One of, if not the, highlights of President Donald Trump’s first months in office has been the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by entrepreneur (and the world’s richest man) Elon Musk. Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE has not just exposed wasteful spending— but worked to reduce spending by eliminating entire agencies and even cabinet departments.
For example, DOGE pulled back the curtain on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Before DOGE exposed it, most Americans thought of USAID (if they thought of it at all) as an agency that provided humanitarian aid and development assistance to impoverished people in other countries. DOGE revealed that USAID’s humanitarian work was a cover for their true mission: making political and cultural change overseas. This is why USAID has spent millions on absurd “development” projects like transgender plays in Colombia, DEI schemes in Serbia and electric car subsidies in Vietnam.
Eliminating USAID would not mean the end of overseas development and humanitarian aid. It would mean that the aid would come from private charities. These charities can do a better job of providing aid than a government bureaucracy. As outrageous as USAID’s spending is, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the Pentagon’s over $800 billion (and on track to exceed $2 trillion by 2033) budget.
The “defense” budget is the third largest item in the federal budget, behind Social Security and Medicare. Few politicians will risk the wrath of senior citizens by voting to make any changes to these programs unless the changes are phased in such a way as to not affect those currently on, or close to, relying on the programs. Thus, any serious plan to reduce spending and debt must cut the bloated “defense” budget. Savings from reductions in military spending can be used to help support those dependent on federal programs as Congress unwinds the welfare state. Cutting military spending would be politically popular as most polls show a majority of Americans— including Republicans—support reducing America’s military commitments.
The poster child for wasteful Pentagon spending, which is thankfully already in Elon Musk’s crosshairs, is the F-35 —a $1.7 trillion disaster of delays, breakdowns and runaway costs. The plane, the most expensive military program ever, often sits grounded. The F-35 may be the most obvious example of wasteful Pentagon spending, but it is hardly alone. After all, this is the agency that brought us the $500 toilet seat. Shutting down boondoggles like the F-35 could provide revenue to help pay down the debt and protect those currently dependent on federal programs. It could also help ensure the forthcoming tax bill does not further increase the deficit.
DOGE is not the first effort to identify and eliminate wasteful spending. President Ronald Reagan had the Grace Commission, a sort of DOGE 1.0 that unearthed billions in waste—from the Department of Energy to the IRS. Their findings were buried by entrenched interests and a cowardly Congress. The lesson of the Grace Commission is that reducing even the most obvious wasteful spending requires the courage to stand up to the entrenched interests in both parties that benefit from the current system.
Trump and Musk may have the necessary convictions to make serious changes in the ways Washington works. However, they need to be prepared for the swamp to fight back. Democrats and their allies are already waging war against DOGE. To them, trying to identify and eliminate wasteful spending or even asking federal employees what they actually do is an assault on democracy. Most Democrats will join hawkish Republicans in seeking to protect the Pentagon’s budget. It would not be surprising if Congress’s bipartisan military-industrial complex caucus smeared those advocating cuts in the bloated military budget as “Putin’s puppets.”
The federal debt is growing by approximately $1 trillion every three months. To put that in perspective, consider that the federal debt did not reach the $1 trillion mark until 1981. Unless action is taken soon to reduce spending, pay down the federal debt and roll back the welfare-warfare state—America will face a serious economic crisis. Therefore, it is important that everyone who understands the stakes do what they can to support Trump and Musk’s efforts.
Every time the Republican-controlled legislature considers cutting taxes, the biggest obstacle is the taxpayer-funded lobbyists representing cities, towns, and counties. They come down to the legislature year after year accusing lawmakers of “defunding” local government. And, of course, it is always police, fire, and public safety on the chopping block and never DEI programs, art projects, or other unessential and unnecessary spending projects.
The problem with this narrative is that it is completely false. Cities and towns are flush with cash and have actually received enormous windfalls, not cuts, from the legislature. The result has been hundreds of millions in new revenue for the cities in just the last 6 years. Most of it from two sources—online sales and enhanced state shared revenue.
