http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...et-helps-move-deficit-sharply-higher-53011637 Trump's budget balloons deficits, cuts social safety net By andrew taylor and martin crutsinger, associated press WASHINGTON — Feb 12, 2018, 7:09 PM ET President Donald Trump unveiled a $4.4 trillion budget plan Monday that envisions steep cuts to America's social safety net but mounting spending on the military, formally retreating from last year's promises to balance the federal budget. The president's spending outline for the first time acknowledges that the Republican tax overhaul passed last year would add billions to the deficit and not "pay for itself" as Trump and his Republican allies asserted. If enacted as proposed, though no presidential budget ever is, the plan would establish an era of $1 trillion-plus yearly deficits. The open embrace of red ink is a remarkable public reversal for Trump and his party, which spent years objecting to President Barack Obama's increased spending during the depths of the Great Recession. Rhetoric aside, however, Trump's pattern is in line with past Republican presidents who have overseen spikes in deficits as they simultaneously increased military spending and cut taxes. "We're going to have the strongest military we've ever had, by far," Trump said in an Oval Office appearance Monday. "In this budget we took care of the military like it's never been taken care of before." Trump's budget revived his calls for big cuts to domestic programs that benefit the poor and middle class, such as food stamps, housing subsidies and student loans. Retirement benefits would remain mostly untouched by Trump's plan, as he has pledged, though Medicare providers would absorb about $500 billion in cuts — a nearly 6 percent reduction. Some beneficiaries in Social Security's disability program would have to re-enter the workforce under proposed changes to eligibility rules. While all presidents' budgets are essentially dead on arrival — Congress writes and enacts its own spending legislation — Trump's plan was dead before it landed. It came just three days after the president signed a bipartisan agreement that set broad parameters for spending over the next two years. That deal, which includes large increases for domestic programs, rendered Monday's Trump plan for 10-year, $1.7 trillion cuts to domestic agencies such as the departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development even more unrealistic. The White House used Monday's event to promote its long-awaited plan to increase funding for infrastructure. The plan would put up $200 billion in federal money over the next 10 years in hopes of leveraging a total of $1.5 trillion in infrastructure spending, relying on state and local governments and the private sector to contribute the bulk of the funding. But after his aides talked up that plan over the weekend, Trump suggested that his infrastructure proposal wasn't a big deal for him. "If for any reason, they don't want to support to it, hey, that's going to be up to them," he said of the Republican-controlled Congress. "What was very important to me was the military; what was very important to me was the tax cuts." Trump also is proposing work requirements for several federal programs, including housing subsidies, food stamps and Medicaid. Such ideas have backing from powerful figures in Congress including Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who promises action on a "workforce development" agenda this year. There was immediate opposition from Democrats. "The Trump budget proposal makes clear his desire to enact massive cuts to health care, anti-poverty programs and investments in economic growth to blunt the deficit-exploding impact of his tax cuts for millionaires and corporations," said Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. Some Republicans, on the other hand, said spending was much too high. "This budget continues too much of Washington's wasteful spending — it does not balance in ten years, and it creates a deficit of over a trillion dollars next year," said Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida. "We cannot steal from America's future to pay for spending today Trump's plan aims at other familiar targets. It would eliminate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. The administration wants NASA out of the International Space Station by 2025 and private businesses running the place instead. But the domestic cuts would be far from enough to make up for the plummeting tax revenue projected in the budget. Trump's plan sees a 2019 deficit of $984 billion, though White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney admits $1.2 trillion is more plausible after last week's congressional budget pact and $90 billion worth of disaster aid is tacked on. That would be more than double the 2019 deficit the administration promised last year. All told, the new budget sees accumulating deficits of $7.2 trillion over the coming decade; Trump's plan last year projected a 10-year shortfall of $3.2 trillion. And that's assuming Trump's rosy economic predictions come true and Congress follows through — in an election year — with politically