OPINION:
In a speech in New York, former President Donald Trump announced last week that he would create a government efficiency commission if elected. He also announced, unironically (I think), that Elon Musk would lead this commission.
Mr. Musk would certainly know something about government efficiency, or the lack thereof. Much of his fortune originates in gaming governmental systems — specifically, government programs regulating automobiles and the air pollution they produce — in California and in Washington. When he got bored with that, he decided to extract taxpayer cash from NASA, the Department of Defense and who knows who else for his SpaceX business.
Make no mistake: The Tesla line of automotive products certainly has its adherents (including Mr. Musk’s partners and vendors in China), and SpaceX seems a definite improvement over previous government-sponsored efforts. That said, putting America’s premier profiteer from government funding and government regulatory schemes in charge of a group designed to look at ways to make the government more efficient seems like letting the fox design security for the henhouse.
Then again, Mr. Musk is smart enough to realize that these councils usually amount to little. For example, back in 1993, before Virginia Gov. George Allen’s administration began, the governor-elect announced a “blue-ribbon strike force” to streamline the state government, which was a compromise between those who wanted to call it a blue-ribbon panel and those who wanted to call it a strike force.
Perhaps not surprisingly, given that inauspicious start, the strike force came up with no material recommendations that were ever enacted.
There are reasons for that, just as there are reasons these task forces, blue-ribbon commissions, strike forces and councils wind up producing little. The fundamental flaw they all share — and the flaw that this iteration will inherit — is that they are made up almost entirely of successful businessmen who have this crazy notion that government should be as efficient as possible.
They fail to realize that, unlike businesses, government is not about efficiently delivering goods and services. It is about shipping cash and power to friends and allies and, wherever possible, increasing the amount of cash and power one has. This is true for bureaucrats and members of Congress alike.
They also fail to realize that every dollar in government and every program that spends every dollar in government was put there by someone. Very few dollars that the federal government spends are not attached to a member of Congress. The programs are operating — more or less — the way their sponsors intend them to operate.
Privateers such as Mr. Musk, who made a considerable portion of his fortune by trading pollution credits at both the state and federal levels, know all of this. Maybe someone such as Mr. Musk, who clearly understands the real purposes of government programs and how to exploit those intentions, is exactly what is needed for such an effort. Maybe this effort will be successful.
But that’s not the way to bet. It will likely devolve into trivia and eventual unimportance, much like the blue-ribbon strike force did in Virginia in 1993.
As a final note, it seems reasonable to point out that this proposed commission will likely chew some of the same ground already covered by Project 2025 and that, one supposes, will be covered by the imminent presidential transition effort. Duplicating work that is being done — or has already been done — doesn’t seem like a good start for a commission dedicated to efficiency.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times and has worked on numerous task forces and commissions.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.