>Though White House aides publicly blamed the media for causing the confusion, arguing that none existed within the building, the administration had received a flood of calls from lawmakers and state officials with questions about its impact on their home states.
So trump blames the media, gets a bunch of blow back from officials, a Judge comes in to block part of it... And they choose to blame the media to upkeep their narrative when they need to backpedal.
Gonna be a long 4 years. But at least they are getting everything through for free.
This was the MO the first time around; take a crap in public for the news cycle, walk it back two weeks later when it’s impossible to accomplish and everyone else has moved on.
However, someone in charge is interpreting programs like PEPFAR as not "life saving" so all data systems needed by medical personnel and researchers are still down.
I'm not against the idea of cutting the government's budget, but this administration is trying to perform surgery with a sledgehammer.
Besides, solving the real high level problems are going to be a disaster.
There are two ways for them to cut the budget. 1: Cut programs - 2: Increase efficiency
1. Reduce programs. The problem for them is that Red states are overwhelming subsidized by Blue states. Just cutting programs across the board is going to hurt their constituents the most. https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxe...
2. Reduce costs. The reason government projects are so expensive is because of their insane review and oversight requirements. And the reason they have these is because of their constant exposure to lawsuits from citizens and NGOs. Cutting costs would involve eliminating review processes and recusing planners - you would effectively need to increase the power of the federal government to make it more efficient.
I expect the administration to come back with a smarter list and a more targeted set of grants to cancel. But this whole endeavor is going to be a massive lark for them.
> the reason they have these is because of their constant exposure to lawsuits from citizens and NGOs
Maybe, but in my experience, most of the overhead was there to avoid any kind of passive corruption for low-level employees. Also help avoid pressure, because high-level employees have no reasons to pressure temp worker/low-level employees (if they want to use their access to do a qui pro quo, they can, but they couldn't use a temp like me to do their bidding).
I was a temp in a bureaucracy highly susceptible to corruption though (IRS equivalent), maybe this kind of overhead can be found in bureaucracies without as easy access to money/power as mine had, but in that case, i would argue that it is more habit than external pressure.
Instead of taking money out of the defense budget, Delta shut down everything else. Trump’s going to need the military to maintain as authoritarian presidency.
Probably a large donor's money spigot was affected (e.g. FAFSA private loan servicers) and the WH got a call from them. Same with the plan to deport prisoners, queue the calls into the WH from private prison lobbyists in 3,2,1...
How sure are you that there is in fact a ton of waste? All the sources for that position have a clear bias, and offer essentially no real evidence (at best a few anecdotes).
There is also the question of whether the actions required to cut the waste are themselves expensive. If you spend a huge amount of time and effort to cut waste, there's a point at which it would have been cheaper to just accept that some waste is inevitable and to not worry about it.
Literally every organisation I've been in has had "waste", but most of them have been smart enough to realise that you don't want to spend thousands of person-hours measuring every tiny little thing and doing wildly complex RoI analyses (especially on stuff where it's almost impossible to figure out anyway because there are too many variables), and instead focus on having metrics around the outcomes that they do care about.
Is it as much as the right pretends it is? Is it the cause of the ballooning federal debt? No on both. But it does exist.
And honestly, the worst thing you can do is have someone try to run the organization allocating those funds as if he's the CEO of his own personal organization.
Actually, I think it was Musk. If you consider the Issacson biography in which Musk (basically) said to remove enough of something until it breaks, and you have to add something back. What I call the move fast and break things mentality is a very, very bad idea for government, but it seems to be what they are doing. Pause everything, and see what is really needed; Get rid of as many employees as possible, see what stops working, then bring people back in.
“My recommendations would reduce spending on wasteful programs and contracts, would cut out unfair loopholes and giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, would make the government more efficient and effective.”
It would be remarkable if DOGE was bipartisan but IIRC the last time a bipartisan committee came together to cut federal spending, they were not able to agree and it triggered automatic cuts.
Readit News
So trump blames the media, gets a bunch of blow back from officials, a Judge comes in to block part of it... And they choose to blame the media to upkeep their narrative when they need to backpedal.
Gonna be a long 4 years. But at least they are getting everything through for free.
https://nasawatch.com/transition/omb-memo-about-payment-free...
The State Department has issued the following guidance
https://www.state.gov/emergency-humanitarian-waiver-to-forei...
However, someone in charge is interpreting programs like PEPFAR as not "life saving" so all data systems needed by medical personnel and researchers are still down.
https://data.pepfar.gov/
https://www.datim.org/
Besides, solving the real high level problems are going to be a disaster.
There are two ways for them to cut the budget. 1: Cut programs - 2: Increase efficiency
1. Reduce programs. The problem for them is that Red states are overwhelming subsidized by Blue states. Just cutting programs across the board is going to hurt their constituents the most. https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxe...
2. Reduce costs. The reason government projects are so expensive is because of their insane review and oversight requirements. And the reason they have these is because of their constant exposure to lawsuits from citizens and NGOs. Cutting costs would involve eliminating review processes and recusing planners - you would effectively need to increase the power of the federal government to make it more efficient.
I expect the administration to come back with a smarter list and a more targeted set of grants to cancel. But this whole endeavor is going to be a massive lark for them.
Maybe, but in my experience, most of the overhead was there to avoid any kind of passive corruption for low-level employees. Also help avoid pressure, because high-level employees have no reasons to pressure temp worker/low-level employees (if they want to use their access to do a qui pro quo, they can, but they couldn't use a temp like me to do their bidding).
I was a temp in a bureaucracy highly susceptible to corruption though (IRS equivalent), maybe this kind of overhead can be found in bureaucracies without as easy access to money/power as mine had, but in that case, i would argue that it is more habit than external pressure.
https://bsky.app/profile/juddlegum.bsky.social/post/3lgvnaep...
twitter really has gone downhill
Literally every organisation I've been in has had "waste", but most of them have been smart enough to realise that you don't want to spend thousands of person-hours measuring every tiny little thing and doing wildly complex RoI analyses (especially on stuff where it's almost impossible to figure out anyway because there are too many variables), and instead focus on having metrics around the outcomes that they do care about.
Is it as much as the right pretends it is? Is it the cause of the ballooning federal debt? No on both. But it does exist.
And honestly, the worst thing you can do is have someone try to run the organization allocating those funds as if he's the CEO of his own personal organization.
> "When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains"
Trump's nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/27/trump-federal-eorkers-inspe...
It's Musk with Trump's authority.
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2025/01/28/warren-to-mu...
“My recommendations would reduce spending on wasteful programs and contracts, would cut out unfair loopholes and giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, would make the government more efficient and effective.”