What is greed?  Is it good or bad?  Can it be a benefit or a problem?  According to Merriam-Webster at “www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed”: “Greed is a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed”.  Socially, it is an insatiable desire for material gain or social value, such as status or power and is considered undesirable because it creates conflict between personal and social goals.  So, if you feel that greed is good or beneficial, then it is possible you are a greedy person.

The key words or phrases in this definition and sentence after are “excessive”, “than is needed”, “insatiable”, “undesirable”, and “conflict”.  Sometimes we feel that we need more of something, or that we are being deprived of something.  Though we may begin to equate this to greed, unless we can interchange the previous key words or phrases with our feelings, then we are doing more wishful thinking than we are anything else.

To me, a recent example of greed raised its ugly head in the news.  It concerned the richest man in the world going on “news” television to sell his car whose current value has been crashing in the market.  A commercial, at the most sacred and honorable place of our government, complete with the current President, using his hallowed position, as agent in the commercial.  There isn’t a key word or phrase mentioned above that doesn’t describe this transaction to a “T”.  Read the article by Matt Stopera of Buzzfeed on March 12, 2025 at “www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/donald-trumps-tesla-sales-script-note-is-going-viral”.

What would be the reasoning behind dismantling government agencies rather than performing due diligence to find waste?  Yes, dismantling is a much faster process than that of due diligence simply because it isn’t a process at all.  The latter takes more time because it is the definition of process, but in the long run provides the documented evidence required to show the need for a change.  Dismantling may seem to show this need, but only shakes up the status quo and fabricates the requirement to undo what was done.

Due diligence will prove a change is needed and how to implement that need so there is the least amount of reorganization and, therefore, employee turmoil.  Due diligence will also provide the evidence for what is still required after the change.  So, why the dismantling?  What, if anything, is gained from this non-process?

There is an openly obvious reason to use dismantling.  When something is dismantled, unless someone meticulously documents the activity and keeps all old and new documentation, all hope to rebuild is gone.  Soon the optimism of some of us to bring back an agency, a department, or other administrative area has vanished.

Once the event is forgotten, the administration begins talking about a new replacement, but we have no idea what is being replaced.  Someone may remember a bit of the old process, but the government will tell us to remember that it didn’t work.  We may know better but what proof of it do we have?  Now begins the replacement of our democracy.  Now begins the rise of autocracy.

Breaking the government is one of the oldest tricks on the books.  First, it starts with calling everything the “deep state”.  Then departments, processes, long standing laws begin to be reversed.  All of this is done with the hypothesis that this “deep state” must be fought.  So yes, we are at war with ourselves.  A coup is happening in front of our eyes without anyone knowing any better.  Not even news media gets it.  They are willingly being led to the slaughter.

True, we have no deaths that we can contribute to this.  Unless we start dismantling the health departments.  But there is and will be unlimited misery.  Our federal government can say that most of the dismantled departments, etc. should be run by the states instead.  But will the states get the relief from the feds for the taxes they have paid and will pay since the federal government has relinquished themselves of the job?  Hopefully greed wouldn’t enter anything that is being done or has already been done.

Should the “’United’ States” become 50 separate countries on their own?  Each with different thoughts on policies that affect all of us in all 50 states so that crossing a border means something totally different than it used to.  Maybe becoming more complicated.  That is if crossing the border stays something simple.  Aren’t these the results that would occur?  And, if so, why do we need a federal government at all?

So maybe, before we go any further, we should get some kind of confirmation of what the new administration is aiming for.  Is it the outcome that Project 2025 wants to see?  If so, we need to know.  I don’t think any of us really know what that would look like.