Can DOGE cut $2 trillion?

Summary

Today, Explained: Can DOGE Cut $2 Trillion?
Vox Podcast Network | December 4, 2024

---

Introduction

In the December 4, 2024 episode of Today, Explained, hosts Sean Rameswaram and Noel King delve into a bold and unconventional proposal spearheaded by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: the potential elimination of $2 trillion from the United States federal budget. This detailed exploration examines the feasibility, targets, and political ramifications of such significant budget cuts, all under the whimsical banner of "Doge," inspired by Musk's favorite cryptocurrency, Dogecoin.

---

Elon Musk and the Dogecoin Phenomenon

The episode opens with Sean Rameswaram highlighting Elon Musk's affinity for Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency with origins in a popular internet meme featuring a Shiba Inu dog. Musk's influence on Dogecoin's popularity is undeniable, as evidenced by his promotional appearances and public endorsements:

Sean Rameswaram [00:00]: "Elon Musk is a funny guy. You can tell because his favorite cryptocurrency is based on a cute dog... it's Elon's fave."

Musk's advocacy led to significant price surges for Dogecoin and temporarily saw Tesla accepting the cryptocurrency as payment. However, his relentless promotion also attracted legal challenges:

Sean Rameswaram [00:26]: "He also said he would fund a moon mission entirely with Dogecoin and incessantly tweeted about the crypto."

Despite investor backlash and lawsuits accusing Musk of price manipulation, the courts sided in his favor, reinforcing his influential role in the crypto space.

---

The Birth of the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge)

Amidst this backdrop, the episode introduces the newly established Department of Government Efficiency, whimsically named "Doge," a nod to Dogecoin. This agency, appointed by then-President Trump, is led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, aiming to streamline and reduce federal expenditures.

Chris Edwards [02:17]: "The first thing you need to know about the Department of Government Efficiency is that Trump's put two people in charge of it. So it's off to a great start. Elon is one of them. The other is Vivek Ramaswamy."

---

Understanding the Federal Budget: Current Expenditures

To contextualize the proposed $2 trillion in budget cuts, the podcast provides an overview of the U.S. federal budget, highlighting the largest expenditure categories:

• Social Security: $1.3 trillion (04:45)

  Chris Edwards [04:45]: "So biggest single share is Social Security... that's the biggest single program, and it's one that Trump has promised not to cut."

• Medicare: $839 billion (06:27)

  Chris Edwards [06:27]: "In 2023, we spent 839 billion. So less than Social Security, but a lot."

• Defense Spending: $805 billion (07:18)

  Chris Edwards [07:18]: "Defense spending is huge. That was 805 billion in 2023."

• Medicaid: $616 billion (08:00)

  Chris Edwards [08:00]: "Most important here is Medicaid... next biggest chunk after Social Security, Medicare, defense."

• Income Security Programs: $450 billion (08:00)

  Chris Edwards [08:00]: "Income Security Programs... like food stamps, tax credits... a lot of programs that support low income people's incomes."

---

Proposed Budget Cuts: Feasibility and Targets

The central discussion revolves around the ambitious goal of cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget. Experts weigh in on the likelihood and strategies to achieve such reductions:

Sean Rameswaram [03:28]: "Rip out of this wasted $6.5 trillion Harris Biden budget?"

Dylan Matthews [03:25]: "Any sufficiently large organization is going to have inefficiencies... But almost everything that the federal government spends money on is pretty non-controversial."

Chris Edwards expresses skepticism about the feasibility of achieving $2 trillion in cuts:

Chris Edwards [12:10]: "They are not going to cut $2 trillion. I will bet any amount of money... I think the quantity of cuts we're going to be looking at is in the tens of billions rather than hundreds or trillions."

Conversely, Vivek Ramaswamy outlines potential areas for significant reductions:

Vivek Ramaswamy [18:54]: "The next biggest pot of money in the federal budget is aid from the federal government to state and local governments. That's $1.1 trillion of spending every year... I think state governments can pick up the slack."

