Every pollster and researcher knows that the answer you get to a question depends on how it is asked. Does the government spend too much? Guaranteed — the answer to this question that yields no useful information will get a universal “yes.”

So if everybody believes that, why does government spending remain “too high?” A general answer that also yields no useful information is it’s because we have a growing population, an expanding economy, and people expect more from the same government that they insist is “too big” but doesn’t do enough for them. 

If asked whether we should be spending more on social security, education, or environmental and health protection, there will be a majority though not a universal “yes.” If asked whether we spend too much on foreign aid, there will be a general but not universal “yes.” The same politicians baying that government spending is “out of control” and should be cut insist “but not in my district.”

Opinions on government spending depend on individual priorities and preferences, beliefs, access to information, and misinformation, much of it deliberate.

Everyone insists that they oppose waste, fraud, and abuse. But there is no such account by which to eliminate it. Reform requires digging into detail. It cannot be done by sacking IRS employees and 17 non-partisan inspectors general whose job it is to curb waste, fraud, and abuse.

Trump promises to extend the 2017 tax cuts benefitting large corporations and the nation’s wealthiest people while throwing a few crumbs to placate the pliable. Extending these tax cuts would reduce revenue over 10 years by an estimated $4.5 trillion. To “pay for this” Republican law makers seek to reduce federal spending by $2 trillion. Although “everyone” wants reduced federal spending, nobody wants to reduce spending from which they — and realizing it or not, we — benefit. How then to do it?

Trump’s solution is to put the unelected, un-vetted, world’s richest man in charge of a mythical agency, the “Department of Government Efficiency” that no law has established. This phantom “agency” is personally charged by Trump to cut the federal civilian workforce, eliminate entire departments established by congress, and to impound (not spend) monies appropriated by congress that can legally be stopped only by congress.  

What could possibly go wrong with that? Much already has.

Start with “the deep state,” the enemy within, as Trump sees it. Eliminate waste and fraud. Sack those nameless, faceless, unelected Washington bureaucrats.  

Start with an unpopular issue, foreign aid, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) that Trump insists is run by radicals and lunatics. “Drain the swamp!”  

That initial start didn’t go as well for Trump as expected. As the logic of the nation’s “soft power” of aid to the world’s poorest citizens and its role in world health became publicized along with the dedication of USAID workers, there was unexpected push back. And, what about those shipments of agricultural products intended to feed hungry people that would not occur?

The strategy is to be fast and furious as Trump ordered large scale firing of federal employees. These included laying off 80,000 workers from the Veterans Affairs department. The long unpopular among Republicans Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was essentially shuttered after Trump ordered it to halt all activity. Thousands of newly hired probationary employees were sacked, including some from nearly every government department. Trump ordered agency heads to identify permanent employees for termination — if they don’t do it, Musk will.

These layoffs of thousands of employees were not done with analysis of consequences. The procedure was accurately portrayed by Musk personally waving a chain saw at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Fired federal employees included USDA scientists working on the Avian Flu, Nuclear experts responsible for safely storing nuclear weapons, FAA workers responsible for aviation safety, Park Rangers and lower level employees cleaning toilets at national parks — all stuff that is unnoticed by the public as long as it is being done, but suddenly aware when not being done.

Loss of essential services performed by government employees focuses attention of the public on the importance of government service to make this country run. Eighty percent of federal workers work outside of Washington, D.C. Reducing federal employment and shuddering federal offices has local economic effects, including in Red States. Some 40 percent of them are veterans. The shuddering of 47 local Social Security offices reduces the ability to serve clients having issues.  

The federal workforce as a percentage of total American population has remained consistent over the past decade at around .56 to .59 percent, an actual decrease from the 2.5 percent of 1945. The entire payroll for the federal workforce is some $336 billion, a mere 5 percent of federal spending. To find the trillions in reduced spending to pay for those intended tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy, Trump and Musk need to look elsewhere than sacking essential government employees.  

That “elsewhere” is limited. Other than mandatory spending, the largest of which is Social Security and Medicare; interest on the national debt; and national defense; we’re left with about 25 percent of federal spending for everything else. The largest part of that is — guess what — Medicaid, on which some 72 million low income Americans depend.  

As long as the strategy was framed as the world’s richest man advising Trump on cutting government waste and sacking “useless” federal workers, a substantial share of voters went along with it. But did voters really want to sack scientists researching the Avian Flu; lose technical experts responsible for nuclear, health, and airline safety; eliminate tornado warnings; or sack national park rangers and unsung workers that clean the park toilets? Did voters want to end Dept. of Education aid to hard pressed local school districts, and cut Medicaid funds to low income people and hospitals, especially those in rural areas that would close without Medicaid?

“We didn’t vote for that,” claim some Trump voters now expressing regret. Yes they did, however unknowingly. Why would voters receiving Medicare benefits, and even some government workers now finding themselves sacked, vote for the candidate that promised to slash government and punish his enemies, the bureaucrats, free loaders, and Libs. “That’s not us, “they believed, “it’s those others.” 

But those wishing to punish “the others,” risk becoming “the others.”

— John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears monthly in the Monroe Times.