toxic cuts to social programs, farm subsidies and Medicare providers. Last year Trump's budget promised such ideas could generate a small budget surplus by 2027; now, his best-case scenario is for a $450 billion deficit that year, more than $300 billion of which can be traced to his December tax cut. In stark numbers, the budget rewrites the administration's talking points for last year's tax plan, which administration figures such as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin promised would more than pay for itself. "Not only will this tax plan pay for itself, but it will pay down debt," Mnuchin declared in September. Instead, Trump's budget projects that tax revenues will plummet by $3.7 trillion over the 2018-27 decade relative to last year's "baseline" estimates. The budget also includes $1.6 billion for the second stage of Trump's proposed border wall, a 65-mile segment in Texas' Rio Grande Valley. Trump's request last year for 74 miles of wall in San Diego and the Rio Grande Valley is pending before lawmakers right now. Once again, there's no mention of how Mexico would have to pay for it, as Trump repeatedly promised during the presidential campaign and after his victory. The plan reprises proposals to curb crop insurance costs, cut student loan subsidies and reduce pension benefits for federal workers. They went nowhere last year. Trump's plan promises 3 percent growth for the nation's economy, continuing low inflation and low interest yields on U.S. Treasury bills despite a flood of new borrowing. That likely underestimates the mounting cost of financing the government's $20 trillion-plus debt, many economists say. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, said a surge in stimulus from higher government spending and tax cuts would boost growth but for only for a short time. "This will meaningfully raise the odds that after juiced-up growth in 2018 and 2019, we will get a much weaker economy, possibly a recession in the next decade," Zandi said. "In good times, budget policy should be working to get the deficits down because bad times are sure to come."
Fiscally conservative republicans hate Obama,who came into office with a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit and left office with a 600 billion dollar deficit so they vote in a guy who comes into office with a 600 billion dollar deficit and will turn it into a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit in 2 years
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-defense-20180212-story.html Trump proposes huge increase in military spending By David S. Cloud Feb 12, 2018 | 3:45 PM | Washington The Trump administration on Monday proposed a defense budget of $716 billion for fiscal 2019, part of an ambitious effort to substantially boost Pentagon spending after years of tight budget limits and refocus the military on countering Russia and China. The budget blueprint, combined with a defense boost that Congress approved last week, would increase Pentagon accounts for weapons, troops, training and for nuclear arms programs run by the Energy Department by more than $74 billion, a 10% increase over current spending levels. The budget "is what we need to bring us back to a position of primacy," Defense Secretary James N. Mattis told reporters on a flight to Rome late Sunday, citing plans to buy more F-18 fighters, train more Air Force mechanics, and create new cyberwarfare units as examples of how the money will be spent. Trump's budget plan was released weeks after the Pentagon issued a national security strategy that called for a shift away from battling terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State, and retooling the military to deter and, if necessary, fight nuclear-armed adversaries such as Russia, China or North Korea. Though President Trump has frequently called for improving relations with Moscow and enlisting Beijing to put diplomatic pressure on North Korea, Pentagon officials are far more explicit about what they claim is a growing threat from Russia and China to U.S. allies in Europe and Asia. "It is increasingly apparent that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian values," Undersecretary of Defense David L. Norquist said Monday at a Pentagon news briefing. "We recognize that, if unaddressed, our eroding U.S. military advantage versus China and Russia could undermine our ability to deter aggression and coercion in key strategic regions." The call for a substantial increase in defense spending also comes months after two Navy guided-missile destroyers collided with civilian cargo ships in the western Pacific, killing 17 sailors. The accidents galvanized concerns by lawmakers and at the top levels of the Pentagon that congressional-mandated spending caps since 2011 had harmed readiness and training in the armed services. Pentagon officials long have complained that the spending caps had left some combat units unprepared to fight and had delayed maintenance on crucial equipment while the military was still engaged in conflicts around the globe. With the spending caps lifted at least for the next two years, most major Pentagon accounts would receive budget increases. The money