DENVER — A recent shift in leadership in Washington has sparked intentions to reform the federal structure, utilizing business acumen and modern technology to revamp government operations. This initiative involves offering voluntary buyouts to millions of federal employees and implementing significant budget cuts to restore fiscal balance.
Some may compare these efforts to the controversial budget-trimming strategies introduced by entrepreneur Elon Musk during Donald Trump’s presidency. However, the most extensive government overhaul in contemporary history occurred three decades ago under a Democratic administration, specifically through President Bill Clinton’s “Reinventing Government” initiative, spearheaded by his Vice President, Al Gore.
Musk has even drawn parallels to the Clinton-era reforms, claiming that the initiatives taken by the Department of Government Efficiency are akin to the policies of the 1990s. Nevertheless, experts who were involved in the original Reinventing Government program argue that there are stark contrasts between the two approaches. This previous initiative was grounded in bipartisan congressional support, focused on gradual change, and actively engaged federal employees in redefining their roles.
“The effort behind understanding what needed to change was immense,” stated Max Stier, the president of the Partnership for Public Service, which advocates for an enhanced federal workforce. He added, “What we are witnessing now seems to be taking steps backwards.”
Musk’s strategy, which mirrors Trump’s policies, has resulted in the abrupt termination of thousands of federal positions without prior notice. In addition, employees were offered a deferred resignation option that lacked congressional approval. The administration has attempted to streamline operations and save taxpayer money significantly, pledging to achieve trillion-dollar savings through these cuts.
Proponents of the Clinton administration’s Reinventing Government effort assert that their experience holds valuable lessons for the current overhaul of federal operations, particularly regarding the limited savings typically derived from such measures. “We didn’t face a constitutional crisis,” noted Elaine Kamarck, who managed Reinventing Government as a senior adviser in the 1990s. She pointed out that the present-day mandate concentrates solely on reduction, whereas their initiative was geared towards improved functionality at a reduced cost.
Kamarck highlighted that the original project expanded to encompass a workforce of 400 government employees. This team prioritized enhancing operational efficiency while concentrating on customer service, incorporating metrics from the private sector such as performance benchmarks for employees.
The Reinventing Government initiative also propounded the adoption of new technology, including the rise of the internet for government operations. Many services offered by the government today, such as electronic tax filing, originated from this reform initiative.
In a symbolic act during the late-night program hosted by David Letterman, Gore publicly destroyed a government ashtray with a hammer, representing the administration’s commitment to eliminate waste. As a result, the government established “hammer awards” to recognize employees who proposed effective strategies for reducing bureaucracy and enhancing services, as recalled by public policy expert Don Kettl.
“A significant aspect of our efforts was empowering employees and recognizing their potential within the system,” Kettl reflected. He noted the key difference in perception between the two administrations; the Clinton White House viewed federal workers as allies, while the current administration tends to see them as obstacles.
Moreover, the Clinton administration took proactive measures in collaboration with Congress to offer $25,000 buyouts to federal employees, ultimately leading to the reduction of over 400,000 federal positions from 1993 to 2000, achieved through a mix of voluntary exits and attrition.
Kettl expressed concerns that the job reductions under the current administration might not produce appreciable financial benefits, as the government may need to rely on contractors to fulfill the responsibilities of departing workers.
Chris Edwards with the Cato Institute emphasized that the introduction of buyouts illustrates a significant difference between the Clinton approach, which he described as “moderately successful,” and Musk’s current efforts, highlighting Congress’s involvement as a crucial factor.
Today’s congressional Republicans have permitted Musk to implement reforms without their oversight despite constitutional provisions that position Congress as the decision-maker on expenditures and prohibit the president from altering established programs without their consent. Clinton was the last president to seek such approval successfully, during which Congress accepted $3.6 billion in proposed cuts.
Musk and Trump have only issued vague statements regarding submitting budget cuts to Congress, with any potential savings likely to be temporary, according to Edwards. “Without Congress’s involvement, none of the changes proposed by DOGE will be enduring,” he argued.
Few Republican leaders have advocated for more substantial congressional engagement in these matters. “It requires making a stand, asserting, ‘That violates our laws and the scope of executive power,’” noted Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska.
Kamarck has estimated the total fiscal impact of the Reinventing Government initiative to be around $146 billion, an overall significant figure yet merely a fraction of the entire federal budget. She contrasted the thorough, methodical, and collaborative nature of that approach with Musk’s rapid implementation, which is directed by a team of young international recruits tasked with slashing agencies and downsizing the workforce.
Kamarck expressed her concerns regarding the current administration’s haste, noting, “The implications of federal government failure can be severe in ways that they aren’t in private industries. We approached our restructuring with caution, whereas it appears these individuals may lack sufficient concern about potential pitfalls, which could ultimately lead to their downfall.”