---

Political Implications and Power Dynamics

A crucial aspect of the discussion centers on the constitutional balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Typically, Congress holds the "power of the purse," making unilateral budget cuts by the president highly contentious and legally challenging:

Chris Edwards [10:32]: "I do not think that the White House on its own has the power to cut federal spending. Congress has the power of the purse... Russ Fought... thinks the President has what's called an impoundment power."

The possibility of the executive branch asserting greater control over federal spending without congressional approval introduces significant legal and political uncertainty.

---

Impacts on Public Programs and Services

The proposed budget cuts target a variety of public services, each with distinct implications:

• Medicaid and Income Security Programs: Expected to face substantial reductions, potentially affecting millions of low-income and disabled individuals.

Chris Edwards [08:00]: "Medicaid... highly likely to be a major target again this time around."

• Aid to State Governments: Aiming to reduce federal subsidies, thereby shifting financial responsibility to state governments, which may struggle to compensate equally across diverse states.

Vivek Ramaswamy [20:38]: "Think of diversity. I think when the federal government cuts a welfare program like public housing, New York might decide to fund its own public housing, but say Texas might decide... to privatize our public housing."

These cuts could lead to increased disparities in public services across states, depending on local government responses and fiscal health.

---

Conclusion: Uncertainty and Future Prospects

While the ambition to slash $2 trillion from the federal budget garners attention, experts like Chris Edwards caution against the likelihood of such extensive cuts, predicting more modest reductions focused on eliminating waste rather than dismantling major programs.

Chris Edwards [12:10]: "They are not going to cut $2 trillion... likely to be top targets."

Vivek Ramaswamy remains optimistic, arguing that economic pressures like inflation and mounting deficits create a political opportunity for meaningful spending reforms:

Vivek Ramaswamy [24:20]: "Republicans will be scared that if the deficits are too big and the spending is too large, they risk a bout of inflation... Presidents have their most legislative leverage in their first year."

Ultimately, the episode underscores the complexities and challenges inherent in overhauling the federal budget, highlighting the interplay between economic imperatives, political will, and institutional constraints.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Sean Rameswaram [00:00]: "Elon Musk is a funny guy. You can tell because his favorite cryptocurrency is based on a cute dog..."

• Chris Edwards [04:45]: "So biggest single share is Social Security... that's the biggest single program, and it's one that Trump has promised not to cut."

• Vivek Ramaswamy [18:54]: "The next biggest pot of money in the federal budget is aid from the federal government to state and local governments. That's $1.1 trillion of spending every year..."

• Chris Edwards [12:10]: "They are not going to cut $2 trillion. I will bet any amount of money... likely to be top targets."

• Vivek Ramaswamy [24:20]: "Republicans will be scared that if the deficits are too big and the spending is too large, they risk a bout of inflation..."

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the critical discussions and insights from the episode, providing listeners with a clear understanding of the proposed Department of Government Efficiency's objectives, the challenges of implementing such substantial budget cuts, and the broader implications for U.S. federal spending and governance.

Transcript

[Sean Rameswaram]

Elon Musk is a funny guy. You can tell because his favorite cryptocurrency is based on a cute dog, a Shiba inu, which inspired the Doge meme, which inspired Dogecoin. I'm sorry if I'm losing you. The point is, it's Elon's fave. In 2021, he hosted Saturday Night Live and plugged it over and over.

[Dylan Matthews]

And lately, prices have been soaring for cryptos like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and especially Dogecoin.

[Chris Edwards]

Oh, right.

[Sean Rameswaram]

He also said he would fund a moon mission entirely with Dogecoin and incessantly tweeted about the crypto. And For a minute, te Tesla was accepting Dogecoin. In 2022, investors got tired of the antics and sued Elon Musk for manipulating the price of the coin. They lost. Elon won. And then Kamala lost. So Elon won again. And now our future president has rewarded Musk's loyalty with an entire government agency named for his favorite meme coin. And as you've probably heard, it's called.

