"[W]e cannot start calculus before we know arithmetic -- or argue about tariff protection before we know the nature of government." -- Leonard Peikoff ("The American School: Why Johnny Can't Think", 1984)

On top of the various on-point jokes flying around about DOGE -- starting cuts by creating an agency, having two bosses, etc. -- there is one small problem with the whole idea of trimming fat from the government budget: You can't address a fundamental problem by making marginal changes.

As my title indicates, conservatives have tried this before, so I have the benefit of having already thought about this.

Back in '08, Tea Party types were forwarding a column around that made it particularly easy to see the problem. Quoting it again:

Stop the abuse of our benevolent welfare system. We feed children free meals three times a day until they are 17. Churches give away good, clean clothes. Companies buy and donate school supplies. Emergency rooms provide health care at taxpayer expense and the food stamp program is buying food at home. What are parents doing for their children?

The first sentence nullifies all the rest, while almost asking the question that needs asking: "Why (and by what right) do we need a welfare system at all?"

To that I responded:

Image by Pork Busters, via Wikipedia, I believe my use of this image to be fair use under U.S. copyright law.

Since when has taking money away from its rightful owners -- which must be done sooner or later to fund welfare programs -- been "benevolent"? This system is inherently abusive! The only way to stop "abuse" in a system financed by theft is to do away with such a system, and begin consistently protecting property rights. In the meantime, everyone who wants to feel good about helping the poor is free to do so.

Ditto for "Stop all unnecessary spending so we will have the money for our nation's security, and to help needy and elderly Americans." Forget about the relative magnitudes of wasteful spending compared to the amount of money it takes to fund welfare state programs: What's "unnecessary"? (I nominate, "the government stealing money"!)

In other words:

Such grassroots efforts as "Pork Busters" form when enough people become outraged at such things as that infamous "bridge to nowhere" -- and yet nobody challenges the massively larger larceny cum vote purchasing that is the welfare state, and which makes such relatively penny-ante outrages possible at all.

So, to quote Ronald Reagan, the half-forgotten half-man of the conservative movement, Here we go again.

Except that things are arguably worse. Back in the aughts, some Republicans at least mooted the idea of backing our country out of Social Security. (I fondly remember ending up on TV as a "man on the street" and getting to say inter alia that no, Social Security wasn't 'outdated,' but rather never was a good idea to begin with.)

Now? Trump has taken Social Security and Medicare off the table. These are two of the biggest drivers of the government deficit, and are things the government shouldn't be doing anyway, "efficiently" or not. Servicing the debt is a huge and growing obligation that can't be touched without causing economic calamity.

The most optimistic take on this I've seen lately is that Musk and Ramaswamy might wring $2 trillion from the budget -- which was nearly $7 trillion this year. (I don't see it.) Our debt, by the way, is $36 trillion, up from 23 in '19.

Absent a fundamental shift in which our politicians are guided by restoring government to its proper purpose, the protection of individual rights, there will only be this nibbling at the margins. Meanwhile the leviathan will grow out of control until the unsustainable mess mercilessly self-corrects.

Trump -- whom the partisan hacks at Issues and Insights completely shielded from blame for his role in worsening this mess -- is not the man to do this. He is committed to pretending the welfare state can work, whereas the first step towards solving any problem is correctly naming that problem.

Spoiler alert: Waste isn't that name. Inefficiency isn't it, either.

Speaking of waste, this election was a historic opportunity for change. We wasted it on Trump II, instead.

-- CAV