Whenever the insanely high level of federal government spending comes up — which is every time federal government spending comes up — federal government spenders immediately trot out a fake solution.

Eliminating “fraud, waste, and abuse” in their spending, they tell us, will magically bring their spending into line with their revenues. No more deficits! Decreasing accrued debt! Lower taxes!

It never “works,” of course. It’s not even really meant to “work.” It’s just meant to distract the American public with some convenient scapegoats while the politicians debate whether to spend a little more or a lot more than previously.

I do have to say, though, that I’ve been mildly positively impressed with the latest iteration of that old trick, Donald Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency.”

Even for those who believe there’s such a thing as “legitimate” government spending and don’t want the baby thrown out with the bathwater (I’m with the late Harry Browne, who noted “we have to remember — it’s Rosemary’s Baby“), it seems like the Trump administration is accomplishing at least some positive public service with government employment buyouts, reining in USAID, etc.

Maybe we WILL actually see a more “efficient” executive branch out of all this, an organization with fewer extraneous employees and with less inclination to pay (an old example) $435 for a $15 hammer.

But without congressional action to cut spending, it will all end up costing us at least as much, and probably more, than it did before.

Congress, not the president, decides how much money gets appropriated (that is, taxed or borrowed) and what kinds of things it gets spent on.

The only powers the president possesses on that subject are the power to suggest budgets, the power to veto budgets including appropriation amounts he disagrees with — Congress can override him on that — and the power to execute (hence the executive branch’s name) Congress’s instructions.

If a particular government unit receives a budget of $1 billion, then DOGE detects and Trump excises $100 million worth of “fraud, waste, and abuse” from its operations — but Congress keeps that unit’s budget at $1 billion, we MIGHT see “better” or “more efficient” use of that $1 billion, but we’re not seeing any actual reduction in the cost of government.

The House Budget Committee claims that its budget resolution for 2025 through 2034 will “reduce deficits by $14 trillion over the next decade.” Last year’s deficit was $1.9 trillion. Stretched out over a decade, the proposed reduction would still leave an average deficit (borrowed and added to the national debt) of $500 billion per year.

Any ten-year plan is suspect (subsequent Congresses can, and always do, abandon it).

A ten-year plan that forecasts $8.7 trillion in cuts to “mandatory” programs like Medicare is likely dead on arrival.

If Congress isn’t serious about substantial cuts to “discretionary” spending, especially on “defense” (the proposal “preserves critical defense spending”), Congress isn’t serious about cutting spending, period.

Enjoy the DOGE and DOGE-adjacent activities if you like them, but don’t expect them to accomplish much where the cost of government is concerned.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY