Department of Government Efficiency DOGE

[temporal1]

Is your complaint with Congress?

Congress’ chronic low approval rating reflects MOST have complaints with Congress.
Possibly most disturbing to me is, most appear to lack ANY concern for their low approval rating.
Esp those in annoying headlines.

Odd, one would guess REPRESENTATIVES would be quite alert to approval.
It’s as-if their motivations are disconnected from representation.

boot:
.. we have to decide whether we have implicit faith in Musk and whatever he does, ..

it’s painful enough to listen to screeching Elizabeth Warren recite this. excruciating to read on this forum.

of course, it’s allowed! no debate.
just sayin. it reads like karen stuff.

[Robert]

Congress is missing in action. I think Congress is afraid to act.

I have seen multiple committee meetings involving DOGE. Most seem to be supporting it publicly. I suspect many do not privately since it cuts off some of the soft money they get.

[Bootstrap]

Congress is missing in action. I think Congress is afraid to act.

I have seen multiple committee meetings involving DOGE. Most seem to be supporting it publicly. I suspect many do not privately since it cuts off some of the soft money they get.

You’re right -- there have been committee hearings, and some members are asking decent questions. But I keep wondering: if many members privately have doubts, why aren’t more of them speaking up publicly or pushing for real oversight?

Is it political pressure? Fear? Either way, the result is the same: no accountability, no transparency, and no data the public can actually evaluate. We’re being asked to trust sweeping claims about savings and corruption without evidence. In the meantime, records are quietly altered or withheld, data disappears from websites, people responsible for investigating corruption are fired or sidelined.

And the messaging is too coordinated to ignore: same talking points, same culture war framing, same sweeping praise of Trump, all using the same phrases. It’s looking less like governance and more like a coordinated media campaign.

For me, that raises questions:

1. Who’s actually in the room during these key decisions?
2. Who has access to what information—and who doesn’t?
3. Is this becoming like the NSA surveillance programs, where only a few handpicked legislators saw the full picture, while others were kept in the dark? And the public basically doesn't know anything?

If the numbers are solid, show them. If the claims are real, make the evidence public. Trust in government doesn’t come from slogans, it comes from transparency and accountability.

What would meaningful oversight look like in this situation?

[temporal1]

.. What would meaningful oversight look like in this situation?

If in your hands, it would come to a complete stop - -
as it has for everyone in the past - from obama to ron paul, rand paul, etc.

Oversight requires time, it has to. Similar to the legal system. Crimes are NOT prosecuted BEFORE being committed (traditionally, even this metric is now in peril). “Innocent until PROVEN guilty.” etc.

But to repeat what is being said, you seem committed to ignoring: they will NOT go without scrutiny.
That may be one thing that can be known. These are the most scrutinized men on the planet.

They ARE under scrutiny and WILL BE under scrutiny. Your wish fulfilled.

This is all (incredibly) early and new.
They are addressing established recognized faults of decades. Pray for good outcomes. Be grateful they’re trying.

There is an old Chinese proverb that
the man who says it cannot be done must not interrupt the man doing it.

[Bootstrap]

.. What would meaningful oversight look like in this situation?

If in your hands, it would come to a complete stop - -
as it has for everyone in the past - from obama to ron paul, rand paul, etc.

Oversight requires time, it has to. Similar to the legal system. Crimes are NOT prosecuted BEFORE being committed (traditionally, even this metric is now in peril). “Innocent until PROVEN guilty.” etc.

I agree that people are innocent until proven guilty. But that should go both ways.

DOGE is making a lot of accusations. The people and agencies they’re going after also deserve to be treated as innocent until there’s real evidence. That means showing clear data, being open to questions, and accepting oversight. But DOGE says they are guilty and dissolving them without any of that.

This isn’t about getting in the way. It’s exactly what DOGE claims to be doing: bringing accountability and fixing what’s broken. If this is really about doing what's right, then it has to start with honesty and fairness. For everyone.