[Chris Edwards]

The Department of Government Efficiency, or Doge.

[Sean Rameswaram]

On Today Explained. Support for Today Explained comes from Webroot. Webroot believes in cybersecurity made smarter, creating software that harnesses the cloud and AI to stop threats in real time. It was designed to make your digital life better by protecting you from all kinds of threats. You can live a better digital life with Webroot. And now you can get 60% off an exclusive discount for our listeners when you go to www.webroot.com today. That's that's www.webroot.com today.

[Kamala Harris]

Support for this show comes from the ACLU. The ACLU knows exactly what threats a second Donald Trump term presents, and they are ready with a battle tested playbook. The ACLU took legal action against the first Trump administration 434 times and they will do it again to protect immigrants rights, defend reproductive freedom, safeguard free speech, and fight for all of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Join the ACLU today to help stop the Extreme Project 2025 agenda. Learn more at aclu.org.

[Chris Edwards]

This is today Explained.

[Sean Rameswaram]

The first thing you need to know about the Department of Government Efficiency is that Trump's put two people in charge of it. So it's off to a great start. Elon is one of them. The other is Vivek Ramaswamy. No relation. We asked Vox's Dylan Matthews to help us understand what they intend to do. But first we asked him where he stands on the federal government.

[Chris Edwards]

Any sufficiently large organization is going to have inefficiencies. And there are definitely inefficiencies in federal spending. But almost everything that the federal government spends money on is pretty non controversial, which is why we keep spending money on it.

[Sean Rameswaram]

Mmm. But that's not how Elon and Vivek feel.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

No.

[Dylan Matthews]

It's no secret that it is a fourth branch of government, the administrative state that makes most of the rules, that creates a federal bureaucracy that's hampering our economy. If a current trend of strangulation by.

[Chris Edwards]

Overregulation is not turned around, we will never get to Mars. It just will be illegal. I mean, they're private sector guys, right? Like they're all about arguing that old sectors are inefficient and need to be disrupted.

[Kamala Harris]

How much do you think we can.

[Dylan Matthews]

Rip out of this wasted $6.5 trillion Harris Biden budget?

[Sean Rameswaram]

Well, I think we can do at least 2 trillion.

[Chris Edwards]

Yeah, I'm skeptical. There's an old saying in Washington that the, the U.S. federal government is an insurance company that has an army attached to it. And I think this is, this is a good way to broadly think about what it spends money on.

[Sean Rameswaram]

And how much does this insurance company with an army attached to it cost? You say they want to eliminate 2 trillion of the budget. How many trillions is the budget?

[Chris Edwards]

So in fiscal year 2023, we spent $6.1 trillion on various things. Of that, a little under 700 billion was interest. So that's just debt we had and we had to pay interest on it. So for actual programs for people, it's more like 5.4 trillion. So 2 trillion out of that is over a third. It's a really, really big number.

[Sean Rameswaram]

Okay. And so a huge chunk of it is just debt service. But what is the actual spending? What's the largest share of that? 6 ish trillion.

[Chris Edwards]

So biggest single share is Social Security. That's 1.3 trillion. That's benefits for retirees, survivors, people with disabilities that they've paid into. And so 1.3 out of, out of 6.1 total trillion. And that's the biggest single program, and it's one that Trump has promised not to cut.

[Kamala Harris]

And we will always protect your Social Security.

[Sean Rameswaram]

And when you think about what this Doge outfit wants to do, they're not talking about getting rid of Social Security, are they?

[Chris Edwards]

No, they're very insistent that they're not and that they're, they're not trying to aim for Social Security and Medicare, which is the second biggest program. Those are big programs for seniors.

[Kamala Harris]

We're not touching Medicare. We want to keep Medicare. We're not touching Social Security.

