Politics is the “art of compromise.” Being able to build coalitions and find winning compromises is necessary for political success. Especially for achieving difficult gains that last beyond one administration’s term.
Any executive wins will be short-lived if the President fails to work with Congress to secure lasting legislative changes.
Unfortunately the structure of democratic elections often incentivizes voters to demand rigid adherence to ideological principles, making political compromise challenging. That’s why it’s critical to work with Congress now before members go into campaigning mode for 2026.
When it comes to DOGE reining in the expansion of a government that has grown far too big to be effective—including by displacing voluntary market arrangements, which can achieve broader and more inclusive agreements without the use of force— lasting change requires working across the aisle.
A new President has the greatest chance of setting the legislative agenda during his or her first year in office. Trump should not let this opportunity to make his mark on American history—as the President who averted a fiscal crisis that threatened to undermine American strength—go to waste.
Be clear that I don’t defend the entitlements as they are now. Entitlements need to be reigned in, and Trump is exactly as terrible on this issue as are the Democrats. Period.
He has been clear in all his campaigning that he stands with the Democrats on this.
As a tactical point, even putting aside the above and pretending for a minute he was of Paul Ryan’s mindset, you seem deliberately oblivious to the reality that the chances of Democrats in the Senate working with Trump and the GOP on *anything* - let alone entitlement reform - are zero.
He would need 7 Dem/independent Senators to come around to make what you are talking about happen. Can you name even 2 where this is even a small possibility? I’m confident you cannot [I wrote 2 because Angus King I could at least *conceive* might deal. But not a single other Dem Senator.]
So you’re suggestion seeks to make the perfect (getting entitlement reform done any time soon) the enemy of the good (DOGE succeeding at its stated objectives).
More broadly, though, on the pro-abundance agenda, we need 4 things (in no particular order):
1) low marginal capital gains rates, and not-too-high marginal income tax rates
2) deregulation
3) reign in the entitlements
4) cut back other wasteful federal spending
Trump promises to deliver 1), 2), and 4). Vivek and Elon are on board with DOGE to make 2) and 4) real.
This is the best hope we’ve had along these lines in more than 20 years now.
True, lacking 60 votes in the Senate, it won’t be perfect, but it’ll be more than just a good first step.
Yeah, we ain’t gonna get 3) in the next 4 years. More’s the pity. But we should stop crying about only getting 3/4ths of a loaf, and imo focus on *actually* making that 3/4ths of a loaf a reality.
There are many more Democrats that get that the debt crisis is accelerating and that only entitlement reform will work to stabilize the debt than you might think. It’s not apparent from the media but it becomes apparent when you actually talk with members and their staff.
Great post, but the only way to fastrack a D.O.G.E. authorization of any kind, BRAC-like or not, would have to be included in Budget Reconciliation to avoid the Senate's filibuster. While a House Democrat or two might vote for it (with no guarantee that all Republicans would be on board), it will never get a Democratic vote in the Senate. However, as part of reconciliation, it is possible, but there is no guarantee since "policy" by law cannot be included. It is possible, if only that.
The military base closures BRAC had super limited scope. If DOGE had a similar limited scope, I could see it possibly working, but they haven't talked about it that way. And I don't trust them to have a broad scoped BRAC, given who's in charge of it.
Politics is the “art of compromise.” Being able to build coalitions and find winning compromises is necessary for political success. Especially for achieving difficult gains that last beyond one administration’s term.
Any executive wins will be short-lived if the President fails to work with Congress to secure lasting legislative changes.
Unfortunately the structure of democratic elections often incentivizes voters to demand rigid adherence to ideological principles, making political compromise challenging. That’s why it’s critical to work with Congress now before members go into campaigning mode for 2026.
When it comes to DOGE reining in the expansion of a government that has grown far too big to be effective—including by displacing voluntary market arrangements, which can achieve broader and more inclusive agreements without the use of force— lasting change requires working across the aisle.
A new President has the greatest chance of setting the legislative agenda during his or her first year in office. Trump should not let this opportunity to make his mark on American history—as the President who averted a fiscal crisis that threatened to undermine American strength—go to waste.
Be clear that I don’t defend the entitlements as they are now. Entitlements need to be reigned in, and Trump is exactly as terrible on this issue as are the Democrats. Period.
He has been clear in all his campaigning that he stands with the Democrats on this.
As a tactical point, even putting aside the above and pretending for a minute he was of Paul Ryan’s mindset, you seem deliberately oblivious to the reality that the chances of Democrats in the Senate working with Trump and the GOP on *anything* - let alone entitlement reform - are zero.
He would need 7 Dem/independent Senators to come around to make what you are talking about happen. Can you name even 2 where this is even a small possibility? I’m confident you cannot [I wrote 2 because Angus King I could at least *conceive* might deal. But not a single other Dem Senator.]
So you’re suggestion seeks to make the perfect (getting entitlement reform done any time soon) the enemy of the good (DOGE succeeding at its stated objectives).
More broadly, though, on the pro-abundance agenda, we need 4 things (in no particular order):
1) low marginal capital gains rates, and not-too-high marginal income tax rates
2) deregulation
3) reign in the entitlements
4) cut back other wasteful federal spending
Trump promises to deliver 1), 2), and 4). Vivek and Elon are on board with DOGE to make 2) and 4) real.
This is the best hope we’ve had along these lines in more than 20 years now.
True, lacking 60 votes in the Senate, it won’t be perfect, but it’ll be more than just a good first step.
Yeah, we ain’t gonna get 3) in the next 4 years. More’s the pity. But we should stop crying about only getting 3/4ths of a loaf, and imo focus on *actually* making that 3/4ths of a loaf a reality.
There are many more Democrats that get that the debt crisis is accelerating and that only entitlement reform will work to stabilize the debt than you might think. It’s not apparent from the media but it becomes apparent when you actually talk with members and their staff.
Ok, but that is not DOGE!
Piling other things into DOGE, most specifically this biggest one of all, makes little sense.
Expecting that Trump is going to stick out his neck on this topic, when like Democrats he promised he wouldn’t, makes even less.
Perhaps I’ll meet you partway and suggest that if DOGE succeeds (by its end date 7/4/26), maybe your suggestion could be incorporated into DOGE 2.0
Great post, but the only way to fastrack a D.O.G.E. authorization of any kind, BRAC-like or not, would have to be included in Budget Reconciliation to avoid the Senate's filibuster. While a House Democrat or two might vote for it (with no guarantee that all Republicans would be on board), it will never get a Democratic vote in the Senate. However, as part of reconciliation, it is possible, but there is no guarantee since "policy" by law cannot be included. It is possible, if only that.
The military base closures BRAC had super limited scope. If DOGE had a similar limited scope, I could see it possibly working, but they haven't talked about it that way. And I don't trust them to have a broad scoped BRAC, given who's in charge of it.
Maybe multiple BRACs?
So you want DOGE to do more, and be BRAC-like?
How exactly do you expect to get to 60 votes in the Senate for this?
Until you can explain that, “telling” Elon and Vivek that they should “work with Congress” is just plain silly.
You are letting the (more) perfect be the enemy of the good.
The two of them signaled how they intend to get a win.
Your suggestion would merely guarantee they get a loss.
See my comment above.