Online Sales Tax Windfall
In 2019, the legislature passed legislation responding to the Wayfair decision, allowing the state and local governments to tax online sales from sellers outside of this state. At the time, it was sold as a “meager” $85-million-a-year tax increase. But now, five years since the legislation was enshrined into law, taxpayers are doling out over one billion dollars in total collections each year to state and local government…
When Donald Trump assumed the presidency, two allies of the U.S., Israel and Ukraine, were mired in bloody wars with ancient enemies. Both desperately needed more military aid in the effort to defeat their heavily armed foes.
Biden had granted both only enough military aid to enable them to not lose, but not enough to win. Moreover, the arms they received came with the condition that they not be used to inflict serious damage to their enemy. Trump could have helped turn the tide, but instead he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Oct. 7 surprise attack by jihadists on innocent Israelis was just the latest in a centuries long string of atrocities inflicted by Muslim terrorists who devote their lives to killing Jews. Bitter experience had taught Israelis that agreements with terrorists were essentially useless so, for the safety of his people, President Netanyahu resolved to destroy Hamas.
Soon after hostilities began, the Biden government and other erstwhile friends began demanding a cease-fire, thwarting the original war aims. Grief-stricken Israelis understandably became restive over their families and friends being held hostage and demanded negotiations to secure their release.
Yet for terrorists, hostages are a key tactic in waging successful warfare. Because of the sharp contrast in how the two sides value human life, jihadists are able to command one-sided hostage swaps of up to 100 terrorists returned to duty for each civilian exchanged, plus other concessions.
But help was on the way. Our new president posted that none of this would have happened had he been in office and that he would now personally end the conflict. Ignoring the established wisdom of not negotiating with hostage takers, he vowed to apply his famed dealmaking skills to the problem, earning short term praise while simultaneously ensuring that there would be more hostages in the future.
So far, the promises aren’t working out. The war hasn’t ended. Hamas shamefully cheated on the hostage swap, retaining live hostages to maintain pressure on Israel. Worse, the Israelis will almost certainly not be free from the threat of attacks by Hamas and other Iranian proxies.
Meanwhile, Ukraine had suffered an unprovoked attack three years earlier by Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, who correctly surmised that the fearful and weak Biden administration would not provide robust aid and that without U.S. support, “Ukraine could not win a prolonged war against Russia”.
When Trump was elected, victory was at least thinkable with some additional aid because Ukraine’s troops had fought so courageously to defend their nation and their freedom.
Trump, however, saw it differently. This was another dealmaking opportunity. In January, he had told Putin, “We can do it the easy way or the hard way.” Yet a month later he was putting greater pressure on Kyiv to make concessions than on Moscow
When Zelenskyy balked at prospectively agreeing to ultimatums produced by the Trump-Putin negotiations, from which he was excluded, his relationship with Trump cratered. Suddenly, according to Trump, Zelensky was a badly dressed “modestly successful comedian” who had talked Biden out of $350 billion in military aid (a huge exaggeration).
Zelensky was charged with showing insufficient “respect” and “gratefulness” to his new masters. More preposterously, Trump wrote that Zelensky shouldn’t have started the war in the first place, which of course he didn’t do.
Luckily, Trump wrote, “We are successfully negotiating an end to the war with Russia, something all admit only ‘TRUMP’ and the Trump administration can do.” To teach Zelensky a lesson, Trump temporarily shut off all munitions and intelligence aid to Ukrainian troops.
Zelensky is being forced into the defeat option, which had been available to him all along. He stands to lose a big chunk of his country and the goals for which his people sacrificed so much.
Netanyahu was also put in a difficult position by Trump’s “rescue” and the relentless pressure to settle with his oppressors. He can now look forward to a future of more jihadist attacks and more hostage-taking. Tehran and Moscow are reportedly happy with the results.
We may come to regret insisting on domination rather than support of our allies. In a changing world, you can’t have too many friends.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a commonsense bill that would have allowed our state to provide voters with same-day election results, moving us further away from the disastrous reporting system that is found when California voters go to their polls. Rather than our current operation of keeping Arizona voters in the dark about certain results of critical election races every two years, this legislation closely mirrored policies and procedures found in the state of Florida, which has largely perfected its vote counting over recent election cycles.
