LANGUAGE: How do you describe a problem...

MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2025

A problem like Elon Musk: "How do you solve a problem like Maria?"

The question is asked, in musical form, near the start of the 1965 film, The Sound of Music. According to the leading authority on the film and the original musical, the song is performed by the nuns at Nonnberg Abbey.

They're exasperated with Maria for being a "flibbertigibbet."  The nuns further allege that Maria is too "frolicsome for the decorous and austere life at the Abbey."

How do you solve a problem like that? A similar question might arise concerning Elon Musk—even concerning Donald J. Trump, the president who has designated Musk as the reigning despot of DOGE. 

Similar questions may arise! But in the case of the rather frolicsome Musk, the question might go like this:

How do you describe a problem like Elon Musk? What sort of language should American journalists decide to use?

For the record, many people say they see no problem with Musk at all. More specifically, they approve of the work he has done as the reigning satrap of supposed federal savings. 

That said, it seems to us that an obvious problem does at least seem to exist. Consider last Friday's news report from USA Today.

The report, which carries no paywall, concerns something Musk excitedly announced at last Thursday's cabinet meeting. Was some sort of "problem" lurking there? Headline included, the report begins as shown:

Elon Musk lowers DOGE's projected savings from $1 trillion to $150 billion

Elon Musk said he anticipates the Department of Government Efficiency's efforts to slash "waste and fraud" from the federal government will cut $150 billion in spending over the next fiscal year, appearing to dramatically lower much-loftier projections he previously touted.

Musk, the billionaire tech entrepreneur who oversees DOGE, provided the update during an April 10 Cabinet meeting convened by President Donald Trump.

"I'm excited to announce that we anticipate savings in FY 26 from reduction of waste and fraud by $150 billion," Musk, seated at a table with Cabinet secretaries, told Trump. "And I mean, some of it is just absurd—like people getting unemployment insurance who haven't been born yet."

The 2026 fiscal year runs from Oct. 1, 2025 to Sept. 30, 2026.

While campaigning for Trump during the 2024 presidential race, Musk talked about cutting $2 trillion from the government. He lowered the goal to $1 trillion after Trump assumed office. And as recently as a March 27 interview on Fox News, Musk said he was on pace to eliminate $1 trillion in federal spending by the end of May.

That's how the next-day report began. In our view, the factual assertions in that passage are basically fair and accurate.

Having said that, Say what? 

According to this report, Musk had seemed to say, during last year's White House race, that he could cut $2 trillion from the budget of the federal government. That claim had always seemed to be crazy, but Musk did seem to make that claim during last year's campaign. 

(Full fairness: It wasn't always entirely clear that he meant that he could produce such savings on a one-year basis—in just one fiscal year. Arguably, though, the gentleman's endless imprecision is part of the gentleman's problem.)

At any rate, the first number Musk disgorged was in fact $2 trillion! After President Trump re-entered the White House, Musk did in fact lower the goal to a mere $1 trillion in cuts.

In all honesty, that goal had also seemed to be nuts! But there's absolutely no doubt that the gentleman made it.

At that point, the richest person on earth had reduced his initial projection by half! But last Thursday, there be stood, addressing the cabinet, and he said he was "excited to announce" another downsized digit.

Last Thursday, the genius seemed to say that he was only going to produce cuts of $150 billion during this fiscal year! That constitutes a "7.5 percent solution"—savings which total a mere 7.5% of his original proffer

Having started at $2 trillion, he was now excited to say that his number had fallen that far!  And sure enough:

At this point, no one in the cabinet said, What the f**k are you talking about? It isn't done that way in (televised) cabinet meetings—or perhaps within our high-end mainstream / legacy press.

For the record, we know of no obvious reason to believe that the bros of DOGE will ever achieve even that new goal. Consider what happened when the New York Times followed up on USA Today's initial report.

To its credit, USA Today had been first out of the gate. After several days of further research, a more detailed report in this morning's New York Times starts as shown, dual headline included:

DOGE Is Far Short of Its Goal, and Still Overstating Its Progress
Elon Musk now says his group will produce only 15 percent of the savings it promised. But even that estimate is inflated with errors and guesswork.

Last week, Elon Musk indicated for the first time that his Department of Government Efficiency was falling short of its goal.

He previously said his powerful budget-cutting team could reduce the next fiscal year’s federal budget by $1 trillion, and do it by Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year. Instead, in a cabinet meeting on Thursday, Mr. Musk said that he anticipated the group would save about $150 billion, 85 percent less than its objective.

Even that figure may be too high, according to a New York Times analysis of DOGE’s claims.

