Mark Fernald’s diatribe against the “myth” of runaway federal spending is factually unassailable. The numbers don’t lie. But they don’t answer an important question he ignores: Is the federal government spending more than it should to accomplish the goals it pursues? Politically speaking, debates over what those goals should be and what the proper tax policy to fund them should be are important ones to have. Economically speaking, once those goals are set and once the revenue is raised (fairly or unfairly) to fund them, the only relevant debate is over efficiency in meeting them. Fernald characterizes 45 years of Republican spending cuts as a way to “pay for” tax cuts for the rich. Support or opposition for such an effort depends on whose ox gets gored. But chipping away at the deficit by pursuing cost-effectiveness in spending gores nobody’s ox. As distasteful, perhaps even illegal, as President Trump’s (or Elon Musk’s) gutting programs they don’t like by shutting off the spigot may be, their efforts to streamline government by curtailing needless waste or inefficient spending should be applauded. We can quibble over whether funding freezes and slashing the federal workforce is the right way to achieve this — but it needs to be achieved.

Frank Spinella

Exeter