America Is Going Broke. Will the Department of Government Efficiency Help?
Eliminating the deficit requires cutting the biggest spending—defense, Medicare, Social Security. So far, Trump says he won't touch those.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has started making moves.
The D.C. media are furious about his attempts to cut government agencies.
But I take Elon Musk's side.
More efficient government has been promised often. It's never happened.
Instead, government just grew.
Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) showcases stupid government "investments" like the $118,000 study of finger snapping, which the National Science Foundation said was "inspired by the infamous finger snap of the [comic book] villain 'Thanos.'" The government concluded that "varying degrees of friction between the fingers alters…performance of a snap."
Gee, thanks.
They even spent thousands of dollars to study whether Neil Armstrong, landing on the moon, said: "One small step for man," or "one small step for a man."
NASA says no "a" is audible in the recordings, and I never heard an "a," but we all paid for an expensive study in which the Science Foundation concluded, "Ambiguity exists."
Gee, thanks.
They also spent $1.5 million to study ways to improve the taste of tomatoes. Researchers found that sugar helps.
America is going broke. Silly rich people should fund such frivolous research. Taxpayers shouldn't.
But each special interest will fight for its life, and even if Musk cuts all such funding, it would barely affect our ever-increasing deficit.
Let's look at bigger cuts:
In my new video, Chris Edwards, editor of the Cato Institute's "Downsizing Government" website, says, "The first thing I would cut is over a trillion dollars in subsidies to states and local governments—K-12 school funding, school lunch funding, food stamp funding."
Giving people food stamps sounds kind, but Edwards notes that, "Taxpayers fund candy and cake," and when "state governments ask to eliminate junk food…they aren't allowed to."
Really. States aren't allowed to limit welfare payments for junk food.
Edwards also proposes cuts to corporate welfare: "Federal government spends $180 billion a year subsidizing corporations…but that doesn't help the average person."
More could be saved by selling the government's stockpile of "an unbelievable 300,000 buildings."
Many sit empty. The ones in my video look first class, but government still won't sell them.
Nor do bureaucrats sell land they don't use. The federal government owns a lot, including most of the land in America's west.
"We don't know the market value," says Edwards, "It is in the trillions."
Instead of selling, politicians print more money and use it to buy even more land, like Biden's recent purchase of 640 acres in Wyoming.
President Donald Trump says he will make cuts. Will he? Last time he didn't.
This time he seems more serious about it.
He recently moved to end Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, telling federal DEI workers, "Don't come in."
But he's still paying them!
"It's very difficult to fire federal workers," Edwards points out.
Also, even if Trump managed to fire every federal employee, it still wouldn't eliminate the deficit.
It's almost impossible to do that without cutting the biggest spending—defense, Medicare, Social Security. So far, Trump says he won't touch those.
"Trump does not have to solve the entire deficit problem in his four years in office," says Edwards, "but he's got to get the ball rolling."
Government doesn't need to balance the budget. If it just slowed spending growth, the private economy might grow enough to reduce our debt.
But how can the private sector grow when there are so many regulations?
"SpaceX had to do a study to see if Starship would hit a shark," Musk complains. He says he told the regulators, "It's a big ocean, you know? There's a lot of sharks. It's not impossible."
When regulators finally dropped their shark objections, Musk thought the SpaceX launch was approved. "We said, 'OK, now we're done.' And they said, 'What about whales?…If the rocket goes underwater, then explodes, and the whales have hearing damage?' This is real! It goes on and on."
Maybe Musk will change that. Hope so. To overcome our ruinous deficits, we need growth. To get that, we need less government spending and fewer rules.
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Eliminating the deficit requires cutting the biggest spending—defense, Medicare, Social Security. So far, Trump says he won't touch those.
Donnie is the self professed King of Debt. But he did lie about $50 million worth of condoms that he said were sent to Gaza.
You’re so desperate. It doesn’t matter what lies you spew. You lost, and Trump is destroying all your evil works.
Oh, and you fuck kids. Amd if Reason continues to destroy itself, I will buy it cheap and rebuild. And make no mistake, federal law enforcement will be made away of your pedophillic activities.
Best that you fuck off out of here.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Go fuck yourself, you little bitch.
But he did lie about $50 million worth of condoms that he said were sent to Gaza.
