data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/712f6/712f62cf28824b8a8798a8e1ca7b97fab8b7a2e6" alt="Print"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/591fc/591fc47f5f2cc448c864a16c97fc291ac916ba6e" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/37238/37238f11bb60ae91539f3c50a26ad5c9b61666af" alt=""
Five weeks into his second presidency, some Donald Trump voters are telling their local representatives that they still support his agenda, especially when it comes to streamlining the federal government, but they don’t care for the way it’s being done under the leadership of billionaire Elon Musk.
“The guy in South Africa is not doing you any good — he’s hurting you more than he’s helping,” one rural Texan told his House member at a town hall meeting last week, referring to the South Africa-born entrepreneur.
Do you think the Silicon Valley approach — “Move fast and break things” — is the right way to run the government?
That’s our Question of the Week for readers.
Another Texan told Rep. Pete Sessions: “The executive can only enforce laws passed by Congress; they cannot make laws,” claiming that layoffs and closures of entire federal agencies directed by Musk are unconstitutional. “When are you going to wrest control back from the executive and stop hurting your constituents?” Is she right?
Or is the president right to have hired a business executive who knows how to make decisions quickly in order to serve the administration’s transformational agenda, a platform that won him the White House?
Or are you somewhere in the middle on Musk’s DOGE team, believing that they have done some things right, some things wrong in their quest for government efficiency?
A Georgia House member at another town hall heard criticism mainly of Musk’s having access to personal data about taxpayers and government employees. And an Oklahoma representative heard from a voter who served in the armed forces and is worried about the DOGE team saying “it’s OK to cut veterans’ benefits.”
On a larger scale, some economists have said that if the real issue is trimming government spending in order to begin work on cutting the national debt, then eliminating many federal salaries when they make up on the order of 7% of government spending each year is an inefficient approach. Are they correct?
Email your thoughts to opinion@scng.com. Please include your full name and city or community of residence. Provide a daytime phone number (it will not be published).