So let's begin with the assumption that you own a business and employ multiple employees. Let's also assume that your business is inefficient, losing money, and perhaps is plagued by waste. You decide to make changes that you believe will get your business (back) on the right track. 

Is the best option the "maximum termination" of your employees, right off the bat, or would it first be a better idea to focus on specific inefficiencies and waste? Then to figure out who or what is responsible, how the inefficiencies can be changed or eliminated, determine which employees are productive and which are not, and finally determine the minimum number of employees your company needs to achieve your overall goals?

This takes us to Wednesday. 

As reported by The Center Square, the White House — under the signatures of Russell Vought, director of the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), and Charles Ezell, acting director of the OPM (Office of Personnel Management) — sent a memo to federal agencies telling them to prepare to reorganize and fire high quantities of workers:

The federal government is costly, inefficient, and deeply in debt. At the same time, it is not producing results for the American public. Instead, tax dollars are being siphoned off to fund unproductive and unnecessary programs that benefit radical interest groups while hurting hardworking American citizens.

Pursuant to the President’s direction, agencies should focus on the maximum elimination of functions that are not statutorily mandated while driving the highest-quality, most efficient delivery of their statutorily-required functions.

While the memo's assertions that the federal government is costly, inefficient, deeply in debt, and not producing adequate results — a list of expectations that all successful businesses in the private sector must endorse —again the question begs to be asked:

Is firing the maximum number of federal employees allowed under the law the best first step?

ALSO READ: 

Thousands of Federal Employees Dismissed As Trump Begins First Round Reducing Government

As The Center Square wrote, American Federation of Government Employees' National President Everett Kelley, who leads the largest union of federal workers, predictably blasted Trump after the latest news broke, arguing that Americans will receive lower quality federal services with “no discernible savings for taxpayers.”

Laying off potentially hundreds of thousands of federal workers will mean fewer services at higher costs for the American taxpayer. This administration has targeted every single federal worker and does not seem to care how much turmoil they cause for either the employees or the American public. 

Kelly added: “The chaos is the point."

Is it? 

While indiscriminate or otherwise, termination of virtually any employee might lead to turmoil within one's personal or family life, I've yet to see turmoil suffered by the American people as a result of Trump's termination plan — other than among the low-information, programmed trolls on the left, that is.

While it's likely unprovable which of the thousands of federal employees terminated thus far deserved to be fired, and which were just caught up in the "maximum termination" plan, I have to believe that many have fallen into the latter category. 

If so, is that "just part of the price to pay," to cut waste and fraud, and improve efficiency, or should mass terminations be carefully considered? And after all, I'm quite sure that not all of those fired so far deserve to be vilified in some corners, simply because they work for the federal government.

JUST FOR LAUGHS: Hilarious: Here's the Dumbest Attack on DOGE, Courtesy of Eric Swalwell

Make no mistake: I'm on board with Trump, Musk and DOGE. Bigly. 

That said, I've never been a proponent of "ready, shoot, aim."