He said “sent to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas”, and he was right. You ought to know that whatever
USAIDMSDNC tells you is a lie invariably turns out to have been true a week later. Your so lucky that you don't have a sense of shame because you would have offed yourself years ago otherwise.Also, Biden’s State Dept. Gave $25K to Ecuadorian Drag Queens.
Also, eight million a year to Politico: We do indeed appear to be funneling large sums of tax money to
Politico so that some bureaucrats can read left-wing journalists complain about Republicans
Also, $10,000,000 to Reuters for social engineering
No, really. Social engineering. Enough to keep Jeffy in Ho Hos.
It's not just Politico and Reuters. The Associated Press has been raking in millions of dollars in government money for years.
The AP's bias also makes perfect sense.
No wonder these media companies don't act like they are beholden to the American people, let alone obligated to report the truth or hold the U.S. government accountable.
They're getting millions of government dollars in subscription and media contracts. Makes sense.
USAID Funded NY Times, BBC Too
Why did USAID give $68+ million to the World Economic Forum?
Democrats sent $45M of our taxpayer dollars to Gaza for abortions
They had to because Trump stole Hamas's condom money.
This is wild:
90% of Ukraine’s media is funded by CIA cut-out USAID
I assume the other 10% is covered by CIA cut-out NED
Washington has saturation propaganda control of a country of 40 million people
Source: Reporters Without Borders
What we’re finding out in real time is the entire modern left is just smoke and mirrors.
There is no left wing voter base, all the elections are rigged and fake, all the liberal media outlets have no audience and are kept alive by USAID funding. All their politicians and political pundits are paid by USAID to say what the government wants.
The whole thing was a house of cards.
Chelsea Clinton casually taking home $84 million
If you are wondering where your Taxpayer Money is, it’s in the Clinton Foundation Bank Accounts!!
The #1 beneficiary of USAID in the world is the Clinton Foundation.
Imagine that!!
There is no left wing voter base, all the elections are rigged and fake, all the liberal media outlets have no audience and are kept alive by USAID funding. All their politicians and political pundits are paid by USAID to say what the government wants.
The whole thing was a house of cards.
I've said for a while that I think Reason is just a bunch of nameplates and ghostwritten or AI-generated content. If you extrapolate outwards, the 2024 DNC platform as a society-wide AI-generated hallucination makes a lot of sense.
You may be right, mad.casual.
I'm going to go search Reason writers names on the USAID site right now.
Here's the graph for how taxpayer $$$ get to the Reason Foundation. We'll have to analyze it tomorrow morning:
https://datarepublican.com/expose/?custom_graph=521943638%2C521338892%2C64298125%3B521338892%2C520846183%2C312658%3B520846183%2C951922279%2C810431%3B951922279%2C110303001%2C104696%3B110303001%2C953298239%2C909650%3B521344831%2C941156365%2C200000%3B941156365%2C311640316%2C245000%3B311640316%2C953298239%2C103920%3B943027961%2C522096845%2C146636%3B522096845%2C750964565%2C150000%3B750964565%2C311640316%2C225912%3B131624046%2C042103594%2C430084%3B042103594%2C262048480%2C385000%3B262048480%2C953298239%2C50000%3B132702768%2C521257057%2C953939%3B521257057%2C840399006%2C153990%3B840399006%2C262048480%2C359586%3B131656647%2C131624046%2C114401%3B133586432%2C135598093%2C47661%3B135598093%2C042103594%2C1542106%3B132702768%2C943110973%2C195451%3B943110973%2C475172476%2C200000%3B475172476%2C042104021%2C25000%3B042104021%2C250965466%2C21000%3B250965466%2C522166327%2C96189%3B522166327%2C953298239%2C5219585%3B521344831%2C822385660%2C577547%3B822385660%2C250965591%2C23333%3B250965591%2C020222111%2C43451%3B020222111%2C237160400%2C20000%3B237160400%2C522166327%2C100000%3B131624046%2C250965591%2C541284%3B520846183%2C250965219%2C224733%3B250965219%2C042103547%2C100428%3B042103547%2C020222111%2C119269%3B521338892%2C943027961%2C2284520%3B750964565%2C592396243%2C15000%3B592396243%2C141782466%2C10000%3B141782466%2C953298239%2C11100%3B133586432%2C852810883%2C135396%3B852810883%2C943213100%2C22496%3B943213100%2C416029402%2C150000%3B416029402%2C592396243%2C68000&title=THE%20REASON%20FOUNDATION&return_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatarepublican.com%2Fofficers%2F%3Fnonprofit_kw%3DReason
Here's the graph for how taxpayer $$$ get to the Reason Foundation. We'll have to analyze it tomorrow morning:
That's a pretty clean bill of health. If you do the math, a few cents at most makes if from USAID to Reason.