Suppose we treated DOGE the way they treat other agencies. We’d just feed them to the paper shredder over the weekend. No questions asked. And we would post something on X accusing them of outrageous crimes, in fiercely partisan language and do our best to dominate the news cycle and make the accusations go viral. That's not "innocent until proven guilty".

[JohnH]

Congress is missing in action. I think Congress is afraid to act.

I have seen multiple committee meetings involving DOGE. Most seem to be supporting it publicly. I suspect many do not privately since it cuts off some of the soft money they get.

You’re right -- there have been committee hearings, and some members are asking decent questions. But I keep wondering: if many members privately have doubts, why aren’t more of them speaking up publicly or pushing for real oversight?

Do you think members will publicly say, "I'm a bit worried this DOGE thing is going to cut pork going to my buddies who have their snouts in the government trough?"

Is it political pressure? Fear? Either way, the result is the same: no accountability, no transparency, and no data the public can actually evaluate. We’re being asked to trust sweeping claims about savings and corruption without evidence. In the meantime, records are quietly altered or withheld, data disappears from websites, people responsible for investigating corruption are fired or sidelined.

We aren't "being asked" to do anything. DOGE is simply reporting what it finds. Much of what they report was already buried in voluminous reports that nobody reads.

If the numbers are solid, show them. If the claims are real, make the evidence public. Trust in government doesn’t come from slogans, it comes from transparency and accountability.

I've noticed one consistent request of anti-Trump people is that pro-Trump congressmen and Trump himself show his enemies their hand. They obviously aren't going to do this.

What would meaningful oversight look like in this situation?

Any meaningful oversight has to become something other than never-Trump sort of activity. Until you decide to accept that, you aren't going to get what you want - and neither are the rest of the people demanding it.

If I have a hostile neighbor who keeps trying to break into my house, guess my online banking password to steal my money, and calls the police with false claims to try to get me arrested, I'm not going to give him a copy of my balance sheet and my tax return.

[Bootstrap]

Do you think members will publicly say, "I'm a bit worried this DOGE thing is going to cut pork going to my buddies who have their snouts in the government trough?"

I would love to see someone seriously take on pork. Has DOGE actually done anything to cut congressional pork? From what I’ve seen, they’re focusing on grants to schools, aid programs, and public services, not on the kinds of spending that flow through political connections.

What categories does pork usually fall into? Earmarks, contracts, local projects? Are those the kinds of things DOGE is cutting? If not, it’s fair to ask whether they are going after groups with no political power while leaving insider spending alone. If someone claims they are rooting out corruption and saving money, they should be able to show where and how.

Transparency doesn’t require an act of faith. It means showing your work so the public can see if it holds up. That’s not an attack. That’s accountability.

[Robert]

You’re right -- there have been committee hearings, and some members are asking decent questions.

Either way, the result is the same: no accountability

These two statements seem to say two different things to me.

[Robert]

Has DOGE actually done anything to cut congressional pork? From what I’ve seen, they’re focusing on grants to schools, aid programs, and public services, not on the kinds of spending that flow through political connections.

They have cut a lot, but some of what we want to see has to come in the budget.

USAID and USIP along with unused buildings, too many subscriptions to software and too many credit cards are being cut. These are adding up to a lot.

Serious cuts in the budget has to come from Congress.

[JohnH]

I would love to see someone seriously take on pork. Has DOGE actually done anything to cut congressional pork? From what I’ve seen, they’re focusing on grants to schools, aid programs, and public services, not on the kinds of spending that flow through political connections.

Those kind of grants are where major amounts of pork flows. We learned with USAID that a huge amount of money actually ends up flowing to nonprofits that, *ahem*, have zero accountability or transparency.

Transparency doesn’t require an act of faith. It means showing your work so the public can see if it holds up. That’s not an attack. That’s accountability.

Nothing about the transparency of USDS has changed. If you feel the current set up is a problem, why weren't you complaining last year?