
As Musk exits DOGE, a look back at previous efforts to cut waste, fraud and abuse – and how they fared
As Elon Musk steps away from his official role at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), he joins a history of presidential administrations that have attempted to streamline government—with mixed results.
While former Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland all tried to downsize the judiciary, treasury and civil service, respectively, it wasn't until the 20th century that the federal government grew into the bureaucratic behemoth it is that has drawn true DOGE-type attention.
Though often seen as the bigger spenders, some Democrats joined Republicans in the 1990s to shrink the size of government and make it more accountable to taxpayers.
"We know big government does not have all the answers," former President Bill Clinton said during his 1996 State of the Union.
"We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington — and we have to give the American people one that lives within its means."
"The era of big government is over," he said, in a phrase that had largely been considered the closest emulation of DOGE thought until Musk arrived on the scene.
Clinton also sought welfare reform and emphasized personal responsibility over dependency on the state.
The Arkansan also called for slashing the bureaucracy by 200,000 jobs and worked with then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., to balance the federal budget.
President Donald Trump's efforts to do the same have received a very different response from the left.
Clinton, working with congressional Republicans – while also frequently sparring with them — was able to reduce the federal workforce somewhat and establish a budget surplus but also failed to realize entitlement reform, something that more recent fiscal hawks have also struggled with.
Clinton won his 1992 upset as a centrist, after incumbent Republican George H.W. Bush was lambasted for reneging on his "Read my lips – no new taxes" pledge, with a statistical boost from industrialist independent H. Ross Perot, who won the votes of many erstwhile Bush supporters.
Clinton and then-Vice President Al Gore established a National Performance Review (NPR) that drew some parallels to today's DOGE, and cut the bureaucracy to 1960s levels.
He went on to win reelection over otherwise popular GOP stalwart Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., in 1996.
In 1980, actor-turned-California Gov. Ronald Reagan took the White House with promises similar to another celebrity-turned-politician who would do the same 36 years later.
The Gipper did not succeed in abolishing the Department of Education – created only a few years prior by former President Jimmy Carter – something Trump has also sought.
But, he reinvigorated a new generation of conservatives who still praise him for slashing income taxes, seeking to "starve the beast" via forced discretionary-spending cuts, and took on public-sector unions when he essentially won a dare against Air Traffic Controllers who went on strike by firing them all and prohibiting their rehiring.
Reagan's closest iteration of DOGE was the 1982 Grace Commission, studying cost-cutting and efficiency – and led by Maryland chemical executive J. Peter Grace along with dozens of "commissioners" plucked from the private sector.
In the executive order creating the Grace Commission, it was tasked with examining "the entire federal government for areas of inefficiency, mismanagement and waste, and to recommend savings without raising taxes or cutting essential services."
Within its three-year lifespan, the commission reported $424 billion in savings, including waste, fraud, abuse, overpayments to government vendors and billions in unpaid taxes.
Reagan, however, faced the same resistance from the proverbial "Swamp" in trying to implement the commission's findings.
"We're not trying to hurt anyone. But the American taxpayer is being ripped off," Grace said at the time.
While ushered in as a conservative pragmatist, Reagan's later years saw budget deficits grow, and the national debt more than double. The Dow also lost nearly one-quarter of its value on "Black Monday," Oct. 19, 1987.
The other contemporary president known for trying to "DOGE" government was Texas Democrat Lyndon Johnson. LBJ was known for rapidly expanding government through his "Great Society" social programs but also took aim at streamlining the Pentagon and Defense apparatus.
Efforts at the Pentagon largely failed, as the ongoing Vietnam War also accentuated costly balance sheets.
Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, a Kennedy holdover and former Ford Motor Company chief, was employed to make changes at the Pentagon.
He instituted what was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System, which sought to bring a more streamlined approach to managing the Pentagon's budget.