[Chris Edwards]

One thing that was unusual about Donald Trump both in 2016 and 2024 is he promised not to cut them. After you had Paul Ryan talking about, like, very serious plans to cut them, do you consider it possible to arrive.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

At a fiscal policy and plan that.

[Chris Edwards]

Reduces the deficit without touching Medicare and.

[Dylan Matthews]

Social Security or military spending?

[Kamala Harris]

No, you can't.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

It's just a mathematical impossibility.

[Chris Edwards]

And so Trump wanted to be this different kind of Republican who wouldn't threaten these programs. The reason that people like Paul Ryan wanted to cut them is that together they make up about a third of the overall budget. And it's just very hard to make serious cuts while declaring them off limits.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

If you do not tackle the drivers of our debt, which are entitlements, you.

[Kamala Harris]

Cannot balance the budget in the future.

[Chris Edwards]

And pay down the debt.

[Kamala Harris]

It's just not possible.

[Sean Rameswaram]

And just to help people understand the full picture here, what are we spending on Medicare as a country?

[Chris Edwards]

So 2023, we spent 839 billion. So less than Social Security, but a lot. And Social Security is increasing in its cost just because the population is aging. More people are retired and taking benefits. Medicare is growing both because of that and because medical costs tend to grow quicker than other costs. And so it's smaller than Social Security. Now. It might overtake Social Security as we get new treatments, we get new kinds of surgeries, new ways to extend people's lives that are great, but cost money.

[Sean Rameswaram]

Okay, so now we're into the hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditures. You mentioned that debt service was. Was in this company. What about defense spending? Isn't that a huge chunk? Where does that fall in?

[Chris Edwards]

Defense spending is huge. That was 805 billion in 2023. So just behind Medicare in terms of total expenses. But almost no Republican wants to cut it outright. And so they might talk about finding areas of waste, defense contractors that charge 30 bucks for a wrench, that kind of thing. But it's unlikely to be a major target.

[Sean Rameswaram]

Okay, so then what are we talking about? So we've gone through, you know, Social Security, Medicare, defense, debt service, things that sound sort of untouchable or not really of much interest to Trump, Elon, and Vivek. What's left?

[Chris Edwards]

So I think the biggest category is programs for poor people, bluntly so the most important here is Medicaid, which is our program for people in poverty and many disabled people. That's about $616 billion in federal money. It's a federal state program. So states kick in a lot on top of that, but that's the next biggest chunk after Social Security, Medicare, defense. And it's historically been a big target of cut proposals. When Trump was trying to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017, most of Obamacare is an expansion of Medicaid. And so what he was talking about were very serious Medicaid cuts. And I would expect something similar. His budget chief is this guy named Russ Fat, who has been putting out budgets sort of during the Biden years of what he wants to do. And those budgets include in a third cut to Medicaid. He wants to slash the whole program by a third. I don't know if Trump is going to go that far, but his own budgets last time around included very serious Medicaid cuts, and I would expect the same this time around. And after Medicaid, we spend about 450 billion on what are called income security programs. These are things like food stamps, tax credits, like the child tax credit and the earned income credit, broadly, a lot of programs that support low income people's incomes. It also includes some things for veterans which are unlikely to be cut. But that broad category of income supports for poor people has been a major target as well. And food stamps in particular, Trump tried to cut repeatedly last time and are likely to be a major target again this time. So I would say they're not politically easy things to cut, because advocates for poor people, the whole Democratic Party are going to fight you tooth and nail on this. But they're historically easier to cut than Social Security or Medicare or defense spending. And so I think are likelier to be top targets.

[Sean Rameswaram]

And if the spaceman and the young man figure out some, you know, huge cuts to welfare programs in the federal government, do they have the power to slash spending?