Additionally, my colleagues and I worked closely with a broad coalition of Arizona stakeholders, including most of the state’s county recorders and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors – one of the largest jurisdictions in the entire nation.
This bill was sorely needed in our state. Yet, instead of working with Republicans in good-faith to provide much-needed reforms to our elections processes, Hobbs impeded all efforts to ensure Arizona can report the vast majority of votes on election night. Her veto was a huge mistake – not just politically, but for the future of our state’s elections.
Over the past decade, Arizona has seen a seemingly increasing share of razor-thin election results, which have proved the urgent need for this kind of legislation. In 2016, my good friend Andy Biggs won his primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives by just 27 votes. Outstanding votes were not counted until days after election night concluded, leaving supporters of the top two contenders in suspense. In 2022, current Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes defeated her Republican challenger, Abraham Hamadeh, by fewer than 300 votes. Again, the votes were being processed and tabulated long after election night had come and gone.
In 2024, President Donald Trump was not officially declared the winner of Arizona until days after the election thanks to the myriad of un-tabulated votes after election night. There are many more examples of these kind of delayed calls on critical election races, where voters were left in the dark about the eventual outcomes.
Arizona’s delayed results have embodied more of the nature of California’s failed system in the past decade. Many around the nation shake their heads in disgust at California’s persistent inability to count most votes by the end of election night. Oftentimes, the results for several critical races for different levels of government remain outstanding for weeks, let alone days, following the election. Compare California’s delays with Florida’s successful system, which allows it to report the results of most of its races within hours of all polls closing. There’s no question which system I want my state to emulate.
These delays in our election results lead to massive distrust in our system and officials. Voters deserve and expect maximum transparency when it comes to the elections systems that select the men and women who govern us. However, by making voters wait days after the election has finished, government officials contribute to the rising fear about the integrity of our system. There is a better way.
As a long-time public servant, I was unwilling to stand by and allow the people of Arizona to live in perpetual anxiety every two years when elections rolled around. These voters deserve certainty and transparency in one of the fundamental pillars of our constitutional republic: our sacred votes. That’s why I introduced this bill – SB 1011 / HB 2703 – to speed up vote counting in our state, improve voter confidence and end the frustration felt by many waiting way too long for results on Election Day.
This bill should not have been politicized. I am baffled why, even after a broad coalition around Arizona endorsed these policies, legislative Democrats and Hobbs dug their heels into the ground and opposed our efforts to make reasonable and necessary fixes to the state’s elections system. The Democrats’ partisanship on this bill is not what Arizonans want from their state’s leaders. Republicans and Democrats should be able to work together to solve these issues in a bipartisan manner without resorting to political talking points. Sadly, that is not what happened in this case.
I promised the people of Arizona that this Legislature would be committed to making commonsense and proven changes to our state’s election processes, and my colleagues and I remain wholly resolved to achieve that goal. The status quo for our elections is not an option. Voters deserve more respect than to see their government officials content to leave their state as the laughingstock of the nation for its woefully slow election reporting.
To that end, Republicans in the Arizona Legislature will soon be pursuing a bill to send the question of same-day election results to voters in the next General Election. If Hobbs and Arizona Democrats do not want to be a part of the solution, we will let the voters decide. One way or another, it’s time to bring same-day election results to our great state.
If the Hobbs administration has proven itself to be uniquely skilled at anything over the past two years, it’s incompetence and negligence. But now, Arizona’s governor has taken the next step toward outright fraud.
As a part of her recent budget proposal, Hobbs has asked for a supplemental appropriation to the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) to cover a shortfall in the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). Without the additional funding, the DDD could run out of money by May, affecting many people under a program that provides services to Arizonans with disabilities.
The problem stems from a COVID-era program funded entirely by the federal government that would pay parents who operate as caregivers for their children with disabilities—the Parents as Paid Caregivers program. The program was intended to be temporary, but Hobbs received approval from the federal government in February 2024 to make it permanent.
