Coyote Blog

Why so few posts?  Because the current political environment is exhausting.  On many issues the major players are half right and half wrong, but no one wants to hear that.  The crowds are either all-in on Trump or all-in on the opposition and trying to point out nuance is both unwelcome and more time-consuming than the news cycle allows.  A few examples:

• On immigration, I think the sane majority would like to see bad actors and gang-bangers sent back to their home countries, but have little stomach for uprooting the 10-year resident construction laborer and his family in the middle of the night and sending them away.  Trump wants to send them all away, even the peaceful and productive.  Sanctuary cities like LA want to protect everyone, even the violent gang-bangers.
• With universities like Harvard, it is long past time to enforce some discipline on spending and stop knuckling under the the "its all science, go away peons" elitism.  But institutions like Harvard still contribute a lot to this country and Trump's actions often smack of vendetta rather than thoughtful policy.
• Everyone with a uniform opinion that court injunctions of the Trump administration are universally correct or universally wrong are all misguided.  It is a total mixed bag.  Trump, as with tariffs, has grossly overstepped his statutory authority and IMO it was correct to stop him.  In other areas, like laying off administration employees, it is astounding to me that the judiciary can be of the opinion he can't fire anyone.

A few other thoughts before I likely join the ostrich party and stick my head in the sand and ignore this all:

• I have written for years that I do not understand why well-meaning folks on the Left do not devote more time to government efficiency and spending issues.  For a couple of reasons.  First, every bit of waste is money that could have been spent towards policy goals.  Second, waste undermines public support for the type of programs (eg SNAP) that they support. For years the grandfather of DOGE was William Proxmire, a Democrat from the Wisconsin progressive tradition.  But there seems to be zero interest on the Left in spending accountability, as demonstrated by the huge opposition to DOGE.
• Both parties are violating coyote's law, establishing precedents the WILL NOT LIKE when the other party uses them.  R's played the find-a-judge game a bit in the Biden administration but you can be sure they will be all-in on the game next D administration.  And of course Trump is establishing Presidential power precedents that the next D president will LOVE to use.
• National injunctions are generally ridiculous and need to be reformed.  I say this having benefitted from several in my business life.  I am out of my business but for years under Obama and Biden the Administrations kept imposing minimum wages on recreation concessionaires that ended up being enjoined for years and years, only to be allowed when they finally had their day in court (and overturned a few months later by a Trump EO).
• In my mind there is no nuance -- Trump is all wrong on tariffs.  They are bad even if other countries have high tariffs on us.

I am on vacation and had not really intended to post but I wanted to quickly comment on one of the arguments used to push back on the DOGE effort. The Democrats, who historically have been real masters of managing the media, have had a pretty flat-footed response to DOGE and have floundered for any sort of messaging that offsets the near endless revelations of stupid spending that DOGE is finding. Most of their protests just look like hysterical defenses of the indefensible.

But the argument I have heard recently that is more likely to resonate with the Democrat's traditional (read: sane) base is something like "we are all for explorations of government efficiency but think it needs to be done in a much more measured and careful way." Unfortunately, for anyone with any experience in organizational cost cutting, a "measured pace" is another way of saying "let's move slow enough so the antibodies in the system have time to kill us." As a result, if anything, I think DOGE is moving too slow.

Way back when I was a newly minted MBA with a less cynical view of how organizations work, I was employed by consultant McKinsey & Co to do cost cutting studies. McKinsey had a pitch to clients where they said that simple-mindedly mandating across-the-board cuts was stupid and destructive. Instead they advocated for a process, I think it was called EVA but it was 30 damn years ago and I cannot remember, to carefully look at every process in the company, to redesign the process, and then cut headcount based on implementing the better process. They would say that the only way to cut staff was to first cut the work that employees had to do first.

As a over-educated and under-experienced consultant, this sounded great to me. It made logical sense as the most thoughtful way to go about cost and headcount reduction, and really it still does make sense in an academic vacuum. It just feels better doing a detailed analysis that leads to 10% less needed staff rather than simply at the outset demanding a 10% across-the-board staff reduction (it also demands orders of magnitude more consulting hours, but that only occurs to the current more cynical version of myself).

But in the real world, one often does not have this luxury. First, going into such an analysis can take many months, all through which the organization knows cuts are coming and productivity plummets. It is effectively pulling off the Band-Aid really slowly. Second, the only way to do this analysis is to have the cooperation of the staff that is about to be cut, a tall order in many real world situations where the staff is ready to fight you (and especially when the staff is organized into unions to fight you). Third, you really don't necessarily get much innovation through this process. By the way, all these problems are squared and cubed in a public vs private context with powerful unions and constant media spotlight.

When I was fresh our of mba-school, I thought just whacking 20% of the staff without analysis was the dumbest thing in the world. But having tried to change and manage organizations, I have changed my mind. Necessity is the mother of invention, and sometimes just getting rid of 20% of the staff and having to make do is the ultimate in necessity. In a reverse of the McKinsey formulation, you cut the work that has to be done by cutting the staff. This approach is fast, and there is no way for the anti-bodies to organize to fight the change when the change comes fast enough. Rip off the Band-Aid, get the required savings, fix problems where you went to far later.

The DOGE efforts are doomed at some level no matter what because so much of Federal spending is programmed by law. It is going to take legislative changes and a better budgeting approach out of Congress to make big changes. But I do think there is staffing efficiency to be had but DOGE is not going to get there alone either**. At some point Trump is going to have to just pick a number and say that in 30 days, every department has to cut their staff by that number. Nothing else is going to work. Nothing else usually works in the private world and it certainly is not going to work in the government where the antibody strength is the highest.

Which is not to say that what DOGE is doing is not valuable, because it is. The constant string of factoids and revelations are going to be the PR air cover that larger cuts via legislation and/or mass layoffs are going to need.

** Postscript: it is useful to keep a few numbers in mind to see the difficulties with the DOGE process getting their promised savings. Yes they can keep finding million dollar examples of stupid spending to be cut. But to get a trillion dollars in savings -- an almost unfathomably large number -- requires a million individual cuts of a million dollars each. The other thing to remember is just how large the federal workforce is. As I pointed out the other day, the 75,000 that took Trump's early retirement package seems like a lot, but it is well under just the normal annual 6% turnover in the federal workforce.