How NOT to Rein in Government

As regulars know, I advocate bringing government back to its proper scope, protecting individual rights.

That is a very long-term goal that I am almost certain I will not live to see accomplished.

Why?

First, the reason government is so out of bounds now has to be addressed, given that this is a republic, and its leaders broadly respond to what the people want. Until a significant minority is out there making a case for limited government that the majority will buy, the welfare state will live on. And, until such altruistic ideas as I am my brother's keeper -- and the collectivist notion that the state should make me keep him -- are no longer dominant in the culture, good luck with that.

Second, once the above happens, the process of unraveling the state from the economy and our lives is complicated. Take Social Security: It has to be sunsetted thanks to the government's "promise" causing millions of people to take it into account when planning their retirements. Certain government controls -- like "rational" regulations -- that take the place of things that would exist in a free economy need to be replaced carefully.

Even with wind in the sails, this will take time and careful planning to do.

Let me state now that what Trump is doing -- making a show of combating "inefficiency" and laying off bureaucrats with no discernible plan to eliminate their employers -- is about as close to the opposite of how I would attack the problem as I can imagine -- and I'm pretty sure he's more interested in taking over the bureaucracy than ending it, anyway.

Needless to say, the federal workers Trump is attempting to eliminate via executive order are in a panic, leading them to inundate. employment experts like Alison Green with questions. Her answers are interesting, and include the following:

A lot of what the administration is doing is designed to demoralize people and get them to quit on their own and stop carrying out the missions of their agencies. One school of thought is not to make it easy for them; if they want to lay off you, make them lay you off (which will also make you eligible for unemployment benefits, which quitting won't). That said, it's not always that simple. You need to balance that against your morale, how you feel ethically about staying, what work will be asked of you, your finances ... Different people may make that calculation differently, and those of us watching from the outside should begrudge absolutely no one who decides to get out.

One big caution: the memo that went out yesterday asking for "voluntary resignations" in exchange for getting paid through September 30 should not be trusted. Senator Tim Kaine noted last night that it's a trap, the administration doesn't have the authority to offer it, and the promised pay-outs may not materialize. They want you to take that offer so they can avoid lawsuits, and there's a reason it sounds a lot like what Elon Musk did at Twitter (when, as it happens, workers also didn't receive promised severance). [bold added]

Green also notes:

For an idea of what else might be coming, [see] the Project 2025 agenda -- which is now being openly implemented, despite Trump distancing himself from it during the campaign...

Whatever the results, the underhanded, hamfisted, and legally dubious approach Donald Trump is taking risks discrediting anyone who is actually interested in returning government to its proper scope. This will happen in much the same way Herbert Hoover's policies ahead of the Depression discredited capitalism for generations to come: the majority of people who don't think that much or that clearly about such matters will associate those things, and the cause of freedom will suffer.

-- CAV