That approval came with a catch. Beginning on April 1, the State of Arizona would have to cover 32% of the costs, which Hobbs attempted to get funding for in last year’s budget. Her proposal was not approved by the legislature, which she mutually agreed to as part of the budget process. But she continued funding the program anyway—likely believing that she would be able to flip the legislature in November’s election or bully lawmakers into giving her the money. She failed on both counts and now has created a shortfall in the DDD program that has exceeded $100 million…
Republicans are searching for ways to “pay for” their tax cuts. Democrats want the rich to pay more tax. Here’s a solution that should make everyone happy.
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith is suggesting a tax on the $840 billion college endowments. These endowments will soon eclipse $1 trillion in size – which is more money than the entire GDP of many countries.
It’s high time that bloated and entitled universities pay “their fair share” for the government services they use.
Why not? Their professors forever lecture us about tax “fairness,” but the schools where they teach a few hours a week for their munificent salaries are the very embodiment of mostly-white “privilege.” They are are the richest institutions in the world that go untaxed.
The cost of this leakage to the tax base is going to grow exponentially as this generation of billionaires (Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg and others) pass on trillions of dollars – much of it will enter into the vaults of the universities. These are capital gains that have NEVER been taxed – and never will be.
Why is this a problem?
A good and just tax system has a broad base – so everyone pays – but a low rate so the tax system doesn’t discourage, work, saving and investment. This means no loopholes and carve outs that allow the rich to keep their fortunes out of reach of the tax man.
What makes the college endowment scam even worse is that the preponderance of the dollars don’t go to small colleges or community colleges, but rather the Harvards, Yales, Stanfords and Princetons that are already layered with gold and service the elite of society.
It makes no sense that millionaires and billionaires can make seven, eight and even nine- figure donations to their Alma mater and these funds escape the taxes that all the rest of us pay.
It’s even worse than that. Colleges pay almost no income taxes and generally avoid paying property taxes even though their vast tracts of valuable land are in or near struggling inner cities.
The universities openly boast to their donor base: contribute to us and you can avoid paying the estate tax and capital gains tax on your billions. Why aren’t liberals offended by this tax escape hatch?
I have no problem with a deduction for legitimate charities like soup kitchens and homeless shelters and orphanages. But Northwestern and Stanford need tax breaks? Has anyone been to their glitzy campuses.
There are at least a dozen schools bulging with $10 billion endowments and scores more with more than $1 billion. We should call these schools Loophole U.
What public purpose is advanced by these storehouses of wealth?
Harvard’s near $50 billion endowment is so large that the school could charge free tuition to every student from now until kingdom come – and still not run out of money. Yet Harvard still charges $100,000 a year for tuition and room and board.
But this is the real sin of this unworthy tax loophole. Even with these giant endowments, college tuitions have been rising at two to three times the rate of inflation. The argument that tax-free donations make colleges more affordable has proven to be patently false. The bigger the endowment the more the schools charge students and their parents – and taxpayers.
One of the best ways to help inner cities would be to require all universities (and hospitals) to pay property taxes. This would broaden the tax base in poor cities where nonprofits have grabbed the most valuable real estate. Instead of chasing people out of the cities like Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia and New York with exorbitant taxes, dinging the big U down the street would allow cities to CUT their taxes for everyone else.
By the way, colleges and hospitals make use of city services even more than homeowners and mom and pop businesses do. Why should they not pay for these services?
Richard Vedder a famous economist at the University of Ohio has noted that “one of the most regressive policies in the tax code is the subsidies to the billion-dollar universities. This only Makes the Rich, richer.”
In a famous scene in the movie Animal House, Dean Wormer lectures to one of the students who is facing expulsion: “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”
Ironically, that could describe more than 100 overly-endowed universities today that are more like investment houses that happen to have classrooms and students roaming around. Colleges need to pay their fair share, and the revenues should be used to help pay for the Trump tax cuts – which benefit everyone. That sounds fair to me.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity.
