Everyone is talking about DOGE. What started as a joke by Elon Musk has turned into a movement, attracting both those who sincerely want to cut government as well as those who recognize a winning political issue when they see one and want to jump on board.
For a little bit of history, the doge meme goes back to the early 2010s when it was used as a humorous spelling of “dog” in reference to picture of a certain Shibu Inu dog from Japan. In late 2013, the meme was applied to cryptocurrency with the creation of Dogecoin, originally a parody of Bitcoin. Being a fan of silly memes, Musk jumped on board soon after. He suggested to President Donald Trump during their X Space last year that he could create a “Department of Government Efficiency” to look for ways to trim government in the same way that Musk himself had trimmed Twitter staff after coming onboard.
Today, the meme is reality, as the DOGE was officially created last week by executive order.
Shortly after the election, Sen. Glenneda Zuiderveld and seven other allied lawmakers coined “DOGE Idaho,” asking readers to submit ideas for cutting government waste and spending. On the first day of the 2025 session, Speaker Mike Moyle tweeted that the Idaho Legislature has already been doing “DOGE” and we will see more this year. Moyle later introduced House Bill 14, instructing state agencies to examine Idaho statutes that relate to their mission and create a report for the Legislature on what can be consolidated or even cut.
Last Friday, Gov. Brad Little unveiled the SPEED Act, an executive order he claims will expedite permits and eliminate unnecessary regulations. I’m somewhat skeptical that a new government agency (with new funding) will necessarily reduce overhead and regulation, but we shall see what comes of it.
Gov. Little has long claimed credit for making Idaho what he calls the least regulated state in the nation, and briefly gained national attention when Elon Musk highlighted Idaho on X. I’ve heard from various figures who have pushed back on some of these claims, and the status of government regulations in Idaho deserves an entire article in the near future.
Another positive development has been an effort to move bureaucratic rules into statute. Conservatives have long complained about unelected bureaucrats creating rules that have the force of law, so it’s good to see a process to move these rules into the purview of the Legislature, which is after all made up of our elected representatives.
Most people on the political right are more conservative than libertarian or anarchist. We believe that some level of government is necessary for a functioning society. Yet that government must have firm limits to its power, with laws and regulations that not only make sense but exist to protect the freedom and prosperity of the citizens rather than carving out niches for industry stakeholders. The attention that Musk and others have been bringing to this issue will be a great test to see if small, limited government is still possible in the 21st century.
Is DOGE just a passing fad, another Tea Party that will quickly be co-opted by figures who are invested in the status quo? Or will it be a sea change in our nation, a chance to truly rein in the uncontrolled growth of government at the state and federal levels? Only time will tell. Make sure to tell your lawmakers that they need to take this seriously, and not just pay lip service to a new political buzzword.
Brian said, “Moyle later introduced House Bill 14, instructing state agencies to examine Idaho statutes that relate to their mission and create a report for the Legislature on what can be consolidated or even cut.”
I still think the initial move should not be to ask the executive branch, which is in charge of law enforcement to tell the legislature (instead of it coming from the people) what laws need to be changed or gotten rid of. That said, I wouldn’t mind the executive branch’s input.
However, if the legislature had its own law offices, which I have now suggested for nearly 3 years after culling some legal positions from the AG‘s office, my proposed statute divided up the executive agencies for analysis within those law offices (one in the house, one in the Senate) so that the legislature could do its own analysis.
I see no problem working as a “team,” but the separation of powers requires more than passing it off to the executive and hoping for the best.
This is the siren song of power in Idaho code section 67-451A. Moyle doesn’t want to give up his free bucket of cash so that the rest of the House and Senate members can have legal services available within the legislative branch.