The recent push to revamp the federal government under the Trump administration mirrors the “Reinventing Government” initiative from Bill Clinton’s presidency. While both aimed to increase efficiency and cut costs, the Clinton effort was methodical and bipartisan, involving federal employees in the process, whereas Elon Musk’s current approach is chaotic, often bypassing Congress and leading to abrupt layoffs. Clinton’s initiative resulted in over 400,000 job cuts but emphasized collaboration and long-term improvements, achieving around $146 billion in savings. Observers warn that Musk’s rapid changes lack the necessary legislative framework for sustainability and risk undermining government functions.
Denver:
A new administration has taken over in Washington and revealed plans to revamp it, leveraging corporate expertise and advanced technology to optimize the federal bureaucracy.
It extended buyout offers to millions of government employees and implemented cost-cutting measures to achieve a balanced budget.
This may seem reminiscent of the contentious cost-reduction initiative led by billionaire Elon Musk under Republican President Donald Trump. However, the most significant attempt to reform the federal government in modern times actually took place 30 years ago under a Democratic administration, specifically through then-President Bill Clinton’s “Reinventing Government” program, managed by his vice president, Al Gore.
Musk has recently attempted to align himself with the Clinton initiative, stating: “What @DOGE is doing is similar to Clinton/Gore Dem policies of the 1990s,” on his social platform X, referencing his Department of Government Efficiency.
However, those involved in the Reinventing Government project argue that it was nearly the antithesis of Musk’s abrupt and disordered strategy. This initiative was sanctioned by bipartisan congressional legislation, progressed steadily over several years to identify inefficiencies, and engaged federal employees in reimagining their roles.
“Significant effort was devoted to understanding what needed to happen and what should change,” stated Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, which aims to enhance the federal workforce. “What is occurring now is actually regressive.”
Within Musk’s initiative, the Trump administration dismissed thousands of federal employees unexpectedly. It introduced a “deferred resignation” program for government staff that lacked congressional approval and made severe cuts to agencies without similar legislative consent, although some actions faced judicial intervention. The technology tycoon, recognized as the richest person in the world, has vowed to save trillions in taxpayer money through cost reductions.
Those familiar with the Clinton-era Reinventing Government initiative believe it offers valuable insights on how to reform the federal bureaucracy and highlights the limited savings such efforts can yield.
“We achieved this without triggering a constitutional crisis,” remarked Elaine Kamarck, a senior adviser to Gore during the 1990s who oversaw Reinventing Government. “In contrast to the current approach, we didn’t assume there were vast trillions in efficiencies to find. Their aim is solely to cut; ours was to operate more effectively at a lower cost.”
Kamarck noted that the initiative grew to a 400-member team selected from existing federal employees. They aimed to enhance government efficiency and customer service while introducing private sector-style metrics, including performance standards for employees.
The Reinventing Government team also encouraged the workforce to adopt new technology – the internet. Numerous government websites and programs, such as electronic income tax filing, originated from this initiative.
Gore made an appearance on the David Letterman late night show where he smashed a government ashtray with a hammer, symbolizing his mission to eradicate waste. The government even established “hammer awards” to recognize employees who devised methods to minimize red tape and enhance service, according to Don Kettl, an emeritus professor of public policy at the University of Maryland.
“Empowering employees and recognizing them as key components of the system was fundamental,” Kettl recalled. “A key difference is that the Trump administration views federal employees as adversaries, while the Clinton administration regarded them as allies.”
Additionally, the Clinton administration collaborated with Congress to implement $25,000 buyouts for federal employees and managed to eliminate over 400,000 federal positions between 1993 and 2000 through a mix of voluntary resignations, attrition, and a limited number of layoffs, according to Kamarck.
Kettl explained that the job reductions did not result in cost savings as the government had to subsequently hire contractors to fulfill the roles of departing employees – a scenario he fears may recur if Musk and Trump persist with their cuts to the federal workforce.
Chris Edwards, editor of DownsizingGovernment.org at the conservative Cato Institute in Washington, indicated that buyouts represent a crucial distinction between the Clinton effort, which he described as “moderately successful,” and the current DOGE initiative – specifically, the involvement of Congress.
Today, the Republican-controlled Congress has allowed Musk to proceed with his changes independently, despite the Constitution stipulating that the legislative branch governs spending and federal law prohibits the president from cutting programs authorized by Congress without their consent. Clinton was the last president to successfully secure such permission, with Congress agreeing to $3.6 billion in cuts he proposed.
Both Trump and Musk have made vague commitments to submit their cuts to Congress. Edwards argued that without congressional involvement, any savings will be temporary: “None of these changes DOGE seeks to implement will be enduring,” he said.
Few Republicans have called for greater participation from Congress.
“This demands vocal opposition. It requires stating, ‘That contravenes the law, that oversteps executive authority,'” expressed Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.
Kamarck estimated the total savings from the Reinventing Government initiative at $146 billion – a substantial figure, yet still a mere fraction of the federal budget. She contrasted the deliberate and collaborative approach her team adopted with Musk’s rapid-fire strategy, orchestrated by a group of youthful outsiders he recruited to carry out agency and workforce reductions.
The reason the Reinventing Government team proceeded cautiously, Kamarck explained, was to avoid disrupting the multitude of critical government functions during the restructuring process. She fears Musk is less concerned about such implications.
“The risks associated with failures in federal government are significantly higher compared to those in the private sector,” Kamarck noted. “We genuinely worried about making errors, and I don’t believe Musk’s team shares that same level of concern, which could lead to their downfall.”
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)