From Frivolous Spending to Fiscal Sanity: The DOGE Agenda

Why would anyone want to argue over DOGE? Is it purely because they hold a disdain for Donald Trump or believe Elon Musk is a whack job? The reality is that the government has been engaging in reckless spending for generations, leading our nation into massive debt. The truth is no one really knows where all the money has gone or where it's being spent now. DOGE simply aims to tells us and put a stop to it in the interests of the American people. It's a matter of common sense at the most basic level.

So far, the revelations being brought to light should outrage anyone who (by force, it should be noted) dutifully pays their taxes to the federal government each year. One would have the reasonable expectation that the taxes we pay would at least contribute to provide essential services and improve the lives of American citizens.

But consider this. How does spending $20 million on airing Sesame Street programming in Iraq benefit Americans? Why are we allocating $6 million to Egypt to boost their tourism? And what is the purpose of sending $2 million to Guatemala for transgender surgeries?

When you witness the careless and appalling waste of our money, which offers no real value to the American people who are forced to foot the bill, it becomes even more infuriating that anyone would dare to call for additional funds from taxpayers under the pretense of "improving the lives of Americans."

Poverty remains a significant issue. We are continually told that we can't afford to strengthen our police forces. Cities in California are engulfed in flames with little support or relief for those affected. Our infrastructure is crumbling and desperately needs attention. The Social Security system and Medicare are under immense strain, and the list goes on.

It's high time we have someone in the White House who is willing to ask the tough questions and get to the bottom of where all the money is going. Americans should be celebrating this effort, not opposing it. When you take a deep dive into how the money is being spent, it becomes all too clear that we are being taken advantage of as a society, and it's all for the benefit of others, not for us. The funds are going towards special interests that don't align with the needs of the American people.

Even what we consider to be essential programs like FEMA are misusing our money. For instance, what does sending $59 million to New York City to pay for hotels for illegal immigrants have to do with disaster relief, especially when people affected by Hurricane Helene and the fires in California are still struggling? On top of that FEMA spent $110 million to assist illegal immigrants with food and shelter programs, and another $77 million was given to communities willing to accept illegal immigrants to help cover the associated costs. 

That alone is a significant amount of money being spent to accommodate people who shouldn't even be here in the first place.

Trump is aiming to uncover at least $2 trillion in wasteful spending, and from what we've observed so far—which I believe is merely the tip of the iceberg—we're likely to find even more. I mean, from what we've learned so far, this thing runs deep. Musk even recently suggested that Social Security benefits are being paid to people who are 150 years old, which can only mean one thing: these people are clearly dead, and their benefits continue to be collected by their descendants, or someone else is fraudulently receiving the payments.

The president is just doing what any sensible person would do if they looked at their finances and saw ballooning debt and obligations that far exceed their income. Just as a household or business would collapse without intervention, America faces the same risk. This situation is unsustainable and has been left unchecked for far too long. 

As has been emphasized, regardless of what the left wants to argue, DOGE is not targeting or eliminating essential services. Instead, it intends to identify and eliminate frivolous and absurd expenditures that serve no real purpose but cost taxpayers substantially. These funds could be better allocated within our government or returned to the American people to benefit the real economy.

It's just common sense.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Squid Burgers and Politics: Hey Schumer, Are You Getting This?

The Democrats are an intriguing group, when you think about it. Are they even aware of their situation yet? Not only did they lose the presidential race, but they also lost everything, and decisively. The critical swing states all went to Donald J. Trump, who also managed to secure votes from the black, Hispanic, young, and even union demographics.

Yet, here we have Chuck Schumer rallying his supporters with chants of, "We will win! We will win!" For any rational observer, the question becomes, "How exactly do they plan to achieve this?"

Not that I have any interest in seeing Democrats succeed, of course. Considering their extremely radical ideas, I'm grateful they did lose.

What astounds me is their sheer lack of comprehension. They really believe they are still championing causes people care about, when, in reality, the American public has completely rejected their entire platform.

We don't want men competing in women's sports. We don't want tampons in boy's rooms. We don't want transgender people serving openly in our military. We don't want DEI initiatives. We don't want open borders. We don't want widespread smash-and-grab store robberies, and the list goes on.

We rejected their ideas and policies at the polls. Rather than listening to the American people—something Democrats seem incapable of—they are doubling down on even more radical policies and ideas. 

It simply defies logic.

Let's be honest. A great product will naturally attract customers. No amount of savvy sales techniques can turn a subpar product into a success. So, you have two choices—either acknowledge the shortcomings of your product and improve it or reach out to your customers to understand what they truly want that your product currently lacks. Otherwise, you're just beating a dead horse. 

Speaking of beating dead horses, and not to necessarily beat my own, but I've often been saying over and over again, that if you don't understand why you lost, you can't know why you weren't winning.

