Donald Trump, DOGE and Elon Musk are not the real problems

February 18, 2025

Things have certainly been active lately, especially since November 5th, and even more so since January 20th.

President Donald Trump and his administration are getting started doing the things he campaigned on. And the opposition party is quite active in objecting to, and opposing virtually everything Trump and his administration are doing to drain the swamp and restore the government to its proper role and size.

The newly formed temporary agency, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is at the center of the controversy, with the socio-liberal faction freaking out at new levels. 

The leftists, whose previous actions to get Trump disqualified and jailed did not succeed, are vocally livid. They don’t complain about the misuse of billions of taxpayer dollars, they are angry at the investigators.

Some comments appearing in The Hill: “’He’s pushing the boundaries of a system as far as they can go,’ said one Democrat who works for an outside organization planning to take action as part of the burgeoning new resistance.”

“’This guy is doing some crazy [expletive deleted],’ added a second Democrat who is also involved in planning efforts. ‘This isn’t jamming through a nominee. This is when it starts to be alarming.’” 

“While Elon Musk is pouring gasoline and dropping lit matches across the federal government, voters don’t want their elected representatives acting like deer in the headlights,” said Karthik Ganapathy.

Discussing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y., Ganapathy said: “AOC in particular is modeling what effective, clear leadership looks like. Making sense of the chaos and helping people understand what they can do to make a difference. We need more members following her lead.”

From Politico: “Ocasio-Cortez urged Democrats to ‘blow this place up.’ ‘We should not comply in advance,’ she said. ‘We should not make it easy for them to do what they need to do if they’re going to do it anyway. Make them do it anyway, but not with our help.’

In an interview, AOC said this: “This is not business as usual, and Senate Democrats should not be treating this as business as usual. We need to see a halt on all Trump nominees.”

“Some Democrats have tried to capture a sudden wave of activism that has popped up over the past week as Trump and Musk’s assault on the federal bureaucracy has come into focus. [N.Y. Sen. Chuck] Schumer, for instance, was among several Democratic lawmakers who protested Musk’s moves outside the Treasury Department on Tuesday.

“He led a boisterous crowd of lawmakers and supporters in chanting, ‘We will win.’ The crowd immediately followed by chanting, ‘Shut down the Senate.’”

Some comments made on Fox News: "[Expletive deleted], ‘shut down the Senate!’ Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., said during an anti-DOGE protest in Washington, D.C., Tuesday. ‘We are at war!’"

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., commented: "We are going to fight it legislatively. We are going to fight it in the courts. We're going to fight it in the streets." 

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said at a protest over DOGE and its chair, Elon Musk, earlier this month, "We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your [expletive deleted], and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain’t it."

And Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. said: "We will fight their violation of civil service laws. We will fight their violation of civil rights laws. We will fight their violations of separation of powers. We will fight their violations of our Constitution of the United States of America. We will not shut up. We will stick up. We will rise up." 

There are some obvious problems with some of these comments. But the main problem is that these people either think this process is not legal or constitutional, or they know that it is legitimate, and are just saying it isn’t to get their base angrier.

In organized protests some participants were carrying signs that said things like, “Elon Musk was not elected!” That is true. But Alejandro Mayorkas was not elected. Nor was Merrick Garland, Anthony Blinken, Anthony Fauci, or the bureaucrats who mis-spent billions of dollars at the USAID. All of them were appointed or hired through proper means, as was Musk.

DOGE is not a cabinet agency, it is a temporary administrative agency created by Trump’s executive order. The president has the authority and the duty to control administrative agencies and departments. Cleaning up messes like wasteful spending and improper actions is precisely what a president should do.

DOGE did not have to be approved by Congress. And, as an appointed government official, Musk does not require Congressional confirmation and has legitimate authority.

So, what the country now faces has two parts. One is a legitimate effort to clean up inefficient government agencies and departments, curb wasteful spending and eliminate excessive regulations.

The other is a politically-oriented opposition effort highlighted by adolescent behavior and vile discourse attacking the administration, and thereby creating anger among its followers, increasing the risk of lawlessness and violence.

