Dems, stop fighting DOGE and start steering it

The Department of Government Efficiency, spearheaded by Elon Musk under President Donald Trump’s direction, has initiated extensive budget cuts across various federal agencies. While the objective is to eliminate wasteful spending, these reductions have sparked significant national debate regarding their impact on essential public services, such as air traffic control, medicare and medicaid. Notably, cuts within the Environmental Protection Agency and the Social Security Administration have raised concerns among environmentalists about potential adverse effects on environmental protection and social welfare programs. 

DOGE has initiated substantial budget cuts within the EPA, aiming to reduce expenditures by 65%. This drastic reduction necessitates significant staffing cuts, potentially affecting critical functions such as air and water quality monitoring, disaster response and lead abatement programs. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has stated that any spending items exceeding $50,000 now require approval from DOGE, further complicating the agency’s operations.

These budgetary constraints have led to the cancellation of more than 400 grants, totaling more than $116 million in taxpayer savings. While fiscal responsibility is essential, critics argue that such sweeping cuts undermine the EPA’s ability to fulfill its mandate of protecting public health and the environment. For instance, programs addressing pollution control and environmental justice have been significantly hindered, raising concerns about long-term ecological consequences.

The SSA is undergoing significant workforce reductions as part of DOGE’s cost-cutting measures. Plans include laying off at least 7,000 employees from its 60,000-strong workforce, with potential reductions reaching up to 50%. These cuts aim to streamline operations and reduce alleged fraud within the system.

However, Michael Astrue, former commissioner of the SSA, warns that these efforts are ill-informed and could jeopardize the agency’s ability to execute its core mission. The reduction in staff has already led to longer wait times for beneficiaries, with reports of phone assistance delays exceeding two hours. 

These examples illustrate the complexities and potential pitfalls of implementing broad budget cuts without a strategic approach. While the intention behind DOGE’s actions are to enhance government efficiency, the resulting impacts on essential services highlight the need for a more nuanced strategy that balances fiscal responsibility with the effective delivery of public services. 

We are not the first country to attempt poorly organized spending cuts. The United Kingdom’s austerity policies, implemented since 2010, have been associated with significant increases in food insecurity and reliance on food banks. A systematic review published in eClinicalMedicine found that welfare reforms during this period correlated with heightened food insecurity and greater food bank usage. 

Additionally, research indicates that individuals utilizing food banks in England experienced notably poorer health outcomes and higher rates of mental health conditions compared to the general population. These findings suggest that broad fiscal austerity measures can have detrimental effects on vulnerable populations, leading to increased hardship and health disparities. These examples highlight a core lesson: While fiscal responsibility matters, indiscriminate cuts often produce deeper economic and social costs. Instead, government efficiency is best achieved through strategic, targeted reforms that safeguard essential services.

This is precisely the kind of approach many opponents of DOGE propose — one that combines fiscal responsibility with a commitment to social equity. Tax expenditures, such as deductions, exclusions and credits, significantly reduce federal revenue. In 2024, these expenditures amounted to roughly $1.9 trillion, surpassing spending on Social Security, defense or Medicare and Medicaid. Opponents propose reducing or eliminating tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, thereby increasing revenue without cutting essential services.

Importantly, efficiency shouldn’t come at the expense of long-term investment. For instance, protecting infrastructure spending is essential for economic growth and resilience. Despite this, pressure to reduce public expenditure has come for infrastructure as well. Experts warn that continued short-term cuts to capital spending while offering limited savings undermine long-term development.

To guide this balance between efficiency and equity, progressives need to emphasize the need for transparent and fair fiscal reforms — measures that ensure accountability, safeguard critical investments and protect vulnerable populations from disproportionate impacts.

Improving transparency in government spending must be key in progressive strategy. The UK Treasury has initiated plans to use real-time financial data across departments to improve oversight and reduce micromanagement. Darren Jones, chief secretary to the treasury, announced these reforms to give ministers immediate access to departmental spending and performance data, improving decision-making and public service outcomes. This initiative demonstrates a more strategic approach to fiscal management — one that prioritizes both efficiency and service delivery. The U.S. can learn from this model to improve oversight without compromising essential public services.

While seeking efficiency, it’s essential to safeguard programs that support vulnerable populations. For example, maintaining investment in infrastructure is crucial for long-term economic growth and social well-being. DOGE’s sweeping budget cuts represent a pivotal moment for how Americans think about the role and scope of public spending. While trimming waste and streamlining operations are legitimate goals, the implementation of across-the-board cuts — particularly those targeting essential public services like the EPA and SSA — reveals the risks of prioritizing short-term savings over long-term societal well-being. 

Rather than reacting defensively or rejecting cost-cutting outright, progressives have the opportunity and responsibility to propose smarter, values-driven reforms. By focusing on tax expenditures, investing in infrastructure, using technology to streamline government processes and protecting essential social programs, progressives can offer a compelling alternative to austerity — one that delivers efficiency without sacrificing equity. 

Ultimately, the question is not whether to cut, but how. Progressives must lead with proposals that balance fiscal prudence with compassion, proving that efficiency and justice can and must coexist in a functioning democracy.

Seth Gabrielson is an Opinion Analyst who writes about the intersection of politics, science and philosophy. He can be reached at semiel@umich.edu.

The post Dems, stop fighting DOGE and start steering it appeared first on The Michigan Daily.