The voters made it crystal clear—they don't want what the Democrats are selling. I understand the need to rally their most loyal supporters. However, it is astonishing to me that they don't get it, that their core base wasn't enough to win any part of the election. They should be addressing the masses who didn't vote for them. Instead of huddling in back rooms discussing better sales tactics for their unwanted products, they should focus on fulfilling the duties they were elected to perform.

To speak and act on the behalf of the American people!

How can they not grasp that their role isn't to reshape America into their personal vision, but to represent the desires of the majority? What's the point of pushing a platform that nobody wants?

If you're selling squid burgers and nobody's buying them—because, let's face it, squid burgers just aren't good—who in their right mind would continue trying to sell them? At some point, someone has to realize they'd be better off offering something more traditional.

That's not to say you can't try new things and present fresh ideas. Of course, you should do that. People might be interested. But they will also let you know when they think your ideas aren't good, and at that point, you move on. 

No matter how hard you try, or how much you want it, if people don't want your squid burgers, you will continue to fail while others succeed. Chanting outside your restaurant, "Squid, squid, squid!" in the face of defeat won't change anyone's mind.

The fact is, even if it's hard for the Democrats to accept, the American people said no. When that happens, it's time to change and adapt. Especially with radical ideas, it's wise to return to more traditional, commonsense approaches.

Like the squid burger concept, sometimes things just go too far, and when they do, you need to pull back on the reins a bit.

The more the Democrats pound their fists and push their failed agendas, the clearer it becomes to anyone paying attention that they are out of tune with the American people. It's like a guitar. It can sound good on its own when it is in tune with itself. But the moment you join a band, if your guitar isn't in sync with the rest of the group, it won't sound good and it will stand out as bad in the mix. 

If Chuck Schumer and his fellow Democrats want to win, they cannot hope to achieve it by acting against the views and interests of the very people they need to win over. Right now, all that Schumer and his buddies are doing is making it abundantly clear why they lost.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

The 'Yes' or 'No' Trick in Congressional Hearings

Let's be candid and fair here. Both sides of the aisle in congressional hearings engage in this practice. They pose what they term "a simple yes or no question." However, when you actually listen to these questions, you'll often find that they are not straightforward yes or no questions at all. Instead, they are meticulously crafted to establish a foundational claim that the questioner wants the respondent to confirm or deny. Their goal is a "gotcha" moment, and these questions are specifically designed for that purpose.

The reality is that no one asking the questions are genuinely interested in the answers. Rather, they use their five minutes as an opportunity to deliver a narrative that supports their preconceived conclusions. When the person being questioned attempts to clarify the details or explain their actual position beyond the confines of the question, the questioner can conveniently dismiss them by saying, "I guess you don't want to answer the question, let's move on." 

The reality is that most questions almost always require more than just a simple yes or no, especially depending on how they are framed—and let's be real here, politicians are as masterful at asking questions that lay traps as they are at answering questions with non-answers.

It's a trick for the cameras and a way for the questioner to commentate rather than to actually learn what the respondent actually believes.

I will admit, as a political junkie, it can be entertaining to watch. At the same time, it can also be a bit frustrating because, we all want to hear the answers to real questions regardless of what aisle we happen to be sitting on.

The purpose of asking questions, by their very nature, are not to hear the views of the person asking the questions, but rather to understand the views of the respondent. When we get gotcha questions such as are posed in these hearings, what we get instead is a one-sided view and before anyone can even attempt to answer, they're more often than not simply cut off.

Of course, the time limits are part of the problem. These senators and representatives want to get as much "information" out as they can and if they allow questions to actually be answered, they'd run out of time before they can say all they want to say.

Maybe we should change the rules. Limit the time for the questioners but stop the clock on their time for the answers and allow a separate time limit for the answering part of the back and forth. If we did that, perhaps these congressional hearings would actually serve the public better than they do.

When we don't get real answers, but instead only receive commentary, we, as voters, have a much more difficult time getting the answers we actually want to hear. It makes the whole thing seem like nothing more than a show.

More than that, wouldn't it be better for the respondent to decide whether the question is a yes or no one? After all, it's their answer. If it were as simple as a yes or no, I am sure that's how the question would actually be answered.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Carville's Harsh Words Are Only Halfway to the Truth

Most of the time, we can agree that James Carville's views are often more hot air than common sense. It really depends on the topic at hand. When he dives into wild, woke progressive agendas, for example, it seems like he's not putting much thought into his words—he's just spouting nonsense and trying his best to make it make sense.

At best, he's an entertaining individual, and I usually listen to him whenever I get the chance, purely for that entertainment value. He's a living, breathing caricature who often has a way with words that you can admire, even if you don't always agree with him. 

While his policy ideas might not always hit the mark, one thing he does know well is the political game and how it works. These are the views I tend to agree with most of the time. His insights on strategy and his ability to dissect the political landscape.

Ultimately, Carville emphasizes that politics is about tapping into the psyche of the American people and understanding what they want to hear. Does that mean policy doesn't matter? Not at all. But it does mean that, regardless of your policy, you need to deliver results and convince people why you are right.

