The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Danielle Zanzalari is an assistant professor of economics at Seton Hall University. She wrote this column for InsideSources.com.
The newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has ignited widespread debate. Critics dismiss it as a flashy initiative lacking substance, but such skepticism may be premature.
Addressing systemic inefficiencies in government is no small task, yet DOGE could be a pivotal step toward curbing the bloated bureaucracy that has plagued federal agencies for decades. There are 23 million government workers, about 14 percent of civilian employment, with multiple departments spending $100 billion or more annually.
Recognizing the urgent need for reform, Congress has been rallying behind DOGE. Just days ago, Musk and Ramaswamy met with lawmakers to brainstorm ideas, and Rep. Aaron Bean, R-Florida, introduced a congressional caucus dedicated to collaborating with the initiative. Bean emphasized that strong legislative support is crucial to drive meaningful change. Initial efforts will likely target high-profile agencies like the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission, where inefficiencies and misuse have garnered the most criticism.
For example, Justice has faced allegations of pursuing politically motivated lawsuits and initiatives far from its core mission of upholding impartial justice. Similarly, the agency has been accused of targeting companies like Visa for its market dominance despite evidence that consumers are satisfied with and benefit from their secure payment methods and reward programs.
Other agencies like the FTC have come under fire for perceived overreach and inefficiency. A recent example involves the FTC’s actions against X (formerly Twitter) after Musk’s acquisition of the platform. A House Judiciary Committee report revealed that the FTC bypassed standard protocols and failed to involve commissioners before initiating an investigation. Critics argue this case reflects a broader trend of regulatory bodies acting on political motives rather than adhering to their mandates of independence, impartiality and protecting the public.
The media have fueled this debate with articles focusing on whether the Department of Justice disproportionately targets Democrats or Republicans, highlighting the public’s widespread concerns about fairness. This growing perception undermines taxpayer confidence in government agencies.
As an economist at the Federal Reserve, I witnessed the dedication of many public employees and the inefficiencies inherent in sprawling bureaucracies. These issues are not unique to the public sector. Large private corporations often grapple with similar challenges of stagnation and overstaffing.
The critical difference lies in accountability. Private companies must respond to shareholders and market forces, which drives them to eliminate waste and improve productivity. Government agencies, by contrast, answer primarily to the president or Congress, and such external pressures are often absent. This lack of accountability often allows inefficiencies to persist unchecked.
These inefficiencies and overreaches are precisely what DOGE seeks to address. By cutting the government workforce and refocusing each institution on its foundational purposes, DOGE aims to restore transparency and public trust in these institutions.
Whether DOGE can live up to its lofty goals remains to be seen. Still, its mission — restoring efficiency, accountability and trust in government — resonates with taxpayers and businesses. It would be unwise for any of us not to hope for DOGE’s success in creating greater efficiency and more careful spending of taxpayer dollars.