[Chris Edwards]

I do not think that the White House on its own has the power to cut federal spending. Congress has the power of the purse. Traditionally, the way this has always worked is that the president will put in a budget request outlining what he wants the budget to look like. Congress will completely ignore that and pass what they want to pass. And then what ultimately is enacted is much closer to what Congress wants than what the President wants. However, Russ Fought, the budget director who Trump recently reappointed, has been pretty vocal that he thinks the President has what's called an impoundment power, or the power to refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated. If they're right, and if they assert this power and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, then Trump on his own would have the power to just ignore spending bills from Congress. And if he say wanted to cut Medicaid by some number of billions of dollars, he could just withhold spending for the programs that he doesn't want to fund there. That would be a quite radical expansion of presidential power. And I bring it up only because senior members of Trump's team have been very vocal that they think he has this power. But it will require a pretty dramatic assertion of authority, a very long court battle before anything like that comes up.

[Sean Rameswaram]

So what do you think that means for Doge and their goal to cut 2 trillion?

[Chris Edwards]

They are not going to cut $2 trillion. I will bet any amount of money. If Elon wants to set up a crypto deal with me and say I bet $5 million that I for sure don't have, but I bet you $5 million that we're going to pass $2 trillion in annual spending cuts, I will sign that and take out whatever loan shark loans necessary because I will win that bet. I think they will come up with a list of smaller appropriations that they think are wasteful or ill advised. They'll come up with government contracts that they think are for too much money or wasteful. I will say this for Elon, that he does have a lot of experience with government procurement through SpaceX. I would guess that the quantity of cuts we're going to be looking at is in the tens of billions rather than hundreds or trillions. But one thing I have learned is that I felt like I was able to predict what Joe Biden would do. I felt like I was able to predict what Barack Obama would do. I felt like I was able to predict what Paul Ryan would do. I have been wrong again and again about what Donald Trump will do and his team. And so while 2 trillion I'm rolling out, there's a wide range of possibilities here.

[Sean Rameswaram]

You can read Dylan Matthews at Vox. I certainly do when we're back on Today Explained someone who is a glass half full kind of guy when it comes to cutting 2 trillion.

[Kamala Harris]

Support for Today Explained comes from Mint Mobile, the company that likes to keep it simple. Many phone companies add piles of fine print contracts making it almost impossible to get the deal that you thought you signed up for. Mint Mobile doesn't do that. When you purchase a new three month phone plan with Mint Mobile, they say you'll pay just $15 a month. That's it. They say no strings attached. They say no sneaky fine print. They say just a great deal. All Mint Mobile plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. You can even keep that same phone, those same friends, that same number. You can get this new customer offer and a three month premium wireless plan for just $15 a month by going to mint mobile.com explained. That's mint mobile.com explained. You can cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at mint mobile.com explained. $45 upfront payment required. Equivalent, you'll note, to $15 per month for three months. New customers only speed slower above 40 gigabytes on that unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees and restrictions do apply. Go to Mint Mobile for details. Support for Today Explained comes from Vanta. If you run a company, Vanta wants you to know that proving trust is more important than ever, especially when it comes to your security program. Vanta says they can help centralize program requirements and automates evidence collection for frameworks such as SoC2, ISO 27001 and HIPAA, and so much more. You can save time and money and build customer trust. And with Vanta, you get continuous visibility into the state of your controls. You can join more than 8,000 global companies such as Atlassian Flow Health and Quora who trust Vanta to manage risk and prove security in real time. Now that's a new way to grc. That stands for Governance, Risk and Compliance. In case you were curious, you can get $1,000 off Vanta when you go to Vanta.com explain. That's Vanta.com explained for $1,000 off. Support for Today Explained comes from Aura. Aura believes that sharing pictures is a great way to keep up with family, and Aura says it's never been easier. Thanks to their digital picture fr, they were named the number one digital photo frame by Wirecutter. Aura frames make it easy to share unlimited photos and videos directly from your phone to the frame. When you give an Aura frame as a gift, you can personalize it, you can preload it with a thoughtful message, maybe your favorite photos. Our colleague Andrew tried an Aura frame.

