President-Elect Trump has picked Ben Carson as his Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which immediately produced two thoughts.
First, since he had the best tax plan of all the 2016 candidates, too bad he wasn’t named Secretary of Treasury.
Second, I hope his job at HUD is to shut down the department, raze the building, and get the federal government out of the housing business.
Then I realized I was thinking too narrowly. Shouldn’t all Trump appointees start with the assumption that their department, agency, or program is an unconstitutional waste of money? I’ve already written columns explaining why some cabinet-level bureaucracies should be abolished.
- Department of Agriculture
- Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Department of Education
- Department of Transportation
Now let’s expand this list by taking a look at the Department of Energy.
And our job will be easy since William O’Keefe has a very persuasive column for E21. Let’s look at some of the highlights, starting with the observation that the bureaucracy was created based on the assumption that the world was running out of energy and that somehow politicians and bureaucrats could fix that supposed problem.
The Department of Energy (DOE) traces its roots to the energy crisis of 1973, which was made worse by misguided government policy. …there was, at the time, a firm belief that the world was going to run out of oil by the end of the century. Not only does the world have plenty of oil, but the United States is now a net exporter of natural gas–and would be exporting more if DOE was faster with its approvals. …Prior to DOE, the federal government played a very limited role in energy policy and development. Presumed scarcity, excessive dependence on OPEC nations, distrust in markets, and the search for energy independence became the foundation for what is now a $32.5 billion bureaucracy in search for relevance.
In other words, the ostensible problem that led to the creation of the department was preposterously misdiagnosed.
The market produced lots of energy once the shackles of government intervention (including those from the Energy Department) were sufficiently loosened.
So what, then, does the department do?
What DOE has done is squander money on the search for alternative energy sources. In the process, it enabled Bootlegger and Baptist schemes that enriched crony capitalists who are all too willing to support the flawed notion that government can pick winners and losers. For 2017, a large chunk of DOE spending–$12.6 billion, or 39 percent—is earmarked to “support the President’s strategy to combat climate change.” This is not a justifiable use of taxpayer dollars. Over 36 years, DOE’s mission has morphed from energy security to industrial policy, disguised as advanced energy research and innovation. There is a long and failed history of industrial policy by the federal government.
Here’s the bottom line.
DOE has become the Department of Pork. …Energy firms do not need government subsidies to innovate and develop new technologies. Horizontal drilling and fracking came from the private sector because the incentives to develop shale oil and gas were stronger than the illusions driving alternative energy sources. …Abolishing DOE would punish only the crony capitalists who have become addicted to its support.
Amen.
By the way, Mr. O’Keefe’s argument is primarily based on the fact that DOE doesn’t produce value.
Since I’m a fiscal wonk, I’ll add another arrow to the quiver. We also should abolish the department so that we can save a lot of money.
My colleague Chris Edwards has an entire website filled with information about the uselessness of the department. You can – and should – spend hours perusing all of the information he has accumulated.
But here’s the part that jumped out to me. Over the years, the federal government has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars on a department that is most famous for wasteful Solyndra-style scams.
By the way, there are a small handful of activities at DOE that should be shifted to other departments (such as transferring nuclear weapons responsibilities to the Department of Defense).
But the vast majority of DOE activities never should have been created and produce zero value, so the sooner the bureaucracy is eliminated, the better.
P.S. We can have tons of evidence about the desirability of shutting down the Department of Energy, but it doesn’t matter if there aren’t politicians who think it is more important to protect taxpayers rather than to funnel money to cronyists and interest groups. We’ll have to wait and see whether Trump chooses wisely, though I’m not holding my breath. We certainly didn’t get any pro-taxpayer shift of policy the last time GOPers were in charge of the White House. And Trump’s commitment to the notion of smaller government doesn’t seem overly robust, though I very much hope I’m wrong.
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] was no option to shut down useless bureaucracies such as the Departments of Education, Energy, HUD, Agriculture, and […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] rid of various needless departments (Education, Transportation, Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, etc) also would diminish opportunities for graft and […]
[…] rid of various needless departments (Education, Transportation, Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, etc) also would diminish opportunities for graft and […]
[…] rid of various needless departments (Education, Transportation, Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, etc) also would diminish opportunities for graft and […]
[…] that metric, it has something in common with the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban […]
[…] Pull the plug on the Department of Energy. […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Pull the plug on the Department of Energy. […]
[…] Pull the plug on the Department of Energy. […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] of the federal government (Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, […]
[…] of the federal government (Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] of the federal government (Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, etc) doesn’t […]
[…] Department of Energy […]
[…] Pull the plug on the Department of Energy. […]
[…] as HUD and Transportation) as well as to some of the bureaucracies that are unaffected (Education, Energy, Agriculture, […]
[…] as HUD and Transportation) as well as to some of the bureaucracies that are unaffected (Education, Energy, Agriculture, […]
[…] is true for the Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, and many other boxes on the federal […]
[…] los burócratas en los Departamentos de Transporte, Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano, Educación, Energía y Agricultura es cero. ¿Por qué? Porque esas burocracias no deberían […]
[…] for bureaucrats at the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, and Agriculture is zero. Why? Because those bureaucracies shouldn’t […]
[…] for bureaucrats at the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, and Agriculture is zero. Why? Because those bureaucracies shouldn’t […]
[…] for bureaucrats at the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, and Agriculture is zero. Why? Because they bureaucracies shouldn’t […]
[…] for bureaucrats at the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, and Agriculture is zero. Why? Because they bureaucracies shouldn’t […]
[…] the target-rich environment (including Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, […]
[…] shouldn’t exist (such as Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, and Agriculture), and then we can have a fun discussion of whether the private sector can take […]
[…] that shouldn’t even exist (such as Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, and […]
[…] of Housing and Urban Development? What about shutting down the Department of Education? Or the Department of Energy? How about the Department of Agriculture, or Department of […]
[…] and Urban Development or Department of Education are permanently shuttered. And let’s add the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and Department of Agriculture just for the fun of […]
[…] The Energy Department […]
[…] the same is true for the Department of Energy, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department […]
[…] is involved in many areas that either belong in the private sector (Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Housing and Urban Development, etc) or should be handled by state and local […]
[…] and is involved in many areas that either belong in the private sector (Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Housing and Urban Development, etc) or should be handled by state and local […]
[…] Pull the plug on the Department of Energy. […]
[…] Pull the plug on the Department of Energy. […]
“the vast majority of DOE activities … produce zero value,” Well that’s being awfully generous. The DOE’s main activity today is fighting global warming, which they do by trying to REDUCE energy production. It’s grossly unfair to say that DOE is useless. It’s actively harmful. Taxpayers are spending billions of dollars to pay bureaucrats to shut down power plants so that those taxpayers can freeze to death in the dark.
[…] rather than moving them? Whether based in Detroit or DC, departments such as HUD, Agriculture, Energy, Education, and Transportation shouldn’t […]
THere is a video on the Hoover Institute website, of an interview with Milton Friedman, made about 1996 iirc.
The interviewer asks Friedman which Departments he would close if he were “dictator for a day”. Friedman reverses the question, and lists those he would *keep*. Which amounted to five and a half.. He would fold Veteran’s Affairs back into DoD. He would keep Treasury, Justice, State, and Interior. The nuclear reg portion of Energy would go to DoD. Bits of Commerce would go to State, Justice and Interior. HUD, Education, and a bunch of others have no constitutional basis and would be closed. Unfortunately, Friedman declined to even want to be a dictator for a day, and died before any of his wishes came to pass…
what about appointing a director with a mandate to shrink the agency by 30% each year… do it quietly… revise the department’s mission statement… shrink the scope of operations… allow attrition to depopulate the agency’s work force… and gradually… by degrees… downsize… till like the vanishing Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland……………. nothing is left but a big bright smile….
I have been in alternative energy many times in my life (as an occupation). What I discovered is that there is an external monopoly called OPEC that pushes our internal capitalistic system. The oil crisis of 1973 was their first test of their economic power. They withdrew oil from the market creating a shortage. This shortage allowed two things: they were able to test market elasticity, and they were able to invite capitalistic investments into the market for alternatives. And also the creation of the DOE. (Note that shortage method was also tested by several other monopolies- we had paper shortages, sugar shortages, etc.- All testing market elasticity.) Once the capitalists had invested in things like alternative fuels, they simply upped production, bankrupting all these efforts. They did it again in 1979- another shortage- that was when we got Jimmy Carter’s 55 mph speed limit idea (DOE stretching their regulatory muscle). And again, they upped production and bankrupted investors.
They have played this game about every 5 years since. slowing production-getting a market elasticity test- inviting alternative fuel investments- then upping production and drying up that investment. Each time, there are new players that enter the market with alternative fuel ideas- each time they are bankrupted by low oil prices. At least until fracking entered the picture. We may have found their Achilles heel. What they were not prepared for was OUR ability to drive the pricing down by becoming net exporters. I noted with interest last week they have decided to limit production again…hah. Their attempt to drive the price below our production thresholds failed this time!
So, yes, I support the destruction of the DOE with one exception- that their existence be limited to alternative energy research. Despite recent finds, our current energy sources will not last forever, and yes, they do add to pollution. I don’t support global warming ideas, but exhaust is exhaust. So, I do support research that finds other ways of providing power to homes and transportation. You may argue that the government is not good at that or anything else. but without their involvement, companies do not have the foresight to invest in such research. They are too driven by short term gains. Another problem for Trump to figure out. There were a couple of efforts of the DOE that I saluted in the past. One was SERI. The other was coal gasification. Both interesting from an technology point of view. OK- call me a nerd.
Excellent article. For years I’ve shared my belief that if we applied sound business principles to the Federal bureaucracy that we could cut spending by fifty percent. We, the people, would not notice the difference in our daily lives.
Excellent analysis, thanks Dan!
This raises two questions for me. First, what is the history of the shutting of federal departments and second, how likely is a Trump administration to be so motivated.
I know the Civil Aeronautics Board was shut down as a result of the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act with predictable results (increased entrance of service providers, more competition, lower prices, etc). Are there other examples of departmental shutdowns in American history? Are there parallels in these cases that allow us to predict, in hindsight, the shutdown of those departments? Can we see evidence of these factors in the Energy department (or the others you mention) today?
Excellent article!!!
Rich Kozlovich
Excellent!!!! Rich KozlovichParadigms and Demographics
“…if there aren’t politicians who think it is more important to protect taxpayers rather than to funnel money to cronyists and interest groups.”
These politicians must not only exist but voters must also elect them into high office.
Whenever there’s demand for political ideas there’s also supply. So while the very essence of politics is primarily coercive collectivism, these politicians who would be more respectful of taxpayers DO still exist.
But voters never propel these politicians into high office. Most voters are inebriated by the miscalculation that they will get more out of coercive collectivism than what they have to directly and indirectly pay into.