How to Cut $2 Trillion From the Federal Budget Without Really Trying

Elon Musk, a close ally of Donald Trump and a potential future cabinet member, claimed he was slice$ 2 trillion from the funds during the Madison Square Garden march.

” How much do you suppose we can pull out of this wasted,$ 6.5 trillion Harris-Biden budget”? Howard Lutnick, a Wall Street CEO and Trump’s transition group co-chair, asked Musk.

Musk&nbsp, said in reply that he thinks “at least$ 2 trillion” may be cut. It’s a nice round number, but how practical is it?

The answer is undoubtedly “yes” if we’re enquiring about whether there is enough fat to produce$ 2 trillion in cuts. The answer is a spectacular “no” when you’re enquiring whether it can actually be done.

A majority of the national plans and ministries ‘ constituents are in Congress, or in the thousands and thousands. Each of those series items in the budget represents human beings: tired people, poor people, older people, children, and tens of millions of other people people that would perish without federal aid. That’s the fact for anyone who wants to cut the funds. &nbsp,

That does n’t mean we ca n’t cut$ 2 trillion from the budget. That requires that we set our objectives and had reasoned decisions about how to spend that$ 2 trillion. Because programs that benefit the elderly, the ill, and the poor are the first thing Congress wants to cut.

Musk might have pulled that$ 2 trillion number off the top of his head, but leave it to the brilliant Veronique de Rugy, writing in Reason.com, to put flesh on the bare bones number of$ 2 trillion.

The best way to eliminate$ 2 trillion from the budget is to axe all the federal government does in its place. It’s high time we rediscovered the process of thoroughly examining state and its function in our lives. Issues like,” Is that the role of government”? or” Should that be funded by the federal government”? have n’t been seriously considered in years. Republicans no longer believe in little government, which has eroded the force of fighting for first rules.

Our path to damage has been made easy with fools ‘ golden because we have “forgotten” how to evaluate government spending. It will take a century to shift the belief that the federal government must fulfill every requirement and provide for all of us.

Yet in communist countries, living is hard. It’s absurd to think that the government is responsible for providing a life of convenience for all 330 million Americans.

Once you ask these questions, it’s obvious that most of what the government does, it should n’t. For instance, a lot of money is spent on actions that are supposed to be the state ‘ obligation under our federalist system of government. So, national grants-in-aid to the claims are the first applications I would cut. These offers abuse federalism, create wicked opportunities, and reduce state and local government performance and responsibilities.

In reality, state would have to raise taxes to cover the plans they should have been funding for all along without those grants. And many of those programs will vanish or be cut to the bone once states are required to compensate for them.

Take, for instance, national provides to express training agencies. Federal aid encourages colleges to change their priorities so that they can focus on meeting native education needs rather than federal grant requirements. Additionally, educating students to meet these complicated federal requirements wastes time and money. Federal travel grants, for instance, encourage states to create mass transit systems to receive federal coordinating funds when their roads might be more useful to their communities. There are plenty more cases. &nbsp,

The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards calculates that “federal support to the state totaled$ 721 billion in 2019”. That figure now accounts for 35 % of all state resources expenditures. Although the pandemic was ended, federal aid to the state has decreased, but it has n’t.

There are no doubt going to be any reductions or eliminations of private sector grants. The EV mission, which is distorted by the market, should also be given the go-ahead.

Several years ago, I calculated that federal” corporate welfare” amounted to approximately$ 150 billion annually. That amount included land subsidies, manufacturing subsidies, and state companies like Amtrak. It also included authorities subsidizing private corporations, such as the Small Business Administration, the Export-Import Bank, and the Department of Commerce. With the Biden Administration’s support for clean energy and billions of dollars for businesses like Intel to construct semiconductor factories in the United States, which they would have built anyhow, certainly that amount has grown.

Additionally, we ought to examine tax breaks offered to personal businesses. The federal government does cease arbitrarily deciding what happens in the market. ” Between 2021 and 2024, the cost of these breaks grew from$ 1.2 trillion to nearly$ 2 trillion”, writes de Rugy.

It is difficult to change the political consciousness of Congress and both parties so that they can accept the traditional justifications for our government’s presence. In four years, I have no idea whether Donald Trump or Musk will be able to accomplish that. &nbsp,

However, it will be too late to save the nation from its irrational, shortsighted fate if we wait until the budget crisis hits. &nbsp,

Source credit