I have long admired Elizabeth Warren, and recently she’s given me another reason to salute her. She has called Elon Musk’s bluff–while shining a bright light on his ignorance and naivety.
As anyone who follows the news knows, Musk has bragged that he can cut two trillion dollars out of the federal budget. His hints about how he plans to accomplish that feat mostly revolve around sticking it to the poor, ill and elderly via cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and making it impossible for the federal government to do its job by slashing the federal workforce.
Warren’s advice to Musk has done two things: it has demonstrated that there are alternative ways to cut spending, and has reinforced the reality that funding decisions are policy decisions–that where and how government spends money is a reliable guide to what it considers important.
Time Magazine had the story. In a letter that Warren sent to Musk, she listed 30 recommendations for eliminating $2 trillion in federal spending over the next decade.
The list includes several of the progressive icon’s long-held policy fixations: renegotiating Department of Defense (DOD) contracts that independent analysts have found waste billions each year; reforming the Medicare Advantage insurance program and allowing Medicare to negotiate lower costs of prescription drugs; and closing tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthiest earners.
As the article noted, Musk has already walked back his promise to cut two trillion out of the budget, given that he is constrained by Trump’s vows not to touch Medicare and Social Security, and Republican refusal to cut military spending, (As the article notes, “DOGE will have to find less conventional ideas to fulfill Musk’s budget-slashing fantasy.” )
For years, Democrats and Republicans alike have wanted to curb wasteful government spending. While much of Washington recoils at Trump’s disruptive, norm-shattering second-term agenda, some see an opportunity for strange bedfellows to emerge. “In the interest of taking aggressive, bipartisan action to ensure sustainable spending, protect taxpayer dollars, curb abusive practices by giant corporations, and improve middle-class Americans’ quality of life,” Warren writes to Musk, “I would be happy to work with you on these matters.”
As the article notes, actual collaboration is probably not Warren’s goal–her letter is undoubtedly intended to make a point rather than inviting Musk to work together. Musk, after all, is one of those “let them eat cake” deficit hawks who insist the only way to cut budget deficits is to slash the entitlement programs that prevent millions of Americans from falling into grinding poverty.
I am an advocate for a Universal Basic Income, and I take very seriously the (reasonable) charge that so expensive a measure would require massive changes to the federal budget. Accordingly, I’ve researched what experts (not self-engrossed billionaires) have to say about where we might cut current expenditures. Among the obvious possibilities are the obscene subsidies we continue to give to fossil fuel companies, and the incredibly bloated defense budget. (Even pro-defense scholars estimate that defense spending could be cut by 25% without damaging U.S. defense capabilities.)
Warren points to similar research.
The biggest cost-saving idea in Warren’s letter is to preserve $200 billion by renegotiating Defense contracts. She points to an Inspector General report from 2011 that found contractors regularly hike prices for the military. One egregious example includes the Air Force overpaying 7,943% on soap dispensers. To rectify the problem, she urged passing legislation she previously introduced with Mike Braun, the former Republican Senator from Indiana, that would close loopholes to prevent defense contractors from price gouging the DOD. “There is a huge problem of the government being able to supervise these contractors carefully enough to be able to make sure we’re getting our money’s worth,” says Don Kettl, an expert on government administration and former dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.
Kettl recently wrote an essay in the Washington Monthly arguing that the federal government needs more and better skilled civil servants to oversee contractors and that Musk and Trump’s plans to massively reduce the federal workforce will perversely lead to higher, not lower, government spending. “The argument is that the market can do the government’s work better and cheaper,” Kettl says. “The problem is that that’s not always the case, and contractors often get higher wages.”
Musk and Trump and their ilk continue to prove the accuracy of that old H.L. Mencken quote:”For every complex problem, there’s a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.”
By Sheila Kennedy