I say use the extra 60000 IRS sphincter clenchers to audit every dept where DOGE finds 'irregularities and absurdities'. At least they wont be turned on the US citizen and can keep to the fat cats like it was sold as... that they would only audit worth over $X
AP also.
Looks like we'd better end ALL "charitable" tax deductions. Really!
LOL (NSFW - Shooting, mass grave):
Joel: We’re American journalists.
Soldier: You told me that already.
Joel: Okay, we… we work for Reuters.
Soldier: Reuters doesn’t sound American.
Joel: (STUTTERS) It’s a news agency.
Soldier: I know what Reuters is.
Joel: Sir. Okay. I’m just saying…
Soldier: Just saying, just what?
Joel: We’re American, okay?
Soldier: Okay. What kind of American are you?
I love how you complain about "social engineering" when Team Red is very definitely socially engineering you.
That grant to Reuters was from the Active Social Engineering Defense program from the Department of Defense. Go ahead and read about it here:
https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/active-social-engineering-defense
In short, Reuters got a grant to try to convince people not to click on malware or phishing links.
Now I don't think Reuters should have gotten that grant, because I think it's a waste of money. Not because I think it is some scary sinister plot to re-engineer society.
But this strategy follows your team's playbook for the past several years now. You all know that you cannot win arguments via logical and rational discourse. So you invent scandal and generate outrage in order to trigger an emotional response instead.
Reality: Reuters got a grant to try to convince people not to click on malware links.
Normal person: Well, maybe that is not the best use of money, but it seems like a worthwhile goal...
Team Red Version: Reuters got a grant for SOCIAL ENGINEERING! From the GUBMINT!
Normal person: Wow, that sounds scary and dangerous! Let's burn the whole thing down!
You all just cannot be honest about any of this. From "the Disinformation Bureau is MiniTrue come to life!!!", to "they're teaching Critical Race Theory in schools!!!" to "the FBI is investigating parents who protested at school board meetings!!!" to "the Haitians in Springfield are eating pets!!!", it is the same formula:
- Take an issue that Team Red wants to adopt
- Manipulate the public by generating the most outrageous, sensationalist take on the issue
- Ride the predictable emotional outrage into votes and power
And you let your Team Red masters do this to you. You're a willing dupe of Team Red's "social engineering".
They literally say that they are paying them for "Social Engineering" you stupid Nazi fuck.
You and your DNC party sources can spin this as hard as you fucking can, but it still doesn't change the fact that a press organization was being paid by fucking DND, Nazi.
I imagine that with the moneypot disappearing your job here will be finished soon, so let me give you a farewell Fuck-you, Jeffy. You're the reason humans evolved middle fingers.
If the government says it's so there is no question it has to be so. Social engineering is not clicking on links. It is the DNC and their news outlets using the illusionary truth effect to brainwash the weak minded. That comment proves it works.
Remember when Politico leaked the Dobbs decision and conservative Supreme Court justices were almost assassinated?
Turns out that was govt-funded
If you actually look into that grant to Politico - which takes like 1 second of Google searching - you would learn that the grant came from the Department of the Interior, specifically the National Parks Service. Gee, why would the National Parks Service buy subscriptions to Politico? Maybe the money really isn't for subscriptions to Politico. Maybe the money is... perhaps... ads on Politico for the national parks? No! Couldn't be! It must be the worst possible interpretation that your team could generate - "money going to left-wing bureaucrats to pay for their subscriptions".
We might know this if we could look at other Dept. of the Interior grants made to other organizations, to see if this was part of an ad campaign. But, very predictably, your team refuses to provide any context whatsoever to that claim. Because they want to manipulate you. They don't want you to be well-informed. They want you be ignorant and driven by emotion and outrage.
