Now that Donald Trump has become president, one of his signature initiatives is a proposal to form a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). According to Trump, DOGE will “pave the way for my administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies.”1 This new entity will be led by Elon Musk.2 Back in November, then President-elect Trump stated, “I look forward to Elon … making changes to the federal bureaucracy with an eye on efficiency and, at the same time, making life better for all Americans.”3 DOGE has been a controversial proposition in itself, but it is particularly so because of the involvement of Elon Musk. He recently said that DOGE will work to achieve substantial cuts in government spending: “I think if we try for $2 trillion, we’ve got a good shot at getting 1 [trillion].”4
But does the government need to be more efficient? We have strong evidence to suggest that it does. Incredibly, during relatively strong economic times during the past fiscal year, the federal government ran a budget deficit of almost 2 trillion dollars. Our overall national debt is over 36 trillion dollars, and in the last few years, the debt/GDP ratio for the USA has been at its highest level since World War Two.5 Both political parties have been fully complicit in this long-term process of overspending. The fact that the government can engage in continual deficit spending removes much of the discipline necessary for efficiency. Why be efficient if one can just continue to borrow?
Further evidence of government inefficiency can be found in reports from nonprofit organizations, watchdog agencies, and individual politicians. It is fair to say that there are a lot of these reports.6 Whether it is in the provision of a new military weapons system or a program to encourage public transportation, we are not often surprised when we hear of cost overruns and unmet goals. It may be expected that such a large endeavor as the government would have some substantial inefficiencies, merely as a result of the size and scope of its activities. However, FedEx and UPS are large organizations, and while far from being perfect, they are known for being very efficient. In contrast, The United States Postal Service, while providing many similar services, is known for substantial inefficiencies. Our expectation of inefficiency in government is a significant part of how we understand the world to work. What is surprising is that we accept this reality so easily, and as a nation, we don’t do much to change it.
Efficiency and Stewardship
For economists, efficiency has always been an important concept; our models often make distinctions between efficient and inefficient outcomes. At the same time, economists have understood that there can be important tradeoffs between efficiency and issues of equity. Making decisions in these cases is not generally easy, but economists can sometimes provide insights into the nature of the true costs involved.
For Christian economists, the concept of stewardship has also played an important role in our design and evaluation of government policies and programs. Stewardship is a central part of the Biblical message to God’s people. In Genesis, humankind was given the task of nurturing and developing God’s creation. The Psalms tell us that the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. In the Gospel of Matthew, the parable of the talents emphasizes our role in fostering the growth of important resources. Our response as God’s people is to gratefully and carefully tend to what God has entrusted us.
So how does efficiency connect to good stewardship? There are several points of connection between these two ideas. First, is the government taking care of its resources, so they are not stolen or lost? Even the “worthless servant” in Matthew 25 was able to make this happen. However, many examples exist where the government has not met this standard. The Wall Street Journal notes that up to 135 billion dollars of unemployment benefits were stolen during the Covid pandemic.7 In addition, the US Government Accountability Office reported that the federal government made “an estimated $236 billion in “improper payments” during the most recently completed fiscal year (FY 2023).”8
Second, is the government operating cost-effectively in its spending? Other things being equal, it would be better for the government to construct an office building for 20 million dollars instead of building the same exact facility for 40 million. The phrase “other things being equal” might disguise a number of things we could be concerned about, but if these projects truly are equal, it seems evident that the government should spend less. Good stewardship and efficiency go hand in hand in these cases.
Are the programs the government is spending its money on achieving the desired results at a minimum level of cost? There is substantial evidence that the government doesn’t always act in a cost-effective manner. As just one example, in 2021, Congress allocated 7.5 billion dollars to build electric vehicle charging stations in the Infrastructure and Jobs Act. Near the end of 2024, only 214 individual chargers were operational.9
A third point of connection between stewardship and efficiency relates to whether government should even allocate funds to a particular program. Is it wise to tax families and businesses, and remove their choices of how to spend their own money, to create and fund a program administered by the government? If the government does decide to collect taxes or borrow money for programs, is it spending money on the right things? Most of us would likely agree that there are many cases where this is good stewardship. Society needs good roads, support for the poorest among us, a fair judicial system, and many other forms of public investment; this is what provides much of what we know as “civilization.” However, there are many cases where we can seriously question government decisions.
One prominent example is the case of high-speed rail construction in California. Initially proposed in 2008, this project was estimated to cost 35 billion dollars. Currently, cost projections have increased to 135 billion dollars, and not a single mile of rail line is in service.10 There are arguments for and against this project, but it is fair to ask whether taxing families and businesses 135 billion dollars to provide high-speed rail is better stewardship than allowing them to spend the money themselves. If the government does decide to tax or borrow money, we could also ask if this expenditure would be better used on other projects. Some of the money spent on this high-speed rail project could have just as easily been spent on forest fire prevention in California. Hindsight is often 20/20, but it appears that the choice for high-speed rail was quite inefficient as well as poor stewardship.
Calling attention to inefficiencies and poor stewardship within government is not supposed to suggest that our government is especially evil or that the people within government are more evil than the rest of us. As Christians, we can see the impact of sin in our own lives very clearly. However, it should not surprise anyone that when sinful individuals work together in government and have power, the effects of sin can be concentrated.
