I agree with you, but I also understand the sneaky clever rationale with a slash and burn tactic. Quite likely a lot of the cut programmes get reinstated but at least before doing so, the question will be asked... is this really necessary? What are the consequences of not having it? Sadly bureaucracies all of the world are loathe to cut unnecessary programmes so this is often the only way to rid government of redundancies. Please note I'm not really supporting it (the risk of destroying something vital is too dangerous), but there is more sense to it than most would think...
While I see what you're going for, IMO you are giving them too much credit for thinking like that. It sounds like a massively inefficient way of going about achieving that end, and so is proving to be. They said their goal was to slash massively and quickly, and you have to believe them in that. Also, this is not asking bureaucracies to cut programs. DOGE is tasked with it. Had they done what they were asked with more consideration, they would surely have made fewer mistakes, and maybe garnered some approval for actual Efficiency. One of the main problems with their method is that it's not all retrievable. My fear, and that of many Americans, is that a lot of it won't be. I believe you don't support it, and are rather looking for a silver lining. I'm just not seeing it.
There is nothing that would have prevented them from taking, say, a year to review and revise these various programs and departments. But they would have to have had some understanding of what they actually do, and some belief in it, which they (neither Trump nor Musk) do. It's merely "Federal government BAD! Off with its head!