The Politico specifically seems to be waste rather than corruption. In fact most of it seems to be unaccountable bureaucrats handing out subscriptions and never bothering to close them because the money seems endless. That is EXACTLY what this audit is supposed to find.
As for the news, every question from DOGE has been treated like stormtroopers entering the Jedi temple. So I have a no compunction with them announcing every finding immediately
Other outlays:
$1 million to boost French-speaking LGBTQ groups in West and Central Africa through the State Department.
$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at the southern border through the State Department.
$20,600 for a drag show in Ecuador through the State Department.
$47,020 for a transgender opera in Colombia through the State Department.
$32,000 for an LGBTQ-centered comic book in Peru through the State Department.
$55,750 for a climate change presentation warning about the impact of climate change in Argentina to be led by female and LGBT journalists through the State Department.
$3,315,446 for “being LGBTQ in the Caribbean” through USAID.
$7,071.58 for a BIPOC speaker series in Canada through the State Department.
$80,000 for an LGBTQ community center in Bratislava, Slovakia through the State Department.
$3.2 million to help Tunisian migrants readjust to life in Tunisia after deportation through the State Department.
$16,500 to foster a “united and equal queer-feminist discourse in Albanian society” through the State Department.
$10,000 to pressure Lithuanian corporations to promote “DEI values” through the State Department.
$8,000 to promote DEI among LGBTQ groups in Cyprus through the State Department.
$1.5 million to promote job opportunities for LGBTQ individuals in Serbia through USAID.
$70,884 to create a U.S.-Irish musical to promote DEI in Ireland through the State Department.
$39,652 to host seminars at the Edinburgh International Book Festival on gender identity and racial equality through the State Department.
$2.5 million to build electric vehicle charging stations in Vietnam’s largest cities through USAID.
$425,622 to help Indonesian coffee companies become more climate and gender friendly through USAID.
Here, let's just take a look at one of these:
$425,622 to help Indonesian coffee companies become more climate and gender friendly through USAID.
This is the actual program that was funded:
https://web.archive.org/web/20241206093415/https://www.usaid.gov/indonesia/fact-sheets/resilient-coffee-climate-action-and-access-finance-coffee-enterprises
So if you actually look at what the grant really did, it was not some crazy radical left-wing idea. It is a pro-business grant. It was ultimately about helping small independent Indonesian farmers become better at the business of growing and selling coffee.
So I don't think the government should be spending money to help Indonesian farmers become better coffee entrepreneurs. It's a waste of money. Furthermore I don't think the government should be spending money in support of the investments of these private capital and beverage firms, that is just another form of corruption and cronyism. But I also don't think this grant is some radical left-wing lunacy.
But, true to form, your team chose to use the right-wing "trigger words" of CLIMATE and GENDER to frame your opposition to this grant. You don't want to discuss this rationally, you want to purposefully generate outrage.
I'm willing to bet that if I looked at every item on that list, for most of them, I would find something similar: that the grant in question is probably wasteful, but ultimately not some crazy radical lunatic idea.
Lie harder, Lying Jeffy. The facts are there no matter how you twist and spin them.
What if I told you….
They were horse condoms. They stamped them “medium” to mess with Hamas’s minds.
^pedophile.
Trumps DOJ should take a look at his hard drive.
Yup. He’d be perfect for El Salvador prisons.
Great idea!
If I buy Reason at some point, you can count on that.
If they were dependent on USAID you might have a chance.
The next four years are going to be great! I wonder how many leftoids will kill themselves?
It's much more likely that they'll kill Trump.
They’d deserve everything that happened to them after doing that.
Anyone else find it hilarious that the fake libertarians here attacking any and all audits of government spending and graft was the same contingent against any audit of the 2020 elections?
The graft already exposed is amazing.
Gunther Eagleman™
@GuntherEagleman
BREAKING: Trump just called for investigations to find out who's getting kickbacks from all the ludicrous money spent at USAID.
Now you know why Democrats are sweating.
They know the Hammer of Justice is coming.
CC:
@DOGE
Rapid Response 47
@RapidResponse47
PRESIDENT TRUMP: "The train that's being built between Los Angeles and San Francisco is the worst managed project that I think I've ever seen... Hundreds of billions of dollars over budget... We're going to start an investigation of that."
"...PRESIDENT TRUMP: "The train that's being built between Los Angeles and San Francisco is the worst managed project that I think I've ever seen... Hundreds of billions of dollars over budget... We're going to start an investigation of that."..."
