Trump Spending Cuts are About Waste, Not Retribution

The media is framing the budgetary cuts implemented by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk as retribution against government departments that previously criticized or investigated President Trump. This is far from the truth, however. These cuts are sweeping across multiple departments that never attacked or investigated President Trump, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Operational Efficiencies, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Budget Cuts, Department of Education Proposed Elimination, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Defense (DoD), among others. Additionally, there is a general reevaluation and reduction in the total number of government employees across all departments.

The media claims that the budget cuts are being made to support tax breaks for the ultra-rich, with common taxpayers ultimately bearing the burden. This view, however, is inconsistent with the facts. President Trump’s recent budget proposal includes several tax cuts designed to benefit everyday Americans. These include the elimination of federal income taxes on tips, overtime earnings, and Social Security benefits, which would increase take-home pay for many workers.

The proposal also seeks to extend key provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, maintaining current tax rates and deductions for individuals. Additionally, it introduces a new itemized deduction for auto loan interest, potentially reducing taxable income for car owners, and removes the $10,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, which could help taxpayers in high-tax states. These measures are part of a broader plan that includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in spending reductions over the next decade.

Below is a partial list of departments and actions DOGE has initiated to reduce the federal budget:

National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH imposed a 15% cap on administrative costs for research projects, including expenses like personnel, facility maintenance, and equipment. The policy aimed to save $4 billion annually but has been temporarily blocked by a lawsuit. Additionally, NIH has laid off over 1,100 staff members, according to an internal email obtained by Reuters. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS): CMS has been working with DOGE to identify opportunities for more efficient resource use, aligning with President Trump’s goals.

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID): The proposed cuts to USAID are driven by concerns over inefficiency and misallocation of resources. Critics argue that the agency has often prioritized administrative overhead, with as much as 20-30% of its budget going toward salaries, contractors, and other expenses rather than direct aid. For example, after the 2010 Haiti earthquake, USAID’s disaster relief efforts were criticized for slow response times and wasteful spending, including duplicate services and excessive contractor fees. Additionally, the agency’s focus on initiatives like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has drawn scrutiny, while there are parts of the world where basic needs such as food, water, and healthcare are not being met.

Infrastructure projects funded by USAID in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq have also been criticized for being poorly planned and unsustainable, often resulting in abandoned or underused facilities. Furthermore, the practice of paying foreign contractors exorbitant salaries, sometimes reaching six figures, has been seen as an inefficient use of taxpayer money when local personnel could fulfill similar roles at much lower costs. These issues have prompted calls for cuts to USAID’s budget as part of a broader push to eliminate waste and redirect resources to more immediate needs, both domestically and internationally.

Department of Education: The administration has proposed eliminating the Department of Education, a longstanding goal among many conservatives, although this proposal faces significant legal and political challenges. The rationale for this policy is rooted in the belief that education should be managed at the local or state level, rather than by a federal agency. Advocates argue that local school boards and state governments are better equipped to address the specific needs of their communities, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach from Washington.

Supporters also see the Department of Education as an example of unnecessary federal overreach, contending that education is a responsibility traditionally handled by states. They believe that eliminating the department would reduce the size of the federal government and restore more power to states. Budgetary concerns also play a role, as the department’s large budget is seen as an area where savings could be achieved to help reduce the federal deficit. Additionally, proponents often push for increased school choice, arguing that reducing federal involvement would foster competition among schools, improve quality, and provide parents with more educational options.

Critics also highlight the bureaucratic nature of the Department of Education, suggesting that eliminating it could direct more funds to schools rather than administrative overhead. Finally, some proponents argue that the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government authority over education, with the Tenth Amendment reserving such powers to the states or the people.

Other government departments targeted by DOG include the Department of Defense (DoD), IRS, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and USAID, as well as agencies like NASA, FEMA, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). DOGE has initiated investigations into fraud and waste at the DoD, with layoffs expected for probationary employees. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already experienced significant cuts, including a 31% reduction in 2018, which resulted in the elimination of over 50 programs and the loss of 3,200 jobs.

Similarly, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) faces proposed cuts that could reduce its budget by 30% and halve its staff, potentially affecting vital services like weather forecasting and climate research. At the IRS, DOGE sought access to sensitive taxpayer data, ultimately agreeing to read-only access to anonymized information. Other departments, such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Treasury, are also facing scrutiny, with Musk’s involvement raising concerns about conflicts of interest, particularly regarding SpaceX contracts. Additionally, thousands of probationary workers at agencies like the IRS and FEMA have been laid off as part of these efforts.

The post Trump Spending Cuts are About Waste, Not Retribution appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.