DENVER (AP) — A fresh administration has taken charge in Washington, rolling out plans to reform operations, leveraging corporate insights and cutting-edge technology to optimize the federal bureaucracy.
It proposed buyouts for millions of government employees and implemented budget cuts to achieve financial balance.
This may evoke memories of the contentious cost-reduction initiative spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk during Republican President Donald Trump’s tenure. However, the most significant effort to reform the federal government in contemporary history dates back 30 years to a Democratic administration, specifically under then-President Bill Clinton’s “Reinventing Government” initiative, led by his vice president, Al Gore.
Musk has attempted to draw parallels between his efforts and the Clinton initiative, stating, “What @DOGE is doing is similar to Clinton/Gore Dem policies of the 1990s,” on his social media platform X, referring to the Department of Government Efficiency, the agency overseeing the cuts.
However, those involved in or observing the Reinventing Government project argue that it was nearly the opposite of Musk’s hasty and disordered approach. It was established through bipartisan congressional legislation, gradually identifying inefficiencies over several years, and actively engaging federal employees in reimagining their roles.
“A substantial effort was made to understand what changes were necessary,” said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, dedicated to enhancing the federal workforce. “What we are witnessing now is, in fact, a regression.”
Under Musk’s agenda, the Trump administration has dismissed thousands of federal employees abruptly. It introduced a “ deferred resignation” initiative, lacking congressional approval, and drastically reduced agency resources without requisite legislative consent, although there were instances of judicial intervention. Musk, the wealthiest individual globally, asserts that he can save trillions in taxpayer money through cost reductions.
Individuals familiar with the Clinton-era Reinventing Government initiative believe it provides insights into reshaping the federal bureaucracy and highlights the relatively minimal savings achievable from such initiatives.
“We managed it without inciting a constitutional crisis,” stated Elaine Kamarck, who was a senior adviser to Gore during Reinventing Government in the 1990s. “Unlike the current regime, we didn’t presume vast trillions in efficiencies were attainable. … Their mission is solely to cut. Ours was to enhance functionality while reducing costs.”
Kamarck noted that the initiative expanded to a team of 400, sourced from existing federal agency staff, tasked with enhancing governmental efficiency and prioritizing customer service while integrating private sector-style performance metrics.
The Reinventing Government team also encouraged the workforce to adopt new technology, notably the internet. Many governmental websites and programs, including electronic tax filing, originated from the Reinventing Government initiative.
Gore famously appeared on the David Letterman show, where he smashed a government ashtray with a hammer to symbolize his commitment to reducing waste. The government ended up recognizing employees who contributed to diminishing red tape and enhancing service through “hammer awards,” as recalled by Don Kettl, an emeritus public policy professor at the University of Maryland.
“Empowering employees and viewing them as integral to the system was a crucial aspect,” Kettl reflected. “A key distinction is that the Trump administration perceives federal employees as adversaries, while the Clinton administration regarded them as allies.”
The Clinton administration also collaborated with Congress to authorize $25,000 buyouts for federal employees, resulting in the elimination of over 400,000 federal positions between 1993 and 2000 through voluntary departures, natural attrition, and a limited number of layoffs, according to Kamarck.
Kettl expressed concern that job cuts might not lead to savings because the government would likely have to hire contractors to fulfill the duties of departing employees — a scenario he fears could recur if Musk and Trump persist with aggressive workforce reductions.
Chris Edwards, editor of DownsizingGovernment.org at the conservative Cato Institute in Washington, noted that buyouts represent a significant difference between the Clinton initiative, which he termed “moderately successful,” and the current DOGE strategy — namely, congressional involvement.
Today’s Republican-controlled Congress has allowed Musk to proceed with his modifications unimpeded, despite the Constitution requiring the legislative branch to approve expenditures and federal law prohibiting the president from cutting congressional programs without authorization. Clinton remains the last president to successfully request such consent, with Congress agreeing to $3.6 billion in proposed reductions.
Trump and Musk have only made vague commitments regarding submitting cuts to Congress. Without congressional engagement, any savings will likely be temporary, Edwards asserted: “None of the proposed changes from DOGE will be enduring,” he stated.
Few Republicans have advocated for increased congressional involvement.
“It requires vocalization. It requires declaring, ‘That violates the law, that infringes upon executive authorities,’” remarked Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.
Kamarck estimated that the total savings from Reinventing Government amounted to $146 billion — a substantial sum, yet only a small fraction of the federal budget. She contrasted her team’s methodical, collaborative approach with Musk’s rapid and aggressive style, executed by a team of young outsiders tasked with dismantling agencies and their workforce.
The slow pace of Reinventing Government was deliberate, Kamarck explained, as the initiative aimed to avoid disrupting the crucial functions of government during its restructuring. She fears that Musk appears indifferent to such concerns.
“The risks associated with failure in the federal government are extraordinarily high compared to the private sector,” Kamarck stated. “We were genuinely concerned about potential disruptions, and I worry that this current team is not sufficiently aware of the ramifications of their actions; it could lead to their downfall.”