It is nothing but an immense virtue-signal by Moonbeam and Newsom; pretty sure it is over the total budget and the management does their best to make it hard to find the miles completed.
It appears as if some 50 miles are complete in the cheapest part of the line (flat, little seismic activity), leaving 90% of the most expensive portion to be DESIGNED, let alone completed (no way you're going to make an 80-mile tunnel through the Tehachapi).
Take it out behind the barn and kill it with a pitchfork.
I like the idea of a 200mph run through the Tehachapi Loop. Bank the tracks enough to negate side loads and keep the speed up, everyone on board gets to pull 1.5G like the spiral on a roller coaster.
I mean, you're never getting to Union Station. Ever. Exactly how much you'll have to eminent domain between the mountains and downtown makes the wildfire damage in Palisades look like pocket change. So why not dream big about this shit? It's not like it's ever getting built.
^+ 1. We have a hole in the ground in SF which is going to cost the SF taxpayers a lot of money, and will never see a passenger.
Point of order the train is suppose to run betewwn Bakersfield and Mercedes.
They say LA to sf, but look at a map
Every penny helps.
It's almost impossible to do that without cutting the biggest spending—defense, Medicare, Social Security.
That's what I've been saying here for years (without the "almost"). Stossel must read the comments.
Well then, let's get busy.
He's not helping his case by including "defense", nor are you:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?
view=detailV2&ccid=3t2iQdki&id=D12335B41436384B57B4BDB7FCF55E322984B799&thid=OIP.3t2iQdkiXuumRGG5yq13fgHaGu&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2f4.bp.blogspot.com%2f-qg-jLdptJBs%2fXKo3d5BLNMI%2fAAAAAAAAA04%2fGS5ykPfRRO0wYcwyQy1QULLAN8y1chVYwCLcBGAs%2fs1600%2f2018-Budget-Pie-Chart.png&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.dedda241d9225eeba64461b9caad777e%3frik%3dmbeEKTJe9fy3vQ%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1118&expw=1232&q=National+Budget+Pie-Chart&simid=608013249505608189&FORM=IRPRST&ck=408DB1D4F6F09220ACF144F4B98E9CA3&selectedIndex=1&itb=0
Defense represents 15%. Medical aid and S/S represent nearly 50%.
Defense (qua defense) is a proper role for the fed gov't, not so social spending, especially since the government is so incompetent in doing so.
I agree that defense is the odd man out among those expenditures. Still, it's not as though the DOD couldn't stand to lose probably half of its funding and still be able to serve its Constitutionally valid role. Didn't we just heat about something like 15k trannies in the military being told to go? How about the military not pay to give Jim a sweet set of tits?
They’re not even that sweet…
"Still, it's not as though the DOD couldn't stand to lose probably half of its funding and still be able to serve its Constitutionally valid role."
OK, let's see your justification for a 7% cut.
TBF, didn’t the last Pentagon audit show they had nearly 1Trillion they couldn’t account for?
Start there.
Yeah, The DOD is just as wasteful, probably more than any federal dept. And since they have a relatively large percentage of the budget, they should definitely not be exempt from this government waste fishing expedition.
We're going to need that efficiency for our Forever Gaza War anyway.
It's not impossible to cut military spending if we bring the troops home, stop trying to fight the Global War on Everything and refocus the spending on maintenance, development and retention of critical skills. When the brass are satisfied that a new weapon system is appropriate, the purchase order should not be changed - EVER! Oh, and by the way: shift some of the corps cadre to old-timey local militias a la Switzerland. Call them up if and when America is attacked militarily by a foreign nation the next time.
I was a DoD contractor for 30yrs. There are a ton of fat and useless programs that never see the light of day. My experience is that it is mostly on the backs of the DoD Civilians + Nefarious contractors. Some stuff gets done but the entire process is dependent on the quality of the Civilians. I've worked on tight programs that produced a needed product for pocket change. I've also worked on stuff that had gobs of money with only a few thousand power point slides to show for it.
And yet, somehow, over a trillion has been identified without any of those "very high hanging fruits".
I understand that dept of Defense (?) failed its audit for the last 8 years. How about cutting its budget every year by the amount or 2x the amount of its "missing" funds? Ditto all agencies with "lost" funds?
