Business
DOGE Theory
One of the most intriguing developments following Donald Trump’s election victory has been the announcement of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The initiative, which hopes to cut up to $2 trillion from the federal budget, has generated notable excitement, momentum, and memes. The world’s richest man and a successful biotech entrepreneur, Ramaswamy, have revitalized what seemed to be a mostly dormant libertarianism, drawing on the inspiration of Milton Friedman and promising to slash the bureaucracy to the bone. But what are its prospects for real-world success?
Elon Musk is our era’s most gifted entrepreneur, having revolutionized several industries and run multiple major companies. But the private sector operates on radically different principles than the public sector, which has a way of stalling or disarming even the most determined efforts. I foresee three potential impediments to DOGE’s success.
First is the problem of authority. While President-elect Trump has dubbed the effort the “Department of Government Efficiency,” it is not a government department at all. Rather, Musk and Ramaswamy will remain in the private sector and preside over what is, in effect, a blue-ribbon committee providing recommendations to the president and to Congress about potential cuts. In practice, though, blue-ribbon committees are often where ideas go to die. Politicians who feel the need to “do something” about a given problem often establish such committees to create the perception of action, which masks their true desire or, at least, the eventual result: inaction.
DOGE’s challenge will be to translate its recommendations into policy. It is almost certain that an entrepreneur of Musk’s ambition will not be content with writing a report. His and Ramaswamy’s task, then, is to persuade the president and the director of the Office of Management and Budget to enact real (and politically risky) cuts, and, if possible, to persuade Congress to abolish entire departments, such as the Department of Education, in the face of left-wing backlash.
The second problem for Musk and Ramaswamy is public opinion. Libertarians and small-government conservatives have long promised to reduce the size of government; one reason that they have never done so is that federal programs and agencies are generally popular. All of the major federal departments, with the exception of the IRS, the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice, have net-positive favorability numbers. Congressional members, even conservative Republicans, fear that slashing these departments would expose them to savage criticism from the Left and backlash from voters. They know that Americans complain about the size of government in theory but oppose almost all spending cuts in practice—the key paradox that libertarians have been unable to resolve.
Musk and Ramaswamy have repeatedly appealed to the work of Argentinian president Javier Milei, who has dramatically reduced the number of departments and created flashy video clips of himself stripping down organizational charts and yelling, “Afuera!” But what is possible in Argentina, which has been mired in a decades-long economic crisis, may not be achievable in the United States, which is much more stable, and, consequently, may not have the appetite for such dramatic action.
Which brings us to the problem of politics. Sending a rocket into space requires mastery over physics, but cutting government departments requires mastery over a more formidable enemy: bureaucracy. As Musk and Ramaswamy will see, the relationship between would-be reformers and Congress is vastly different from that between a CEO and a board of directors. To succeed, Musk and Ramaswamy must persuade a group of politicians, each with their own interests, to assume a high level of risk.
DOGE’s first task—identifying the budget items to cut—is the easy part. The hard part will be actually cutting them. They will have to convince Congress, which, for nearly 100 years, has refused to reduce the size of government, even when that notion had bipartisan support, as it did during the presidency of Bill Clinton, who promised that “the era of big government is over.”
This does not mean that DOGE cannot succeed. Though there may not be an appetite for a $2 trillion reduction in government spending, there is a hunger for targeted cuts that would strip the federal government of hostile ideologies that have made our institutions dysfunctional and our national life worse. For example, slashing grant funding for critical race theory would likely win support from voters; cutting the budget for USDA meat inspectors would not, and, given opportunity costs, would probably prove unproductive as well.
Perhaps the name of this committee—the Department of Government Efficiency—is also slightly off the mark. The problem is not only about efficiency, which suggests quantity, but about orientation, which implies quality. The federal government has long been captured by ideologies that misdirect its efforts. Simply making the bureaucracy more efficient will not solve that problem. DOGE must first determine what federal spending is worthwhile; from there, it can focus on creating “efficiencies.”
I hope that Musk and Ramaswamy can dispel my pessimism. Political realities have stifled countless reform efforts before now, and DOGE is an enterprise that would be difficult, if not impossible, under normal circumstances. But these are two remarkably talented men; if anyone is capable of shattering the mold, they can.
Please share your ideas, dissents, and thoughts in the comments. In the next newsletter, we will feature the best material in a“comment of the week” section. In the meantime, have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
From LifeSiteNews
Ex-Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland announced her resignation from Parliament amid Conservative criticism that she can’t serve Canada while working for a foreign government.
Liberal MP Chrystia Freeland is stepping down from Parliament after being appointed as an adviser in Ukraine.
In a January 5 post on X, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shared the appointment of Freeland as an economic adviser to Ukraine, prompting Freeland to announce her resignation from the Canadian Parliament hours later.
“Today, I appointed Chrystia Freeland @cafreeland as an Advisor on Economic Development,” Zelensky wrote. “Chrystia is highly skilled in these matters and has extensive experience in attracting investment and implementing economic transformations.”
News of her appointment was blasted by Conservatives, who quickly pointed out that Freeland’s position in the Ukrainian government would compromise her work within the Canadian Parliament.
“You cannot serve as a member of Parliament (and collect an MP salary) while working for a foreign government,” Conservative MP Andrew Lawton wrote on X. “It’s that simple.”
Freeland responded to the backlash just hours later, revealing that she plans to resign from Parliament in the coming weeks.
“In accepting this voluntary position, I will be stepping aside from my role as the Prime Minister’s Special Representative for the Reconstruction of Ukraine,” she wrote.
“In the coming weeks, I will also leave my seat in Parliament. I want to thank my constituents for their years of confidence in me. I am so grateful to have been your representative,” Freeland concluded.