However, the vast size of the defense bureaucracy—along with resistance from some military leaders—undermined the effectiveness of Johnson's and McNamara's reform efforts.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness
Last week, a federal court ruled that President Donald Trump had exceeded his statutory authority by imposing a raft of tariffs based on the "national emergency" supposedly caused by the longstanding U.S. trade deficit. Those tariffs are part of an alarming pattern: In his rush to enact his agenda, Trump frequently treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat. The U.S. Court of International Trade rejected Trump's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify sweeping import taxes he announced in February and April. The three-judge panel said that 48-year-old law, which does not even mention tariffs and had never been used this way before, does not authorize the president to "impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world." That decision did not affect tariffs that Trump has imposed or proposed under different statutes, such as his taxes on cars, steel, and aluminum. But by invoking the IEEPA, Trump hoped to avoid the specific rationales and sometimes lengthy procedures those laws mandate. Trump's immigration crackdown features similar legal shortcuts. After he asserted the power to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang as "alien enemies," for example, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they had a due process right to contest that designation. That decision did not address Trump's dubious interpretation of the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act. But several federal judges, including a Trump appointee, subsequently concluded that it made no sense to portray gang members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that had launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." As with tariffs, Trump had a more legally defensible option: deportation of unauthorized residents under the Immigration and Nationality Act. But in both cases, he chose the course he thought would avoid pesky procedural requirements. Something similar happened when Immigration and Customs Enforcement suddenly terminated thousands of records in the database of foreign students with visas authorizing them to attend American universities. Although that move was described as part of a "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," it affected many people without disqualifying criminal records—in some cases, without any criminal records at all. Those terminations "reflect an instinct that has become prevalent in our society to effectuate change: move fast and break things," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White wrote when he issued a preliminary injunction against the initiative on May 22. "That instinct must be checked when it conflicts with established principles of law." The same instinct is apparent in Trump's conflict with Harvard University. The administration froze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard, ostensibly because the university, by tolerating antisemitism on campus, had failed to meet its "responsibility to uphold civil rights laws." That decision ignored the legal process for rescinding federal funding based on such alleged violations. The process includes "a lot of steps, but they're important," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression notes. "They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right." Trump's disregard for the law is coupled with angry dismay at judicial review. As he sees it, any judge who dares to impede his will is a "Radical Left Lunatic," a "troublemaker" and "agitator" who "should be IMPEACHED!!!" After the tariff ruling, a White House spokesman argued that the court charged with interpreting and applying trade laws had no business doing that. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," he insisted. Contrary to that take, "it is emphatically the province and duty" of the judicial branch to "say what the law is," as Chief Justice John Marshall put it 222 years ago. Especially when the executive branch is headed by someone who does not seem to care. © Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc. The post Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness appeared first on


CBS News
18 minutes ago
- CBS News
Long Beach and Inland Empire Job Corps centers close
A longtime federal program that provides job training, housing and second chances to hundreds of at-risk youth nationwide is shutting its doors in Long Beach and the Inland Empire today. "I'm kind of nervous going back out there," 20-year-old Jacob Moan said after visiting the Inland Empire Job Corps Center. "I got permission to go back with my family in Los Angeles. The thing is my whole family is gang-related except me, and I didn't want to deal with that." Moan is one of the hundreds of Job Corps students left in limbo. He has until Thursday to find another place to live. "I'll be in a motel for about two weeks until a bed opens up at the shelter," he said. "I don't know where I'm gonna go. It sucks." Dominik Rodriguez just graduated from the certified medical assistant program, but now wonders how he'll actually land a job and get money for his son. "Society just like gave up for people in my situation," he said. "It hurts." Last Thursday, the U.S. Department of Labor announced it would suspend operations at its 99 Job Corps centers due to budget constraints. The federally funded centers provide housing, job training and careers for students 16 to 24 years old. "Job Corps was created to help young adults build a pathway to a better life through education, training, and community," Secretary Lori Chavez-Deremer stated. "However, a startling number of serious incident reports and our in-depth fiscal analysis reveal the program is no longer achieving the intended outcomes that students deserve." According to the Job Corps transparency report from 2023, the program had an average of 38.6%. The total number of serious incident reports at centers was 14,913. On average, one student costs the federal government more than $80,000 a year. "The transparency report that was released was generated by someone from DOGE, who doesn't know the program, who used statistics from 2023, which were statistics that were coming out of the pandemic," said Luis Ramirez, director of the Long Beach center. "We had just over 30% enrollment at the time." Ramirez added that the center went from helping 257 students to 37, all of whom have no place to go. "They're asking if they can come home and the situations are not possible for these students and parents," Ramirez said. "The students that did leave, we're hearing they are reaching out to community services and are struggling." Ramirez is one of the 140 staff members who will be laid off in Long Beach. "When you walk through our center, we're changing lives every day," Ramirez said.


Entrepreneur
19 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
3 remarkable winners amid an unseen surge
Oil prices have been falling as OPEC increases production. Like Trump with trade, the cartel is looking to re-shape the chess board. Here's what investors need to know This story originally appeared on WallStreetZen The dominant story of 2025 has been President Trump using tariffs to restructure global trade. So, many investors are missing another major development as OPEC has been increasing oil production. Notably, this increase in production has come about despite already weakening oil prices. This is not an accident as OPEC is looking to increase its market share. Over the last decade, steadily rising US shale oil production has eroded OPEC's control of the market and resulted in the US becoming a net exporter of energy. WTI Crude oil started the year at around $74 per barrel and currently trades below $60 per barrel. However, shale oil production is only viable at prices above $70 per barrel. 2020 and 2014 The last two major instances of OPEC members increasing oil production were in early-2020 and 2014. And, both instances marked the beginning of multi month declines in oil prices. In 2014, WTI crude dropped from $105 per barrel in June 2014 to below $55 by the end of the year. The major impetus for this increase was the growth in US shale production which was starting to affect OPEC's market share and pricing power. In early 2020, Saudi Arabia decided to increase oil production in an effort to discipline other OPEC members who were not abiding by the cartels' production quotas. As the chart below shows, this resulted in oil prices sliding lower and eventually collapsing as the pandemic temporarily crippling oil demand. Both experiences contain important lessons for investors. 2025 In its first production surge, OPEC didn't materially cut back on supply increases until there was a material decrease in rig counts and shale production. 2020 gives us few clues, since the production surge ended quickly, once the nature and challenge of the pandemic became clear in early March. However, the biggest takeaway is that investors should not ""fight OPEC." A common adage on Wall Street is "don't fight the Fed." Essentially, this means don't be bearish when the Fed is aggressively easing or don't be overly bullish if the Fed is tightening policy. Similarly, investors should have a more risk-averse approach when investing in oil, whenever OPEC is increasing production. What Opportunities Does the OPEC Surge Create? Instead, investors should focus on the consequences of a multi month decline in oil prices, as these are where investment opportunities can be found. For instance, many airline stocks enjoyed spectacular rallies in 2014 and 2015 as lower oil prices boosted margins and profits. In 2020, many shippers enjoyed huge gains as the world was awash in excess oil which had to be stored and transported. Investors should identify stocks with strong fundamentals that have strong quantitative ratings. Then, they can narrow down this list of stocks to find the ones that will benefit from this specific catalyst. The Zen Ratings can help you screen for these stocks. For instance, investors can screen for stocks with an overall A or B rating along with strong component grades for defensive categories like Safety, Value, or Financials. Currently, there are a handful of stocks that fit this criteria. In today's article, I want to discuss 3 companies: United Airlines (UAL), CVR Partners (UAN), and Hallador Energy (HNRG). 1. United Airlines (UAL) United Airlines (UAL) is a major beneficiary of lower oil prices as it reduces costs, boosts margins, and leads to an increase in consumer spending. As oil prices dropped by more than 50% between June 2014 and February 2015, UAL's stock was up by nearly 70%. UAL also brings outstanding financials given a solid balance sheet, low debt-to-equity ratio, and a rock-bottom forward P/E of 6.6 which is significantly cheaper than the S&P 500's forward P/E of 22. The company is also well-regraded by Wall Street analysts as it has 8 Strong Buy ratings and 3 Buy ratings with no Sell or Hold ratings. It also has a consensus price target of $103 which implies 30% upside. Another indication of strong performance is that the company has topped analysts' earnings expectations for 11 straight quarters. Similarly, the Zen Ratings are also bullish on the stock as it has a Strong Buy (A) rating. A-rated stocks have an average annual performance of 32.5% which beats the S&P 500's average annual gain of 10.8%. 2. CVR Partners (UAN) CVR Partners (UAN) produces nitrogen fertilizer, providing farmers with ammonia and other products. A byproduct of reduced shale oil production will be higher natural gas prices, and fertilizer prices tend to rise with natural gas prices. Like UAL, UAN offers a strong balance sheet, low leverage ratios, and an attractive valuation with a P/E of 11. UAN also pays an 8% dividend yield and has consistently hiked dividend payouts over the last decade. While certain segments of the economy are going to lose from tariffs, agriculture is an exception. Either the administration is going to strike deals that will boost exports, or it will provide aid to farmers given their political importance as was the case during the previous trade war in 2018-2019. Given these strong fundamentals, it's not surprising that UAN is rated a Strong Buy (A). The stock has appeal to both value and growth investors. The company's recent earnings reports reveal strong cash flow. Over the last 12 months, the company generated nearly $100 million in cash which is impressive given its total market cap of $825 million. This combination ensures a margin of safety while providing exposure to positive catalysts. 3. Hallador Energy (HNRG) While UAN will benefit from higher fertilizer prices, HNRG will benefit from higher coal prices. Coal prices and natural gas prices tend to move in the same direction. Further, the Trump administration's embrace of coal also removes another major headwind for the industry which led to underperformance for most of the last decade. Essentially, coal stocks were mired in a brutal bear market from 2010 to 2020. Low natural gas prices made it less competitive. At the same time, the government was embracing environmental policies to reduce coal consumption. Now, both of these headwinds have eased, and investors are finding opportunities in the sector. Wall Street analysts are also bullish on the stock as it has 2 Strong Buy ratings and 1 Buy rating with 0 Sells or Holds. In terms of the Zen Ratings, it's rated a Buy (B). B-rated stocks have produced an average annual return of 19.5% which beats the S&P 500's average annual gain of 10.8%. The stock is also a standout in terms of component grades. Out of our universe of 4,500 stocks, it's in the top 3% for Growth. This is consistent with the company's improving outlook given increasing coal production and rising prices. Additionally, it ranks in the top 4% for Safety due to its low levels of debt, leverage, and collection of high-quality assets. What's the Endgame For OPEC's Production Uptick? While the endgame and path for Trump's trade war is unclear, the fallout and conclusion of OPEC's production surge is much more predictable. While North American energy producers are likely to struggle, commodities like natural gas, coal, and fertilizer will benefit. Another winner will be airlines as consumer spending remains strong while fuel costs decline. What to Do Next?