Thursday, January 19, 2017

Trump to cut $10 trillion in spending in 10 years

National Review last July: "Trump has made it clear that government spending in his administration would be, as The Donald would say, yuuuge! Trump’s answer to just about any problem facing the country is for the federal government to spend more money, which would be just fine because he would be the one spending it, and he knows how to do it right."

From reality today: "The blueprint being used by Trump’s team would reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years."

President Trump will start with the most politicized agencies.

From the Hill:
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized, while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely.
No more Piss Christ.

From the Hill:
The proposed cuts hew closely to a blueprint published last year by the conservative Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has helped staff the Trump transition.
President Trump is going after boondoggles large and small.

He already reined in the Defense Department's F-35 program.

He already reined in the president's Air Force One boondoggle.

Heck, he already reined in his transition team's spending and returned 20% of the team's budget back to the Treasury.

From the Hill:
The administration’s full budget, including appropriations language, supplementary materials and long-term analysis, is expected to be released toward the end of Trump’s first 100 days in office, or by mid- to late April.
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), Trump’s choice to head the Office of Management and Budget, has not yet weighed in on the proposed spending reforms because he is still awaiting confirmation by the Senate.
Mulvaney voted for the RSC budget offered as a more conservative alternative to the main House Republican budget in 2015. The House did not vote on the RSC budget for fiscal year 2017.
The preliminary proposals from the White House budget office will be shared with federal departments and agencies soon after Trump takes the oath of office Friday, and could provoke an angry backlash.
Of course. The Democrat Party owns the Fourth Branch of Government -- the bureaucracy.

The press will repeat and bleat the Democratic Party's talking points.

And the people will laugh and laugh -- and cheer President Trump.

On November 8, people in 30 states voted to Make America Great Again.

We will.

We are.

@@@

Please read "Trump the Press," in which I skewer media experts who wrongly predicted Trump would lose the Republican nomination. "Trump the Press" is available as a paperback, and on Kindle.

It covers the nomination process only. The general election will be covered in a sequel, "Trump the Establishment."

For an autographed copy, email me at DonSurber@GMail.com

Be deplorable. Follow me on Twitter.

17 comments:

  1. NRO, ho, ho, ho. Blew it then, and no doubt sticking with it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. those idjits over at NRO are #NeverRight

    ReplyDelete
  3. What do you call $10.5 T in budget cuts? A good start. - Elric

    ReplyDelete
  4. "President Trump is going after boondoggles large and small."

    And to think the MSM said he didn't support gender reassignment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So many rice bowls to break, so little time. Better get a security detail and some Masks and Capes on the Head of the Budget Slashing team, this is gonna rock the Casbah!

    ReplyDelete
  6. In DC government accounting, budget cuts are not figured from ACTUAL spending, but from PROJECTED spending, in other words from a rising baseline. Actual spending doesn't have to decrease, only that it doesn't rise as fast as the corruptocrats in DC had planned to do in order to buy the votes of ever-freeloading Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Big D, you're on a roll. Keep shootin that rock. You're just tearin up nets right now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't know how to fix it, but when I worked as a US civil servant, a portable hard drive we wanted was $80.00 in a standard catalog, but we were supposed to buy it from the "approved" catalog for $340.00 instead.
    We need to be able to buy stuff like that (and other office supplies) straight off the Internet rather than have to go through "the process."
    If I can get it from Amazon for 10 bucks, and have it in two days, why buy it from an "approved" source for three times as much and have to wait two months to get it?

    Little things like that add up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wilbur Ross and Rex Tillerson will use Office Depot
      You don't become rich by throwing money away

      Delete
    2. I think the idea originally was that government procurement rules shouldn't strongly favor one vendor over others and that the business should be spread around even if it meant sometimes ignoring a low bidder. Then this rule of neutrality got totally busted when someone decided there should be set-asides for women-owned and minority-owned businesses. In the aggregate, of course, the government does spend an enormous amount of money buying things in the consumer market, and there is some opportunity there for fraud and graft. However, if employees are given some discretion in making small purchases, it's not as if they can just order stuff willy nilly without having their supervisor sign off on the proper purchase order. At some point, you have to trust your managers. If you can't trust them to follow the rules, who promoted them and why the heck were they hired/promoted to manager in the first place?

      Delete
  9. This makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Angry backlash. Like Hans Blix to Kim Jong Il in Team America. "We'll write you a letter telling you how displeased we are."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public broadcasting is peanuts compared to the $9 billion in tariff reductions that be put back into our economy over four years with the advent of TPP - you know, the Trade agreement that Trump is abandoning - and that is tallying chemical sales only. Additionally we potentially lose a half million jobs in a decade.

    As for the promise to reduce government spending, it gets tough when you plan yuuuge outlays to fix infrastructures, starting with transportation and that's scary because Trump likes the bullet train. And of course, somebody has to pay for a 2000 mile long, 50 foot precast concrete wall and it will unlikely be Mexicans. The wall will also have the effect of reducing the $561 billion in annual trade between the US and Mexico, especially at border towns.

    My point is that we don't need to be putting down naysayers when nobody even knows what will be proposed, but the first bridge to cross should be eliminating Obamacare and all of its taxes and guarantees and inadequate coverages at too-high premiums. That means don't replace the government run piece, just return to 2008.That costs zero to the taxpayer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Under budget and ahead of schedule is my most important criteria.
      Every president promises infrastructure.
      I cannot wait to see what kind of Trains this administration will deliver, especially as compared to the last few.
      libby
      Make America Great Again
      Give Americans meaningful work again

      Delete
  12. Wish I could believe that $10 trillion figure but, unfortunately, it is BS.

    While the Hill article seems to suggest the $10.5 trillion figure will come from shrinking the federal bureaucracy and reductions and eliminations of Commerce, Energy, Transportation, Justice and State, the reality is that, if you compare the Heritage blueprint (http://thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/BlueprintforBalance.pdf) for 2017-26 to the OMB estimated budgets for 2017-26 (which appear to be the basis of Heritage's claimed savings over 10 years), you'll discover that the vast majority of the $10.5 trillion figure comes from a) the years 2022-26, and b) entitlement programs (mostly Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Mandatory, though also Social Security to a lesser extent), which are only very briefly described.

    In fact, the Heritage blueprint indicates discretionary spending of $10,476 billion over the 2017-26 period, whereas the OMB budget indicates discretionary spending of $13,667 billion over the same period. This suggests a savings in discretionary spending of $3.2 trillion over 10 years, which is less than one-third of the $10.5 trillion figure being trumpeted by the Hill, this blog post, and elsewhere.

    Moreover, the $3.2 trillion figure is almost certainly a fantasy, since if you sum the savings in 2017 of each discretionary program to be cut in Table 1, it sums up to $102 billion, less than half of what appear to be the claimed savings in discretionary savings in the Appendix when compared to the OMB budget. And this assumes that all the cuts indicated by the Heritage blueprint actually happen. Given that, as the Hill article describes, with the GOP in control of the House, the RSC budget (which does not cut as much as the Heritage blueprint) failed by a vote of 132 to 294, I'm not going to hold my breath.


    Though, to be fair, although the $10.5 trillion figure is way overblown, the circumstances described by the Hill article does suggest that the NRO claim which Mr. Surber quoted at the start of this post was inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't expect the Roll-Over Party leadership in Congress to go along with these cuts. I hope DJT is able to convince them but I have my doubts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'll be happier if he forgets that whole Sun Tzu nonsense and starts in with some Mushashi.

    "The purpose of the sword is to cut."

    ReplyDelete