Donald Trump's budget, spending cuts are 'moral,' Mulvaney says

Veronique de Rugy suspects that grandiose language is supposed to resonate with those voters who don't understand how the budget process actually works.

First, notice that I said "would", not "will".

First, the proposal is dead on arrival on Capitol Hill.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in order for Trump's tax cuts to pay for themselves, "The country would need roughly 4.5 percent sustained growth to pay for the entire tax plan - two-and-a-half times the 1.8 percent that CBO projects to occur over the next decade".

The cuts in funding as outlined in the budget would come as a result of reforming Medicaid payments as either a per capita cap or a block grant beginning in fiscal year 2020, and the decreases in tandem with those proposed in the House of Representatives bill would cut funding for Medicaid by more than 47% by its final year.

Surprised? You shouldn't be.

The proposed budget, for the fiscal year that begins October 1, was being delivered to Congress Tuesday, setting off an extended debate in which Democrats are already attacking the administration for trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. They're not going to finally go to war for those spending cuts now, writes de Rugy.

Other reforms will most likely be met with wobbly knees from same Republicans, too.

Mulvaney added: "We don't want to measure compassion by the number of programs we have and the number of people on them - true compassion is the number of people we want to try to get off of those programs and get back in charge of their own lives". That should be a no-brainer, but with Democrats and their media allies ready to pounce, don't expect the GOP to put up much of a fight. "We know that the president's budget won't pass as proposed". On top of that, studies have shown that Medicaid beneficiaries don't experience better health outcomes than uninsured people.

Trump's budget would limit subsidies to farmers, including a cut in government help for purchasing popular crop insurance policies.

Funding for the National Institutes of Health would decrease by almost $6 billion in the next fiscal year. As Taxpayers for Common Sense notes, if the fund for overseas contingency operations were an agency, it would be the fourth-largest in terms of federal discretionary spending. Self-styled budget hawks tend to ignore the fact that our only real budget problem is high and rising health costs-which ACA repeal only threatens to exacerbate.

A program created to move people receiving Social Security disability payments back into enter the workforce is politically toxic as well. That would be $22 billion above the current level.

The proposal reflects a conservative vision of smaller government, a drastic rollback of programs for the poor and disabled to prod them into the workforce and a robust hike for the military and border security. It renews a commitment to unworkable weapons systems and a shadow army of defense contractors. Trump's budget would cut several key K-12 programs, while boosting funding for charter and private school voucher programs. O'Donnell said before Kasich chimed in, laughing, "or the budget director".

  • Zachary Reyes