[Dylan Matthews]

For himself, so setup was super simple. In my case, we were celebrating my grandmother's birthday and she's very fortunate. She's got 10 grandkids and so we wanted to surprise her with the order frame. And because she's a little bit older it was just easier for us to source all the images together and have them uploaded to the frame itself. And because we're all connected over text message, it was just so easy to send a link to everybody.

[Kamala Harris]

You can save on the perfect gift by visiting aura frames.com to get $35 off Aura's bestselling carver Matte frames with promo code explained at checkout. That's a U R A frames.com promo code explained. This deal is exclusive to listeners and available just in time for the holidays. Terms and conditions do apply.

[Sean Rameswaram]

Explained.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

See you.

[Sean Rameswaram]

Chris Edwards is with Cato, which means he's a libertarian, which means he'd love to see $2 trillion or probably even more cut from the federal budget. He's super into the concept of Doge, but he says he would add another E at the end of the name. So I asked him how he'd pronounce that.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

Do I say Doge? Double E, perhaps.

[Sean Rameswaram]

Doge.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

You know, the Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, you know, they've proposed their Department of Government Efficiency. Well, to solve the $2 trillion federal deficit problem, we not only need more efficiency, we need eliminations. So while people might envision the federal government and it's the 2 million federal civil servants we have working more efficiently, that's great. And fine. They do need to work more efficiently. We also need to eliminate programs.

[Sean Rameswaram]

You seem to believe that there are eliminations here. They may not get us to 2 trillion, but if you pull a bit from here and pull a bit from there, you're going to start making progress. Tell us where you want to pull from.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

Well, Trump unfortunately has said he wouldn't cut the two biggest programs in the federal budget, Social Security and Medicare. He's probably not going to cut defense either because his party traditionally supports big defense spending. So those are the three biggest programs in the federal budget. So what else can you cut? Well, the next biggest pot of money in the federal budget is aid from the federal government to state and local governments. That's $1.1 trillion of spending every year. So this is Aid for highways, K12 education, Medicaid, housing, community development, that sort of stuff. I think that stuff can be cut. I think it should be cut. I think state governments can pick up the slack. State governments are actually in a very strong budget position these days with large rainy day funds. So I think the federal government can and should cut this flow of money from the federal government down to state government. So then the states can, you know, can, can respond as they please. They can raise taxes, they can cut other spending. State governments are required to balance their budgets. So that's a good thing. The federal government will cut the subsidies. Then state governments can handle the fallout and figure out how they want to reorganize their budgets.

[Sean Rameswaram]

How much would these cuts be felt by people across the country, by voters, by Americans? You know, cuts to housing, community development, highways. I mean, I realize that states have their own budgets and can fund these things, but not all states are created equal. Not all states have surplus funds to use to pick up the slack for the federal government. Right?

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

No, that's right. And every state would respond in differential sorts of ways. Diversity. I think that's a good thing. You know, if the federal government cut a welfare program like public housing, you know, New York might decide to fund its own public housing, but say Texas might decide, hey, we're going to privatize our public housing. But I think those differential kind of responses by the states would be a good thing. I think that when the federal government cuts aid to the states, it should phase it in. It should, you know, phase it in over, say, five years to give state legislatures the time to plan, you know, how they're going to respond and whether they're going to cover the funding for these programs themselves. But you know, currently the Federal government has 1,300 different federal aid to state programs. This is a massive web of programs that has grown, particularly since the 1960s. I don't think these programs have worked particularly well. They're extremely bureaucratic when you involve two or three levels of government in funding programs. I think we'd have a much more efficient government at all levels if we got the federal government out of these properly state activities.

[Sean Rameswaram]

We know you libertarians love to eliminate programs. Are you envisioning a United States that maybe doesn't have programs that support public housing, maybe doesn't have a federally funded transit, or maybe doesn't have a corporation for public broadcasting? Is that what you'd really like to see?

