The federal government spends enormous amounts of taxpayer money on programs riddled with inefficiency, redundancy, and waste. As Elon Musk and others have pointed out, significant cuts are not only possible—they're long overdue. A modern equivalent to the 1980s Grace Commission findings, adjusted for inflation, suggests we could cut $2 trillion. Here's how we can get there:

1. Eliminate Redundant Federal Agencies & Programs

The U.S. has numerous overlapping programs across different departments. Streamlining or merging these entities could save significant amounts.

• Overlapping Programs: Consolidate functions where possible within the Department of Agriculture, HUD, and Health and Human Services to avoid duplication.
• Departmental Mergers: Consider merging offices with overlapping missions and responsibilities to increase efficiency.
  Estimated Savings: $200-300 billion over a decade.

2. Cut Wasteful Defense Spending

Oversight of defense contracts and the elimination of outdated or unnecessary military projects could yield significant savings.

• Outdated Projects: Eliminate costly weapons systems that are no longer necessary or have been proven ineffective.
• Cost-Control Measures: Implement stricter audits and cost management for defense contracts to prevent overspending.
  Estimated Savings: $300-400 billion.

3. Reform Medicare & Medicaid Without Cutting Core Services

Implementing reforms to make these programs more efficient can yield major savings without harming beneficiaries.

• Fraud Controls: Strengthen fraud prevention measures to reduce waste.
• Drug Pricing: Negotiate better prescription drug prices and enhance competition.
• State-Level Flexibility: Allow more innovation at the state level to manage Medicaid more efficiently.
• Preventive Care: Incentivize preventive healthcare to lower long-term costs.
  Estimated Savings: $500-600 billion over a decade.

4. Privatization and Outsourcing Where Effective

Privatizing certain government functions can reduce costs while maintaining or improving service quality.

• Outsource Infrastructure Management: Use private management for infrastructure projects where feasible.
• Amtrak: Consider privatizing or partially privatizing Amtrak to reduce the financial burden on taxpayers.
  Estimated Savings: $100-200 billion.

5. End or Limit Foreign Aid to Non-Critical Programs

Reassess foreign aid spending and focus only on security-critical or strategically important partnerships.

• Strategic Reassessment: Prioritize foreign aid for nations that directly contribute to U.S. security and economic interests.
• Non-Essential Programs: Cut or limit aid to countries and programs that are not critical.
  Estimated Savings: $50-100 billion.

6. Government Property and Building Maintenance

Underused or inefficiently managed government properties can be sold or repurposed to save billions.

• Sell Underused Properties: Identify and sell federal buildings and land that are not being utilized.
• Repurpose Where Necessary: Repurpose buildings for state or local needs to reduce maintenance costs.
  Estimated Savings: $100 billion.

7. Reduce Bureaucratic Costs in Departments Like Education

The Department of Education has grown significantly, but educational outcomes remain stagnant.

• Downsize Federal Role: Transfer more educational oversight back to states and reduce federal administrative costs.
• Efficiency Audits: Conduct thorough audits to find and eliminate wasteful spending.
  Estimated Savings: $50-75 billion.

8. Fraud and Mismanagement Reduction Initiatives

Preventing fraud and managing benefits programs more effectively could save substantial amounts.

• Technology Investment: Use advanced data analysis and AI to detect and prevent improper payments.
• Enhanced Oversight: Increase oversight in Social Security and Medicare to minimize fraud and abuse.
  Estimated Savings: $300 billion.

Total Potential Savings: $2 Trillion Over a Decade

By addressing these areas with strategic reforms, we can achieve $2 trillion in savings while protecting essential services. This is not just a dream—it’s a realistic and achievable goal. With determined leadership and public support, the time to act is now.

