It’s easy to point out that changes are necessary. However, many entrenched figures in the political system have deeply embedded themselves into the layers of bureaucracy surrounding the White House. While Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk are undeniably brilliant, there are areas where their approach could use some adjustment—perhaps more than a few.
One clear issue is the demanding work hours they expect. Many highly educated and skilled individuals who could make valuable contributions to initiatives like DOGE are at a point in life where 80-hour workweeks are simply unrealistic. I’ve worked such hours in the past, particularly in an understaffed hospital Anesthesia department, so I understand the demands. While I meet the intellectual requirements they seek, my physical stamina isn’t what it once was. If these long hours were relaxed for specific support roles, I’d be eager to contribute. For example, I’d gladly take on a role like idea screener.
Now, picture a website designed to gather ideas for cutting government waste. This platform could act as a hub for public input, where suggestions could be submitted, discussed, and refined into polished proposals for decision-makers. To maintain efficiency, the site could include a searchable library of previously submitted ideas to avoid redundancy. Submissions deemed unacceptable—like overly extreme or destructive suggestions—could be flagged as out of bounds. Over time, the platform could be enhanced and adapted to better meet the needs of both contributors and decision-makers, becoming an invaluable tool for government reform.
To create meaningful change, we need to focus on how to make it happen. Many federal programs are created internally by the departments they operate in and aren’t established by law. These programs represent easy opportunities for cuts since they can be shut down immediately. When a program ends, the jobs tied to it also disappear. This allows departments to stop paying those employees without legal issues. Just this step could significantly reduce the federal budget, perhaps even balance it.
Streamlining Security Clearances
Another area to address is security clearances. Many federal jobs require employees to hold active clearances. The Mar-a-Lago case sparked discussions about the President’s authority over classifications and clearances. Since the President is the ultimate authority, they can revoke clearances for unnecessary personnel, making them ineligible for their jobs. Without a valid clearance, these employees can’t work—or get paid. Offering severance packages could encourage voluntary resignations, further trimming costs.
Relocating Federal Departments
Big changes, like eliminating departments such as the Department of Education, require Congressional approval. However, there are creative alternatives. For instance:
- Relocate the Department of the Interior to North Dakota or another remote federal property. Many employees would likely resign rather than move, creating natural cost savings.
- Move the Department of Energy to Fairbanks, Alaska, near the North Slope oil reserves. This ties the department closer to its mission while reducing the concentration of federal employees in Washington, D.C.
Such relocations could benefit destination cities by boosting tax revenues while reducing political uniformity in D.C. suburbs. Counties like Loudoun County, home to many bureaucrats, would see population shifts, potentially lowering housing prices and attracting private-sector employees. These changes would also alter political dynamics in Virginia, reducing the influence of “Swamp” politics.
Tightening Federal Grants
Another way to save money is by reforming federal grants. Setting stricter requirements for grants, like those distributed by the NIH, could reduce waste. Currently, many grants fund research aligned with political ideologies rather than scientific merit. Appointing impartial reviewers to ensure non-political criteria for funding would save millions. Importantly, this change doesn’t require Congress.
In future budgets, all grants—block grants for Medicaid, education, and others—could be eliminated. Why send taxpayer money to Washington, only for it to be returned to states? Local governments can handle these needs without bureaucratic overhead.
Reevaluating Foreign Aid
Foreign aid is another area for cuts. The Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8, does not authorize aid to other countries. Instead of direct aid, the U.S. could focus on strategic business partnerships, as we’ve done with defense projects like the Iron Dome. Allowing allies like Israel to test advanced systems in real scenarios—such as truck-mounted lasers—would accelerate innovation without unnecessary delays.
Historical Lessons in Efficiency
History shows the value of practical, results-driven approaches. In the 1930s, Germany tested the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War to refine its tactics. Similarly, the U.S. military innovated during World War II, modifying B-25 bombers into effective gunships against Japanese shipping. In Vietnam, the AC-47 Spooky—a cargo plane fitted with massive firepower—became a battlefield game-changer. These successes came from avoiding bureaucratic delays and testing solutions in real-world conditions.
Focus on Constitutional Spending
Returning to Article I, Section 8, the Constitution explicitly lists the federal government’s powers. Programs or expenses not mentioned should be removed from the budget. This would close the loophole created by the overly broad interpretation of the “general welfare” clause, which has allowed unchecked spending.