The descriptive information is well put together. The terrible policy recommendations at the end are terrible. Also, the note at the bottom is just completely wrong. DOGE savings are not one-time savings. In many cases they are finding and cancelling recurring payments and shutting down programs that receive money every year.

One of my problems with pieces like this isn't that they're wrong, but they assume a false dichotomy: Why do DOGE when they could do my brilliant idea instead?

DOGE is silly, if judged by the standard of reducing the national debt. I've been consistently skeptical that it would do much on that front. However, they are finding and exposing lots of ridiculous spending and getting public support for ending a bunch of wasteful (or worse programs).

Judged by something like ROI, DOGE is easily paying for itself in cuts elsewhere, so why are people treating it like a wasted effort? I have my own guesses.

The serious conversation would be something like "DOGE (or something like it) is a worthwhile effort, but it isn't nearly enough to address the unsustainable debt."