Connect with us

Business

DOGE Must Focus On Big Picture To Achieve Big Change

Published

7 minute read

 

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.

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

Business

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

It’s now more than four years since the federal Liberal government pledged $30 billion in spending over five years for $10-per-day national child care, and more than three years since Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government signed a $13.2 billion deal with the federal government to deliver this child-care plan.

Not surprisingly, with massive government funding came massive government control. While demand for child care has increased due to the government subsidies and lower out-of-pocket costs for parents, the plan significantly restricts how child-care centres operate (including what items participating centres may purchase), and crucially, caps the proportion of government funds available to private for-profit providers.

What have families and taxpayers got for this enormous government effort? Widespread child-care shortages across Ontario.

For example, according to the City of Ottawa, the number of children (aged 0 to 5 years) on child-care waitlists has ballooned by more than 300 per cent since 2019, there are significant disparities in affordable child-care access “with nearly half of neighbourhoods underserved, and limited access in suburban and rural areas,” and families face “significantly higher” costs for before-and-after-school care for school-age children.

In addition, Ottawa families find the system “complex and difficult to navigate” and “fewer child care options exist for children with special needs.” And while 42 per cent of surveyed parents need flexible child care (weekends, evenings, part-time care), only one per cent of child-care centres offer these flexible options. These are clearly not encouraging statistics, and show that a government-knows-best approach does not properly anticipate the diverse needs of diverse families.

Moreover, according to the Peel Region’s 2025 pre-budget submission to the federal government (essentially, a list of asks and recommendations), it “has maximized its for-profit allocation, leaving 1,460 for-profit spaces on a waitlist.” In other words, families can’t access $10-per-day child care—the central promise of the plan—because the government has capped the number of for-profit centres.

Similarly, according to Halton Region’s pre-budget submission to the provincial government, “no additional families can be supported with affordable child care” because, under current provincial rules, government funding can only be used to reduce child-care fees for families already in the program.

And according to a March 2025 Oxford County report, the municipality is experiencing a shortage of child-care staff and access challenges for low-income families and children with special needs. The report includes a grim bureaucratic predication that “provincial expansion targets do not reflect anticipated child care demand.”

Child-care access is also a problem provincewide. In Stratford, which has a population of roughly 33,000, the municipal government reports that more than 1,000 children are on a child-care waitlist. Similarly in Port Colborne (population 20,000), the city’s chief administrative officer told city council in April 2025 there were almost 500 children on daycare waitlists at the beginning of the school term. As of the end of last year, Guelph and Wellington County reportedly had a total of 2,569 full-day child-care spaces for children up to age four, versus a waitlist of 4,559 children—in other words, nearly two times as many children on a waitlist compared to the number of child-care spaces.

More examples. In Prince Edward County, population around 26,000, there are more than 400 children waitlisted for licensed daycare. In Kawartha Lakes and Haliburton County, the child-care waitlist is about 1,500 children long and the average wait time is four years. And in St. Mary’s, there are more than 600 children waitlisted for child care, but in recent years town staff have only been able to move 25 to 30 children off the wait list annually.

The numbers speak for themselves. Massive government spending and control over child care has created havoc for Ontario families and made child-care access worse. This cannot be a surprise. Quebec’s child-care system has been largely government controlled for decades, with poor results. Why would Ontario be any different? And how long will Premier Ford allow this debacle to continue before he asks the new prime minister to rethink the child-care policy of his predecessor?

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump

Published on

From The Center Square

By

Canada caved to President Donald Trump demands by pulling its digital services tax hours before it was to go into effect on Monday.

Trump said Friday that he was ending all trade talks with Canada over the digital services tax, which he called a direct attack on the U.S. and American tech firms. The DST required foreign and domestic businesses to pay taxes on some revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada.

“Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” the president said. “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

By Sunday, Canada relented in an effort to resume trade talks with the U.S., it’s largest trading partner.

“To support those negotiations, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,” according to a statement from Canada’s Department of Finance.

Canada’s Department of Finance said that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Trump agreed to resume negotiations, aiming to reach a deal by July 21.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Monday that the digital services tax would hurt the U.S.

“Thank you Canada for removing your Digital Services Tax which was intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America,” he wrote on X.

Earlier this month, the two nations seemed close to striking a deal.

Trump said he and Carney had different concepts for trade between the two neighboring countries during a meeting at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, in the Canadian Rockies.

Asked what was holding up a trade deal between the two nations at that time, Trump said they had different concepts for what that would look like.

“It’s not so much holding up, I think we have different concepts, I have a tariff concept, Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like, but we’re going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”

Shortly after taking office in January, Trump hit Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs for allowing fentanyl and migrants to cross their borders into the U.S. Trump later applied those 25% tariffs only to goods that fall outside the free-trade agreement between the three nations, called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump put a 10% tariff on non-USMCA compliant potash and energy products. A 50% tariff on aluminum and steel imports from all countries into the U.S. has been in effect since June 4. Trump also put a 25% tariff on all cars and trucks not built in the U.S.

Economists, businesses and some publicly traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods paid by the person or company that imports them. The importer can absorb the cost of the tariffs or try to pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices.

Trump’s tariffs give U.S.-produced goods a price advantage over imported goods, generating revenue for the federal government.

Continue Reading

Trending

X