Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

DOGE Is Ending The ‘Eternal Life’ Of Government

Published

8 minute read

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Bossie

In his 1964 “A Time For Choosing” speech, Ronald Reagan famously said, “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” And for more than 60 years, President Reagan’s words have proven to be true. However, with the historic re-election of President Donald Trump and the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the leadership of Elon Musk, the Gipper’s contention is finally being challenged – and not a moment too soon.

The Trump Administration inherited a horribly bloated federal government in dire need of common sense streamlining from top to bottom. For decades, the executive branch has expanded at an incomprehensible rate and along with it, so has waste, fraud, and abuse. Presidents on both sides of the aisle have made promises to tighten the government’s belt, shrink the bureaucracy, and return power to the people where it belongs. Those efforts for the most part – however well-intentioned – never got off the ground. The reality is that when politicians have been forced to choose between a legislative priority and cutting government spending, cuts are always the first casualty. But currently, with our $36 trillion national debt spiraling out of control, reining in the size and scope of government is no longer a choice, but a necessity.

President Trump is the perfect leader for these trying times. He’s battletested and fears nothing – and no challenge is too large. Whether it’s securing the border, growing the economy, forging peace in Ukraine and the Middle East, or negotiating fair trade deals, this president is on a mission to save America. And if any chief executive is going to have success at deconstructing the administrative state, it’s Trump the steel-spined change agent. The shadowy deep state doesn’t scare him, the biased liberal media can’t intimidate him, and this time there are no phony partisan investigations aiming to sidetrack him. Trump made a promise to bring fiscal responsibility back to governing, and along with Musk and DOGE, they’re finally conducting the “audit with teeth” that the American people have been waiting for, and their hard work is turning out to be infectious.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

With each passing day, a different member of the cabinet is announcing a new cut, discovering a duplicative program, or updating an antiquated system to steer us away from the fiscal cliff that’s rapidly approaching. When the president also happens to be a highly successful businessman, making the business operate more smoothly and for less money is the name of the game. Trump has brought this mindset to the White House and according to recent polling 77 percent favor a full review of government spending.

President Trump is going back to the basics that have become taboo in Washington, like asking fundamental questions about whether an agency has been successful in its mission or if a program is still necessary. In the case of the Education Department, Trump sees an emergency and is not willing to kick the can down the road any longer. The president believes that education excellence for our children is essential so America can compete for generations to come. Drastic reform is long overdue and that means moving education decisions back to state and local officials – and parents. That’s why President Trump is taking the steps to confront the failed status quo and close the underperforming department so we can turnaround lackluster public schools and low-test scores.

Similarly, with the decision to end USAID and slash foreign aid, Trump and DOGE are simply putting America first. America is handing out billions upon billions in taxpayer dollars around the globe on programs that should be spent on fixing our own domestic problems. The plan to decentralize and modernize the Agriculture Department is another great example of thinking outside the box. The American people understand the rationale that downtown Washington, D.C. is the last place decisions about farming should be made. Relocating the department to various hubs around the heartland is common sense.

Additionally, the announcement that the Department of Health and Human Services will cut 20,000 full-time employees is part of President Trump’s vision to “right-size the federal government and unleash the private sector again” in the words of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. And word that the Trump Administration is planning to work with Congress to finally defund National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service is welcome news to millions of Americans who believe sending taxpayer funds to biased news outlets is wrong.

DOGE is also doing courageous work at the Social Security Administration (SSA). The amazing efforts to identify individuals who are either deceased, in the country illegally, or otherwise ineligible will help stave off the program’s insolvency, which experts predict is only ten years away.  When a DOGE official disclosed that 40 percent of the calls made to SSA are from would-be fraudsters trying to exploit the system, it’s become all too obvious that new safeguards must be adopted.

When it comes to the question of how much money DOGE will ultimately end up saving taxpayers, in the context of our $36 trillion debt crisis, the more the better. However, the overall change in mindset – forcing government to operate efficiently and responsibly like businesses and families – and passing that mindset onto future administrations is perhaps the most critical shift that can be made. In fact, in an ideal scenario, every state, county, and city would have its very own DOGE operation. We must get serious about cutting government waste now or we’ll go bankrupt. That’s just the reality of the situation and President Trump knows it.

David Bossie is the president of Citizens United and served as a senior adviser to the Trump-Pence 2020 campaign. In 2016, Bossie served as deputy campaign manager for Donald J. Trump for President and deputy executive director for the Trump-Pence Transition Team.

Alberta

Alberta taxpayers should know how much their municipal governments spend

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson

Next week, voters across Alberta will go to the polls to elect their local governments. Of course, while the issues vary depending on the city, town or district, all municipal governments spend taxpayer money.

And according to a recent study, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County were among Alberta’s highest-spending municipalities (on a per-person basis) in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data). Kara Westerlund, president of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, said that’s no surprise—arguing that it’s expensive to serve a small number of residents spread over large areas.

That challenge is real. In rural areas, fewer people share the cost of roads, parks and emergency services. But high spending isn’t inevitable. Some rural municipalities managed to spend far less, demonstrating that local choices about what services to provide, and how to deliver them, matter.

Consider the contrast in spending levels among rural counties. In 2023, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County spent $5,413 and $4,619 per person, respectively. Foothills County, by comparison, spent just $2,570 per person. All three counties have relatively low population densities (fewer than seven residents per square kilometre) yet their per-person spending varies widely. (In case you’re wondering, Calgary spent $3,144 and Edmonton spent $3,241.)

