Theater At The DOGE

I asked ChatGPT: 

How much budget savings so far from Musk's Department of Government Efficiency?

As of March 2, 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), let by Elon Musk, reported the cancellation of 128 contracts recently, resulting in approximately $60 million in savings.  Since Its inception, DOGE reports terminating over 3,000 wasteful contracts.

However, analyses by external organizations have raised questions about these reported savings.  An NPR investigation found discrepancies in DOGE's claimed savings, suggesting potential overstatements. 

Additionally, data from DOGE's "Wall of Receipts" indicates that nearly 40% of the cancelled contracts are expected to yield no actual savings. 

In specific instances, DOGE identified inefficiencies in software licensing.  For example, the General Services Administration (GSA) reportedly held 37,000 WinZip licenses for 13,000 employees, leading to a claimed $9.6 million in savings after addressing the surplus.

While DOGE reports significant contract cancellations and some specific savings, external evaluations suggest that the actual budgetary impact may be less substantial than claimed.

Despite these efforts, the reported savings represent a fraction of DOGE's ambitious goal to cut $2 trillion in federal spending by July 4, 2026. 

The notion that Elon Musk and his government efficiency apparatchiks can bring down the debt is a tall order.  To be clear, I take no issue with rooting-out waste fraud and abuse; just give the chainsaw schtick and lame theatrics a rest.  

At this particular moment in time our outstanding debt stands at $36 trillion (give or take).  Closing a handful of government agencies and laying-off government workers makes for great theater but it isn't gonna get the job done.  The savings are much, much too small to achieve the stated goal. Anybody who actually believes nibbling around the edges like this will fix the real problem is engaging in what I call magical wishful thinking.

You see, just like a household budget that has gotten out of control, fixing this problem is going to require hard work and making difficult choices.  

You're probably thinking - Like what?

Like raising taxes, cutting defense spending or reforming Social Security and Medicare.  Or all of the foregoing.  These are unpopular choices for good reason.  Nobody wants to do them.  They're like going to the theater to watch a crappy production.  Nobody wants to do that.  The people demand good theater.  Bread and circuses if you will.  I might be wrong, but I happen to wonder if the current collection of clowns places a higher priority on theater and spectacle than hard work.

So, are we going to continue to be witness to the slow roll reality TV performance or get serious about fixing the real problem for the next couple of generations.

Anyone care to make a friendly wager?

Game Of Chance

If you're reading this at the time of publication you're obviously not paying attention to more important matters - like the Packer/Texan game.  Nevertheless, as long as you're here there is this.

From time to time I've mused about the premise that the betting world is a more accurate forecast of an election outcome than traditional polling methodology.  There is reason to believe that the predictive power of a wager is not only more reactive to events as they unfold on the campaign trail but with skin in the game a wager is more accurate.

So, while traditional polls show the Harris Trump race to be a dead heat - the Vegas line tells a different story.  If you take a survey of the betting markets you will observe that (as of the time of publication)  Polymarket, Kalshi and PredictIt all favor Trump over Harris.

If the odds makers are correct, Trump will walk away with the electoral vote.

We got a game on folks.  And it ain't your ordinary Sunday football match-up.

Skin In The Game

So here we are; several months since Joe Biden abdicated the throne and Vice President Harris and Governor Walz have turned the election campaign on it's head.  If you watch the polls the democrats have turned the tables in several battle ground states and possibly reversed the trend in others and nationally.  What I would give to be a fly on the wall in Trump or Harris campaign HQ.  But let's not get over our skis -  is this a sugar high, a honeymoon or an implosion?  No way to know for sure.  Besides,  polls have been sketchy the last couple-three national elections; and I happen to believe that the outcome remains a tossup.  So I want to speak to the subject of gambling, or wagering.  

I've touched-upon this subject from time to time; sometimes from the POV of a financial guy and sometimes outright humor.  Back in the first week of June I took a stab at a topic I had been reading-up on and listening about; a subject that I thought was maybe gonna gain some traction - that of actually wagering on US Elections.  With every passing week it seems to be gaining traction now that we have a real competitive campaign.

For some time government regulators with oversight on Wall Street have been trying to clamp down on growing election wagering in the US.  With a completely reconfigured presidential race a tsunami of trading on this fall's election has taken-off.  At the time of the publication of this post, traders (gamblers) favor Harris over Trump.

PredictIt, formerly a largely academic pursuit and now off-shored was witness in July to its busiest wagering volume reaching roughly 120 million contracts - a spike of more than 500% over June.  $1.1 billion has been bet on crypto-based Polymarket since June, according to Dune Analytics, and 88% of that has been political bets on the U.S. election.

Consequently, this has the increased attention of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) who has proposed rule-making that would expressly outlaw wagering of this sort with scattered support in the US Senate.

As a recovering financial guy with almost forty years in the wealth management biz I've seen more than my share of feeding frenzies in the equity, fixed-income, commodities, futures and other derivatives markets; and market bubbles, more often-than not, end badly.  After-which seasoned veterans, put on their boots, roll-up their sleeves, slip-on their autopsy gloves and sift thru the bloody detritus of mostly novice online traders who got themselves slaughtered chasing phantom profits.

Markets always correct.

Nevertheless, none of this is outlawed or banned.  Financial markets are regulated and there is ample opportunity for the unguided to squander their savings on dreams, brass rings or Pumpkins and Mice.  The CFTC needn't ban wagering on election outcomes as much as they might regulate them with reasonable guardrails just like any other market. 

The UK has grappled with their own tempest in a teapot with the revelation that some conservative members of parliament got caught placing bets on the timing of their recent snap election.  Did it impact the July 4th outcome?  Who knows?  Considering the level of outrage when this got found-out it's entirely possible.  Should politicians be barred from betting on elections?  Or allowed to do so at their own political peril?  

A week and a half ago, a federal judge cleared the way for Americans to place bets on the outcome of congressional elections via a prediction-market startup.  A ruling that may potentially expand further legalized wagers on elections in this country.

Wagering requires bettors to put their money where their mouth is.  Betting markets may be useful when politics are chaotic.  With skin in the game facts displace misinformation.  

We got a game-on folks....