Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
In defense of Trump on these cuts is that one method of effective cost cutting is cut everything and bring back the items that missing causes problems. You have to be careful here as things like the EPA are more long term affects and therefore harder to measure.
However coming in and cutting everything at least is a genuine budget cut over "finding efficiencies" that the right normally trots around. The contraction of government services will cut costs and identify what was needed.
So is it the best way to go about these things? No, but the effects of this will be clearly felt which should get a reaction from voters and in turn change the government going forward. And when the next government / house restores funding and scope to some of these agencies the end result will be improved efficiency and lower cost.
The human cost of these changes suck but it won't be all negative.
|
I'd buy that argument, if he was cutting things that are actually bloated and inefficient and wasteful. Like, say, defence. Burning all the agencies to the ground, then having to rebuild them in 4 years isn't efficient, and will not save costs. Cutting funding to places like the NIH will do real, tangible harm to Americans, and sick people around the world. Sorry, but there is nothing good here. This is some grade A level poor decision making.