What's the point of cutting "beauracracy" if doing so also leads to ballooning government spending? The defecit is growing substantially. I mean, what's the point of a federal hiring freeze and insisting on a reduction in civil servants if that comes with a higher deficit, more spending and more big government.
Tariffs are big government. Repealing net neutrality is big government. Going after the tech companies is big government. Increasing DHS resources is big government. Sending troops to the border as a political stunt is big government. The Space Force is going to add huge costs and there's no feasible way to as new military branch without adding beauracracy. He increased military spending by 40 billion, even before the space Force thing.
What's he doing that you think accomplishes your desire for small government? Sure, there are fewer people. But the cost is higher, and theyre governing against individual liberties. Just genuinely curious how you see otherwise.
You & I both know that the primary driver of the deficit is entitlement programs. Last I read, those are around 60% of the entire budget. So unless someone makes a tough decision (which, let's be honest, neither side will do), all future Presidents will have gigantic deficits.
What do I like? Less people, less regulations and cutting of existing regulations. All of those things make a difference for everyday people and small businesses.
Net neutrality was big government. Repealing it is taking the government out of the process, which I see as a good thing. The Space Force already exists as part of the Air Force. He's literally just doing a re-branding as a new branch. It's nothing more than a PR stunt IMO, so don't see that impacting the deficit much.
Do I wish we'd do more? Sure. But no other President has even made an effort. Wish we would wholesale start eliminating departments - like Energy, Education, Commerce and the EPA for starters.