I like the way you think!
"It's almost impossible to do that without cutting the biggest spending—defense, Medicare, Social Security."
Agreed. The problem is, you need a congressional majority that's willing and coherently on board, and that means also 60 members of the senate.
I'm glad at least Stossel is praising what Trump is able to do himself on cutting spending and, maybe more important, stopping the funding of the Democrat-friendly operatives through these horrible agencies.
One would think Reason would be filled with positive articles on this. After years of articles pointing out corruption and finishing with, essentially, "what are you gonna do?" - It's extremely refreshing to see Trump detailing specific corruption and ending its funding in the same sentence.
Reason seems to have swallowed their own "worst nightmare" scenarios about Trump nazification of America and forgotten that almost nothing Trump might do now could be worse than the last ninety years of government growth already. They're not really against shrinking government; they're just confused that he's not doing it through the already failed "constitutional" processes that haven't worked for decades.
If you want to cut funding for school lunches, don't just hand it back to the Dept of Defense to fatten wasteful contractors. Don't use it to pay Elon Musk's corporations to land on Mars either. In a choice between school lunches and paying for Mars exploration, I'll pick school lunches.
So go pay for a school lunch.
Why does anyone need Gov - 'Guns' in such simple choices?
What happened to parents being responsible for feeding their children?
What happened to billionaires being responsible for their own space exploration fantasies?
Why is space exploration a fantasy?
Because Rocket Man bad!
I don't know. Why don't you go ask.
John McCormack (D-MA) author of the National Aeronautics and Space Act
And the 85th Congress [D] Senate & [D] House that passed it.
In my new video, Chris Edwards, editor of the Cato Institute's "Downsizing Government" website, says, "The first thing I would cut is over a trillion dollars in subsidies to states and local governments—K-12 school funding, school lunch funding, food stamp funding."
Chris Edwards is/was obviously speaking in a strictly impartial/detached and potentially ignorant regard. Running on cutting school lunch and food stamps would get you laughed out of the election. Now, running on getting rid of the Department of Education and letting states fund their own school lunch programs... that might actually get done.
"Trump does not have to solve the entire deficit problem in his four years in office," says Edwards, "but he's got to get the ball rolling."
FFS, we're 2.5 weeks in.
Does anybody else get a disjointed vibe between what Stossel's saying and what Edwards is saying? Like what Marc St. Stephen says, Stossel is appreciative of the effort so far whereas Edwards/Cato is reluctantly and strategically making the point that Trump isn't doing enough.
I just watched a pretty good analysis of the Democrats' response to Trump and the takeaway was, Trump is moving so fast, in so many directions at once, that the Democrats are on their back foot and are unable to respond before he commits another outrage of swamp-draining.
Spiked interviews Jennifer Sey.
Sey is a good follow on twitter.
[Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] broke the USA.
As it has done time and time and time again......
And all the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] are angry because their 'Guns' didn't actually make sh*t for them.
Great Article Stossel.
It's almost impossible to do that without cutting the biggest spending—defense, Medicare, Social Security. So far, Trump says he won't touch those.
He can't. All three of those would take SERIOUS legislative action - and those gutless career politicians won't dare.
But if they did, I'll bet dollars to dimes he'd sign the bills. He's in his second term. He's got nothing to lose and doesn't care even slightly if he pisses off the half the country who spends all their time calling him a racist garbage insurrectionist dictatorial traitor.
I hope it happens particularly with Medicare just to watch the blue megacities utterly collapse a month later.
The welfare act
A wonderful example of a "I don't care what laws are being broken and the Constitution trampled if it gets me what I want" post.
Want to know the proper way to balance the federal government? Ask Gingrich and Clinton, they did it legally though negotiations and politics.
If you desire gradual and incremental [aka very small and insignificant] change, your method will certainly work.
My post from another article this morning:
"I think nothing this exciting has happened in Washington since the War of 1812. This is like the dread pirate Trump has just landed with his buccaneers, and he's going to start breaking stuff."
How would I describe our government up to this point?
Overbudget
Overspent
Overtaxing
Over regulated
Over reaching
Over sized
IOW, completely out of bounds.
It's taking a blunt instrument to address this in any effective manner; you don't negotiate with the swamp; they will obfuscate and obstruct at every step to preserve their parasitic way of life. You blow it up and drain it.
