In a nation drowning in bureaucratic bloat, cutting government jobs should be a cause for celebration. We all know the federal government has long been a sluggish, inefficient behemoth—overstaffed, overfunded, and underperforming. That’s why conservatives, independents, and just about anyone who has ever had to endure a trip to the DMV can agree: trimming the fat is a noble and necessary goal.

That being said, there’s a big difference between a well-planned diet and chopping off limbs at random—and right now, DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) seems to be wielding its scalpel with all the precision of a blindfolded toddler playing whack-a-mole.

The Federal Government Needs a Diet, Not an Amputation

For decades, Washington, D.C., has been bloated with redundant agencies, unaccountable bureaucrats, and entire departments whose main function seems to be making life harder for the average American. We’ve all heard the horror stories—millions of taxpayer dollars wasted on studies about shrimp running on treadmills, endless environmental impact reports for basic infrastructure, and government grants funding everything from pigeon-gambling research to hipster art projects.

And let’s not forget the alphabet soup of redundant agencies—multiple departments handling the same functions with overlapping authority, wasting resources, and ensuring that even the simplest government task becomes a bureaucratic nightmare. The Department of Education? A nightmare of federal overreach that has done nothing to improve school performance. The IRS? A never-ending headache, more focused on squeezing hard-working Americans than on fixing its own inefficiencies. The EPA? More interested in regulating puddles on your property than addressing real environmental concerns.

So, when a new administration comes in and starts talking about layoffs, conservatives understandably cheer. Government has become too big, too expensive, and too intrusive, and anyone who has ever run a business or even balanced a household budget knows that when costs get out of control, you have to make cuts.

The problem isn’t the idea of job cuts—the problem is the execution.

DOGE’s Haphazard Hatchet Job

The recent firings at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)—many of which were hastily rescinded the next day—are a perfect case study in government incompetence, but ironically, not in the way progressives are claiming. Liberals are wringing their hands and lamenting that this “cruel” treatment will drive away talent, discouraging people from working in government. But let’s be real: the problem isn’t that people are being fired—it’s that they’re being fired stupidly.

DOGE, like any government agency, should practice what it preaches before cutting jobs in other departments. If they want efficiency, they should start by cleaning up their own act. Why not fire their own inept decision-makers before firing the folks who keep our nuclear weapons from turning into radioactive confetti? Before slashing employees at the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and the National Park Service, maybe they should take a hard look at whether their own hiring practices, internal organization, and decision-making are up to par.

The federal government desperately needs reform, but if the current leadership thinks “fire first, ask questions later” is the way to do it, they are proving themselves just as inefficient as the bureaucrats they’re trying to eliminate.

Cutting the Right Jobs—Not the Essential Ones

A serious conservative-led reduction in government would be deliberate, strategic, and focused on removing redundant, wasteful, or corrupt positions. It would involve:
✔️ Identifying agencies with massive inefficiencies and known dead weight
✔️ Cutting mid-to-upper-level bureaucrats who contribute little but red tape
✔️ Streamlining processes to reduce the need for excess personnel
✔️ Ensuring that essential national security and infrastructure roles remain untouched

Instead, what we’re getting is a sloppy, reactionary mess where highly skilled nuclear engineers and bird flu containment specialists are getting pink slips while thousands of paper-pushers and compliance officers still have a job.

The real tragedy here isn’t that federal jobs are being cut—it’s that they’re being cut without common sense.

What the Left Gets Wrong

Now, let’s talk about the dramatic outrage from leftist commentators. MSNBC’s Joseph Cirincione wants us to believe that these layoffs are an act of “calculated cruelty,” as if the administration wakes up every morning thinking of new ways to make bureaucrats cry. New York Magazine’s Matt Stieb snarks about how DOGE keeps “accidentally” firing important people, as if this administration doesn’t care about expertise. The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson suggests that while progressive governance has its failures, “mess around and find out” isn’t a valid alternative.

Well, no one disagrees that government firings should be done carefully and competently. But these same liberal voices—who suddenly care so deeply about government efficiency—are the same ones who have defended every bloated, ineffective federal program for decades. If they truly believed in the importance of competent governance, they’d acknowledge that the government is overgrown and that its leadership is mishandling the process of trimming it down.

Reform, Not Recklessness

There is a right way to reduce government waste. It requires a well-thought-out strategy, not a chaotic, knee-jerk reaction. If the administration truly wants to cut spending and improve efficiency, it should:

🔹 Start at the top – Too often, bureaucratic layoffs hit lower-level employees while mid-tier managers and useless upper-level administrators remain untouched. The ones making the biggest salaries and contributing the least should be the first to go.

🔹 Use performance metrics – There are government employees who work hard and provide necessary services, and there are those who have perfected the art of looking busy while accomplishing nothing. A rigorous, merit-based system should determine who stays and who goes.

🔹 Prioritize national security – Firing nuclear security experts, even temporarily, is reckless. The same goes for essential services that directly impact American lives, such as veteran healthcare and public safety. Bureaucratic “compliance officers” are dispensable; nuclear engineers are not.

🔹 End the revolving door – Too often, fired bureaucrats find their way back into government within a year or two. If someone is let go for inefficiency, they shouldn’t be shuffled into another agency. Real cuts mean real reductions, not musical chairs.

Final Thoughts: A Good Idea, Poorly Executed

In summary, conservatives and independents should be cheering the idea of reducing government waste while cringing at the reckless way it’s being carried out. DOGE needs to get its act together and ensure that cuts are targeted, strategic, and focused on eliminating unnecessary positions—not gutting vital security and scientific expertise.

A well-run government would prioritize efficiency and effectiveness over blind downsizing. It’s time to trim the fat, not hack away at the muscle.

And if DOGE really wants to prove its commitment to efficiency? Step one: fire the people responsible for this mess.