If you had to state the goal of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency charitably, how would you describe it? I would argue that the Trump administration created DOGE to identify waste, fraud and abuse within the government and eliminate that spending to save taxpayer dollars.

Let’s run with that framing for a moment. The logic is that when we decrease the size of our government and institute tax cuts, it helps all Americans. If we let the free market go, people will be better off. Musk himself believes that “capitalism is not just successful, but morally right.” 

But here’s the thing: We’ve been here before. This kind of economic policy was the basis of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Reaganomics was an untested hyper-capitalist approach to the economy, relying heavily on Adam Smith’s invisible hand to promote the public good. 

People within Reagan’s own party weren’t sure about it. Former President George H. W. Bush called it “voodoo economics.” Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Reagan’s philosophy was the concept of trickle-down economics.

Trickle-down economics is supposed to work like this: The government lowers taxes on corporations and high earners. With its extra income, this corporate class will invest more money into businesses and employees. Middle-class Americans will have more job opportunities and higher wages as a result. The earnings of the upper class will “trickle down” to the middle and lower class. 

If you’re chuckling at the picture I’ve painted, you can already see the problem with how this logic has played out. Trickle-down economics is one of those theories that economists have proven wrong again and again and again, but starry-eyed Reaganites and capitalist hacks continue to peddle it. 

You can look at any chart of income inequality since the Reagan era and clearly see the corporate class pocketed the extra income from tax cuts rather than spreading the wealth to everyone.

As quirky independent presidential candidate Ross Perot eloquently put it, with his plethora of charts and a pointer in 1992, “We got into trickle-down economics and it didn’t trickle.” According to the Economic Policy Institute, between 1978 and 2023, CEO compensation rose 1,085%, while the average worker’s pay grew 24%. 

But Musk and the capitalist tech billionaires resort to the same tired arguments. Musk has promoted a “DOGE dividend” that would send checks to Americans, but that seems unlikely. At this point, DOGE has saved the government approximately $150 billion, much less than the eye-popping $2 trillion Musk intended to cut when he promoted DOGE on the campaign trail last year.

Ironically, the organizational chaos and firing of federal workers comes with its own price tag. The Partnership for Public Service has projected that DOGE will cost the government $135 billion this fiscal year. This makes that $150 billion in savings pretty meaningless.

If this is all a setup for huge tax cuts, then the actual savings don’t matter much to the people in power. The billionaire class has good reason to prop up an economic agenda that benefits them. If they can convince the public it will be good for them too, all the better. 

But here’s the problem with Reaganomics. While the wealthy class benefits more than anyone else from tax breaks, regular people lose access to important government services that the government cut to pay for tax breaks.

My grandfather worked for the Federal Housing Administration in South Dakota during the Reagan administration. Reagan restricted FHA loans for years and even floated the idea of privatizing the FHA’s functions entirely.

During this time, my grandfather faced recurring nightmares of farmers crying in his office. New requirements forced him to deny their application for a federal loan. Rural states depend more on federal money than urban states, and South Dakota farmers felt the hurt of federal funding cuts. The free market wasn’t as kind as Reagan had expected.

But now we know better. We know that DOGE cuts have caused people in Africa to die from HIV, tuberculosis and a lack of access to vaccines and food. Grants supporting rural healthcare in the United States have been frozen, and the federal government may not renew funding. DOGE has also cut disease-related medical research to the tune of $4 billion. 

I could go on. The damage is unbelievably sweeping. The Center for American Progress has a tracker of DOGE cuts at the federal, state and congressional district levels to assess how they affect the community.

What will the average American get back in tax relief for all this ruination? Not much. Extending President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts would save middle-income households 1.3% of their income, while the top 1% of households would save 3.2% of their income. It’s important to note that 3.2% of a billionaire’s income is much different from 1.3% of a middle-class person’s income.

Additionally, what if lower and middle-income households rely on government programs DOGE is cutting? Will the tax savings be enough to make up for the loss?

Here’s the silver lining — I honestly believe this is an issue that could transcend political parties. According to recent polling, about 60% of the American public disapprove of DOGE, and over 50% view Musk negatively. Nineteen percent of Republicans think DOGE has gone too far, and almost half of independents agree.

That means we need to let our members of Congress know that we, the people, do not want chaotic cuts to government services nor the extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. We do not want to return to a failed economic philosophy from the 1980s. 

We should cut government waste, but DOGE has operated with a hatchet, not a scalpel. In the end, these actions will harm more than help.

If we want to solve income inequality in this country, we need to push for a new economic agenda. The corporate class should be held accountable and the lower and middle classes should benefit. Reaganomics, DOGE or any similar hyper-capitalist vision of government ought to exit our public discourse for good so we can have real conversations about what progress looks like for all people.

Grace is a graduate student studying urban planning.

[email protected]