More importantly, you need to show why you are the right person to lead it all.

Carville has long believed that the Democrats' loss in the last election was due to Biden not dropping out of the race much sooner. I don't agree with his assessment. The Democrats lost because they didn't listen to the American people, deployed harmful policies, and weren't forthcoming about the reality of the situation. 

Nonetheless, Carville still places all the blame for their devastating loss on Joe Biden himself, and there I think he's right. It is Biden's fault. He knew he was unfit to lead, and so did his staff, yet they continued the ruse and allowed him to run for reelection anyway, making it harder to put forward better candidates than himself or Kamala Harris.

Maybe the Democrats could have forged a closer race? Who knows? We can only speculate if the outcome of the election would have been different if Joe Biden had dropped out and there would have been a real primary. 

I still think Trump would have won because, unless someone on the left was willing to admit what Americans already knew—that the entire Biden presidency was a disaster—they stood no chance. But things certainly might have gone differently.

The trouble for Carville is how Biden tarnished his legacy—though I question how Carville might define legacy. He says no one cares about Biden anymore. He's old news. People are tired of hearing from him. He needs to go away.

My words are slightly harsher than Carville's, but not by much. "Just go to your condo in Rehoboth and stay there," Carville said. He even chided Biden's back and forth with his own party as petty, "'Oh, I would have beat Trump.' No one f--king believes that at all. Look guy, you had a noble career. Your last act was terrible. Just get out of the way."

I get it. Carville's mad that his party lost the election, and handily. What Carville should do is not just scold Biden for his mistakes but also hold the entire party accountable for theirs. As I mentioned before, the Democrats failed to resonate with the American people and caused more harm than good. That's why they lost. Putting a fresh face on bad policy wouldn't have changed the outcome. Their ideas weren't what the American people wanted, and the damage they caused was too much for anyone to bear another four years of going down the wrong path and leaving untold new carnage in the wake.

Biden's done, and Carville is right about that. But if the Democrat party doesn't grasp the full reason for their loss, wake up, and listen to the American people rather than just themselves, the damage might be permanent.

Woke isn't just failing in America. It's failing around the world. On that, I think Carville misses the point. More than that, it was the inflation, the border crisis, the war in Ukraine, putting tampons in men's restrooms, and allowing men to compete in women's sports. It was all those things and then some, and the fact that the Democratic party missed the mark on all of it. That's why they didn't win over the American people and lost the election to Donald Trump.

For all of his political smarts, Carville should know this. As he might say, "It's not rocket science, stupid."

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Congressman Andy Ogles' Proposal is a Pandora's Box We'd Rather Not Open

Here we go again. If we want to fan the flames and give the left an I told you so moment, just follow Tennessee Republican Congressman Andy Ogles' lead and introduce a resolution to the Constitution to allow Trump a third term.

Of course, it won't pass and likely won't even be taken seriously. But that's not the point. The left will still run with it, and the mainstream media will have a field day. They're already still talking about threats to democracy and conveniently leaving out the context of Trump telling Fox News' Sean Hannity that he would be a dictator on day one.

The point is, we don't need to give the left any more fuel to stoke the flames of false narratives. Why give them a reason to focus on something as absurd as Ogles' proposal and ignore all the good coming from the new administration that they otherwise couldn't overlook?

The bottom line is, if you give the media a distraction, they'll seize it and overlook the real news.

I understand Congressman Ogles' point, and he makes a valid argument. We have numerous issues that need addressing, and we want to ensure President Trump has all the necessary resources to tackle them. However, proposing a change to the 22nd Amendment is not the right approach. We have rules for a reason, and the law is the law. Moreover, what happens when this change applies to a president we don't support?

In other words, we shouldn't just consider the immediate implications of such a proposal, but also its long-term impact. I offered the same caution to Democrats regarding their overzealous and wrongful pursuit of Trump, dragging him through the courts and threatening imprisonment. 

Had they succeeded, one day the tables will be turned, and once the door to political persecution has been opened, you could be next in line.

We won. Let's just rejoice in that and be satisfied and committed to the fact that we have four years to get the job done. That's how it works. We also have four years to prove our case for 2028 and hopefully have Vice President J.D. Vance or another Republican carry the torch. But we only have four years with President Trump.

I don't want the law changed, and I don't even want to entertain the discussion. No American, not even Trump supporters, should want to have that conversation, even if it might work in the country's favor this time. 

Moreover, if a proposal like Ogles' were to pass easily with serious consideration, how simple might it be one day to argue against term limits altogether? If we have a good president, why not let them run indefinitely until America decides it's time for a change?

This is a glaring example of a slippery slope. 

Congressman Andy Ogles may have good intentions, and I trust that he does. However, it's the bigger picture implications that matter most. Our time in Congress should be dedicated to advancing Trump's agenda, not giving the media a reason to overlook our accomplishments or causing on-the-fence voters to question our intentions.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer