court proceedings. Its agents wield the awesome power to deprive people of their liberty, and they've used that power to deposit hundreds of people in a brutal foreign prison, likely for life. Demand for oversight has rarely been so great, and no tool of ICE oversight should be left unused. Members of Congress have at least one method by which to oversee the agency — they can show up at ICE detention centers unannounced and perform inspections. But U.S. representatives and senators in Colorado exercise this authority too infrequently. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE ICE this year has undertaken aggressive immigration enforcement efforts as part of President Donald Trump's plan for mass deportations. In Colorado, which Trump made a particular focus of his anti-immigration program, the agency has undertaken several raids and other operations that have resulted in scores of people being held at its detention center in Aurora, operated by private prison company the GEO Group. People there are often denied constitutionally guaranteed due process, targeted for their exercise of First Amendment rights, and held without being charged with a crime, according to court documents and immigration advocates. About 12 detainees were removed from the Aurora facility to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador. Federal authorities have gone about this business with essentially no transparency. That's where oversight comes in. In 2019, U.S. Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat, tried to inspect the ICE facility after learning about poor health conditions there. He was denied entry, prompting him to pursue on-site oversight authority, which he helped secure in law. Members of Congress, according to language that is included annually in appropriations legislation, now have the authority to conduct unannounced oversight visits at Department of Homeland Security facilities. This was no empty gesture. Crow has routinely invoked the authority ever since, and he posts to his website reports about visits to the detention center in Aurora. His office has already completed two oversight visits this month. This is the same authority by which three U.S. representatives from New Jersey recently tried to conduct oversight at an ICE facility in that state. They were denied entry, and the Trump administration charged one of the lawmakers with a crime. But ICE's refusal to respect oversight authority is no cause to idle it. It's reason to assert it to its fullest extent. Crow should not be alone in conducting inspections in Aurora. Democratic U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper of Colorado should also show up. Hickenlooper has expressed anger over the Trump administration's lawless approach to immigration enforcement, even suggesting in April that 'the country's going to rise up' in response. But to a reporter's question about what senators like him could do, he said, 'You want me to get my pitchfork?' No. But lawmakers can get inside a facility where Colorado residents, snatched off the streets by the federal government, now face unconstitutional removal to prisons run by foreign dictators, and at least demonstrate to ICE and the people of Colorado that they've got their eye on MAGA malfeasance in Denver's backyard. Other members of the U.S. House from Colorado can also exercise oversight of ICE. The detention center in Aurora sits in Crow's district, and territorial deference is doubtless a factor, especially among fellow Democrats. But Crow could arrange a multimember visit. The detention center in New Jersey sits in McIver's district, and two other members of Congress from neighboring districts had arrived to inspect the facility with McIver when they were denied entry. Strength in numbers sends a message that the members will do everything they can to hold an outpost of authoritarianism in Colorado to account. A member of Hickenlooper's staff accompanied a Crow staff member during one inspection in March. In response to questions from Newsline about whether they'd visited the Aurora facility, the six Democratic members of the Colorado congressional delegation — Bennet, Hickenlooper, Crow and Reps. Diana DeGette, Joe Neguse and Brittany Pettersen — responded in a joint statement: 'Oversight is a key part of our jobs, and a responsibility we don't take lightly. The Trump Administration's recent attempts to intimidate Members of Congress from conducting oversight of ICE detention facilities are alarming — and we will not back down. We are fully committed to providing the necessary oversight and transparency of the GEO ICE facility in Aurora to ensure these facilities are run in full accordance with the law, and our offices will continue to perform the critical casework to ensure detainees are treated fairly.' The oversight authority alone won't enable members of Congress to stop the abuses that ICE commits in Aurora. Crow helped establish the authority at a time when immigration advocates were most concerned about health conditions, not cancellation of basic rights. No facility walk-through can remedy the profound injustices at work there. But at a time when Democrats seem overwhelmed and impotent as the Trump administration dismantles constitutional order, every available counterweight should be applied with maximum force. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk said he was chainsawing government spending. It was more like a trim
By Brad Heath, Jason Lange, Andy Sullivan, Grant Smith WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Elon Musk once famously wielded a chainsaw on stage in a theatrical demonstration of his effort to drastically cut U.S. federal spending under President Donald Trump. As he leaves government, official data shows he achieved something closer to a trim with scissors. In the four months since Musk's Department of Government Efficiency began slashing federal spending and staffing, a handful of the agencies he has targeted trimmed their combined spending by about $19 billion compared with the same period last year, according to U.S. Treasury Department summaries reviewed by Reuters. That is far below Musk's initial goal of $2 trillion in savings and amounts to about a half of 1% of total spending by the federal government. Musk said on Wednesday he is leaving the administration but that its cost-cutting work will "only strengthen over time." It remains to be seen, however, how enthusiastically Trump's cabinet secretaries will continue to downsize their departments. DOGE says it pulled the plug on more than 26,000 federal grants and contracts that are worth about $73 billion, while more than 260,000 government workers have been bought out, taken early retirement or been fired. But the DOGE tallies have been riddled with errors, according to reviews by numerous budget experts and media outlets, including Reuters. That has made them difficult to verify, and some of the announced cuts are not saving the government any money because judges have reversed or stalled them. That leaves the Treasury Department's daily reports on how much the government is spending as the clearest window into the scope of the administration's cost-cutting. The view they offer so far is modest: The government has spent about $250 billion more during the first months of Trump's administration than it did during the same period of time last year, a 10% increase. And even some parts of the government Trump has cut the most deeply are, for now at least, spending more money than they did last year. One big factor driving costs is largely outside Trump's immediate control: interest payments on the United States' growing pile of debt, which amount to about $1 in every $7 the federal government spends. Debt interest payments are up about 22% from a year ago. Spending on Social Security, the safety-net program for the elderly and disabled, totaled about $500 billion since Trump's inauguration, up 10% from a year earlier. To be sure, the view offered by the Treasury Department's daily reports is incomplete. Many of the cuts DOGE has made to the federal workforce, grants and contracting will reduce what the government will spend in the future but do not show up in its checkbook today. For example, while thousands of workers have taken buyouts, the government will continue to pay their wages until October. So far, the Labor Department has estimated there were only about 26,000 fewer people on federal payrolls in April than were on the books in January, after adjusting the figures for typical seasonal swings. Tallying savings from future cuts, however, is seldom straightforward. 'It could be that in the future we never replace these workers and we save billions of dollars, or it could be that they come back and it's even more expensive than before,' said Martha Gimbel, executive director of the Budget Lab at Yale, a nonpartisan budget analysis organization at Yale University. The White House declined to offer an explanation for DOGE's figures. Spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement that 'DOGE is working at record speed to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, producing historic savings for the American people.' Reuters estimated the administration's impact by tallying outlays at agencies that had been targeted for cuts and whose spending had dropped from the same time last year. Among the agencies hardest hit are the Department of Education, State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development, National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other independent agencies. Rachel Snyderman, an expert on fiscal policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said the spending declines at agencies could be reversed if the Trump administration doesn't get congressional approval to cancel outlays from this year's federal budget, as required by law. AN $11 BILLION EDUCATION CUT The most obvious sign that the Trump administration is making a dent in federal spending is in the Education Department, which Trump has ordered shut down. The administration cut the department's staff by about half in March. DOGE's website lists 311 Education Department grants and contracts it says it has eliminated for a savings of about $1.6 billion, though it is not clear how it arrived at those figures. Some cuts have not stuck. A federal judge in March ordered the administration to restore some of the grants it had cut, and another judge this month ordered it to rehire 1,400 workers. Still, the Education Department under Trump has spent close to $11 billion less than it did over the same period last year, the Treasury reports show, far more than what DOGE says it has cut. One reason could be that layoffs have made it harder for the government to process payments for special education and low-income schools. School districts that have sued over the cuts alleged that states were already experiencing slowdowns in receiving money. Another factor for the reduced outlays: The department has stopped handing out the $4.4 billion that remains to be distributed from the hundreds of billions of dollars approved in previous years to help schools weather the COVID-19 crisis. The Education Department did not respond to a request for comment. OTHER AREAS DOGE HAS CUT Other agencies targeted in Trump's overhaul are also starting to show declines in their spending compared with the same time last year. Spending is down about $350 million at the CDC and about $1 billion at the National Institutes of Health. The Trump administration has moved to slash spending across those agencies, cancelling grants and ending leases for office space. The Department of Health and Human Services has reported terminating close to 2,000 grants that planned to disperse more than $20 billion. Many of the grants were to boost labs that fight new infectious diseases, or to fund state mental health programs. Some $14 billion of the grant money had already been spent prior to the termination, with roughly $7 billion effectively frozen, according to a Reuters analysis of the government's tallies. The administration has effectively dismantled USAID, which handled most U.S. foreign assistance, firing nearly all of the agency's employees and cancelling most of its humanitarian aid and health programs, though federal courts have forced the government to continue making some payments. USAID spending is down about 40%, to about $4.6 billion, from last year. Spending at the State Department – where DOGE says it has cut nearly $1 billion in grants and contracts – is also down about 20% from 2024. WHY WE CAN'T KNOW MORE Measuring the impact of the administration's actions is difficult because many cuts will not yield savings for months or years even as spending elsewhere increases. Spending on federal employee salaries, for example, is up by more than $3 billion under Trump. Some of the grants and contracts DOGE cut were due to be paid out over several years, and many remain the subject of lawsuits that will determine whether they can be cut at all. DOGE says it has saved taxpayers $175 billion, but the details it has posted on its website, where it gives the only public accounting of those changes, add up to less than half of that figure. It says the figure includes workforce cuts, interest savings and other measures it has not itemized. It is also hard to know exactly how much the government would have spent if the administration had not started cutting.