A Return to Traditional Values

• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): Before Gen X, the workplace was about meritocracy, where skills and hard work determined success, not quotas or diversity checklists. They value fair play, where everyone has an equal chance based on merit, not identity.
• Sports and Gender: There was a time when sports were a straightforward affair, where biological sex determined participation. Gen Xers remember when women's sports were for women, highlighting their discomfort with biological men competing against women, which they perceive as an erasure of women's achievements.
• Education: Once upon a time, a degree signified hard work and achievement. Now, many Gen Xers see higher education as having shifted its focus, where ideological purity tests have begun to overshadow academic rigor, leading to skepticism about its current value.
• Cultural Identity: Pride was initially about rights for gay and lesbian individuals, not a broad spectrum of identities including what some view as extreme or fetishistic expressions. Gen X seeks a return to when cultural movements focused on equality rather than the celebration of every individual identity.
• Media Integrity: The media's role was to inform, not to shape public opinion. Gen Xers recall when journalists were seen as watchdogs of democracy, not as participants in the political fray, which has led to a distrust in modern media practices.
• Societal Norms: The aspiration for a stable family life, a good job, and homeownership was celebrated, not mocked. This generation stands for the ordinary, hardworking American's dream without being demeaned for it.

A Generation That Remembers

• Cultural Pride: There was an era when national pride wasn't a contentious issue but a shared feeling. Gen Xers push back against the narrative that loving one's country is inherently problematic.
• Historical Nuance: Understanding history as complex, with various shades of gray, rather than dichotomous narratives of oppression, is a hallmark of this generation's worldview.
• Immigration: They remember when immigration policies focused on integration and contribution, rather than what they see as less scrutinized entries leading to cultural and economic strain.
• Economic Policies: Taxes and government spending used to directly benefit the citizens through infrastructure, education, and healthcare, not what they perceive as globalist agendas or endless foreign conflicts.

Rumors are swirling about the possibility of Marco Rubio being tapped as Secretary of State, and if that happened, it would bring some significant changes to how the U.S. handles foreign affairs. Rubio’s background as a senator on the Foreign Relations Committee has given him a strong understanding of U.S. relationships with key countries. Over the years, he has been particularly vocal on confronting China, backing democratic movements, and opposing authoritarian regimes like those in Cuba and Venezuela. Given his Cuban heritage, Rubio has a personal connection to Latin America, which could help him build stronger ties in that region. Additionally, his reputation as a skilled public speaker would make him effective at communicating American foreign policy goals both domestically and internationally.

However, Rubio’s conservative track record would come with challenges. He is known for his tough, sometimes hawkish, stance on adversarial countries, which might not sit well with career diplomats at the State Department or with allies who prefer a more cautious approach. His support for aggressive policies, such as sanctions and other hardline measures against China and Iran, could make him a polarizing figure. Managing the large and complex bureaucracy of the State Department would require Rubio to work with officials who often prioritize long-term, diplomatic strategies. Balancing his own strong ideological positions with the need to keep internal operations running smoothly and cooperatively could be a difficult task.

If Rubio were to take on the role, he would likely pursue a more assertive foreign policy, aimed at countering threats to democracy and standing firm against authoritarian governments. His challenge would be to find the right balance between his beliefs and the diplomatic flexibility needed to maintain global alliances and partnerships. The success of his tenure would largely depend on whether he could adapt to these demands without sacrificing his core principles.

A Trump Strategy to Project Strength

If former President Donald Trump were to choose Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, it would likely be a calculated move to project strength on the world stage. Rubio’s hardline approach and firm positions on countries like China, Russia, and Iran would send a clear message: the U.S. is taking an aggressive, proactive stance. This kind of offensive posture would serve as a tool in negotiations, potentially giving the U.S. more leverage when dealing with adversaries. Rubio's reputation for not backing down from authoritarian regimes would align with Trump's strategy of using boldness to force opponents into concessions.

By appointing someone like Rubio, Trump would be signaling that his administration is committed to standing up for democratic values and pushing back against global threats without hesitation. This approach might make adversaries think twice before testing American resolve. However, it could also make diplomatic negotiations more intense and less likely to result in compromise, raising the stakes and potentially straining relationships with countries that prefer diplomacy over confrontation.

Given Trump’s style as an aggressive negotiator, he would likely be comfortable with a Secretary of State who adopts a similarly strong and assertive posture. For Trump, choosing Rubio would reflect a shared philosophy: using strength to achieve strategic gains, even if it means playing hardball on the global stage.