Stephen Moore: The Conclusion of Everlasting Power in Washington

Changes in Government Spending: A Shift in Congress

Over the years, it’s been almost impossible to keep track of government programs that have been eliminated. You could count them on one hand—or maybe add a few toes.

Even Ronald Reagan, who advocated for cutting many programs, couldn’t put an end to Congress’s “life support” funding. He famously remarked that “the closest thing to immortality on this planet is government programs” after witnessing Congress showering funds on even the least effective institutions.

But something surprising happened last week. Congress managed to wrap up several major programs, some of which had been around for nearly fifty years.

The withdrawal bill initiated by Trump worked its way through both the House and Senate, cutting federal funding for National Public Radio, Public Television, and the U.S. International Development Agency. Sorry, Elmo; it looks like taxpayer subsidies are no longer available for billionaires. Additionally, the House Budget Committee halted funds for the World Bank, which many see as a multi-billion dollar funding source for globalists.

Nearly 100 “public interest groups” protested this decision, warning that it could harm thousands—perhaps even millions—of people. But many of these organizations are large recipients of substantial government funding.

They are truly the face of the swamp.

It’s refreshing to see Republicans not indulging their demands.

More agencies, departments, and grant programs are now sidelined. The recent tax overhaul is set to eliminate many taxpayer-funded handouts from the Green New Deal, as well as the requirement for Americans and the government to purchase electric vehicles. Trump has also been pulling the U.S. back from organizations like the World Health Organization, which has been criticized for its serious missteps.

Next on the list is the Department of Education. Established in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, this department has been closely tied to teachers’ unions. The more money the federal government has poured in, the worse test scores have become. Now, it seems this agency may soon face significant cuts.

Critics may brush these reductions off as minor, similar to someone with $10,000 in debt deciding to cut their spending by a mere $5. But what Trump is doing may signal a necessary cultural restructuring in Washington.

He’s showing that it is possible to cut programs that don’t serve their intended purpose. Should businesses losing $2 trillion annually be taxed for what some deem essential projects like vegan initiatives in Zambia, Pride Parades in Lesotho, wind farms in Ukraine, DEIA contractors in Belarus, or reproductive health policies in Central America?