Can you actually cut government? DOGE, Milei's chainsaw and Washington's wall
Musk describes what DOGE found, Saagar Enjeti explains how Washington resists, Kisin and Foster worry about the vulnerable, Ramaswamy proposes a 75% cut, and Javier Milei shows what deep cuts did in Argentina. It's the clearest comparison of the promise and limits of shrinking the state.
Yes, government can be cut, but how deep the cuts go depends less on finding waste than on who holds the legal power to act. Five conversations show the range, from an advisory commission in Washington to a president who actually did it.
Elon Musk speaks as the insider leading DOGE. He describes federal systems running on ancient software, Treasury payments sent with no category code or description, and millions of dead people marked as alive in Social Security records, which he believes enables fraud in other programs. He calls government-funded NGOs a way to do what would otherwise be illegal. His larger claim is that elected officials have little power compared with the bureaucracy. He says DOGE only recommends cuts, posts every item publicly and will reverse mistakes quickly. His claims are his own account.
Saagar Enjeti is sympathetic but calls DOGE a commission with no funding and no power to compel anyone. Most spending is entitlements and defense, which are politically untouchable, so the headline programs are a small slice. The Senate is built to resist pressure, and whoever writes the president's options holds real power. Musk could cut Twitter because he owned it. Government is bound by law. Enjeti would redesign systems, starting with Pentagon procurement.
Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster accept the premise. As they put it, "We have been living beyond our means for decades". But fraud and waste will not be enough, and countries will have to stop doing things they want. Fast cuts bring mistakes and can hit the vulnerable. Foster recalls British austerity cutting mental health services for traumatized children. They insist on oversight whoever is in charge.
Vivek Ramaswamy argues for cutting 75 percent of the federal workforce. He would sooner risk cutting too much than too little, because careful trimming is like cutting heads off a hydra. He thinks recent Supreme Court rulings give a president new room.
Javier Milei is the only one who has done it as head of state. He halved Argentina's ministries, dismissed about 50,000 public employees, stopped public works, removed subsidies and balanced the budget in his first month. He says inflation fell sharply. Measured poverty jumped to 57 percent, which he says was inherited and has since fallen to 46 percent. He sequenced the changes: "We are liberal libertarians. We are not liberal fools".
They agree that the state spends carelessly, that the fiscal position is serious and that the bureaucracy is a political actor. They disagree on whether cuts can be deep, whether the problem is waste or promises, whether to use a chainsaw or a scalpel, and who pays. Milei had executive authority, decree powers and a severe crisis. DOGE had none of those.
Read the numbers as each speaker's account. Musk himself says it is not clear how many of the dead were being paid.
What to do with it: separate waste from promises before judging a cut. Look for mechanical fixes first, such as traceable payments. Ask who has legal power to act. Target structures, not just headcount. Build in a way to reverse mistakes. Protect programs with long-term payoffs. Keep oversight whoever is in charge.