Trump has tasked entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy with the massive task of streamlining and cutting costs on the bureaucratic side of Washington. The deadline is July 4th of next year.
In FY 2024, total government spending was $6.75 trillion and total revenue was $4.92 trillion, resulting in a deficit of $1.83 trillion, In FY 2024 total government spending was $6.75 trillion and total revenue was $4.92 trillion, resulting in an outrageous deficit of $1.83 trillion.
Less government is rarely a bad thing and hopefully, it wil be a model for future administrations.
Too bad Trump wasn’t good at cutting the deficit when he could have in 2016.
Another try will prove to be a disaster…Bankrupt he’s good at.
By the numbers: Trump added $8.4 trillion in borrowing over a ten-year window, CRFB finds in a report out this morning.
Biden’s figure clocks in at $4.3 trillion with seven months remaining in his term.
If you exclude COVID relief spending from the tally, the numbers are $4.8 trillion for Trump and $2.2 trillion for Biden.
State of play: For Trump, the biggest non-COVID drivers of higher public debt were his signature tax cuts enacted in 2017 (causing $1.9 trillion in additional borrowing) and bipartisan spending packages (which added $2.1 trillion).
Fingers crossed, we will still have a government and what’s left of a democracy when he’s done playing in the American golf course sandbox. So disappointing.
“The office of government efficiency is off to a great start with split leadership:two people to do the work of one person.
Yeah, this seems really efficient.”
Speaking very generally when taxation was high, in the 1980s I was paying up to 65% in income tax, I thought I was actually better off. Better services, banks kept in line by the state owned Commonwealth Bank, affordable houses for everyone (mine cost me one years salary), free university etc.
Since the mantra of smaller government and lower taxes --services have declined, houses are obscene prices, people seem worse off in so many ways too.
I don’t yearn for the “good old days” but there was a lot to be said for higher rates of tax and more government services. Scandinavian countries seem happy with their higher tax rates and good government services.
One thing you can be sure of is that a billionaire won’t be doing the majority of the population any favours.
Are you sure there is causality there Bruce? There is a similar an argument that quality of life was better in the U.S during the 1960s-1970w when the government was smaller and taxes were higher by double-digits. Infrastructure construction was booming, companies could afford a glut of expenses (remember secretaries?), but it was a mirage. There was massive income inequality and the poor were living a significantly lower standard of living.Was it the taxes or was quality of life at the expense of low wage owners? I don’t know.
In the meatime, the U.S. is facing a massive beast of service on the unsustainable national debt, which we can only pay for that with more taxes, reduced government spending, markedly increased GDP, or some combination thereof. Cutting back on government and government spending, and I mean really slashing it, is worth the effort if it results in lowering individuals’ tax burden and fueling GDP by reducing unnecessary regulations that are hamstringing growth and putting more workers back in the private sector.
Billionaires are billionaires because they know how to create an extremely desirable product or service, grow a company, streamline costs, and create thousands of jobs along the way. If these guys want to take this on, I’d like to see what they have to offer. Unfettered, the current size and spending of the government will force massive cuts are inevitable anyway. It seems better that we exercise reductions thoughtfully and with employees phased out with fair severance and notice.
What is there to lose with the offering of a plan?
Haha, I also joke in several media outlets today. Since this isn’t a Congressionally-approved department, there would be no pay, so I think we could afford both . Is the idea that each could work on areas where the other might have a conflict of interest? I have no idea what they are thinking in this regard.
Why do so many treat national debt with the same thinking as household debt? It is not the same. The tools and actions available to work with national debt are different. So the focus on cutting government expenditure is misplaced.
That is not to say that waste and inefficiency should be addressed - but that’s an ongoing constant improvement. And can only amount to small percentage tweaks.
If the only tool to be used in tackling national debt is cutting government budgets, then that must mean super-deep cuts. Big chunks of defense, welfare, healthcare, social services, etc. would need to be taken out.
The video is amazing, I had no idea what a even a billion looked like, and I don’t think our governments do either. They spend our money with total disregard of what the country really wants or needs. I can only imagine that they want a good write up in history irrespective of the cost…Globalism has failed, manufacturing goes to the countries that can provide the cheapest labour, but they too, will one day want what our workers have achieved, and once again manufacturing will move to some backward country where the people will be exploited.
If we can’t produce stuff in our own countries, then we shouldn’t have it. Shipping stuff from all over the world flies in the face of what we are being told about being kind to the planet.
