Scott Ott, Bill Whittle and Steven Green Analyze Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency Tenure
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Devin Gibson Reacts to Post-Election Meltdowns After Trump's Victory Over Kamala Harris
23:47
Megyn Kelly Exposes Media Coverage of Leftist Protesters Celebrating Charlie Kirk's Assassination and Threatening Trump Family
24:10
Charlie Kirk Breaks Down Trump's Constitutional Strategy to Shrink Government and Expose Federal Waste
13:20
Scott Ott, Bill Whittle and Steven Green Analyze Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency Tenure
Scott Ott, Bill Whittle, and Steven Green examine a Washington Post editorial claiming Elon Musk failed as head of the Department of Government Efficiency during his 135-day tenure. Rather than simply critiquing the piece, they explore what Musk accomplished, the structural obstacles he faced, and what a longer-term approach to government reform might look like. The discussion reveals why market forces don't work in government, how Congress, not waste and fraud, drives deficits, and why the ratchet effect makes cutting programs nearly impossible. They argue that real reform requires tackling the constitutional role of federal agencies, not just firing employees or cutting budgets.
The Washington Post's Assessment of Elon Musk's DOGE Tenure
Scott Ott opens the discussion by referencing a Washington Post editorial board op-ed examining Elon Musk's time as head of the Department of Government Efficiency during his legally permitted 135-day employment period. While surprised by the editorial's relatively measured tone, Scott notes the piece failed to acknowledge the positive aspects of Musk's achievements. However, he finds value in several criticisms worth examining more deeply.
The editorial identified three main issues with Musk's approach. First, he attempted to change a system he didn't fully understand. Second, while many have dreamed of applying business principles to government, government agencies face no market forces—no competition trying to eliminate them daily. Third, Musk focused on cleaning house rather than finding ways to support good government employees trying to do their best under difficult constraints.
The piece argues that not every government employee is a willing bureaucrat. Many have learned that keeping their jobs long-term requires extensive self-justification behavior in case they face congressional committees or court proceedings. Scott suggests that if Musk had been given a mandate to staff DOGE for the long haul and make substantive improvements with carryover effects—rather than just cutting spending here and there—the outcome might have been different.
Why Government Incentives Work Differently Than Business
Steven Green responds by questioning whether Musk could have done much better given his limited time, power, and the numerous obstacles he faced. He explains that government simply doesn't operate like business because market forces don't apply.
Green shares an example of a colleague who earned his master's in business and started working for a major company. This person noticed that during difficult economic times, the company focused intensely on cutting costs and did it well. But during boom times, all discipline disappeared, which helped precipitate the next downturn. His detailed presentation proved what everyone felt but hadn't articulated, setting the company on a better course by applying fiscal discipline during good times as well as bad. That's how you transform a good company into a great one.
Government incentives work completely differently. If you save money, your budget gets cut the following year, and suddenly you're viewed negatively. That's how bureaucracy functions. The incentives don't exist, and you can't introduce them because government operates as its own entity without market forces.
The Ratchet Effect and Concentrated Benefits
Green argues that Musk's main battle was against what Margaret Thatcher called the ratchet effect. When the left implements a new law or spending program, it clicks into place like a ratchet and stays there until the next thing clicks into place. Moving the ratchet backward proves extremely difficult, which is one reason conservatives tend to lose over the long haul. Once a program exists, a vocal constituency will defend it to the death because everyone loves their free money.
Green expresses frustration with Mitch McConnell, who during the Tea Party era dismissed those wanting to limit spending by saying no one ever came to his office asking to cut a program. Green's response: "You're a Republican, you dumb son of a... It's supposed to be in your blood." Yet McConnell was just doing what people asked because he wanted to keep his job—all part of the ratchet effect.
Scott adds that former Senator Pat Toomey said the same thing, noting nobody comes to his office asking to cut programs. Toomey explained the difference between the concentration of value to program beneficiaries and the distribution of costs. No individual voter sustains a major hit from any single government program, but some vendors and special interests receive significant benefits. They'll be constantly lobbying and trying to buy dinner, but voters don't notice the 75 cents of their weekly paycheck going to a particular program because costs are spread out while benefits are concentrated.
Deficits Come From Congress, Not Just Waste and Fraud
Scott reveals that while walking that morning, he had been thinking about government waste, fraud, and abuse—the same topic covered in the Washington Post piece. The editorial made a point he had been contemplating: deficits are not primarily created by waste, fraud, and abuse. Deficits are created by Congress spending money they don't have.
By focusing on waste, fraud, and abuse as the central issue—while not a bad thing to address—we miss the bigger problem: 535 people who think their job is to bring home pork belly for their constituents. If Musk had a do-over, Scott suspects he would take a more structural, long-term approach rather than racking up wins by dropping employees or closing departments. Those actions sent a signal, but so far there's been no follow-up process to free up good employees to do good work, save taxpayer money, perform essential services, and ensure we're not paying people who aren't essential.
