Ramstad: Let’s create more modest expectations about reining in federal spending

At times in this column, I pop out a sweeping statement or recommendation about a topic like building codes or affordable housing policies.

I count on readers to let me know when I’m off the mark, have a poor grasp of facts or am ignoring the realities of Minnesota politics and business culture.

Never have I come close to saying anything as broad — or implausible — as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy do when they talk about cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget.

The number is eye-catching and it jolts members of Congress, who actually decide what the federal government spends.

Musk and Ramaswamy are betting that constituents will bring up the number in congressional town halls, creating implicit support for them during the 18 months President-elect Donald Trump is giving them to run their quasi-agency called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

The number also provides cover for Republicans and Democrats to talk about waste in government and rules and agencies they would like to cut — or save.

Though I like to stir the pot, today I’d like to put in a plug for some Midwest common sense and moderation in the whole discussion about the future of the federal government.

John Pournoor, former head of government relations at 3M, recently reminded me of the value of slow-and-steady policymaking.

Earlier this month Pournoor spoke to members of Global Minnesota, a group of state residents interested in diplomacy and international relations, about business trends around the world. Developments in foreign capitals are particularly frothy this month, with the collapse of governments and ousters of leaders in places as varied as Germany, Syria and South Korea.

Big change doesn’t usually happen in such swift, disruptive ways. It occurs gradually because it takes time for decisionmakers to arrive at a common understanding of a problem and its solutions. When Pournoor and colleagues used to advocate on behalf of 3M, they planned for the time it would take to educate, advise and persuade.

“We had studied a subject very deeply, and our understanding was not usually reciprocated,” he explained. “So the question for me was always, ‘How can I make them understand what I’m saying?’”

Pournoor would learn as much as he could about a policymaker before a meeting, adapt his message to that person and not ask for too much.

“We created a ladder of incremental steps in opening up an issue,” he said. “While accepting the entire ask was very difficult, accepting each incremental ask was within the bounds of what they found appropriate and acceptable.”

Trump, and now Musk and Ramaswamy, work in the opposite manner. They make very big asks as an opening gambit, then settle for something less.

When it comes to taking out $2 trillion in government spending, it’s unclear what they’re ultimately trying do. Are they trying to bring down the national debt? Or are they just cutting because they deplore government spending and rules as a philosophical matter?

Reducing the deficit and bringing down the the debt is sensible. Cutting for cutting’s sake is reckless.

The risk for taxpayers like you and me — and for Trump — is it will be easy for Musk and Ramaswamy to mislead and manipulate us because the task is so complex, the numbers so large and jargon so maddeningly thick. Fortunately, there are some people trying to cut through the confusion.

One may be a surprise: Steve Ballmer, the former chief executive of Microsoft now known best as the owner of the NBA’s L.A. Clippers. Ballmer earlier this year produced a half-dozen videos on YouTube that, in around 15 minutes each, explain the basics about U.S. population, economic output, energy consumption, immigration — and the federal budget and debt.

There’s also the Washington-based Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), which has an interactive element on its website that lets Americans experiment with cutting spending or raising taxes to bring down the annual deficit and accumulating debt.

Last month the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, a budget analysis and watchdog group in St. Paul, featured at its annual meeting a speaker from the CRFB who left attendees a bit shocked with his illustrations of why the federal deficit and debt became more likely to constrain the Trump presidency and Minnesota’s economy.

A look at the numbers shows why. They also show how hard it will be for Musk and Ramaswamy to find $2 trillion to ax.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. government will spend around $7.1 trillion in the fiscal year that started in October, while receiving around $5.2 trillion in revenue.

That $1.9 trillion difference is the federal deficit — money that must be borrowed with interest to keep the government running. It will add to the national debt that now stands at $36 trillion. The debt is larger than the overall U.S. economy, or gross domestic product, which will be about $29 trillion this calendar year.

Of the $7.1 trillion in spending, interest payments on the debt represent $1.2 trillion. Spending on things like Social Security, Medicare and other assistance is $4.4 trillion. Of the remaining $1.5 trillion, more than half is defense spending, and the rest is everything else the federal government does.

For some perspective on the size of those numbers, think about a story that will dominate Minnesota news in coming months: the legislative fight over the state budget, which, unlike the federal budget, has to be balanced.

Minnesota’s annual general fund spending is about $33 billion — or $0.03 trillion.