Some critics of DOGE assert that the effort amounts to a few raindrops in a deluge, that finding a few million here and there to snip out of nearly six trillion dollars in government spending is a waste of time, or a distraction, or a pretense to allow the big problems to continue.
Exactly Peter. If we don’t get started on fiscal responsibility we will never achieve it. It is mystifying that any taxpayer would revolt against DOGE. Just shows how easy it is to manipulate people.
Tackle this like the Ramsey method! Develop a plan then start chipping away at this debt. Nothing will be done if it isn’t properly planned and then executed properly. Totally agree it’s a must be done priority. Happy Easter!
I am reminded of Democrats' plaints during Trump 1.0 that opening up leases for drilling and fracking "won't have any meaningful impact on energy prices for YEARS". Well, within just four years, America was energy dominant and exporting - and had refilled the SPR at cheap prices. Iranian and Russian economies were seriously set back. Our economy grew at rates deemed "impossible" by "many economists". Because we took that initial step. Because we had a goal.
I look at budget cutting the same way. We have to START cutting the budget - in real dollars, not trimming growth. I'd prefer a wholesale approach to cutting: eliminate departments entirely, and within remaining departments, eliminating bureaus and agencies entirely. After a lifetime spent within and around government, I truly believe that Musk's estimation is correct - there's a solid two trillion in spending that is at least wasteful, fraudulent or duplicative. But we have to start somewhere.
DOGE’s clumsy and ill-considered cuts on the little things are undermining support for cutting the big things.
Just one of many for instances: getting rid of probationary (new) employees because they are easier to fire. This is teachers union mentality, laying off the young, energetic staffers so that Mrs. Deadwood can keep phoning in her 1997 lesson plan.
Is that the only reason to get rid of them, or one of many? There are realities that must be addressed, and union rules are among them. If an agency could make do with 50% fewer workers, why *not* start with those easiest to release?
Exactly Peter. If we don’t get started on fiscal responsibility we will never achieve it. It is mystifying that any taxpayer would revolt against DOGE. Just shows how easy it is to manipulate people.
Tackle this like the Ramsey method! Develop a plan then start chipping away at this debt. Nothing will be done if it isn’t properly planned and then executed properly. Totally agree it’s a must be done priority. Happy Easter!
I am reminded of Democrats' plaints during Trump 1.0 that opening up leases for drilling and fracking "won't have any meaningful impact on energy prices for YEARS". Well, within just four years, America was energy dominant and exporting - and had refilled the SPR at cheap prices. Iranian and Russian economies were seriously set back. Our economy grew at rates deemed "impossible" by "many economists". Because we took that initial step. Because we had a goal.
I look at budget cutting the same way. We have to START cutting the budget - in real dollars, not trimming growth. I'd prefer a wholesale approach to cutting: eliminate departments entirely, and within remaining departments, eliminating bureaus and agencies entirely. After a lifetime spent within and around government, I truly believe that Musk's estimation is correct - there's a solid two trillion in spending that is at least wasteful, fraudulent or duplicative. But we have to start somewhere.
One of Obama's biggest fumbles was "we can't drill our way to lower gas prices." Conveniently forgotten.
DOGE’s clumsy and ill-considered cuts on the little things are undermining support for cutting the big things.
Just one of many for instances: getting rid of probationary (new) employees because they are easier to fire. This is teachers union mentality, laying off the young, energetic staffers so that Mrs. Deadwood can keep phoning in her 1997 lesson plan.
Is that the only reason to get rid of them, or one of many? There are realities that must be addressed, and union rules are among them. If an agency could make do with 50% fewer workers, why *not* start with those easiest to release?