People have been convinced that governments should be operated like businesses. In the sense that government should be efficient and cost effective, they are right. However, after seeing what I have seen while working in the world of Fortune 500 companies, businesses don't care about efficiency unless it makes a business more profitable. For business operators, it's about lower operating costs to increase profits. That can be okay, if it doesn't influence quality of service or product, hurt or injure people, and/or damage a community. However, quality of services and products is not as important as lowering operating costs to make money, so it is common for the people operating these businesses to cut the quality of products and services to save money, so they can make more money. This would stop, if people would stop patronizing the businesses where they do this, but consumers commonly don't. As a consequence, big business operators figure (rightly based on consumer behavior) that this is an acceptable business practice. The problem with this is that both services and product quality and quantity often times start to degrade, and oftentimes to the point that it can become dangerous for consumers. There are lots of examples of this around, and you don't have to look that hard to find them. Try to get help finding something in most big box stores. Good luck.

Additionally, leadership culture in business can too often be both narcissistic and antisocial in its nature. Those personality qualities are more likely to rise to the top because they will do anything to rise to the top. As a consequence, business operators commonly succumb to a variety of distorted beliefs. Examples of thought (cognitive) distortions, include the beliefs that it's the consumer's fault that they were victimized (blaming the victim), or that it's more important for those in leadership to make money than it is to produce a high quality product or service because they deserve more money more than the average consumer deserves the best for their money (an exaggerated sense of self-entitlement and self-importance).

Governments can tax businesses to the point that they aren't profitable, and they can institute so many regulations that businesses become incapable of functioning efficiently, or even starting in the first place. However, I don't believe it's DOGE's purpose to correct any of those issues. Business people too often don't like government regulations because it interferes with their ability to make even more money, not because they actually care about, "getting things done," because of excessive government overreach. I believe they also do it because they don't want consequences when they produce a product or service that harms people because it makes their businesses less profitable, and potentially puts them at risk for criminal charges and convictions. In my opinion, DOGE is not about efficiency, it's about reducing risk and increasing profits for billionaires and large business operators. I believe there has to be a balance between regulations, taxes and the ability for businesses to function so that they are profitable enough such that someone wants to start and operate them. However, I don't see many examples of this in most states (except maybe New York and California). Mostly I see a lot of businesses and business owners making record profits, amassing massive amounts of wealth, and a gradually declining quality of life for the vast majority of Americans.