If You Don't Like It, Move!

Efforts to reduce the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy—most visibly through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—have sparked intense public debate. Supporters view these efforts as long-overdue corrections to decades of unchecked administrative expansion. Critics, on the other hand, see authoritarian overreach, weakened public services, and threats to institutional norms. The tone has been confrontational, the messaging polarizing, and the results mixed. Still, the broader push to rein in the administrative state continues to influence how agencies function—and how Americans evaluate the legitimacy of centralized authority.

To understand this movement, it helps to ask not just what is being done, but why it resonates.

Donald Trump won the presidency convincingly—again. You do not have to support him to recognize that a clear electoral majority signaled deep frustration with a government they believe no longer serves them. Rather than fixating on Trump’s governing style, the more instructive question is: Why did even more Americans embrace this platform the second time around? Among all the candidates, only Trump placed the critique of Big Government, the Administrative State, and legislative dysfunction at the center of his message. The DOGE initiative, for all its flaws, reflects an effort to translate that frustration into institutional reform—to return power from unelected bureaucracies to the governed.

Intent vs. Outcomes: The Education Case

Take the U.S. Department of Education (DoE). It sounds unthinkable to shrink or eliminate it. After all, what could be more vital than educating our children? But that is where the confusion lies. The intent of the DoE is not in dispute. The outcomes are.

Public education, by almost every major measure, is faltering:

• Stagnant or declining math and reading scores (NAEP)

• Low teacher retention rates

• High student loan default rates

• Ballooning cost of higher education

• Declining ROI of college degrees

• Disproportionate funding gaps across districts

• Loss of local control and parental trust

Please do not mistake my critique of public education outcomes as a criticism of the individuals who serve in the Department of Education. Most are dedicated, well-intentioned professionals—Americans who care deeply about their mission and exemplify the kind of integrity you would trust in a neighbor or entrust with your children.

That said, when outcomes consistently fall short, structural reform is not only reasonable—it becomes necessary. In a functioning democracy, poor performance should trigger redesign. If a federal agency cannot deliver on its intended goals, then reallocating responsibility to more local, accountable systems is a rational response.

Now, you may be thinking: But some states have a terrible education track record. If it were not for the federal government, outcomes would be even worse.

Worse for whom?

Just because an outcome appears worse to you doesn’t mean it is worse—or even experienced as worse—by the people living in that context. Residents in those states may be making informed trade-offs, prioritizing other public goods—like public safety, economic freedom, or low taxes—based on their specific values, needs, and constraints. What you view as a failure might, to them, reflect a different and reasonable prioritization.

The real problem arises when we project our own value hierarchy onto others, assuming our preferences are universal. Optimization is always context-dependent. A more productive stance? Practice curiosity over judgment.

It is also worth noting that many critics of certain states’ education systems do not actually live in those states. To those observers, I would say: you already voted with your feet. You chose not to live there. That does not mean the residents who do live there are failing to make sound trade-offs. They are choosing what works best for them under their local circumstances.

Let us not confuse disagreement with dysfunction. And let us avoid assuming our preferences should override others’ lived realities. Policy should respect diverse priorities—not homogenize them.

Decentralization Is Not Abandonment

Some argue that eliminating federal oversight is tantamount to abandoning citizens. But remanding authority to states is not the same as removing protections. Law, law enforcement, and funding are distinct. Just because Washington steps back does not mean laws disappear or state systems cannot step forward.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution—reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people—supports this shift toward decentralization. Many state governments already have legal frameworks, bureaucracies, and community-based knowledge better suited to enforce education policy. Moreover, laws do not disappear with federal agencies. They can still be enforced through litigation, local regulation, and public pressure. In fact, lawsuits are a vital enforcement tool in a decentralized democracy.

A Personal Example: Voting With Our Feet

Let us walk through a real-life example. In the early 2000s, when my wife and I were moving to the Washington, D.C. area with our four young children, we could have settled anywhere. But we made public education our highest priority.

