In Jim Fossel’s classic GOP harangue about Democratic “tax and spend” budgets in his column on April 13, he attacks Gov. Mills for dishonesty and labels the Maine Democratic leadership in the state Legislature as too progressive and too Portland-centric. In doing so, he adopts the same tactics that we see from the state and federal Republicans advocating recklessly butchering government spending in the name of eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse.”

As is evident from the phony claims of savings and improvements from the efforts of Elon Musk and his unauthorized DOGE team, which Fossel noted in an earlier column, mindlessly reducing expenses and cutting jobs is not a path to good governance and effective policy accomplishments. What Fossel, and both Maine House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, overlook is the essential role that only the government can have in maintaining and improving public health and safety. When essential workers are fired in the name of reducing spending and lowering the tax burden, there are consequences because necessary needs are unmet and significant services are not provided.

As was very clear during the disastrous reign of Gov. Paul LePage, leaving large swaths of state jobs unfulfilled results in worse outcomes in terms of health and safety of Maine residents. And shutting down the government in the name of dogmatically pursuing budget cuts is neither politically popular nor effective. But that seems to be the policy position that Fossel and his Republican colleagues have taken at both the state and federal levels.

Fossel also argues against the Democratic approach to taxation, which favors a progressive tax system where the burden falls more heavily on those who are most able to afford it. He also argues against attempting to impose taxes on out-of-state residents and tourists who come to Maine to take advantage of the benefits that Maine provides. He totally ignores that Maine has lower tourism taxes than other states, and they can be raised without driving visitors to competing destinations.

Finally, what Fossel and other partisans always seem to ignore is the fact that their own supporters in poorer and more rural areas are generally more dependent on government subsidies and spending than those who live in the wealthier and more prosperous urban regions of the country. Rural communities tend to be more dependent on Medicaid subsidies for their hospitals and nursing homes in particular.

Rendering regulatory agencies incapable of enforcing the important limitations on harmful activities by making and maintaining them understaffed is the stealth approach to deregulation. Republicans believe deregulation will lead to greater risk-taking and more entrepreneurial activity. But the costs of negative economic consequences and air and water pollution are borne by society as a whole. Deregulation is not a panacea for progress or a recipe for avoiding waste or fraud. In fact, waste and fraud are more likely when the inspectors general are removed, which was the very first step taken by Musk and DOGE.

Similarly, Republicans are continually championing privatization as a better alternative for providing services rather than relying on the government to perform state functions. Objective analysis, however, decisively shows that when privatization occurs, the result is much more likely to be less efficient and more expensive in the end. This is especially true when the process of privatizing fails to provide for the monitoring of results. This essential aspect is usually overlooked when privatization occurs.

It all amounts to an irresponsible cut-and-run tactic.