[jhedwards]

I don't know if this was in your lifetime, but Bill Clinton reduced government spending through the National Performance Review. Not only did he do it, but he did it in a planned and strategic way, that included an initial phase of research, followed by education and recommendations, which were send to congress for approval.

You'll notice that this approach is consistent with basic project planning and execution principles, and follows the principles of government set out by our constitution. In contrast, DOGE sidestepped the legal and administrative principles of the government, which led to cuts followed by retractions, which are ultimately more costly and wasteful.

Reference: https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/papers/bkgrd/bri...

[Covzire]

That's true, although that also took an act of congress so it was very much a bi-partisan effort, something we're sorely lacking today.

[terribleperson]

The Republican party is literally in control of Congress and the presidency. Copying Clinton is something they could do. The fact that they don't appear to have made a serious effort to increase revenues and reduce spending in a sane and organized way raises questions.

[phkahler]

The Republicans have this idea that cutting taxes and increasing spending will reduce the ratio of debt/gdp by increasing the denominator. It does increase GDP but I think it increases the debt faster, so it can't work. Happy to be proven wrong.

[jeffbee]

They do not actually believe that. What they believe is that cutting taxes will give them the short-term means to acquire assets that will become much more valuable after the nation has been destroyed, to which the escalating debt contributes. The crisis is a feature for them.

[delusional]

> raises questions.

It doesn't "raises questions" it "answers questions". Anybody who believes the republicans in America are "the party of fiscal responsibility" is a joke.

[pstuart]

> The Republican party is literally in control of Congress and the presidency

And SCOTUS. They have seized power of all three branches and "checks and balances" are but a memory.

[SV_BubbleTime]

> They have seized power

Interesting way to say “they won a bunch of elections”.

[pstuart]

That's not what I was saying. And "winning" elections implies legitimacy but when that comes via gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, and possible vote tampering that claim rings hollow.

If you actually believe in democracy and what it stands for you might have some concern, rather than just cheering on the team whose jersey you wear.

[zugi]

The Senate still requires 60 votes to close debate and pass legislation, with rare weird exceptions like reconciliation. The 1990s had more bipartisanship, so Clinton skillfully got enough Republicans to support some of his moves.

Whereas these days any Democrat supporting any Republican action is likely to get primaried at the next election, and vice versa.

[JackYoustra]

> Whereas these days any Democrat supporting any Republican action is likely to get primaried at the next election, and vice versa.

Biden passed the bipartisan infrastructure act as well as USICA subsidies. The first step act was bipartisan. The deficit reduction in Obama's time was bipartisan. The american rescue plan wasn't bipartisan, but republicans claim credit for its effects. You don't really have much evidence here.

[hn_acc1]

And whose fault is that? Hint: one party has specifically focused on eliminating ANYTHING resembling bi-partisanship..