How did DOGE disrupt so much while saving so little?

Severance, Contractors, and (Lack of) Savings

• Many laid‑off staff reportedly secured a year of severance, then were rehired as contractors at higher rates, sometimes via consultancies charging the government multiples of prior costs.
• Commenters note contractors often lose benefits and face high health‑insurance costs, but still may earn roughly double in salary.
• Debate over taxpayer impact: some argue the net fiscal effect is tiny in the context of the federal budget; others contend the disruption costs likely outweigh any short‑term “savings.”

Disruption vs. Cost‑Cutting as the Real Goal

• A recurring view: DOGE was never about efficiency or deficit reduction, but about:
  • Crippling agencies regulating or investigating Musk’s companies (safety, labor, tax, etc.).
  • Exfiltrating data on unions and complaints.
  • Weakening the broader regulatory state as an ideological project.
• Several see it as a smash‑and‑grab or “ideological purge” used as theater to claim fulfillment of campaign promises while overall spending still grew elsewhere (defense, entitlements).

Incompetence, Malice, or Both?

• One camp frames DOGE as classic “Chesterton’s fence” hubris: tech‑bro belief that large institutions are obviously broken and can be fixed with a chainsaw.
• Another argues this was calculated self‑interested behavior by a sociopathic but canny billionaire protecting his empire.
• Others posit a mix: genuine belief in government waste plus reckless, harmful execution; debate over whether Hanlon’s razor applies.

Government Efficiency and the Myth of “Easy 10% Cuts”

• Several slam the “you can always cut 10%” mantra (popularized in tech/VC circles) as totally detached from how federal agencies operate.
• Anecdotes from people working with CDC and other agencies describe extremely lean budgets and mission‑driven staff who could earn far more in private industry.
• Counter‑arguments claim government is inherently inefficient due to lack of competition and job security, though this is challenged as ideology rather than observation.

Public Attitudes, Propaganda, and Consequences

• Discussion links support for DOGE to decades of anti‑government propaganda and “I got mine” individualism.
• Some stress that bureaucrats are often the last line preventing exploitation, and that gutting agencies like USAID has real human costs (including deaths abroad).
• A minority claims DOGE exposed NGO corruption, but others note no resulting prosecutions and argue the main “revelation” was DOGE’s own corruption and failure.