Will there be collateral damage? Most likely, and some of it may adversely affect me or those I care about; but when government has grown into something horrible and unrecognizable, only drastic action will achieve anything to bring it within bounds. As for the personal cost, it's called sacrifice; we won't be the first in a long line of those who loved and served our country who often paid much much more.
The point is that our democracy is too high of a price to pay. If the president is free to ignore federal law, then we do not have a representative democracy.
You only say that because your precious little team is not in charge, Molly/Tony/Raspberry Dinners or whatever sock you happen to be today; you are the last troll who would ever defend a constitutional republic, and I for one am not gong to participate in the abuse fetish [muted]
/sigh
The Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4:
Furthermore, a text search of any variation of "democracy," "democratic," and etceteras of the Constitution and Amendments produce zero results.
"[Our] democracy" is a lie; a delusion; and a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.
^THIS +100000000000 Well Said.
[OUR] 'democracy' destroying the US Constitution.
*is* the problem.
"[Our] democracy" is a lie; a delusion; and a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.
And the "We're a republic not a democracy" argument is pedantic and disingenuous. You know quite well that most people, including MollyGodiva here, use the word "democracy" in reference to our form of government as being inclusive of the specifics of our Constitution.
You are deflecting because you don't want to address Molly's actual argument, not because her argument actually hinges on that distinction.
LOL...
"You know quite well that most people, including MollyGodiva"
How would anyone know that?
Everything leftards pitch as 'solutions' is UN-Constitutional..
I know nothing of the sort. The word "democracy" is used, in nearly every context, to mean "a government of the will of the majority." Nothing in the Constitution implies that. The Electoral College and the original appointment of Senators denies that.
The shift to the word "democracy" describing our government in political discourse is nothing more than Newspeak intended to misinform the public to enable a tyranny of the majority.
Two days on, so I don't expect a response. It is also totally a "getting in the last word" post I am making, but I want this on the record in case we end up having this conversation again in the future.
The shift to the word "democracy" describing our government in political discourse is nothing more than Newspeak intended to misinform the public to enable a tyranny of the majority.
Molly's comment that you were replying to used "democracy" once and "representative democracy" in the following sentence. This was not some attempt to shift the discourse with "Newspeak". (By the way, I haven't read that much Orwell, but the kind of cult of personality that Trump and Musk have created for themselves...? Yeah, I don't think Orwell would be on their side.)
The word "democracy" is used, in nearly every context, to mean "a government of the will of the majority."
That is not the definition of democracy. The Greek roots are demos (people) and kratis (government). Lincoln defined democracy the most eloquently, I think. It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Majoritarian democracy is one of the ways in the which the people can rule, but the only requirement for a government to be a democracy is for the people to be the sovereign that holds the ultimate power of government.
(Side note: I've never read it myself, but do you think that Plato would view the U.S. Constitution as establishing a "republic' in the way he understood the word when he wrote the work that bears that title? It seems to me from a brief overview that Plato advocated for government by elite philosopher-kings. That was his alternative to the kind of democracy that governed Athens at the time.)
Separation of powers, a written constitution, federalism...those are all ideas that the Founders turned to in order to protect against the "tyranny of the majority" you claim to abhor. Fair enough. But they still implemented a government that would function through majorities. Laws get passed within legislative bodies when a majority of representatives vote for those laws. Those representatives, and the executives, would get elected by majorities of voters (or at least a plurality). The order of a court that consists of more than one judge is the holding of the majority of the judges. The Constitution was ratified by majority votes in each of the original 13 states (either in conventions or legislatures).
Finally, you know what is worse than the tyranny of the majority? The tyranny of the minority. A government that doesn't represent the interests of at least the majority of the people will, by definition of the word "majority", only represent the interests of a minority. My preference is that we have a government where most of the laws and policies of the government are what a majority of citizens want the government to pursue, since the alternative is for those laws and policies to match the preferences of a minority. The need for checks on government power to prevent a majority from abusing government power to neglect or even oppress a minority just means exactly that - checks on government power, not that the minority must be able to wield government power instead.
That is what I see when I see arguments like yours. You don't like the word "democracy" when it means that the majority that you aren't a part of gets to make government decisions. You want that power for your side instead, and democracy won't get you that all of the time. I never see people making your argument during discussions where their side is in the majority. They never seem to want checks on majoritarian government then.