So we chose the Langley High School pyramid—an area known for exceptional public schools at that time. It was not the cheapest or most convenient, but we traded other luxuries and conveniences (new cars, vacations, longer commute times, etc.) to be in a high-quality school district. It was not just about money; it was about willingness to change, sacrifice, and prioritize. We embraced the "Pursuit of Happiness" concept from the Declaration of Independence and sought public education as our happiness priority.

This was our choice—based on the tradeoffs that made the most sense for our family. Others, facing different constraints and values, might have made very different choices. And that is not just acceptable—it’s a feature of a free society. That is our democracy in action: diverse people making decisions according to their unique incentives, constraints, and definitions of happiness.

Everyone has constraints. Some are more opportunity-constrained than others. But everyone has some ability to make tradeoffs. Choosing not to change is a decision too.

And this is the heart of the matter: choice requires agency. Whether it's switching neighborhoods, changing schools, or moving to a state with better public services, we must preserve and encourage Americans to vote with their feet. Found in that agency is our constitutionally intended promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That means fewer centralized decisions, more local autonomy, and greater diversity of choice—so individuals can pursue the futures that align with their own values and circumstances.

Policy Suggestion: Help People Move

If I were to recommend one impactful federal social program, it would be this: Help people move. The late comedian Sam Kinison once shouted that the solution to world hunger was not food donations—but U-Hauls. His policy message, delivered with his signature exaggerated comedic style, encourages people to relocate closer to opportunities rather than remain in areas of natural or systemic scarcity.

Yet mobility faces a structural obstacle: local governments are disincentivized to support it. Their tax base—largely funded through property taxes—depends on residents staying put. Bureaucratic salaries and public budgets rise with home values and population stability. The result is a web of policies designed to attract newcomers while quietly penalizing those who consider leaving. Local governments become like bamboo finger traps—welcoming on entry, but constricting when residents try to exit.

This incentive structure drives a kind of policy self-dealing. For example, in many high-cost metro areas, local governments enforce restrictive zoning laws that artificially inflate housing prices—then use taxpayer funds to offer down payment assistance programs to help buyers afford the very homes made unaffordable by those same restrictions. It is a public-sector shell game: zoning inflates values, values boost tax revenue, and housing “solutions” serve to preserve the revenue stream and justify an ever-expanding bureaucracy, not fix the underlying affordability crisis.

Down payment assistance programs often function like a bamboo finger trap: they appear helpful on the surface by offering upfront cash to make homeownership more accessible—easy to enter. But hidden in the fine print are multi-year residency requirements; if recipients move too soon, they must repay the assistance—making it far more difficult to exit. What begins as support quickly becomes a constraint, reinforcing the broader system’s incentive to keep people anchored in place.

The same pattern emerged during the devastating 2025 wildfires in Southern California. In the name of consumer protection, the state capped property insurance premiums in high-risk zones. But by suppressing actuarial pricing, the true cost of wildfire risk was obscured. The result? Cross-subsidies where lower-risk residents unknowingly prop up insurance affordability for those in danger zones—again protecting local tax bases while penalizing mobility and distorting vital market signals.

These are just two examples of how policy design can unintentionally discourage relocation while aiming to provide support. Other bamboo finger trap mechanisms include non-transferable occupational licenses, rent control structures that penalize mobility, and homestead tax exemptions that disincentivize relocation. In each case, the surface benefit masks a deeper intent: preserve local revenue and institutional inertia by increasing the cost or complexity of leaving.

Most people agree that everyone should pay their fair share. But the 2025 Southern California wildfires exposed a deeper tension: when state-capped property insurance premiums in high-risk zones distort true risk pricing, “fair share” becomes ambiguous. If your actuarially fair premium—based on wildfire exposure—is no longer sustainable, relocation may be the most rational choice. Perhaps Kinison had it right all along: as a check on local government, the best policy might not be another subsidy—it might be a U-Haul.

That is why mobility support is so crucial. The United States is vast and richly diverse. People should be empowered to discover communities that align with their values, career goals, and educational priorities. Whether seeking safer neighborhoods, better schools, or functioning public services, mobility is one of the most powerful tools of self-determination.

