DOGE Must Focus On Big Picture To Achieve Big Change

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

President-elect Donald Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is wasting no time in laying the groundwork for its effort to cut the size and scope of government. That Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are the right men to lead this effort is beyond doubt — Musk famously slashed the workforce at Twitter after he bought it and Ramaswamy made shrinking the federal workforce the centerpiece of his campaign for president a year ago.

They know how to find cost savings, and they have shown they are not afraid to do so.

Visiting with congressional Republicans last week, Musk and Ramaswamy even declared they would be keeping a “naughty and nice” list of those who work with them to save taxpayer money and those who do not.

To that end — because who, especially at this time of year, doesn’t want to be on a “nice” list? — here are some thoughts.

First, they are going to have to look at the big picture. They won’t find the $2 trillion Musk pledged to save by focusing on the old standby, “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Yes, they are certainly going to find plenty of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports their staff will review, but that will not be enough.

To find the big savings, they are going to have to shrink not just the size of the federal government, but its scope. The federal government is not huge just because it spends money inefficiently, it is huge because it is doing things it has no business doing.

Second, they are going to have to take advantage of the fact that much of that huge government was never specifically authorized by the Congress. The federal behemoth was created by the mass of alphabet soup executive branch agencies that have for decades been imposing regulations that have the force of law, even though the Congress never approved them.

Reversing that is going to require taking a chain saw to federal regulations. And we will need a proportionally reduced federal workforce to match the reduced federal regulatory regime. That should not be a problem; huge numbers of federal employees still have not come back to work in their offices, even though the COVID-19 crisis ended years ago. The DOGE should recommend that any federal employee who refuses a directive to come back to work in the office should be terminated. That will save taxpayer money, too — a 10% cut in the federal workforce would yield about $40 billion in savings every year.

Third, recognize that to make permanent change, executive orders will not be enough — because executive orders can be reversed by the next president. Laws, on the other hand, can only be overturned with new action by the Congress and the president. That makes laws tougher to overturn.

One of the legislative changes that would serve the long-term interest in getting the federal government under control would be passage of the REINS Act, a proposed law that would require any federal agency that wanted to impose a new regulation that would have a significant impact on the economy to first gain approval from Congress in the form of an affirmative vote in both houses, and then the signature of the president. As I said when discussing this on my recent podcast with American Commitment’s Phil Kerpen, ‘Imagine that — Congress votes on something before it becomes law!”

A second legislative change that could help make a major difference would be reform of the civil service laws that govern the federal workforce. Musk and Ramaswamy are going to recommend significant elimination of positions in the federal workforce. Under the current system, it is significantly more difficult to remove employees than it is in the private sector — even employees who engage in insubordination or flagrantly breaking rules. And before you retort, “but the tradeoff they agree to, and that we must honor, is that civil service employees accept lower compensation in exchange for that greater job security,” a recent analysis by the Cato Institute shows that “the average federal civilian worker made $157,000 in wages and benefits in 2023, much higher than the average U.S. private sector wages and benefits of $94,000.”

Greater job security on top of higher compensation? That wasn’t the deal.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) introduced his MERIT Act in the last Congress. It was a proposed law that would have strengthened agency management’s power to remove poor employees, expedited timelines and made other reforms to bring the system closer to the private-sector model. Something along those lines could be extremely helpful as federal managers move to meet their reduced workforce needs.

The DOGE enterprise begins with broad public support — a recent poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for the organization I lead, Tea Party Patriots Action, shows that 71% of Americans support the creation of DOGE and 65% support firing government employees who do not return to their offices to work.

Musk and Ramaswamy have taken on a huge task, and they recognize the opportunity before them. By focusing on big-picture efforts to shrink the size and the scope of the federal government, they can help restore it to its constitutional moorings, with government officials in a smaller, less intrusive, less expensive government that is more responsive to the needs, desires, and authority of the citizens on whose behalf and in whose name they toil.

Jenny Beth Martin is honorary chairman of Tea Party Patriots Action.

Related Topics:#DailyCaller #ElonMusk #VivekRamaswamy DepartmentOfGovernmentEfficiency DOGE FederalWorkforce JennyBethMartin PresidentElectTrump

Up Next

Freedumb, You Say?

Don't Miss

‘Source Of Profound Regret’: Firm Pays Half Billion Settlement To Avoid Criminal Prosecution For Fueling Opioid Crisis

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

First Good Battlefield News From Trump’s Global War on Fentanyl

Opinion / 8 hours ago

Some scientists advocate creating human bodies for ‘spare parts.’

International / 11 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Business

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Published on April 1, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.

On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial industrial carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.

“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.

Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”

“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.

The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.

The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.

“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.

“We’ve got a carbon tax on power — and that’s going to be gone now — and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.

“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.

The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

CanvasJS.com

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.