Vivek Ramaswamy on X: "Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes
Plans by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead a new “DOGE” task force aimed at shrinking or eliminating U.S. federal agencies are prompting sharp debate over legality, feasibility, and democratic legitimacy. Commenters argue over whether agencies should be treated as temporary, goal-focused “task forces” or as enduring safeguards for public health, the environment, and social stability, invoking concepts like Chesterton’s fence and historical debt and deficit trends. Many express skepticism that DOGE will achieve meaningful cuts or improvements, warning instead of potential erosion of institutional guardrails and increased politicization of the civil service.
Framing and Purpose of Agencies
- Some like reframing agencies as time‑bounded “task forces” with clear goals and sunset clauses to prevent endless bureaucratic growth.
- Others argue many functions (environmental protection, food and drug safety) are inherently long‑term and cannot realistically be “temporary.”
- A middle view suggests enforcement must be permanent, while rule‑making bodies could be more episodic or limited-term.
Regulation, Effectiveness, and Guardrails
- Critics say permanent agencies have failed on issues like microplastics and unhealthy ingredients, questioning their value.
- Supporters counter that imperfect regulators still delivered the safest food supply in history and that dismantling them won’t produce better outcomes.
- Some worry the real aim is removing remaining guardrails to benefit corporations and “pro‑plastics / pro‑junk food” interests.
Democratic Legitimacy and Chesterton’s Fence
- Several invoke “Chesterton’s fence”: agencies were created democratically for reasons that should be revisited before tearing them down.
- Debate over whether election results imply a mandate to dismantle agencies; some say voters clearly accepted such promises, others argue many didn’t grasp or prioritize this plank.
- Broader concerns include erosion of democratic norms, potential drift toward corporatocracy or authoritarianism, and the risk of dismantling overlapping institutions that hinder coups.
DOGE’s Status and Powers
- Confusion over what DOGE actually is: currently a non‑governmental entity, expected to become a presidential task force.
- Task forces can only recommend; they cannot close agencies or cut budgets directly.
- Some note only Congress can create or abolish departments, and thin majorities plus Senate rules may slow radical changes.
- Others warn Congress could still quickly elevate DOGE into a formal department, especially if party discipline holds.
Spending, Deficits, and What to Cut
- Some cheer the prospect of shrinking the civil workforce, merging or eliminating agencies, and tackling “bloat.”
- Others stress most federal spending is in entitlements, defense, and interest; cutting agencies alone won’t solve deficits and will anger powerful constituencies.
- Naive suggestions (e.g., folding DHS into FBI, letting airports replace TSA, axing research/standards bodies) are challenged as ignoring complex missions (Coast Guard, FEMA, NIST, spectrum management, etc.).
International and Historical Comparisons
- Argentina’s recent austerity is cited both as a success (inflation down) and a disaster (rising poverty, collapsing public education, brain drain).
- Past U.S. deficit reduction in the 1990s is contrasted with today’s tolerance for much larger deficits.
Transparency, Skepticism, and Voter Responsibility
- Some want this moment to force real scrutiny of what agencies do, with better transparency and metrics.
- Others are cynical: expect DOGE to be mostly performative, produce little lasting change, or be captured for self‑serving deals.
- Multiple commenters lament disengaged voters, argue that “elections have consequences,” and expect many to later claim they “didn’t know” what dismantling agencies entailed.