would go for more training, more interceptors for ballistic missile defense, new missile-carrying submarines, a planned new bomber, and modernization of aging nuclear warheads. The increase in defense spending that lawmakers approved last week went beyond what the White House had initially sought — $603 billion for the base Pentagon budget, with another $65 billion for war-related costs. "It's a big jump for fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2019 compared to where we are,'" said Todd Harrison, a defense budget specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think tank. In broad terms, the new budget proposal recommends $617 billion for the base Pentagon budget and $69 billion more for the wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other ongoing military operations. Another $30 billion would go to the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Energy Department agency that oversees nuclear weapons research. That's an increase of $1.69 billion for weapons activities, including upgrading and building new nuclear warheads. Trump's proposal now goes to Congress, which is likely to adjust some specifics. The overall spending levels were worked out, however, in an ambitious two-year budget deal reached last Friday with congressional leaders from both parties. Among the most expensive proposals would increase the size of the active-duty armed forces by 25,900 by next year and by 56,600 by 2023. The active-duty Army would expand the most, going from a 2018 authorized level of 476,000 to 495,500 over the next six years. By 2023, the Navy would increase by 16,900, the Marine Corps by 1,400, and the Air Force by 13,700, increasing the active-duty military to 1,365,500. The number of Air Force combat squadrons would increase from 55 to 58 by 2023. Personnel increases are costly because they include benefits and salary, as well as the costs of training and equipping new service members. Even those increases do not restore the military to the force it was at the height of the Iraq war in 2009, when total active-duty strength was 1.4 million. Despite the spending hike, the increase is not likely to relieve pressure on many parts of the armed forces anytime soon, Harrison said. It takes years to recruit and train new forces, and although Pentagon officials want to refocus on preparing for war against other major powers, U.S. forces are still deployed in substantial numbers in Afghanistan, Iraq and other hot spots fighting insurgents and other unconventional foes. "Our forces are overstretched because of the current operational tempo, and it's not a budget issue. It's a strategy issue," Harrison said. "That's something the [Defense] department hasn't really grappled with." Missile-defense batteries at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County would gain up to 44 more interceptor missiles, a move that comes in response to North Korea's development of ballistic missiles with the range to strike the continental United States. The Pentagon would spend $48.9 billion in Afghanistan, nearly $2 billion more than last year, while the fight against Islamic State in Iraq and Syrian would receive $15.3 billion, an increase of $2.3 billion over last year. The proposal also includes $6.5 billion to place more tanks, armored vehicles and other combat equipment in Europe, part of a Pentagon plan to reassure allies nervous about Russian military aggressiveness in central Europe. Trump has asked the Pentagon to develop options for a major military parade in Washington this year, similar to one he watched last year in Paris that included French tanks, missiles and troops. The administration budget proposal does not clearly set aside money for moving those forces to the capital.
Bush came into office with defense spending around 300 billion and when he left it was around 600 billion. Obama came into office with defense spending around 600 billion and when he left it was around 600 billion. Trump came into office with defense spending around 600 billion,has started increasing it and wants to keep increasing it. Its Obama fiscally conservative republicans hate though
I'm going to start filing missing persons reports for the tea party and fiscally conservative republicans.We're back to trillion dollar plus deficits under president trump and the republican controlled House and Senate after President Obama cut the deficit in half and they cant be found
WTF? Off your meds again? Last thing I ever heard about the Tea Party, you guys called them obstructionist, plus a few I can't mention. This latest spending monstrosity was a bipartisan cluster. I'm sad it happened, not to mention under a Republician POTUS. Just goes to the point both parties are fucked up.
You are lying, and as usual, wrong again. Both parties are to blame. There is a sixty vote threshold. I do blame the Republicans more though. They should have let the Democrats shut the government down again.
Well it's good to know the Dems didn't get a penny they asked for, lol. Also nice dodge on the deficit cut.
What Dems asked for is irrelevant,republicans didn't have to give it. What was the deficit when Obama came into office and what was it when he left?