Business
DOGE Must Focus On Big Picture To Achieve Big Change

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jenny Beth Martin
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.
Business
It’s time to finally free the beer

This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Samantha Dagres and Alessia Iafano
Canada’s booze trade is a protectionist mess.
Have you ever stopped to wonder who decides what beers you’re allowed to buy? Probably not. But every time you wander into a beer store you’re browsing a lineup handpicked not just by brewers, but by bureaucrats. Your choices are less about your taste and more about politics.
Sure, you’ll find Ontario staples like Mill Street. But if you’ve got a taste for an award-winning B.C. wine, a Quebec microbrew or a small-batch rye from Saskatchewan, prepare for disappointment. Welcome to the great Canadian alcohol paradox: it’s easier to buy French wine than a bottle of craft gin from the next province over.
This absurdity gave rise to the “free the beer” movement: an effort to let Canadian alcohol flow across provincial borders like, well, an actual country. The issue hit the headlines a few years back when Gérard Comeau of New Brunswick had the gall to go on a beer run to Quebec. Instead of paying a nearly $300 fine for that cross-border booze crime, he lawyered up and took the fight to the Supreme Court. Spoiler alert: he lost. The court ruled that there’s no constitutional right to free trade within Canada. Yes, you read that correctly.
Still, Comeau’s case lit a fire under the debate. Losing the battle doesn’t always mean losing the war. Since then, there’s been modest movement toward sanity. Ottawa even announced it wanted to liberalize domestic alcohol trade earlier this year. One problem: it can’t. Canada’s Constitution gives provinces—not the federal government—control over alcohol sales. And many provinces are still clinging to their liquor fiefdoms.
To be fair, a few have started to uncork their markets. Manitoba lets you order from out-of province businesses. B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia have partially openmarkets. The rest—including Ontario—are still stuck in prohibition-era thinking.
Want to know how much Ontario’s LCBO monopoly costs you? Check your next receipt. Then subtract about one-third of the pre-tax price: that’s the LCBO’s average markup. While grocery stores survive on razor-thin margins, the government liquor store is pouring itself a nice fat profit at your expense. But it’s not just your wallet that suffers. That monopoly also limits your choices. In Ontario it’s easier to get wine from Spain than from Quebec. Welcome to Canada.
Yes, there’s been some progress. Ontario has cracked open the door to reform with recent steps to expand direct-to-consumer sales. And now, it’s making noise about taking the lead on building a national framework that would finally let Canadians buy booze from across provincial borders without jumping through flaming hoops.
Earlier this year, Ontario signed memoranda of understanding with B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia—agreements aimed at reducing trade barriers and building bilateral deals. Several other provinces have done the same.
The goal? A pan-Canadian framework to allow direct-to-consumer alcohol sales, where producers can ship across the country and consumers can buy what they actually want.
As of 2024, the domestic alcohol market was worth $15.5 billion for Canadian-made products—or $26.2 billion when you include imports. It’s not just common sense—it’s good economics. Smaller producers in particular stand to gain. In fact, 76 per cent of Canadian wineries say direct-to-consumer sales would increase their revenue in the next year.
And for consumers? Better access, better variety and—brace yourself—possibly lower prices.
The first framework agreement was promised with Manitoba by the end of June. That deadline has come and gone Still, for those who’ve been fighting to pry Canada’s alcohol trade from the grip of protectionism and provincial monopolies, the finish line is at least on the horizon. If Premier Doug Ford wants to live up to his “open for business” motto, now’s the time. Honour the commitments. Finish the job. Then maybe—just maybe—Canadians will finally be able to toast with a beer from another province without breaking the law.
Samantha Dagres is the communications manager and Alessia Iafano is a research intern at the Montreal Economic Institute, a think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa and Calgary.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
Business
Health-care costs for typical Canadian family will reach over $19,000 this year

From the Fraser Institute
By Nadeem Esmail, Nathaniel Li and Milagros Palacios
A typical Canadian family of four will pay an estimated $19,060 for public health-care insurance this year, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“Canadians pay a substantial amount of money for health care through a variety of taxes—even if we don’t pay directly for medical services,” said Nadeem Esmail, director of health policy studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of The Price of Public Health Care Insurance, 2025.
Most Canadians are unaware of the true cost of health care because they never see a bill for medical services, may only be aware of partial costs collected via employer health taxes and contributions (in provinces that impose them), and because general government revenue—not a dedicated tax—funds Canada’s public health-care system.
The study estimates that a typical Canadian family consisting of two parents and two children with an average household income of $188,691 will pay $19,060 for public health care this year. Couples without dependent children will pay an estimated $17,338. Single Canadians will pay $5,703 for health care insurance, and single parents with one child will pay $5,934.
Since 1997, the first year for which data is available, the cost of healthcare for the average Canadian family has increased substantially, and has risen more quickly than its income. In fact, the cost of public health care insurance for the average Canadian family increased 2.2 times as fast as the cost of food, 1.6 times as fast as the cost of housing, and 1.6 times as fast as the average income.
“Understanding how much Canadians actually pay for health care, and how much that amount has increased over time, is an important first step for taxpayers to assess the value and performance of the health-care system, and whether it’s financially sustainable,” Esmail said.
The Price of Public Health Care Insurance, 2025
- Canadians often misunderstand the true cost of our public health care system. This occurs partly because Canadians do not incur direct expenses for their use of health care, and partly because Canadians cannot readily determine the value of their contribution to public health care insurance.
- In 2025, preliminary estimates suggest the average payment for public health care insurance ranges from $5,213 to $19,060 for six common Canadian family types, depending on the type of family.
- Between 1997 and 2025, the cost of public health care insurance for the average Canadian family increased 2.2 times as fast as the cost of food, 1.6 times as fast as the average income, and 1.6 times as fast as the cost of shelter. It also increased much more rapidly than the average cost of clothing, which has fallen in recent years.
- The 10 percent of Canadian families with the lowest incomes will pay an average of about $702 for public health care insurance in 2025. The 10 percent of Canadian families who earn an average income of $88,725 will pay an average of $8,292 for public health care insurance, and the families among the top 10 percent of income earners in Canada will pay $58,853.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Freedom of speech under threat on university campuses in Canada
-
Business2 days ago
Carney engaging in Orwellian doublethink with federal budget rhetoric
-
Alberta2 days ago
Ottawa’s destructive federal energy policies and Premier Danielle Smith’s three part solution
-
Alberta2 days ago
Is Alberta getting ripped off by Ottawa? The numbers say yes
-
Energy2 days ago
Canada’s LNG breakthrough must be just the beginning
-
Business2 days ago
Court’s ‘Aboriginal title’ ruling further damages B.C.’s investment climate
-
Agriculture2 days ago
In the USA, Food Trumps Green Energy, Wind And Solar
-
Business2 days ago
Manitoba Must Act Now To Develop Its Northern Ports