So which one? Does Clinton get credit for a balanced budget because he broke the Constitution with Executive Order to do it or does the [R] Senate & [R] House congress get credit because he didn't?
And I'll ask the same of GHWB. Does he get blamed for the deficit or does the [D] Senate & [D] House Congress?
Then tell us how 'balanced' the budget gets when there is a [D]-trifecta versus an [R]-trifecta. If you think Democrats balance a budget you've got a whole history of evidence working against you.
Hacking away at silly programs may not make much of a difference, but it does put the Democrats in the position of fighting hard to save little stupid stuff. That may make tackling big stupid stuff easier down the road.
Hacking away at silly programs may not make much of a difference, but it does put the Democrats in the position of fighting hard to save little stupid stuff.
You don't "hack away" at "little stupid stuff" with a giant axe. Not if you don't want to damage the things that you really want to keep. Shuttering whole departments because there is some wasteful spending in them? Cliches like "throwing the baby out with the bath water" are intended to warn us against exactly this kind of rash action.
Cliches like "throwing the baby out with the bath water" are intended to warn us against exactly this kind of rash action.
Except that with most of these government bureaucracies there is no actual baby in the bath water. The baby is a pretense and a smokescreen.
This actually illustrates my point. You are making a blanket statement based on no specifics and no detail and no understanding of what actual policies and what American citizens would be affected and how. You might want to pay real attention to what Musk is doing so you can tell if (or more likely, when) it affects you directly.
Also, even if Trump managed to fire every federal employee, it still wouldn't eliminate the deficit.
If every federal employee was fired, then I don't know whether "the deficit" would even be something real to talk about. There would be no one to process tax payments, so no revenue would be collected. (Maybe the computer servers at government agencies would keep operating for a while without people to monitor them, but eventually, someone needs to flip a switch to make sure the computers stay on, right?) Similarly, there would be no one to approve any payments by the government, and people would stop getting their SS checks, doctors wouldn't get reimbursed by Medicare, etc.
This is typical of Stossel. Straw men, oversimplifying complex problems, cherry picking, and red herrings. If you really want to know where government is inefficient, why it is inefficient in those areas and agencies, and what to do about it, then you have to get into the details and pull in all of the relevant information and analyze it without preconceptions or biases. You know, just like everyone does when it is their job to solve a problem or the personal stakes are YMYL (Your Money or Your Life).
But that is time consuming, and most of all, boring. You don't get people to read your articles if you make them as dense with facts and analysis as what is needed to really communicate something of value about these things.
Did Stossel say only 'anarchy' would save the budget?
Or is that just some BS imaginary straw-man you made up in your head?
Since the constitution states the federal government has to provide for the common defense of the entire country, they can't really cut defense spending. They can spend it better, as it is mismanaged, but they do have to spend taxpayer money on defense according to the Constitution.
How much to spend on defense is a policy choice. And that is what we elect Congress to do, to make those choices. If voters want Congress to spend less on defense, overall, then that is absolutely what the Constitution empowers Congress to do.
Almost all of our spending on the armed forces is for offense, not defense.
DOGE, if nothing else, will expose the waste both republicans and democrat have been engaging in for years and help end the waste and "mismanagement" (read embezzling).
No wonder the entrenched DC swamp creatures hate Musk and Trump.
DOGE, if nothing else, will expose the waste both republicans and democrat have been engaging in for years and help end the waste and "mismanagement" (read embezzling).
If that's what you want DOGE to do, then you should pay close attention to the results of what it actually does. What data and facts will DOGE report as it does its work to prove to you that it is doing what you wanted it to do? What reporting from independent news outlets will you look for to verify that DOGE isn't misleading you about the data it does provide?
These aren't rhetorical questions. Everyone should ask those kinds of questions after every election. Politicians make us promises to get elected, and so it is entirely up to us to make sure that they really followed through. Now, if we aren't going to bother doing that, and just trust them, or trust the commentators on the side of the new government, (who pretend that they are giving us objective facts rather than their opinions), then maybe it wasn't worth voting at all.
I have heard Elon Musk story of the required shark study many times, but never seen any actual proof. Is there a finished report to cite or is Musk's story just BS?