The genius and promise of Trump’s ‘Musk Commission’

Rationing for everyday Americans is a fact of life. Health care is rationed; the trips you take in your car are rationed; and deciding whether one takes a vacation vs. paying off debt is a typical occurrence. For many, our household budgets have never been so tight. Overwhelming debt and the high cost of living have forced choices on us many never believed would affect them. Some of our retired are going back to work to survive. Everything ties back to out-of-control government spending.

American angst and division are ultimately tied to a singular issue: The government meddles in our lives far too much. I was excited when Donald Trump announced he would create a “Government Efficiency Commission” headed by Elon Musk. No one has been able to audit the federal government for at least a generation, largely due to its complexity and how it is deliberately designed to be unfathomable, thereby enhancing bureaucratic power.

The first step to reducing the size of government is to unravel the byzantine makeup of the beast, department by department. Once Musk understands the mission of each department, how effectively they achieve that mission, and even whether the mission makes sense in light of today’s realities, change becomes possible. Americans will be much more likely to support change supported by analysis than by a meat cleaver. This is the genius of the Government Efficiency Commission endeavor.

What faith we have in our government is a reflection of how the press portrays Democrats and Republicans. We all should want to know how we came to be so thoroughly misled and influenced by journalists shaping public opinion. The growth of government, both in power and scope, has witnessed an unholy alliance develop between journalists that harkens back to the days of Josef Goebbels, Germany’s chief propagandist.

American journalists used to be more politically neutral, not overtly swaying public opinion. Today, what we term journalists are too often spear-chuckers for progressive viewpoints. Big government craves legitimacy and amplification, with left-leaning journalists delivering on cue. The most recent example was the ABC presidential debate in name only.

A recent example of electronic bias was the flareup in which Amazon’s Alexa pushed Harris’ suitability for president without commenting on Trump. How many believe that this was an accident?

Massive government allows for all kinds of mischief concealed from our view through layers of bureaucracy, all by design. If we can’t understand what all the moving pieces mean, then there is no practical way to change it, and if we did attempt to change it, too many sacred cows would be at risk.

A significant component of the mislabeled Inflation Reduction Act, aka the Green New Deal, is behavior modification through economic pressure and incentives. The government, through fiat, has determined what our future world will be, including all-electric cars, trucks and airplanes, “clean” energy, the end of fossil fuels and even changes to how we farm.

When the results don’t match the expectations, the government doesn’t retreat and figure out what went wrong; no, those in charge double down on their policies. Policies remain much the same whoever occupies the White House because of the inertia of the political state, how budgets are enacted and how money is appropriated today to enact policies far into the future. Even Trump will have trouble reversing course on what progressives have wrought. It seems Democratic progressives, in league with the bureaucracy, are much more clever than conservative Republicans in this regard.

What’s to be done?

Traditionally, there has been a single answer: Take a meat cleaver to the budget and its departments. Many had tried before only to fail as our senators and congressional representatives lost their will when vested interests threatened retaliation. To get around that, think of what President Roosevelt did with the backing of tired and desperate people in creating the New Deal. Roosevelt’s action is an example of the wrong kind of change but demonstrates what a president with a mandate from the people can do. Can Trump be our new FDR? Roosevelt lived in a depression era in which the populace demanded radical change, allowing him to do things no president would have been able to accomplish in ordinary times.

Trump currently lacks the unified messaging that would allow him the mandate he needs to enact changes required to reset our current failing economic and political policies. Ironically, safety net laws cushion the realities of a bankrupt country living off its fat and whatever it can borrow. There would be rioting in the streets without safety net programs that ensure a pacified and compliant populace. No one willingly starves in America today or is denied medical, schooling, or myriad other services; even free cellphones have become a human right! Anyone in politics knows the reality that the current financial trajectory is unsustainable, yet almost no one has the balls to articulate that to the American people. Will Trump be different?

To have any chance, Trump must come clean with the American people in an even-handed manner that addresses the reality that no one has clean hands in this. Touching the third rail is something both parties avoid, winding up kicking the can down the road forever. This must end.

The Founders clearly articulated their fear of a large federal government, as we have today. No one has figured out how to do more than call out waste, inefficiency and fraud. (think Golden Fleece Award). If Trump is elected and follows through with this singularly important commission, history may highlight this single act as the most substantive action any president has taken since Roosevelt. Historians may well credit Trump with a major course reversal that preserved America for generations to come.

God bless America.