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

I would like to see that. And over the last century, power has become centralized in Washington, in my view, for no particular reason. And I'll give you a story about that, Sean. So I grew up in Canada. Canada is a high income democracy. It's a much more decentralized federation than United States. In rough terms, government spending in the United States is 2/3 federal and 1/3 state. Canada is the flip. Canada is only one third federal and two thirds provincial. As an example of that, Canada has no federal Department of Education. And on international test scores, Canadian students do substantially better than American students. So I don't believe you need to centralize some of these activities to have well functioning government. And I think Canada, it's not a great model for some things. I think the current Prime Minister has had lots of problems. However, I think the basic governmental structure of being a decentralized federation is a good model for us to look at.

[Sean Rameswaram]

And you heard Dylan say that the one thing he's always expecting with Trump and let's say now Doge is the unexpected. Does the unexpected factor here mean that these business minded drain the swamp, let's go to mars types could actually pull something out of the bag to get rid of these programs to even maybe eliminate things that have so far seemingly been political third rails in this country.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

There is a tradition of Congress putting together big fancy blue ribbon commissions, writing big reports and then the reports end up on shelves collecting dust. The that is true. However, I think the debt problem is much bigger than it was 10 years ago. I think something that's changed as well is the threat of inflation. You know, we found out during this last election how incredibly unpopular bouts of inflation are. And you know, Republicans have spent the last two years blaming all the inflation on Biden spending.

[Kamala Harris]

When you spend trillions of dollars, you cause inflation.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

And for many of my constituents this is a choice in some cases between putting food on the table and staying warm. This could not be a more challenging problem confronting America. Only 3 in 10Americans approve of the way that Joe Biden is handling inflation. Only 3. Whether or not, you know, you buy that as an economic argument, I think going ahead, Republicans will be scared that if the deficits are too big and the spending is too large, they risk a bout of inflation leading up to the midterms. I think they should be scared of that and I do think that that should be an impetus for them to start making some spending reforms to encourage financial markets that there will be a problem to these massive deficits in Washington. So I think there is a political opening here. Presidents have their most legislative leverage in their first year and I think they need to start cutting in the first year again in order to ward off inflation as well as to actually get something done before the midterms get too close on the political calendar.

[Sean Rameswaram]

Before we go, I would love to ask you what you think of all the corporate welfare that is going directly to Elon Musk to fund programs like SpaceX.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

Well, Elon Musk is an interesting example of someone and you can't deny his incredible entrepreneurial success. But it is also true that he's got a lot of corporate welfare over the years, both at the federal level and at the state and local level. One of the problems with our giant government with its octopus tentacles into everything these days is that every business gets subsidized and it's hard to run a business without going to Washington and pleading for subsidies. So you know that is true about Mosque. I wish. He's got a great car company there. He should wean himself off those federal subsidies.

[Chris Edwards]

Your money is being wasted and the.

[Vivek Ramaswamy]

Department of Government Efficiency is going to fix that.

[Sean Rameswaram]

Chris Edwards, Cato Institute Sean Ramesperum Today Explained Our show today was produced by Halima Shah. She was edited by Aminah Al Saadi, mixed by Patrick Boyd and Rob Byers and we were fact checked by Kim Eggleston Asta Manana.

[Dylan Matthews]

Amazon Q Business is the Generative AI Assistant from AWS because business can be slow, like wading through the mud. But Amazon Q helps streamline work so tasks like summarizing monthly results can be done in no time. Learn what Amazon Q Business can do for [e-mail] learnmore that's aws.com learnmore.

[Chris Edwards]

Support.

[Dylan Matthews]

For this podcast comes from Stripe. Stripe is a payments and billing platform supporting millions of businesses around the world, including companies like uber, BMW and DoorDash. Stripe has helped countless startups and established companies alike reach their growth targets, make progress on their missions and reach more customers globally. The platform offers a suite of specialized features and tools to fast track growth like Stripe Billing, which makes it easy to handle subscription based charges, invoicing and all recurring revenue management needs. You can learn how Stripe helps companies of all sizes make [e-mail] that's stripe.com to learn more. Stripe Make Progress.