But how would that look?
We are currently in an administration that hasn't filled many positions that are important. Is that the goal? Is that what we are to believe it's draining?
I do understand that since we're starting an isolationists phase under Trump, we probably don't need to fill the diplomatic corps, but are we really just not going to hire the people needed to run the government and call it good?
Are we just going to grab random employees of Trump's and give them random jobs? By any metric, that doesn't make sense.
I'm all for getting rid of redundancies, and creating better efficiencies in government, but that's not the delivery I'm looking for.
So, let's say we actually get a smart government in place, with a president who is smart enough to appoint an actual staff that will help to reshape a more efficient government that delivers better program management and at a savings. When would this become a part of a platform? (I'm guessing never)
So let's say that governmental reorganization saves us 10-15%, then we also overhaul our most expensive programs (Medicare, Medicaid, social security, defense) and we make them more efficient, and sustainable. We save another 10-15% there (mostly in admin costs, probably) and they function better. Can we then keep them? Are we able to see that we need programs such as these?
Or are you just wanting to kill all programs that help the less fortunate?