Despite serving as a Canadian MP, Freeland’s dedication to Ukraine has played an important role in her career since the beginning of the Ukraine and Russia conflict in 2022. Already, Freeland was serving as Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Canada’s new Special Representative for the Reconstruction of Ukraine.
In May, Freeland was appointed minister of transport and internal trade in Carney’s cabinet after the federal election. Freeland was previously former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s deputy prime minister and finance minister.
However, she resigned from these positions in December 2024 after Trudeau requested her resignation as finance minister.
During her time in power, Freeland was known for her ties to globalist groups and her heavy-handed response to anti-mandate protesters during COVID.
During the 2022 Freedom Convoy to protest ongoing COVID regulations, Freeland froze the bank accounts of Canadians, who donated to the protest without a court order.
Later, hearings revealed that Freeland told fellow cabinet members the Freedom Convoy supporters whose bank accounts were frozen under the Emergencies Act would not be able to access their funds until they first reported to police.
Freeland was also personally commended by Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, for working to achieve his globalist goals.
In addition to attending WEF meetings, Freeland is currently a member of the WEF Board of Trustees.
Freeland also touted the WEF’s anti-carbon narrative just days after a “renewable” energy crisis left many Canadians without power during one of 2024’s coldest weeks.
Business
President Trump And The Doomsday Glacier… a blow to the planet, or to funding for climate alarmism?
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Steve Milloy
President Donald Trump is driving climate researchers literally to the ends of the Earth as they try to save their taxpayer funding. Expect to see a slew of hand-wringing reports about, and even perhaps from, the Thwaites (aka “Doomsday”) glacier in West Antarctica.
The glacier got its nickname from a Rolling Stone reporter in 2017 in an article titled: “The Doomsday Glacier: In the farthest reaches of Antarctica, a nightmare scenario of crumbling ice – and rapidly rising seas – could spell disaster for a warming planet.”
Past the ominous title, the scare is that the Thwaites is melting and could raise sea levels by 10 feet, which would submerge about 2-3 percent of the global land mass, excluding Antarctica.
Last May, the Trump administration announced it would cut funding for the Nathaniel B. Palmer, a football field-long icebreaker that has been taking researchers to study the Thwaites glacier. In its 2026 budget request, the National Science Foundation said it was terminating the lease. There is no replacement ship on the horizon.
Researchers wanting to go to Antarctica, where it is now summer, have had to scramble for ships. This scramble has been made more challenging because ship owners and researchers, afraid of losing taxpayer funding, are also taking reporters and their crews along to dramatize the budget cuts using the backdrop of the scariest thing they can imagine – the Doomsday glacier.
New York Times reporter Raymond Zhong has already filed articles since Dec. 30. PBS has a reporter aboard a ship sending alarmist reports. Undoubtedly, there are other reports on their way as well.
Will the Doomsday glacier live up to its name? Or will it be another in a long line of failed, if not dishonest, apocalyptic climate predictions?
It seems to be true that the Thwaites glacier is melting. But there’s much more to consider just than that.
The rate of melting is very slow. A 2023 study estimated that over the next 50 years, the Thwaites glacier might add as much as a few millimeters (about one-tenth of an inch) to global sea level over the next 50 years. That is a far cry from the claim of 10 feet of sea level rise.
Next, the fate of the Thwaites doesn’t seem to have anything to do with emissions or “global warming.” Research indicates that there are 91 volcanoes under the West Antarctic ice sheet. Not surprisingly, the Thwaites glacier is melting from the inferno beneath.
Of course, the Thwaites couldn’t be melting at the surface because there’s been no warming in West Antarctica since the late 1990s. In fact, West Antarctica has cooled by about 3°F since 1999.
Another recent study reported that the Thwaites glacier started melting in the 1940s as the result of an El Nino, a little-understood, but periodic natural warming of the Pacific Ocean: “The glacier retreat in the Amundsen Sea was initiated by natural climate variability in the 1940s. That ice streams such as Thwaites Glacier and Pine Island Glacier have continued to retreat since then indicates that they were unable to recover after the exceptionally large El Niño event of the 1940s,” the researchers concluded.
The more one reads about the Thwaites glacier, the easier it becomes to understand why they have to call it the “Doomsday glacier.” Once you understand the non-threatening reality, the only way to make it scary is to give it a scary name and hope people are too frightened to look past it.
Three cheers for Trump for defunding this and other climate research. As these researchers lose their funding, maybe they can move to Hollywood and try writing disaster scripts.
Steve Milloy is a biostatistician and lawyer. He posts on X at @JunkScience.
The U.S. Just Removed a Dictator and Canada is Collateral Damage
Scathing Indictment Claims Nicolás Maduro Orchestrated Drug-Fueled ‘Culture Of Corruption’ Which Plagued Entire Region
US Justice Department Accusing Maduro’s Inner Circle of a Narco-State Conspiracy
Trump Says U.S. Strike Captured Nicolás Maduro and Wife Cilia Flores; Bondi Says Couple Possessed Machine Guns
-
Environment1 day agoLeft-wing terrorists sabotage German power plant, causing massive power outage
-
Daily Caller1 day agoMinnesota Governor resigns from re-election campaign as massive government frauds revealed
-
International18 hours agoPoilievre, Carney show support for Maduro capture as NDP’s interim leader denounces it
-
Energy1 day agoTrump’s Venezuela Move: A $17 Trillion Reset of Global Geopolitics and a Pivotal Shift in US Energy Strategy
-
International1 day agoMaduro, wife plead not guilty in first court appearance
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day agoIs Canada still worth the sacrifice for immigrants?
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoThe Olympic Shutout: No Quebec Players Invited For Canada
-
Education1 day agoMother petitions Supreme Court after school hid daughter’s ‘gender transition’