Lebanon officials have warned residents that a series of tax increases will be needed to retain their current services (“First in wave of tax hikes loom”; Nov. 23). Citing employee contracts, debt payments and the need to replenish the city’s unassigned fund balance as the primary drivers of these anticipated budget increases, the city manager saw higher taxes or deep cuts as the only choices.

Based on what is happening at the federal level, there might be another way for Lebanon officials to balance the city budget. They might create their own playbook proposed by the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) headed by billionaire entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. They could call it the Advisory Board Seeking Unrealistic Reductions to Departments (ABSURD) and it could use a combination of deregulation and privatization to reduce the costs of governing Lebanon.

Musk and Ramaswamy assert that recent Supreme Court cases open the door for the president to use executive orders to eliminate “unnecessary, costly and inefficient regulations.” They believe that by voiding hundreds of administrative rules, it will be possible to eliminate entire departments in the federal government, departments with thousands of employees responsible for writing and enforcing regulations. As recently reported in ProPublica, since June 2024 when the Supreme Court undercut the authority of government employees to write and enforce regulations based on laws passed by Congress, various lawsuits have been filed challenging “overreaching” agency rules on everything from overtime pay to Obamacare, airline fees, noncompete agreements, gun sales, abortion funding, advertising and immigration.

For decades, businessmen and pro-business politicians have asserted that the government could realize savings by privatizing as many functions as possible. Advocates for privatization reason that government employees often receive higher pay and more benefits than private sector employees doing comparable work. Moreover, in many cases government employees are paid based on schedules that guarantee raises every year and receive relatively generous retirement benefits. When private contractors bid on government functions, the government employees doing that work can be laid off and comparable services can be provided for lower costs. Mail delivery, logistical services in the armed forces and air traffic control are examples of where the federal government has already outsourced job functions to the private sector.

Given the president-elect’s campaign pledge to “drain the swamp” and the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that gives the president broad authority to fulfill his duties, it is possible that the DOGE initiatives described above might be possible through executive order. But should these executive orders be challenged in court, Musk and Ramaswamy see two other ways to fulfill DOGE’s mission: through legislation proposed by the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 or through expedited court rulings. With GOP majorities in the House and Senate, Musk and Ramaswamy believe it is possible for the president-elect to get the Project 2025 legislation passed. Failing that, they believe the president could expedite hearings before the Supreme Court, which appears sympathetic to loosening regulations of all kinds.

By using the cost-saving approaches DOGE recommends, the ABSURD panel could address the city’s financial challenges. It could use DOGE’s deregulation review as a template to eliminate local regulations for housing, safety and the environment. Once those unnecessary, costly and inefficient administrative rules are eliminated, the city could eliminate the jobs of government employees responsible for enforcing them.

ABSURD could also implement DOGE’s privatization ideas by outsourcing the functions performed by their police, fire, library, public works and recreation departments. Through competitive bidding, these services could be provided by private firms at a greatly reduced cost to taxpayers. The elimination of these jobs would result in the elimination of existing contracts for employees in those departments, which, in turn, would eliminate the built-in wage and health insurance costs. As for the debt service for the new fire station, a well-crafted RFP for firefighting services could ensure those costs are paid by the private firefighting company seeking the lowest bid possible. Should the city charter prevent budget cuts like those ABSURD recommends, the City Council could use resources from a think tank like the Heritage Foundation to develop the local legislation required to make it possible.

These ABSURD proposals modeled after DOGE, illustrate the consequences making budget cuts in the name of “efficiency.” Are regulations governing land use, zoning and public safety ”inefficient?” Is it “inefficient” to provide a town’s employees with wages that enable them to live in the communities they serve? Is it “inefficient” to provide residents with libraries, parks and recreation opportunities? I would not want friends and neighbors who work for local governments in the Upper Valley to lose their jobs in the name of “efficiency.” The Upper Valley has already witnessed how CEOs in distant cities decided to close factories in the name of “efficiency.” Those decisions may have reduced costs and boosted their bottom lines but they did not improve the quality of life for the employees affected by them.

Before voiding regulations that “strangle the economy” and thereby eliminating the jobs of the people who write and enforce those rules, voters might consider who benefits from these actions taken in the name of “efficiency.” From what I’ve read, the money saved by ending “frivolous” regulations and firing thousands of government employees will be used to sustain tax cuts for billionaires like Musk and Ramaswamy, billionaires whose wealth will presumably increase if the deregulation they champion increases the profits of their enterprises.

A tax cut from the federal government probably won’t help Lebanon voters sleep better at night. An increase in property tax, absent the miraculous arrival of some less regressive revenue source, to ensure their community is safe and orderly, provides good schools, employs workers who can afford to live in their town, and offers a wide array of services for residents of all ages just might put residents at ease. Safeguarding taxpayers’ money is a key element of good governance, but cutting needed services, whether local or federal, is just, well, absurd.

Wayne Gersen is a retired public school administrator. He lives in Etna.