Freedom is not merely the right to speak or worship. It is the ability to reposition your life when local institutions become misaligned with your goals. Markets thrive when people can understand and act on accurate signals. Democracies remain dynamic when citizens can vote with their feet.

The message is simple: If your local situation no longer works for you, find one that does—and good government policy is one that helps you get there.

In Conclusion: Pursue Happiness Somewhere Else

To those who say "If you do not like it, protest!" I say, your best protest could be to move. Your community is not a cage. If your school system, HOA, public services, or laws no longer reflect your values, explore alternatives. We are citizens of a free country, not captives of ZIP codes.

As the Declaration of Independence reminds us, government exists to secure our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That pursuit includes the freedom to pack up and try again somewhere new.

Resources for the Curious Statistical and Political References

• Kamarck, Elaine C. “The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution.” Brookings Institution, July 25, 2016. Explains how growing public discontent with bureaucratic complexity and institutional gridlock created fertile ground for Trump’s anti-administrative state message.

• Restuccia, Andrew. “Trump Revives Plan to Slash Government Workforce.” The Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2024. Details Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle the federal bureaucracy, streamline regulation, and return power from agencies to elected officials.

• National Center for Education Statistics. The Nation’s Report Card: 2022 Reading and Mathematics Assessments. U.S. Department of Education, 2022. Reveals stagnation and decline in student performance, particularly in math and reading across public schools.

• U.S. Department of Education. Federal Student Loan Portfolio. Office of Federal Student Aid, 2023. Details high default rates and growing balances in federal student loan programs, highlighting inefficiencies in higher education funding.

• The College Board. Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2023. College Board, 2023. Documents rising tuition costs and shifts in financial aid, showing affordability pressures in higher education.

• American Institutes for Research. Teacher Attrition and Mobility. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER), 2023. Analyzes high teacher turnover and its implications for student outcomes and school performance.

• Third Way. The Student Debt Crisis. Third Way, 2022. Explores how flawed loan design and lack of value in many degrees contribute to unsustainable student debt burdens.

Books and Intellectual References

• Hayek, F.A. The Road to Serfdom. University of Chicago Press, 1944. Warns against the dangers of centralized planning and defends the spontaneous order of free markets.

• Buchanan, James M. and Gordon Tullock. The Calculus of Consent. University of Michigan Press, 1962. Lays the foundation for public choice theory, explaining how political actors respond to incentives like market participants.

• Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. Explores dual-system thinking and cognitive biases that shape human judgment and decision-making.

• Munger, Michael C. Tomorrow 3.0: Transaction Costs and the Sharing Economy. Cambridge University Press, 2018. Argues that reducing transaction costs fundamentally transforms markets, governance, and freedom of movement.

Multimedia and Commentary

• Munger, Mike. "The Answer is Transaction Costs." Podcast, various episodes. Explains how friction in markets and politics distorts decision-making and drives inefficiencies.

• Kinnison, Sam. "U-Hauls!" Comedy sketch, YouTube. Uses satire to suggest mobility—not aid—is often the more rational solution to resource scarcity.

Original Articles by Jeff Hulett

• Hulett, Jeff. “Signals in the Smoke: Why Markets Reveal Truths That Intervention Hides.” The Curiosity Vine, January 19, 2024. Uses California’s insurance market as a case study in how government caps suppress risk signals and misallocate resources.

• Hulett, Jeff. “The Insurance Pricing Game: How I Learned the Hard Way to Shop Smarter.” Personal Finance Reimagined, April 20, 2024. Personal account of discovering how regulatory assumptions masked excessive costs in consumer insurance.

• Hulett, Jeff. Making Choices, Making Money. The Curiosity Vine Press, 2022. Provides a decision-making framework for personal finance built on behavioral economics and structured tradeoffs.

• Hulett, Jeff. “The Simple Answer to the Affordable Housing Crisis: Stop Making Home Building Illegal.” The Curiosity Vine, October 12, 2023.

  Explains how restrictive zoning inflates housing costs, incentivizes local government self-dealing, and distorts affordability through circular public policy mechanisms.