DOGE is dodging most of the real waste in our federal government

By James J. Devine

Elon Musk held up a chainsaw during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to symbolize the approach his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is taking to public services, but the South African billionaire immigrant is overlooking the greatest federal inefficiencies. Musk’s chainsaw represents a false phallic fantasy that mirrors the dissociative principles of DOGE.

Now, we should all agree that tax evasion is a problem, but the big US tech companies are all channeling most of their profit to countries with low tax rates, which means Americans are not getting the taxes that their country deserves. DOGE is not looking at this problem.

The U.S. government provides subsidies to a variety of industries, many of which have been proven utterly wasteful or contrary to or misaligned with the public interest. DOGE is not looking at this problem.

If Musk really wanted to cut waste, he’d look at the massive tax loopholes, government contracts, and subsidies that benefit the wealthy and large corporations. Closing tax loopholes, like the carried interest loophole that slashes taxes for private equity and hedge fund managers, could recover $1.8 trillion in lost revenue for 2023 alone but they overwhelmingly favor the wealthy, so DOGE is not looking at them.

When America’s most profitable companies pay less, the general public has to pay more. When America’s most profitable companies consume more, there is less to finance things the rest of us want or need.

Fareed Zakaria described DOGE as “performance art, playing into the fantasies of the MAGA movement to crush the establishment and its elites in the most humiliating way possible.”

Here are a few examples of business subsidies that have DOGE is not looking at but deserve the chainsaw approach much more than beneficial operations that should be responsibly reduced only after serious consideration.

1. Oil and Gas Subsidies: Despite record profits, U.S. oil and gas companies continue to receive significant subsidies, including tax breaks and incentives for drilling and exploration. At the height of the global energy crisis in 2022, the US spent $757 billion on fossil fuel subsidies, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These subsidies contribute to environmental damage and promote fossil fuel dependency, which contradicts efforts to address climate change.
2. Agricultural Subsidies for Large Corporations: While subsidies for small family farms are meant to support rural economies, large agribusinesses receive a disproportionate share. For instance, companies growing corn and soybeans often benefit from government payments, even though these crops are primarily used in industrial processes and to produce animal feed, not directly for human consumption. The federal government spends more than $30 billion a year but the largest, wealthiest farms have received close to 80 percent of farm subsidies paid out between 1995 and 2021.
3. Fossil Fuel Exploration in Protected Areas: The government has provided subsidies and tax incentives for oil and gas exploration in sensitive and environmentally protected areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Critics argue that drilling in these regions, often subsidized by taxpayers, threatens ecosystems and wildlife.
4. Private Jet Subsidies: The U.S. government provides tax breaks for private jet owners through provisions that allow them to deduct the cost of jet fuel, maintenance, and even the purchase price in some cases. These breaks disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and companies, despite the increasing scrutiny on climate change and air travel emissions.
5. Subsidies for Major Sports Stadiums: The government often subsidizes the construction of sports stadiums with taxpayer money, even when it’s questionable whether the benefits, such as job creation and increased tourism, outweigh the cost. Studies have shown that the economic benefits of new stadiums are often overstated.
6. Subsidies for Factory Farming: The U.S. government subsidizes large factory farms that produce meat and dairy, including support for the development of feed crops and agricultural chemicals. Critics argue that these subsidies incentivize unsustainable farming practices that have negative consequences for public health, animal welfare, and the environment.
7. Tech Company Tax Incentives: While the government provides tax breaks to tech companies to encourage innovation, these subsidies disproportionately benefit already highly profitable companies. Large tech firms like Amazon, Apple, and Google have benefited from significant tax incentives, even as they accumulate vast profits, sometimes paying little in taxes.
8. Subsidies to the Coal Industry: The U.S. government continues to provide financial support to the coal industry, despite a decline in need and significant environmental harm. Support for coal production, along with efforts to promote “clean coal” technologies that are not effective in combating carbon emissions, are a complete waste.
9. Bailouts for “Too Big to Fail” Corporations: During the 2008 financial crisis, the government provided significant bailouts to large corporations considered “too big to fail,” including banks and automakers. While the intent was to prevent economic collapse, these bailouts encouraged risky business practices and disproportionately benefited large, profitable corporations at taxpayers’ expense only to see those welfare queens abuse advantages.
10. Subsidies for Luxury Real Estate Development: Government subsidies for luxury real estate developments, particularly in urban areas, exacerbate income inequality and gentrification. These tax incentives or low-interest loans that developers use to build high-end properties, do not benefit the local community.

These examples highlight concerns that government subsidies may sometimes favor large, profitable industries or wealthy individuals, contributing to inefficiencies, environmental harm, or social inequalities. Reallocating these funds to support more sustainable and equitable industries could yield better outcomes for society as a whole.