It seems that DOGE is poised to become a classic case study in the realm of overpromising and underdelivering. While skepticism surrounding their ambitions was well-founded, let’s examine some undeniable truths that DOGE couldn’t hope to change.
As of 2024, federal spending reached an eye-watering $6.8 trillion. Out of this colossal sum, $4.1 trillion was designated as mandatory spending—essentially, expenditures mandated by existing laws. Of that amount, over $3 trillion was allocated to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It’s true that fraud and misuse plague these programs, yet even if DOGE had miraculously eradicated all fraudulent activities, the savings would barely make a dent against the staggering $3 trillion figure. Furthermore, the people behind DOGE lacked the institutional insight to accurately discern the nuances of what constituted fraud versus legitimate spending. In any system, there will always be phenomena that may appear shocking to an outsider but have entirely mundane explanations. Many of Elon Musk’s early bold assertions, such as claiming there were more active Social Security accounts than the U.S. population, stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of basic facts. Thus, DOGE’s foray into mandatory spending was a miscalculated venture from the start.
Now, while interest on the national debt doesn’t fall neatly into the mandatory category, it’s hardly optional for policymakers unless they’re keen on further diminishing the United States’ credit rating. For 2024, the interest payments accounted for another $900 billion in the budget.
This leaves us with a total of $1.8 trillion categorized as discretionary spending. The military budget alone, which encompasses operations, maintenance, and personnel compensation, consumes almost half of this discretionary allotment. As for the other half, if you glance at the infographic linked above, you’ll see how the remaining funds are distributed. Although discretionary spending might appear to be the most straightforward target for cuts, the reality is that even substantial reductions in this area won’t significantly impact the deficit. Occasionally, news headlines highlight how taxpayer dollars were squandered on seemingly ludicrous studies—like the hypothetical investigation into whether clownfish alter their mating behavior when exposed to circus clown videos. (Just to clarify, this is a fictional study I concocted for comedic purposes; I sincerely hope it hasn’t been funded with taxpayer money.) Such stories tend to become the poster children for wasteful spending. However, in the grand scheme, research in science, space, and technology collectively amounts to a mere $41 billion, or about 2% of discretionary spending, accounting for around 0.6% of the federal budget. Eliminating funding for that clownfish study alongside a thousand similar projects wouldn’t even scratch the surface of the deficit. While this approach might generate sensational headlines and robust media coverage, it falls short of addressing the true issue at hand.
To genuinely tackle the federal deficit, significant reductions in mandatory spending—comprising the bulk of federal expenditures—are essential. Anyone proclaiming a desire to curtail federal spending without contemplating deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and military expenses is essentially engaging in fruitless rhetoric. These programs enjoy considerable popularity, whereas whimsical studies about clownfish offer much easier targets. Politicians serious about addressing federal spending should direct their efforts toward the former, but those whose primary focus is reelection will likely favor the latter.
