13 Comments
User's avatar
Bob's avatar

Your article builds a strong case against Trump and Musk’s restructuring of the federal government but has notable weaknesses. Some claims rely on speculation rather than concrete evidence, particularly regarding the long-term consequences of dismantling the civil service system. While it critiques the erosion of bureaucratic independence, it does not fully explore how inefficiencies within the current system may have contributed to public frustration with government. Additionally, it assumes the status quo is preferable without considering whether reforms—though controversial—could address legitimate concerns about waste and inefficiency. Lastly, while it draws parallels to 19th-century cronyism, it overlooks key differences in modern governance, such as legal safeguards, regulatory oversight, and institutional checks that could influence the impact of these changes.

This is a significant discussion on a subject that warrants further investigation. My gut instinct suggests we're likely to uncover a substantial sum of taxpayers' funds being wasted and perhaps criminal activity.

Expand full comment
Ron Fournier's avatar

Oh, I don’t doubt there is corruption to be found. But creating a corrupt and ethically conflicted police force to stop bank robberies isn’t a reform

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

I do not necessarily disagree with this, however, the bank robbers are unlikely to halt bank robberies any more than a "Blue Ribbon" committee is likely to resolve this crisis.

Expand full comment
Frank Canzolino's avatar

Radical transparency is needed in government, including a significant overhaul of the security classification system. Very little government information should be hidden behind a wall of confusion. These tech bros that are deeply involved with the Trump administration are just what’s needed to clear up the disparate computer systems and archaic bureaucracies, as long as they continue to operate legally and openly which, to date, they appear to be doing…

Expand full comment
Ron Fournier's avatar

They are the opposite of radical transparency IMO. But thanks for sharing yours! I value your opinion

Expand full comment
Frank Canzolino's avatar

So, considering that 90% of Federal expenditures (multi-trillions of dollars) are routed through Treasury, how would YOU investigating expenditures without access to the payment system. And if YOU were directed by POTUS to allow access to those EXECUTIVE BRANCH payment systems by LEGAL contractors, and you refused, wouldn’t YOU expect to be shown the door?

Expand full comment
Ron Fournier's avatar

I wouldn’t do it this way.

Expand full comment
Mike Bauer's avatar

No. There is a clear conflict of interest and a dearth of security.

Expand full comment
Ron Fournier's avatar

Agre

Expand full comment
Ron Fournier's avatar

This is on Trump. It’s his doing

To pretend that Democrats had nothing to do with making Trump president and feeding discontent with government is asking for another generation of MAGAism. We need to fix our house if we hope to burn theirs down.

Thanks, Mike

Expand full comment
Mike Bauer's avatar

I was wondering when you would lay this at the feet of the Democrats. Took you to nearly the end but you made it.

Expand full comment
Mike Craine's avatar

Trusk will push this hard and I’m sure have a plan for what they’ll do once they lose momentum due to political/legal resistance. Game theory runamuck. Trying to weaken the impact of midterms in ‘26.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 2
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Ron Fournier's avatar

Nope.

Expand full comment