Bill Whittle's Perspective on DOGE's Continuation
Bill Whittle begins by joking about stepping out of Reagan National Airport and feeling an overwhelming desire to spend other people's money. He emphasizes an important point: DOGE is not closed. The work continues even though Musk's direct involvement has ended.
Whittle admits disappointment that Musk didn't accomplish more. For several weeks, Musk looked like Archangel Michael with a fiery sword, eliminating USAID while the Department of Education seemed destined to disappear. People like Whittle were anticipating what would happen when he reached the defense department or the social programs with their fraud and waste.
While Congress spending more than it takes in remains the fundamental problem, we also waste enormous amounts of money. The work done so far was just the tip of the iceberg. Even just eliminating USAID defunded many Democratic programs, getting dirty money out of politics after we had been funding our own opposition for 25 to 40 years.
Whittle was expecting much more and still hopes for more, to some degree. Because Musk is so famous and the richest man in the world, the heat he took—with people destroying Teslas—was more than anyone could bear. The blow-up between Musk and President Trump, which fortunately didn't escalate into a major conflict, showed real restraint on Trump's part while Musk expressed regret for some of his statements.
Whittle understands the frustration of entering government determined to restructure it into an organization that saves money and pays down debt, only to see spending bills pass that make you wonder why you became the most hated person in the world. That must be completely heartbreaking.
If grading the effort, Whittle would give it a C+ as a good start that showed what's possible. He hopes people still there are saving money under the radar, which may be the most effective approach. But he misses the sense from those first six or seven weeks when it looked like we would actually restructure this out-of-control behemoth that functions like a black hole—the more money it takes in, the bigger it gets, and the bigger it gets, the more money it takes in. It looked like someone was actually cutting pieces off and making it smaller.
The Moral Argument for Government Reform
Whittle argues this needs to be sold as a moral issue, not just a cost-saving issue. The president needs to make the case that we don't need departments of education, energy, or transportation. They need to go as part of addressing a systemic problem. Until people address the moral and ideological issues, we'll just get deeper into debt, and sooner or later that bill will come due.
For a while, we appeared to be on a trajectory to actually pay down debt. Even paying down something minor like $10 billion on a $35 trillion debt—that's at least changing the curve and moving in the right direction. That creates confidence. A figure like Elon Musk with that fiery sword was needed to motivate the base to get excited about fundamentally changing how government does business. They had some success, but not nearly enough, and Whittle hopes to see more in the future.
The Challenge of 535 Board Members
Scott notes that even running private companies, Musk has sometimes run afoul of his own board of directors. But imagine working for a board of 535 people, all of whom are—as Green would say—idiots. Even if they weren't, even if they were 535 decent individuals hoping to be reelected or elected to higher office, that's an uncontrollable set of variables.
When trying to make changes in a government that has overgrown the box it came in, you must contend with the court system. You can't control what a federal judge will rule, what a district court panel will decide, or what the Supreme Court will determine. Those are substantial obstacles.
Scott doesn't accept the Washington Post editorial's premise that Elon Musk failed. However, we may have oversold what one man—even a genius with great accomplishments—can do in such a constrained timeframe. He hopes the work continues on a more low-key basis without Musk as a lightning rod or potential for drama with the president distracting from the actual purposes.
Lessons From Local Government
Scott shares insights from his brief stint in local governance at the county level. As long as elected officials are in charge of anything, their decisions won't necessarily be made for the good of the people or organization. They'll be made by gut feel about what will get them reelected—and they don't actually know what will get them reelected, but they think certain actions will help their prospects.
People don't realize how much time members of Congress spend raising money for their next campaign, driven by leadership and campaign committee leadership to spend even more time fundraising. All kinds of mixed motives exist in that environment.
Scott appreciates two points from the editorial. First, Congress—not waste, fraud, and abuse—is the major problem. You can nibble at the crust by addressing waste and fraud, but to reach the core, you must reform the process of developing omnibus budget bills. You must reform what Congress is allowed to delegate to agencies through broad general directives, then slapping their wrists when they don't like the results. And you need to distance the federal government from things it doesn't need to be involved in.
Getting Government Out of Businesses It Shouldn't Be In
At the local level, Scott worked on a project involving a county-owned nursing home. Not every county commissioner who gets elected publicly asks, as Scott did, why the county owns a nursing home. What business do we have doing this? Do you really want your most vulnerable, aged, and disabled citizens in the hands of people just trying to get elected? Is that where they'll get their best care?
Scott tried to get an analysis comparing how well the county nursing home was running versus other nursing homes not controlled by the county. His long-term objective was to suggest farming it out or selling it—getting out of that business entirely.
The more things government can exit—not just firing people within departments, but dispersing federal workers across the country to offices in existing state buildings where they coordinate with states—the more hope exists. You no longer have those 535 board of directors people looming over your shoulder.
A Call for Long-Term Strategic Reform
Scott wants more experiments like President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency. He wants it to continue, but with a much more long-term strategic, constitutional, and structural approach—and far fewer headlines. The objective isn't generating campaign enthusiasm so people hit your website and send money. The objective is actually making a difference.
