For the past several weeks, budget cuts ruthlessly implemented by the Trump Administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have dominated the national news. DOGE is overseen by billionaire Elon Musk who promised he would be able to find $2 trillion dollars in “savings” that would make the government function more efficiently.

I put “savings” in quotes for four reasons:

First, some of the “savings” DOGE initially reported weren’t the result of their work: they were “savings” that resulted from actions taken in previous administrations, including the cancellation of contracts that dated back to the George W. Bush administration. As analysts comb DOGE’s online Wall of Receipts, other examples of misidentification and miscalculation have emerged.

Second, some of the “savings” for one agency will be offset by unreported additional costs in another agency. For example, should some personnel from the Department of Education’s student loan division be transferred to the Treasury Department as the current plan calls for, some of the DOGE “savings” in technology support and office space in the Department of Education will be offset by additional costs associated with providing those services within the Treasury Department.

Third, none of the “savings” consider increased federal spending that will result from DOGE’s personnel cuts: unemployment benefits to laid off government employees, the buyouts paid to early retirees, the legal costs incurred defending the many questionable procedural and contractual violations, and the costs to settle any lost lawsuits.

Finally, the biggest problem with the “savings” claimed by DOGE is this: many of the “savings” that result from cuts at the federal level are downshifts in costs and responsibilities to the state and/or local governments, downshifts that are already complicating budgets locally and across the country.

For example, the federal “savings” in grants result in the loss of state and/or local revenues and services. To cover the costs of those lost revenues and services state and local governments will need to increase their taxes, which means voters will not realize savings, they will instead pay for the services they need out of a different pocket.

The recent announcement that the Department of Education is closing and rumors of cuts to Medicaid offer an example of how the loss of federal revenue will impact state and local taxes.

If Medicaid is cut, the states will face two choices: backfilling the lost revenue with increased state funding or, as Gov. Kelly Ayotte has recommended, passing the costs on to the 185,000 New Hampshire residents covered by Medicaid by requiring them to pay a percentage of their limited income toward their health insurance.

Among the responsibilities of the soon-to-be-closed Department of Education is the oversight of federal funds for public education, which include funds for special education. Under the closure plans offered to date, special education funding would be bundled with other federal funding in the form of a “block grant” that states could use any way they wish. Because the cuts are intended to save federal dollars, no one expects the proposed block grants will yield more federal funding for either New Hampshire or Vermont. Nor does anyone expect local districts will have fewer federal regulations. When states receive less federal funding for education, it is unlikely that they will backfill the lost revenues with higher state taxes, which means local school districts will be required to offset the lost federal revenue with increased property taxes.

Another federal “savings” that would have a devastating and unpredictable impact on state and local taxes is the 84% cut to FEMA recommended by President Trump. If FEMA is eliminated, each state would need to provide FEMA’s services, which include disaster preparedness, managing recovery centers and independently assessing damages after a disaster, and distributing direct financial aid to individuals for temporary housing and to homeowners for repairs and personal property replacement. FEMA also helps cover costs related to debris removal and infrastructure repair after a disaster and coordinates its efforts with other agencies at all levels of government to ensure coordinated, efficient and timely responses.

If FEMA is cut by 84% as Trump proposes, do state and local governments have the wherewithal to provide those kinds of services? If not, how much should they budget to ensure that they can be at least as effective as FEMA in providing support? Before answering, bear in mind that New Hampshire has received “only” $94.9 million in disaster funds since 2017, Vermont received $443.6 million during the same period, and Florida, Louisiana and Texas each received over $2.1 trillion from FEMA. Why the disparity? Because Mother Nature is apolitical: natural disasters pay no attention to state borders or political alignments. If FEMA no longer exists and a freak tornado sweeps through, say, Canaan, will the state pick up the costs? If another storm like Irene sweeps through Vermont will the state budget be able to absorb the costs?

The DOGE budget cuts are being sold to voters as “savings” based on efficiency and are justified as “necessary” because the GOP wants to extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts. But the federal “savings” will either result in the loss of needed services or require a downshift of costs to state and local governments. Some of those “inefficient” agencies, like FEMA, will be missed when they are gone. Others will be grossly understaffed.

The primary beneficiaries of extending the tax cuts are the top 1%, people who earned more than $743,247 in 2024. They would get 30% of the $400 billion tax “savings.” The next 4%, those who earned more than $320,855 last year, would get 19%. Clearly, the top 5% will be happy. The other 95% might wonder why they allowed this to happen.

Wayne Gersen is a retired public school administrator. He lives in Etna.