That’s because, when Mr. Musk’s group tallies up its savings so far, it inflates its progress by including billion-dollar errors, by counting spending that will not happen in the next fiscal year—and by making guesses about spending that might not happen at all.

One of the group’s largest claims, in fact, involves canceling a contract that did not exist...

Say what? Musk's minions "canceled a contract that did not exist?" The high-flying fellows "inflate [their] progress by including billion-dollar errors?" "By making guesses about spending that might not happen at all?"

So say Fahrenthold and Singer-Vine, a pair of Times reporters. And as their lengthy report continues, the pair of reporters go on and on from there.

Musk routinely screeches about the "crazy" things he and his team say they've found within the functioning of the federal government. But when it comes to the poobah's work, here's part of what the New York Times says that it has found:

Mr. Musk’s group has provided an online ledger of its budget cuts, which it calls the “Wall of Receipts.” The site was last updated on Tuesday, to show an “estimated savings” of $150 billion.

The ledger is riddled with omissions and flaws.

While Mr. Musk said on Thursday that his group would save $150 billion in fiscal 2026 alone, the website does not say explicitly when its savings would be realized. The site also gives no identifying details about $92 billion of its claimed savings, which is more than 60 percent of the total. 

The rest of the savings are itemized, attributed to cancellations of specific federal grants, contracts or office leases. But these detailed listings have been plagued with data errors, which have inflated the group’s savings by billions.

Mr. Musk’s group has deleted some of its original errors, like entries that triple-counted the same savings, a claim that confused “billion” with “million,” and items that claimed credit for canceling contracts that ended when George W. Bush was president.

Still, some expensive mistakes remain.

The second-largest savings that the group lists on its site comes from a canceled I.R.S. contract that DOGE says saved $1.9 billion. But the contract it cites was actually canceled when Joseph R. Biden Jr. was president. The third-largest savings that the group claims comes from a canceled grant to a vaccine nonprofit. Mr. Musk’s group says that saved $1.75 billion. But the nonprofit said it had actually been paid in full, so the savings was $0.

And so on from there, at considerable length. If you can believe the Times report, the "expensive mistakes" go on and on, accompanied by an array of "errors and flaws," with a tip of the hat to the "guesswork."

Eventually, Fahrenthold and Singer-Vine mention Musk's original goal of $2 trillion in savings. To appearances, they extended a bit of deference to the imprecision concerning the time frame of Musk's original claim. 

That said, their report describes Musk's work as something from a slough of incompetence and DOGE adjacent despond—or from something even worse, from a place of simple dishonesty.

Briefly, let's be fair:

According to the Times report, the DOGE bros have deleted some of their triple-counting. So too with the original blunders in which they claimed "billions" of dollars in savings when they should have said "millions."

(In such instances, the error increased their claimed savings by a factor of a thousand. In fairness, the two words in question rhyme.)

That said, the Times reports that DOGE is still claiming that it canceled a contract which was actually canceled under President Biden. They're still claiming $1.75 billion in savings from a situation where there will be no savings at all—and yes, the mayhem continues from there in the Times' very lengthy report.

The Times report goes on and on. So have the misstatements and the excited presentations by the richest person on earth.

History teaches that a certain group of nuns were trying to solve a problem. In the current circumstance, Musk's performance has been so astoundingly awful that many major news orgs seem to be having trouble finding the language with which to describe the scope of the societal problem.

For now, let's forget about solving that problem. How should we even describe this problem? How do we use our words?

How do you describe a problem like the current version of Elon Musk? Along the way this week, we'll suggest some possible language, including the journalistic language of product placement.

(For whatever reason, the lengthy report in today's New York Times appears on page A14.)

We'll also discuss a similar problem regarding the way our major news orgs describe the work product of President Trump. Also, how do you describe a problem like the Fox News Channel?

(If, that is, you're willing to discuss the Fox News Channel at all.)

How do you describe a problem like the current version of Musk? Here on our own sprawling campus, various types of language come to mind.

The same is true with respect to President Trump, and with respect to the conduct which routinely prevails on the aforementioned "cable news" channel.

That said, our major American journalists and news orgs may sometimes tend to defer to power. They may sometimes tend to defer to the pleasures of "playing it safe." 

Full fairness! Due to long-standing journalistic traditions, certain forms of language may not even occur to our scriveners in the present circumstance. There's no history of such use of journalistic language. Creating new language may be scary and hard.

There's no history of using such language! In fairness, it isn't clear that we the people have ever encountered a problem quite like this.

USA Today got there first. Today, in astounding detail, up jumps the New York times—on page 14, no less!

Tomorrow: New language from David Brooks