“Government efficiency” is this year’s buzzword, nationally and in the states. While Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) appears to reside in the Executive Branch – though many aspects of it remain murky – several state legislatures are creating DOGE-inspired committees of their own to tackle inefficiency.
Arizona’s Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee and House Government Efficiency Committee are taking aim at state boards and commission, which regulate everything from acupuncture practitioners to water resources. Rep. Alex Kolodin stated of the House committee, “We want to take an axe to the size of government and its interference in the lives of Arizonans.”
The Kansas Senate Committee on Government Efficiency (COGE) introduced an online portal for residents to submit ideas “to make Kansas government more efficient and effective.” Senate President Ty Masterson explained on a local morning show that they would use these ideas to make government better. The portal was quickly overwhelmed and temporarily shut down, and just one day after Sen. Masterson’s TV appearance, COGE Vice Chair Michael Murphy said, “All we’re going to be able to do in most cases is have a recommendation.”
Missouri created Committees on Government Efficiency in both chambers to root out “government duplication, waste, or inefficiencies,” and the Senate also launched a public input portal. After four days, committee chair Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman admitted that only about 70 of the 2,000 submissions were “constructive,” while the rest consisted of spam or did not fall within the committee’s jurisdiction.
The Texas House of Representatives outlined 14 points that would fall within the jurisdiction of its new Delivery of Government Efficiency, including “elimination of inefficiencies in the provision of state services” and “inquiries to detect fraud, waste, and abuse in state government programs and operations.” Several other states have created these DOGE-style committees or announced their intention to do so, including Wisconsin, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Oklahoma.
These committees share a common vocabulary: “eliminate inefficiencies,” “streamline operations,” “hold agencies accountable,” and “increase transparency.” They make for great headlines, but just like many other buzzwords (as those of us who had to Google “brat” last summer know), it’s hard to predict what their impact will be. Will they follow the example of the federal DOGE, eliminating government agencies, terminating civil servants, and slashing budgets and programs? Does that make government more efficient, and if so, how do we know? Legislative committees, which can be expected to operate in accordance with their legislatures’ rules, may move more deliberately than Musk’s DOGE. But this could be a feature not a bug, providing them the opportunity to take greater care in gaining an understanding of the agencies, systems, and processes they set their sights on than we’ve seen from the folks moving fast and breaking things at the federal level.
Government can absolutely work better for its citizens, and the People’s Branch has the responsibility to ensure that it does. But ‘taking an axe’ to state agencies and programs without investigating the actual issues does not make government more efficient.
The committees should start by proving their own effectiveness, utilizing their legislative authorities to gather facts about areas of government they believe to be wasteful. Legislators can request audits; hold hearings and hear testimony from agency directors, front-line workers, and the public; consult experts on public policy; and partner with non-profit organizations to study problem areas and collect important data that will help them make informed decisions. Doing this work effectively requires bipartisan, bicameral committees with defined jurisdictions and authorities, dedicated to investigating these issues together using facts, not partisan priorities.
Many government services require long, confusing applications. Bureaucracy can move slowly when decisions require numerous levels of approvals. Citizens are rightfully frustrated when they can’t get questions answered and the wheels of government seem to move too slowly. Making rash decisions before determining why they are moving slowly, though, will not make them more “efficient” for the people they are meant to serve.
If we are going to keep throwing that buzzword around, let’s give it meaning.