In the efforts to prevent the correction of their mechanisms of inappropriate government actions and improper spending of taxpayer money, the leftists are the ones endangering “our democracy.”

Why do Democrats oppose making government more efficient?

February 11, 2025

That our federal government is too big, too powerful and too expensive is something that cannot be successfully argued. And President Donald Trump’s efforts to restore the government to its designed size and function has stirred a great deal of comment.

In particular, the examination of the expenditures of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has created quite a buzz on both sides of the political spectrum. USAID employs nearly 10,000 people and has an annual budget of $40-to-$50 billion.

USAID was not created by Congress, as federal departments and agencies usually are, but by an executive order of former president John F. Kennedy in 1961. However, Congress later passed a measure giving the agency the same security as one directly created by Congress.

Trump created the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) through an executive order he signed on Inauguration Day. DOGE will be a temporary organization within the White House, and will have 18 months — until July 4, 2026 — to carry out its mission.

Its mission is to reduce federal spending, shrink the size and increase the efficiency of the federal government. DOGE, through its leader, Elon Musk, has focused much attention on the actions of USAID.

USAID has great potential to assist in important and valuable efforts across the globe, and has often done just that. However, some of its spending may not be the best use of our tax dollars. This is especially true when you understand that the federal government has been spending ridiculous amounts of money beyond what was available for many years.

This ignoring of economic responsibility has created a National Debt of well over $36 trillion dollars, through many years of budget deficits under a long list of presidents.

Some of the USAID expenditures sound useful. Items such as $37 million to the World Health Organization; $12 million in support services to the Bureau for Resilience, Environment, and Food Security; $4 million in funding for the Center for Climate-Positive Development; and maybe even the $6 million spent for non-emergency funding for redundant administrative supports for the Center of Excellence.

But, alas, not all make sense, and some, on a list that White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt brought to a press conference, are plainly inappropriate:

* $2 million for sex changes and "LGBT activism" in Guatemala.

* $6 million advertising to fund tourism in Egypt. 

* Over $4.5 million to “combat disinformation” in Kazakhstan.

* Up to $10 million worth of USAID-funded meals went to al Qaeda-linked terrorist group the Nusra Front.

* Nearly $25 million awarded to Deloitte to promote green transportation in Georgia (the country). 

* $4.67 million to EcoHealth Alliance, one of the key nongovernmental organizations funding bat virus research at Wuhan Institute of Virology, in late 2021, which later refused to answer key questions about the funding.  

Administration efforts through DOGE to audit USAID spending have been met with resistance. Newly confirmed Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was also named the USAID’s acting administrator, said in an interview that USAID 

is guilty of "rank insubordination" and is "completely unresponsive" to questions and requests, adding "we had no choice but to bring this thing under control." 

It has “basically evolved into an agency that believes that they’re not even a U.S. Government agency, that they are out – they’re a global charity, that they take the taxpayer money and they spend it as a global charity irrespective of whether it is in the national interest or not in the national interest,” Rubio said.

He refused to say whether the agency should be closed, but instead stressed the goal was always to reform it. "There are things that we do through USAID that we should continue to do, that make sense, and we'll have to decide, is that better through the State Department or is that better through something, you know, a reformed USAID? That's the process we're working through," he said.

Despite plans for restructuring, Rubio said the United States would remain the "most generous nation on Earth," adding, that this must be done in a way that makes sense, that’s in our national interests.

Interestingly, the opposition party has loudly complained about the way the administration has handled the matter. It is also interesting that Democrats seem unconcerned with the way taxpayer money is being misused, and with the resistance of the agency bureaucrats — who are unelected government employees — to respond to legitimate requests and orders from the administration. Instead, they call names, and charge the administration with trying to destroy our democracy and wreck the government.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “Before our very eyes, an unelected shadow government is conducting a hostile takeover of the federal government.”

And, as if that ridiculous comment wasn’t enough, he added another one: “This weekend, DOGE staffers also executed what can only be described as an illegal seizure of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.”

No doubt there will be some discomfort, as is necessary in making the broad changes that are needed in these situations. But there should be some real progress towards getting government under control, and that is a badly needed change.

Trump’s tariffs. Are they a good thing for America, or not?

February 4, 2025

One of President Donald Trump’s economic tools to equalize relationships with some other countries is to increase tariffs on foreign goods coming into the country, and impose new ones where needed.

Tariffs are taxes imposed upon goods from other countries. There are two types. A specific tariff is a charge for goods without regard for the cost of the goods, somewhat like a flat tax. Ad valorem tariffs are charges based upon the cost of the goods.

Tariffs have been around for as long as trade has existed between countries and are the subject of a vigorous economic debate. Economists do not agree on their exact effect on economic growth and government revenue. 

Trump’s idea, in part, is to get other countries to lower their tariffs on American-made goods. To do so, he will increase tariffs on them, or impose tariffs on them to equalize things, to give them a taste of their own medicine.

An example is that countries in the European Union charge a 10 percent tariff on American automobiles, but the U.S. only charges a 2.5 percent tariff on the autos imported from the European Union. Trump thinks this makes no sense, and has threatened to raise the tariff to 25 percent unless the EU reduces their tariff. There are other similar situations.

Tariffs can also be used to encourage other countries to do things that the U.S. needs and wants, such as an increase of the tariffs to 25 percent on oil and other products coming from Canada and Mexico, and also for Mexico and Canada to do a better job stopping drugs and illegals coming across their borders into our country.

Both Canada and Mexico have objected to this idea that was floated recently. The tariffs were to take effect February 4th.

He is also considering a 10 percent tariff on chemicals coming here from China that are used to make fentanyl, in addition to existing tariffs, and to increase those other tariffs on other Chinese products.

The MasterClass website offers these points on tariffs: “One common reason to enact tariffs is to promote infant industries that may not otherwise be able to compete directly with more developed foreign industries. This theory was extremely important in the early days of the U.S. when high tariffs were used to shield early American industries like textiles and manufacturing.

“Tariffs have also been used to protect industries related to national security. This is why countries often protect their domestic defense and aerospace industries with tariffs on foreign manufacturers, among other policies.” 

Tariffs will likely cause price increases on consumers for imported goods, and that may make imported goods less desirable than goods produced here at home. That will have a positive economic impact. But another positive from tariffs in addition to promoting American industries and protecting them from foreign competition is that they also raise government revenue.

One person schooled in economics, Stephen Miran, defends tariffs. He is President Trump’s nominee to chair the Council of Economic Advisors, and holds a doctorate in economics from Harvard.

Miran supports imposing tariffs of 20 percent on all nations, even our allies, using security guarantees that exist for allies of the U.S. as the leverage for them to submit to the tariffs without retaliating against us.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, believes that tariffs can help resolve issues like national security and unfair competition.

While Dimon generally supports Trump’s tariff plan, he urged being thoughtful in how they are used. “Like any tool, if it’s misused, it can do damage, too,” he noted. He added that the U.S. must consider the downsides of tariffs when used on key trading partners.

And the Associated Press, no friend of Trump, predictably took the negative side: “The Republican president posted on social media that the tariffs were necessary ‘to protect Americans,’ pressing the three nations to do more to curb the manufacture and export of illicit fentanyl and for Canada and Mexico to reduce illegal immigration into the U.S.

“The tariffs, if sustained, could cause inflation to significantly worsen, threatening the trust that many voters placed in Trump to lower the prices of groceries, gasoline, housing, autos and other goods as he promised. They also risked throwing the global economy and Trump’s political mandate into turmoil just two weeks into his second term.”

The American economy is best served when Americans buy things made here. The more goods and services we produce and sell here, the more businesses and jobs we will have, the more vibrant our economy will be, and the greater the revenue that is collected by the government. 

However, if people buy foreign-made goods rather than domestic goods, our economy is less strong than otherwise.

Yes, there are downsides to tariffs. And, while Trump’s tariffs may make imported goods more expensive, with which many will disagree, by imposing positive aspects into the domestic economy, they will strengthen the economy, and that is certainly a positive result.

Agree, or disagree? Of course, there will be effects of these tariffs. But it will take some time before things shake out and we know if they were a good idea, or a bad idea.