And before anyone remarks on the fact that we couldn’t survive without imports, I’m not talking raw materials here, but billions of pounds worth of other stuff that we are too lazy, or too highly qualified to bother with.
Trump and Musk made a good team, who better to run a country than successful businessmen. I imagine they will get America working again. Less imports, more jobs, and a better economy.
Dealing with the debt and deficit are bipartisan efforts. I just happened to watch a news segment of Clinton, who was introducing his own program for in the debt/deficit problem. You don’t have to remind us of the toolbox; we just suffered several years of disatrous manipulation to short-term overnight interest rate after the foolish printing of money that watered down the dollar and drove the massive inflation rate. Powell, the chairman of the Fed will be out soon enough with what I would hope will be a more fiscally sound replacement Now if you want to recommend changes to economic policy, hang on; that is coming too.
The question begs why one would not want to reduce spending by… say …a few trillion in waste…which would also have the very desirable effect of driving down government overreach, which for many is central to DOGE.
DOGE is a no-to-low-cost effort of recommendations. The only potential here is a benefit. Spending and taxation are absolutely tied to the deficit and ultimately the debt. It’s a great idea!
Good observations. Comparative trade is advantageous to all of us when we can import products at a lower cost than we can manufacture domestically, but I agree with you that countries like yours and ours threw out the baby with the bathwater in yielding too much domestic manufacturing. There is a sweet spot, but it’s ever in need of adjustment. Our trade deficit and the yielding of too many manufacturing jobs abroad has unquestionably fueled the debt and downturn - and in some cases, has left us with some terrible-quality products, global environmental problems, and yes - putting on a blind eye to the exploitation of workers (think Ughurs, for example). Short-term tax advantages to incentivise manufacturing with balanced tariffs are not the worst idea to bring us back to center. I, along with manufacturing unions and the swing states that depend on manufacturing and energy production, make no apologies for protectionist policies and neither should other countries working in their own best interests.
Absolutely, if you are accepting more imports than you are exporting so the debt will grow. As has happened over the last 25 years or so, both here and in the USofA.
I don’t think that it’s all about balance sheets though, people have to have something to do, and if they don’t, then expect social unrest and higher crime. Who has the time to travel to London and protest? Nobody in my younger day, we were too busy working. Obviously the well off will never see it that way, and show me a poor politician.
To achieve a few trillion in reduced expenditure you would have to cut deep into services. That becomes a political challenge - which services are to be axed? In many countries the difficult balance between tax and provision sits towards more tax and more provision of services. You could call this big government or government over-reach. Many would call this simply the role of government. And that role is ensure that the poor as well as the rich get the necessary services (welfare, education, security, healthcare).
My guess is that two extremely wealthy men will favour deep, deep cuts. They will not care about how the poor are supported. They will celebrate the small government model that only the financially secure can afford.
Not necessarily, look how much the USA has spent on the war in Ukraine…
How much has the U.S. spent on the war in Ukraine?
To date, we have provided more than $64.1 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $66.9 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014.21 Oct 2024
Since its inception the United States has spent nearly US$650 billion (in nominal dollars) on NASA.
Elon Musk spends his own money on his satellites and space exploration.
Add to this the conflict in Palestine, and quite a few other bit of meddling in world affairs.
A million seconds is about 11 days whereas a billion seconds is either 34 years or 52 years depending on your billion. I think that illustrates the difference in a few words
If you gave Elon Musk $100,000 every day you would have to start giving it to to him long before the Pyramids were built to give him his current wealth. Let’s face it $100,000 is a good annual salary never mind a daily one.
It helps if we add in some facts and correct information. Otherwise we get a bit too reliant on fact-free claims (just like your fav orange president does).
That figure is spread over nearly three years. The trillions Musk is tasked with saving is an annual figure. So support for Ukraine is about $25bn a year - so about 0.3% of the budget.
Again we need annual numbers. Which is less than 25bn for NASA funding. Gosh, we again have a whole other 0.3% of the budget.
Are you sure your ideas are going to save trillions? From the facts this looks a lot more like saving a tiny, tiny percentage. I think you and Musk need to find other cost cutting ideas.
PS Musk sells his launch capability to NASA. That means NASA is funding SpaceX, Musk’s space company. Do you really think that Musk will decide to cut NASA budgets?
. Is the idea that each could work on areas where the other might have a conflict of interest? I have no idea what they are thinking in this regard.
.