Some of that variation reflects differences in the cost of similar services. For example, all three counties provide fire protection but in 2023 this service cost $56.95 per person in Grande Prairie County, $38.51 in Red Deer County and $10.32 in Foothills County. Other spending differences reflect not just how much is spent, but whether a service is offered at all. For instance, in 2023 Grande Prairie County recorded $46,283 in daycare spending, while Red Deer County and Foothills County had none.

Put simply, population density alone simply doesn’t explain why some municipalities spend more than others. Much depends on the choices municipal governments make and how efficiently they deliver services.

Westerlund also dismissed comparisons showing that some counties spend more per person than nearby towns and cities, calling them “apples to oranges.” It’s true that rural municipalities and cities differ—but that doesn’t make comparisons meaningless. After all, whether apples are a good deal depends on the price of other fruit, and a savvy shopper might switch to oranges if they offer better value. In the same way, comparing municipal spending—across all types of communities—helps Albertans judge whether they get good value for their tax dollars.

Every municipality offers a different mix of services and those choices come with different price tags. Consider three nearby municipalities: in 2023, Rockyview County spent $3,419 per person, Calgary spent $3,144 and Airdrie spent $2,187. These differences reflect real trade-offs in the scope, quality and cost of local services. Albertans should decide for themselves which mix of local services best suits their needs—but they can’t do that without clear data on what those services actually cost.

A big municipal tax bill isn’t an inevitable consequence of rural living. How much gets spent in each Alberta municipality depends greatly on the choices made by the mayors, reeves and councillors Albertans will elect next week. And for Albertans to determine whether or not they get good value for their local tax dollars, they must know how much their municipality is spending.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Major Projects Office Another Case Of Liberal Political Theatre

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Ottawa’s Major Projects Office is a fix for a mess the Liberals created—where approval now hinges on politics, not merit.

They are repeating their same old tricks, dressing up political favouritism as progress instead of cutting barriers for everyone

On Sept. 11, the Prime Minister’s Office announced five projects being examined by its Major Projects Office, all with the potential to be fast-tracked for approval and to get financial help. However, no one should get too excited. This is only a bad effort at fixing what government wrecked.

During the Trudeau years, and since, the Liberals have created a regulatory environment so daunting that companies need a trump card to get anything done. That’s why the Major Projects Office (MPO) exists.

“The MPO will work to fast-track nation-building projects by streamlining regulatory assessment and approvals and helping to structure financing, in close partnership with provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples and private investors,” explains a government press release.

Canadians must not be fooled. A better solution would be to create a regulatory and tax environment where these projects can meet market demand through private investment. We don’t have that in Canada, which is why money has fled the country and our GDP growth per capita is near zero.

Instead of this less politicized and more even-handed approach, the Liberals have found a way to make their cabinet the only gatekeepers able to usher someone past the impossible process they created. Then, having done so, they can brag about what “they” got done.

The Fraser Institute has called out this system for its potential to incentivize bribes and kickbacks. The Liberals have such a track record of handing out projects and even judicial positions to their friends that such scenarios become easier to believe. Innumerable business groups will be kissing up to the Liberals just to get anything major done.

The government has created the need for more of itself, and it is following up in every way it can. Already, the federal government has set up offices across Canada for people to apply for such projects. Really? Anyone with enough dollars to pursue a major project can fly to Ottawa to make their pitch.

No, this is as much about the show as it is about results—and probably much more. It is all too reminiscent of another big-sounding, mostly ineffective program the Liberal government rolled out in 2017. They announced a $950-million Innovation Superclusters Initiative “designed to help strengthen Canada’s most promising clusters … while positioning Canadian firms for global leadership.”

That program allowed any company in the world to participate, with winners getting matching dollars from taxpayers for their proposals. (But all for the good of Canada, we were told.) More than 50 applications were made for these sweepstakes, which included more than 1,000 businesses and 350 other participants. In Trudeau Liberal fashion, every applicant had to articulate how their proposal would increase female jobs and leadership and encourage diversity in the long term.

The entire process was like one big Dragon’s Den series. The Liberals trotted out a list of contestants full of nice-sounding possibilities, with maximum hype and minimal reality. Late in the process, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry Navdeep Bains picked the nine finalists himself (all based in cities with a Liberal MP), from which five would be chosen.

The alleged premise was to leverage local and regional commercial clusters, but that soon proved ridiculous. The “Clean, Low-energy, Effective and Remediated Supercluster” purported to power clean growth in mining in Ontario, Quebec and Vancouver. Not to be outdone, the “Mobility Systems and Technologies for the 21st Century Supercluster” included all three of these locations, plus Atlantic Canada. They were only clustered by their tendency to vote Liberal.

Today, the MPO repeats this virtue-signalling, politicking, drawn-out, tax-dollar-spending drama. The Red Chris Mine expansion in northwest British Columbia is one of the proposals under consideration. It would be done in conjunction with the Indigenous Tahltan Nation and is supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 per cent. That’s right up the Liberal alley.

Meanwhile, the project is somehow part of a proposed Northwest Critical Conservation Corridor that would cordon off an area the size of Greece from development. Is this economic growth or economic prohibition? This approach is more like the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 than it is nation-building. And it is more like the World Economic Forum’s “stakeholder capitalism” approach than it is free enterprise.

At least there are two gems among the five proposals. One is to expand capacity at the Port of Montreal, and another is to expand the Canada LNG facility in Kitimat, B.C. Both have a market case and clear economic benefits.

Even here, Canadians must ask themselves, why must the government use a bulldozer to get past the red tape it created? Why not cut the tape for everyone? The Liberals deserve little credit for knocking down a door they barred themselves.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X