Talk about doublespeak, given the recent Supreme Court decision to make the president essentially immune from criminal prosecution. The Trump administration's stated goals and policies could not be further removed from the ideals of small government and limited executive power.
I'm quite sure the "sharpest technical and legal minds in America" have better things to do than help these clowns, but I'm also sure they're not actually the targets of recruitment here.
Unelected toadies will jostle for the opportunity to call each other “inefficient” or “unable to share Trump’s vision”. With algorithms deciding how that opportunity fits into attention slots.
The efficiency cuts they are talking about will barely make a dent while making services worse for everyone. Good luck next time a disaster area needs FEMA assistance.
And not unlike a business when you have a deficit you have two options: cut cost and increase revenues, this incoming government will very likely decrease revenues through tax cuts, making the deficit even worse.
(who are promising to personally review CVs https://x.com/DOGE/status/1857076831104434289 for its unpaid positions https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1857112441529700671)
(and claiming "decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change" when it was 74M to 76M votes is a bit silly)
Objectively, of course, you're right.
Others talk utter BS, make a million conflicting promises, loudly deny stuff that they fully intend to do etc. Those people do not have a valid claim at a mandate.
I started a whole unit on words about elections about two weeks ago. It was a pretty damn upsetting two weeks. I really wish Duo gave me the ability to skip a section and come back to it later.
Then there's the "unpaid volunteers" thing. You don't get the best and brightest that way; the best and brightest already have things to do with their time. The state of civic involvement these days means that the best and brightest are not just going to drop what they're doing in order to serve their country for no money. Instead, you're going to get two kinds of people: 1) ideological warriors, and 2) people who can bend things in directions that will make them money. That's not going to produce good results.
If you had two people as SecDef Musk would use that as a perfect example of inefficiency.
> How is this different from having two founders?
One typically functions as CEO.
"What exactly will get cut?" - Make you a deal - set a timer and do 10 minutes of research on the subject and come back to report you found NOTHING that could be reasonably and easily cut?
EDIT - so far I haven't heard anyone claim we're going to balance the budget via this mechanism. The goal is to CUT WASTE and IMPROVE EFFICIENCY. I see this as a basis for having a real conversation about taxation personally.
It really feels like we're nearing the inevitable outcome from Citizens United, a country ran by billionaires, to the exclusive benefit of billionaires.