This blog provides just a handful of examples of government inefficiency and poor stewardship. Unfortunately, there are many, many more. It is not often that we hear our public servants state that they will be very careful with every dollar they spend, and will work overtime to be good stewards of the resources they command. Given that the financial resources at their disposal were collected from individuals and businesses through taxation, this may seem surprising. However, we have slowly come to accept government inefficiency as the normal state of affairs. We need to hold the government accountable for the use of the financial resources that they have taxed and borrowed. Inefficiency and bad stewardship are not acceptable.
Conclusion
If we assume that the government should pay much more attention to efficiency and stewardship, is Elon Musk the right person for the job? It is hard to know, and only time will tell. Musk has a history as a successful businessman who is unconventional in his methods. However, his behavior and statements have become even more controversial recently, engendering both severe criticism and strong support.
In the past, many have talked about bringing efficiency to the federal government. However, no one from inside the government has been perceived as having been particularly successful in this task. I am interested in seeing what Musk and DOGE can do. Could he fail? Absolutely. Could he move on in a month or two? Certainly. But given our nation’s nearly 2 trillion dollar deficit and over 36 trillion dollars in national debt, it is hard to imagine things getting too much worse, unless we do nothing. I am willing to give him a chance, or anyone else, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, who wants to bring more efficiency to the government.
At the same time, I am not sanguine about the possibilities. There are many reasons why the government has spent trillions more than it has taken over the last 50 years. Both political parties have shown relatively little commitment to efficiency or good stewardship, and it is not always in their self-interest to do so. Government has the power of the sword, as well as the power of taxation. Christians have historically seen government as instituted by God, with the responsibility to promote stewardship and justice. Let us pray that our government demonstrates better efficiency and stewardship in the next four years, and for every four-year period after that. There is a lot of room for improvement.
Footnotes
- https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/11/trump-vows-dismantle-federal-bureaucracy-and-restructure-agencies-new-musk-led-commission/400998/.
- Initially, former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy was appointed as co-director.
- https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/11/trump-vows-dismantle-federal-bureaucracy-and-restructure-agencies-new-musk-led-commission/400998/.
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/09/elon-musk-doge/77585771007/.
- For more information on our fiscal situation, see https://christianscholars.com/a-deficit-unlike-any-other-implications-for-generational-justice/.
- Many organizations and some politicians provide lists of what they believe are “government waste.” For example, see https://www.cagw.org/about-us, orhttps://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/reps/dr-paul-releases-2024-festivus-report-on-government-waste/.
- https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/time-is-running-out-to-recover-up-to-135-billion-in-pilfered-jobless-benefits-39505ea7.
- https://www.gao.gov/blog/federal-government-made-236-billion-improper-payments-last-fiscal-year.
- For more information on this program, see https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-electric-vehicle-charging-stations-75-billion-buttigieg-1ddcd6ee193fc1847e5401c95c016ec3.
- More on this project can be found at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-21/high-speed-rail.
Thanks for your insight!
Dr. Steen: You are spot on. Thank you for addressing the reality of a society that has illogically accumulated most of this enormus debt in just the last 25 years.
“However, FedEx and UPS are large organizations, and while far from being perfect, they are known for being very efficient. In contrast, The United States Postal Service, while providing many similar services, is known for substantial inefficiencies.”
The “known for” evidences here are not too convincing. Much of the “efficiency” of these private corporations comes in the way they manage labor. The stories of the post office often are about how hard it is to fire someone and how secure (and, via pensions, generous) the jobs are. While there may be legit reasons to reform some of the work rules so that incompetent people can be removed more easily, the “efficiencies” of corps like FedEd and UPS often come through temporary workers, radical lay-offs, and abusive work rules that hurt people and dehumanize them in substantive ways.
“Efficiency” is not a bad concept, but it needs to be interrogated beyond the bottom line. We can get lots of efficiencies through abusive and exploitive work rules. But should Christians support that? (Spoiler alert: Isaiah 3)
Who can argue against the government being more efficient with its tax dollars? However, I was surprised by what I perceive to be the uncritical tenor of this piece–particularly since Dr. Steen is rooting his comments in the biblical notion of stewardship.
For example, take Elon Musk’s quote that was highlighted in the first paragraph: “I think if we try for $2 trillion, we’ve got a good shot at getting 1 [trillion].” No one who is familiar with the federal budget and non-discretionary entitlement spending think that can think that cuts in that magnitude are even remotely possible (unless we are going to completely gut the Defense Department, funding for regulatory agencies, and most social spending). Statements like this from Musk make it clear that he has little or no real understanding of the Federal budget. So why uncritically hold this up as a hoped-for or feasible goal?
More recently, think of the Musk-inspired “Fork in the Road” memo to two million federal employees, offering a buy-out proposal (with no credible funding source), effectively paying them not to work for eight months with the not-so-subtle hint that they may find themselves without a job if they don’t accept the offer. How is a blanket buy-out proposal like this a gleaming demonstration of efficiency from a human capital standpoint? This, along with the Schedule F reclassification of federal employees, is clearly an attempt to dismantle the civil service system that has been in place since 1883 (and revised in 1978). Is Dr. Steen suggesting that a return to political patronage for government workers represents an efficient “solution” for our country? Think of the potential loss of human capital that is taking place because of these and other DOGE initiatives.
Christian stewardship requires careful, critical thinking–a quality that seems in short supply with Elon Musk and the Trump Administration.