Opinion: The problem with Elon Musk’s slash-and-burn approach to government

Virtually all Americans, like all New Yorkers, would love for their governments at the local, state and federal levels to be more cost-efficient and effective. But recent actions at the federal level by Elon Musk – an unelected South African tech billionaire with no government experience whatsoever – raise serious concerns, not just about what is being done, but how it is being done and the effect it will have on average citizens. 

Musk’s so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” has moved with breakneck speed to shut down large-scale federal departments, one after another. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which responds to crises caused by hurricanes and fires, is one target. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which addresses the spread of pandemics like Ebola, is another. Musk has slashed federal health care research to find cures for cancer, AIDS and Alzheimer’s at the National Institutes of Health, sought to eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and tried to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. Clearly, more is on the way.

But it begs the question of whether there is anything wrong with Musk's slash-and-burn approach to the government and whether there might be a better way forward

In the early 1990s, I served as deputy schools chancellor for New York City public schools, the largest school system in the U.S. with over a million students. Schools Chancellor Joseph Fernandez and I were able to obtain a commitment from one of the largest and most effective consulting firms to offer us pro bono consultant services to trim the waste and inefficiency in our school system budget. We asked them to examine school transportation services, where significant funds were spent on a system of private school buses that transported hundreds of thousands of students to and from school every day. 

After meeting with the volunteer consultants and giving them time to review the costly and aged system that was in place, they proposed a potential solution. Unlike what Musk might have suggested, they didn’t say we should totally shut down the student bus system within 24 hours, sell off all the buses, fire the drivers and just tell all students to walk to school.

Instead, the consultants recommended that we institute a system that they had used effectively in the private sector, which they called “Double Trip the Buses.” Their proposal would have phased out 50% of all buses, providing a huge cost savings. Under their new system, half of all New York City students would be picked up as early as 6 a.m. in the morning and brought to school with their classes beginning at 7 a.m. The buses would then go back and pick up the other half of students by 9 a.m. and bring them to school for a school day that would begin at 10 a.m. The same double trip schedule would be used at the end of the day, with some students picked up as early as 1 p.m. and dropped near home at 2 p.m. and others picked up at 5 p.m. and brought home at 6 p.m. 

My reaction to their proposed plan was delivered in two words: “That's absurd.” We would have to completely change the school schedule for teachers and administrators, while parents would have some of their children leaving at 6 a.m. and others getting home at 6 p.m. It would change their lives completely, and not for the better. It was beyond absurd; it was insane. Of course, the idea of double tripping buses might have worked in some private corporate settings, but it was not a remotely realistic option for a massive public school system. How could experienced consultants, who largely worked on challenges in the private sector, come up with such an idea? The answer is easy: inexperience and lack of consultation with those in government.

While this was similar in some ways to Musk’s misguided and uninformed approach of shutting down agencies like FEMA and USAID, ending consumer protections, defunding research on cancer, Alzheimer’s and AIDS research and all of his other nonsensical notions, Musk’s efforts are much worse.

FEMA was set up in 1979 to address the challenges of disaster response and relief. It was not created to supplant states’ operations but to provide federal aid when states were stretched so thin that they couldn't handle a response to unprecedented disasters on their own. Having a federal agency work with states allows them to implement best practices across the U.S., addressing preparation and response quickly and effectively and getting emergency aid to those in need. 

I served as president of the IBM Foundation after the tragedy of 9/11, when we were asked to help New York City address post-9/11 recovery efforts. Working closely with the city government and United Way, we created a portal on the internet to allow devastated New Yorkers to apply for and receive emergency assistance online, rather than having to go door to door into multiple city offices. We worked closely with FEMA, city and state agencies and service workers, ultimately turning our volunteer efforts over to the city and its not-for-profit community for free.  FEMA was a skilled and fantastic partner, with deep experience in relief and recovery. 

We New Yorkers have benefited from FEMA's help in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Sandy and so many other natural disasters. In the last year, the response to Hurricane Milton alone required a federal response of over a billion dollars, and FEMA was critical. Hurricanes and wildfires are not ending, but shutting down FEMA and firing all of its workers overnight will be a disaster of huge proportions, making the horror of natural disasters pale in comparison. Musk did not stop at cutting funding at FEMA; he also launched an ongoing effort on social media to slander the agency and its workers as evil and motivated by greed and politics, falsely accusing FEMA of denying aid to people in red states. Shutting down FEMA makes double tripping of school buses look smart 

It’s a similar story when it comes to slashing funding for the National Institutes of Health. Research into diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’s and AIDS is vital to the health care needs of American citizens, in New York and in cities and states across the nation. In New York, we are fortunate to have world-leading research universities, including public schools like CUNY and SUNY, and great hospitals where the talent and experience to lead those research efforts are located. 

As a result of Musk’s cuts to NIH funding, many vitally important health care research efforts will simply be shut down, denying us access to cures vital to saving lives. One study at SUNY Buffalo is developing a new way to treat brain aneurysms with a simple, low-cost blood test. Another screens for lung cancer, also via a blood test. And a study at SUNY Stony Brook is developing new ways to monitor and treat 9/11 first responders. These grants save lives, and they also create huge economic benefits. In 2023 alone, NIH grants created over $92 billion in economic benefit. It’s not just blue states like New York that would be hurting if NIH funding continues to be frozen. Texas and North Carolina, two red states, would collectively lose half a billion dollars. 

It was federal funds that allowed Dr. Jonas Salk, a graduate of New York City public schools and CUNY, to do the research that led to the creation of a life-saving polio vaccine in the 1950s. did the federally funded research that led to the creation of a life-saving vaccine that helped cure polio. Imagine if an inexperienced, unelected corporate billionaire like Elon Musk had walked in with a scalpel and simply shut down Salk's polio studies. Millions would have been irreparably harmed. 

Investments in health care research save lives and generate huge economic gain. And dismantling the U.S. Department of Education and the CFPB will deny millions of students and their parents the lifelines they desperately need, all with one goal in mind: funding tax cuts for the wealthy. 

All this is not to say that every federal, state or local agency is perfect in what they do. Is there inefficiency in government and an opportunity to curb waste? Of course. But those who are asked to trim government budgets need to have the knowledge and experience needed to come up with common sense and realistic reforms. They can't have conflicts of interest and hidden political, financial or personal motives. A slash-and-burn strategy applied to all government agencies regardless of what they do would have tragic consequences. 

At this point, the most effective response to such misguided efforts is coming from the courts. Their efforts are vital, but the needed and necessary response must ultimately come from Congress, stimulated by the efforts of average citizens. Double tripping trips us all up.