The scope and potential pitfalls of Trump’s and Musk’s plans for spending cuts

Amna Nawaz:

Among president-elect Trump's promises for his second term is a pledge to slash the size and spending of the federal government. He's appointed Elon Musk, the world's richest man, and Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech company founder and former presidential candidate, to run an advisory commission to make that happen.

It's called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, for short, also seen as a nod to the Musk-backed cryptocurrency Dogecoin. In an op-ed this week, the pair said that they're taking aim at $500 billion in annual spending. But there are big questions about how and if they can reach that big goal.

Maya MacGuineas watches federal spending and debt as the president of Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. She joins me now.

Thanks for being here.

Maya MacGuineas, President, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: Yes, thank you.

Amna Nawaz:

So, $500 billion was tossed out in this op-ed. At one point, Elon Musk said cutting $2 trillion was sort of off the top of his head a number he was aiming for.

Maya MacGuineas:

Yes.

Amna Nawaz:

What would it take to meet those kinds of numbers?

Maya MacGuineas:

Yes. So I know that all these numbers are huge and it's sort of hard to put them in context.

But our federal budget is about $7 trillion a year. And I still think that they're talking about that $2 trillion number with serious purpose, that that's what they're looking at. And it would be unimaginable that we could find $2 trillion in savings out of seven in one year. That said, a lot of time budget windows are 10 years.

So if you were talking about $2 trillion in savings over 10 years, eminently reasonable, doable, and I bet you that they could find more than that. That $500 billion that they're talking about is something specific, unauthorized spending programs.

And I think this is a really good example of where outsiders would look at that and say, it's unauthorized. We shouldn't be spending it. Let's get rid of it. But what they probably don't realize is that a lot of those programs are not authorized because they sail through Congress. They skip a process. They make it more efficient.

But they have a lot of political support, bipartisan support even, because these are things like spending on veterans programs or dollars for our embassies abroad. So it's not going to be so easy to cut those kinds of programs when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it.

Amna Nawaz:

Well, let me also ask you because president-elect Trump has said that he's not going to touch Social Security or Medicare. How would that impact any of these plans for big cuts?

Maya MacGuineas:

Yes.

And just taking a step back, that was one of the more troubling things about this whole campaign actually is the promise not to touch Social Security and Medicare. Those are the two largest government programs. Both of them are headed towards insolvency, which means there will be going to be across-the-board cuts in those programs in about a decade if we don't do something.

We have to fix them. We shouldn't cut spending to save money necessarily for the overall government, but they do need to be addressed and fixed. So promising not to touch them is not a good start.

But by saying that those things aren't on the table, you are tying their hands behind their back in terms of where the real savings are. The biggest savings in the federal government are in our biggest government programs. Social Security is a different issue. Most of that is just checks going to people who've paid in.

But in the health care field, that's probably where the biggest areas of savings are. And so we should have all health care on the table. I'd say the same thing for national security, lots of other areas of the budget. So you should not start by taking anything off the table and you should go through with a fine-toothed comb and figure out whether a program makes sense or not.

Amna Nawaz:

So even if cuts can be identified, can this commission, as it's been set up by Mr. Trump, can they make those cuts or doesn't it have to go through Congress in the first place?

Maya MacGuineas:

Well, in their op-ed, they talked a lot about doing as much as possible through executive actions. And that's something we have seen growing in recent presidencies. We saw a lot of activity with that from the Biden administration on student debt forgiveness, for instance.

The Supreme Court found some of that was not allowed. So they are looking at trying to do things that bypass Congress. I don't think that's the right thing to do, though. This is actually something where you want fresh ideas. I think they're going to have a lot of great fresh ideas to bring in. But then you need people who are accountable to the public, to the voters, to be making those decisions.

One thing we have seen recently is Congress doesn't like to cut spending that much. Maybe they will nudge them in the right direction, but $2 trillion, a year, again, I think that is a very high number to expect Congress to sign off on anything close to that.

Amna Nawaz:

We know Elon Musk has a reputation for slashing spending at his companies, right, his private companies, when he's felt he needed to.

Maya MacGuineas:

Right.

Amna Nawaz:

The federal government is different. And neither Mr. Musk nor Mr. Ramaswamy have ever run a federal bureaucracy of any kind. Some people think that's an asset. Is that kind of outside approach useful in trying to make some of these big cuts?

Maya MacGuineas:

I think it will be.

I think going in this and saying a lot of times they say, well, we can't do that. That's not the way we do things. Well, the way the government does things is not the most efficient. If you talk to people in agencies, in the bureaucracy, they will say, yes, it is too slow. There are too many people here. It is not done efficiently.

That said, there are a lot of things that are actually part of the political process, that you can't just go in with an axe and slice out all of these programs. Voters care. Politicians are accountable. They're going to know what their constituents want.

Amna Nawaz:

You are also among some of the most consistent voices calling for lawmakers to address the ballooning debt, which is now at $26 trillion.

Could all of these cuts in some way help towards that end?

Maya MacGuineas:

Absolutely.

I think this is one of the great things that could move us in the direction. I don't think we should start by taking things off the table, particularly health care, which is going to be a big part of this. Likewise, we shouldn't take revenues off the table. We're not going to fix the budget on slashing spending. It's going to be thoughtful combinations of spending reductions and revenue increases.

And another area they might look at is we have spending of about $2 trillion a year that runs through the tax code. It's tax expenditures, deductions, credits, exclusions. There is a great deal of savings and efficiency that could be found there as well.

So, yes, I think this could be a good step in the right direction of bringing our debt down. Listen, nobody's been talking about that recently. Both candidates ran on plans that would increase the debt by a lot. And President Trump and — coming President Trump had a plan that would increase the debt massively.

So that is going to be at odds with plans that cut deficits and cut government spending. We will see if he is really willing to kind of sign up with the specifics that they come up with.

Amna Nawaz:

All right, we will see.

Maya MacGuineas:

We will see.

Amna Nawaz:

Maya MacGuineas, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, always great to see you. Thank you.

Maya MacGuineas:

Thank you.