Whether through the Department of Government Efficiency or the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, cuts in federal spending have been cheered by President Donald Trump and his supporters. Those cheers are misguided, echoing the false narrative promoted by Republicans and ignoring that spending cuts can be costly.
Several recent examples in Clark County and throughout Washington demonstrate the problem. Headlines include: “Federal money that helps homeless students in Vancouver, Evergreen school districts is at risk”; “ ‘It’ll probably kill a lot of us’: Medicaid changes bode ill for Clark County’s homeless”; and “WA senator fighting to save Nobel Prize-winning Tri-Cities observatory.” Numerous other stories since Trump returned to the White House also have detailed the local impact of spending cuts, providing fodder for debates about the role of the federal government.
Trump supporters often say that federal programs are rife with fraud and waste; that cuts are necessary to reduce the national debt; and that states should pick up a larger portion of the tab for social services such as Medicaid and homeless assistance.
There is some validity to those arguments, particularly with the national debt at an extraordinary $37 trillion. But there also are some flaws.
In fiscal year 2023, the federal government spent approximately $18,300 for each person in the United States; in 1980, per-capita federal spending was $9,888. Adjusted for inflation, federal spending has declined significantly over the past 4½ decades. Still, the national debt has continued to grow, with administrations and congressional leaders of both parties abandoning their duty to demonstrate fiscal responsibility.
On the first day of his return to office, Trump instituted the Department of Government Efficiency and placed Elon Musk in charge. The goal was to root out “waste, fraud and abuse,” and Musk claimed he could slash $2 trillion from the federal budget.
Reality, however, intervened. Musk left DOGE at the end of May, and as of mid-July, the department claimed $190 billion in savings — less than 10 percent of the fanciful promises. Many cuts have come in the form of canceled contracts, leaving workers and researchers in limbo; many have come in the form of fired federal employees; many have come in the form of unilaterally halting funding approved by Congress — an action that is not under the purview of the executive branch.
Congress followed the DOGE cuts by passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which includes significant cuts to the social safety net, especially Medicaid. Despite the alleged savings, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation will add approximately $3.4 trillion to $4.8 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years because of significant tax cuts that analysts say will mostly benefit the wealthy.
All of which should lead to scrutiny from both Trump critics and supporters. Taxpayers who desire meaningful spending reductions should be disappointed. So should taxpayers who desire to reduce the national debt. So should taxpayers who disapprove of cutting the number of Medicaid recipients while reducing taxes for the wealthy; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 10 million Americans will lose their health insurance.
Six months into his second presidency, Trump has had a significant impact on the United States. That is what he was elected to do, but even his supporters should take a sober look at the reality of that impact, not the rhetoric.