In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last November (“The DOGE Plan to Reform Government”), Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy asserted that “[r]equiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.”

With Donald Trump’s inauguration as president,  that recommendation from Musk’s and Ramaswamy’s “DOGE” project — a powerless advisory mill disguised as a “Department” of Government Efficiency — actually got accepted. In a day-one executive order, Trump directed department and agency heads to “take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis.”

So, how “efficient” is that idea, really?

I’m a fan of terminating government employment, whether through resignations or firings. So long as those employees aren’t replaced, it’s a win for America. Not on “efficiency” grounds, though. I don’t want the government doing what it does more “efficiently,” I just want it doing less of what it does.

I’m also a fan of remote work in the private sector. If the work actually gets done, it saves employers money, saves employees time, and saves everyone unnecessary inconvenience.

In the government sector, well, see above — I prefer government employment inconvenient, unpleasant, and expensive so that fewer people are willing to accept it.

But from a “government efficiency” standpoint, the “return to office” mandate is a disaster in conception and will likely prove a disaster in execution. Let us count the ways.

First of all, “efficient” employees are highly motivated to get the job done rather than mess around. The kind of person who will take on an unnecessary commute just to sit all day in an uncomfortable office is probably only motivated to collect a paycheck. In other words, the most “efficient” employees will be the ones most likely to self-terminate and return to the productive sector.  I like that outcome, but “government efficiency” fans shouldn’t.

Secondly, to the extent the departing “efficient” employees get replaced, they’ll be replaced by the same kind of inefficient holders down of chairs who remain, lowering overall “efficiency” even more.

Thirdly, consider the costs to the taxpayer. Every government employee who works from home means less money spent on electricity, building maintenance, security screening at office building entrances, etc. Every government employee who comes to the office means more money spent on all those things. Not very “efficient.”

Finally, consider the inconvenience to everyone, government employee or not. Traffic in Washington, DC and surrounding areas has been the subject of constant complaint for as long as I can remember. It’s about to get much worse. A whole bunch of cars that came off the beltway and sat in the driveway starting in 2020 are about to start moving around again, gumming up the works and slowing everyone down.

Overall, none of that sounds very “efficient” to me.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

During last year’s presidential campaign, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris seemed to disagree on quite a few things. One thing they agreed on — Trump reiterated his position in a speech in Las Vegas on January 26 — is that the federal government should stop demanding income tax payments on tips.

Allow me to be … well, probably far from the first … person to say what a wonderful idea that is.

Usually the phrase “bipartisan agreement” raises the hairs on the back of my neck. When politicians from both “major parties” agree on something, anything, it’s usually terrible news for the rest of us. “Bipartisanship” has given us everything from the warfare state to the surveillance state to the federal government’s “Make America East Germany Again” immigration approach.

But IF we’re going to have taxes (we shouldn’t), and IF we’re going to have income tax (we shouldn’t), and IF that income tax excludes your gift of up to $19,000 per year per recipient (it does), then common sense tells us that your 15% gift to a restaurant server or $5 gift to a delivery worker, etc. shouldn’t be taxed.

What are tips?

They’re NOT part of the purchase price.

You don’t HAVE to give them, in any amount or at all.

They’re. Gifts.

But the federal government wants to have it both ways. If I put $19,000 in a box under your Christmas tree, no tax. If I add $1.90 to the cost of the burger you serve me, tax.

Libertarians have long recognized this scam for exactly what it is. Advocates for Self Government even offers a handy dandy card for libertarians to leave with their cash gifts:

“THIS IS NOT A TIP! THIS IS A GIFT. IT IS NOT RENUMERATION FOR EMPLOYMENT NOR COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. IT IS A GIFT — FROM ME TO YOU. AS A GIFT, IT IS NOT TAXABLE INCOME.”

Since I expect this policy proposal to take a little while (if it passes at all), I just ordered myself a supply.

I already make an extra effort to tip in cash rather than on a card so that hopefully my tips won’t be reported or taxed. So should you.

Ending the scam is a great idea. It’s basic decency and execution of the clear meaning of the Internal Revenue Code vis a vis “gifts.”

Naturally, some disagree. But they have to torture logic beyond repair to justify their disagreement.

At CNN, Alejandra Jaramillo, Kevin Liptak, and Tami Luhby whine that ending taxation of tips would be “costly.”

Citing Republican members of the House Budget Committee, they claim it would “cost $106 billion over 10 years.”

That claim requires a complete re-definition of the word “cost.”

The government taking less of your money doesn’t “cost” them that revenue difference, any more than me not burglarizing your house “costs” me a TV. Your money, and your TV, are yours, not the government’s or mine.

Taxation, not non-taxation, represents “cost.”

The actual “cost” of eliminating income tax on tips would total $0.00.

Consider calling your congresscritter to clarify that point.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

One of newly inaugurated (for a second time) president Donald Trump’s executive orders — “Unleashing American Energy” — promises to “safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs.”

Let us rejoice! Or at least ask — for my son — whether we can expect old-school incandescent lightbulbs to make a comeback.

While I’m personally a big fan of the newer LED bulbs because they use less electricity, produce less heat, and last longer than the incandescents I grew up with, my son asserts the superiority of incandescent light over LED light. The light is visually warmer, he says. It emits, in a word, “soul.”

Well, more power — pun intended — to him.

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 required a minimum bulb efficiency of 45 lumens per watt. Incandescent bulbs don’t meet that standard, and were starting to fade into history by the time Trump announced during his first term, that the standard wouldn’t be enforced.

Then came Joe Biden. Via the US Department of Energy, he  banned the manufacture and sale of incandescent bulbs as of August 2023.

By that point, it was kind of difficult to get them anyway. My son paid what I considered scandalous prices to buy “new old stock” online before the ban went into effect.

If Trump’s administration follows through on the goals in the executive order, I honestly don’t expect many people to switch back from LED to incandescent … but that’s not really the point.

The point is that those who prefer one type of bulb over another should be free to buy the kind they prefer, and manufacturers/sellers should be free to serve market demand for whatever people are willing to throw money at.

The Biden administration didn’t, and the Trump administration won’t, buy the light bulbs that gets used in my house.

The Biden administration didn’t, and the Trump administration won’t, pay my electric bill.

My household policy is that I’m OK with my son putting two incandescent bulbs, rather than two LED bulbs, in his bedroom’s ceiling light — but that he has to buy the bulbs. I’ll cover the electric bill increase, but if I’m buying the bulbs, I’ll only spring for LEDs.

Your household policy may be different, and that’s fine. It’s your house. The only house the White House’s residents should be choosing the light bulbs for IS the White House.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY