The winners and losers of Trump's $4.1 trillion budget proposal
Jun 02 2017 by Kristina Bennett
On May 24, The Washington Post's Ana Swanson also looked at how realisticTrump's growth projections would be with regard to labor force growth after Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters that much of the growth could come from getting the 6 million Americans marginally attached to the workforce to be fully employed.
The former tea party congressman told the Budget Committee that he went line by line through the federal budget and asked, "Can we justify this to the folks who are actually paying for it?" He suggested that in future budgets that may not be the case.
The president produces a budget as reckless as his campaign promises, if not more so. It foresees scuttling Barack Obama's health care law and an overhaul of the tax code, a boon to the wealthiest Americans. That's because the proposal is dead on arrival on Capitol Hill.
But other economic fundamentals, including the slow growth of the labor force and the strong likelihood of a recession sometime in the next decade, push against these assumptions, and without them federal revenue will not grow fast enough to cover federal spending growth, even under Mr. Trump's austere spending plan. They're not going to finally go to war for those spending cuts now.
Trump won support from GOP leaders.
A better course would be to undertake more intelligent tax reform that simplifies the tax code and ends numerous loopholes that let many corporations and rich individuals like Mr. Trump himself pay far less than the high rates they unconvincingly lament. And he does not propose to extract higher revenues to pay for those promises. Congress will make a lot of changes - and that's normal.
Mulvaney was on Capitol Hill for the second day of hearings on the White House budget, which proposes big cuts on social services and increasing defense spending.
"If states get fewer dollars from the federal government, there are only so many options, because states have to balance the budget every year", said Elizabeth Carpenter, a health policy expert with the consulting firm Avalare Health. That slight decrease adds up to more than $600 billion over 10 years.
White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told a separate House panel that the reason for the new deadline is that "receipts now are coming a little bit slower than expected".
This didn't sit well with some elected officials. "If you are on disability insurance and you are not supposed to be, you are not truly disabled, we need you to go back to work".
The budget also proposes reforms to Medicaid that would reduce the growth in the program's ballooning costs. Without it, many more of them would be working.
Even among the majority of GOP members who hailed Trump's desire to pare back spending, many anxious about the size of some of the proposed cuts.
The crop insurance cuts can be particularly devastating to farmers during times of economic difficulty.
DeVos answered that that was not the federal government's business, but was for states and locales to decide. Even ideological conservatives are likely to blanche at the political fallout of supporting such spending cuts.
Other programs, including those at the Department of Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency would also face cuts, undermining their ability to support research.
Although the budget includes an option to create a student loan forgiveness, income-dependent program for loans after July 1, 2018, it eliminates the current programs that protect current students. Instead, the US taxpayer will foot the bill. These votes can be very politically unpopular, but many business groups have warned that failing to raise the debt ceiling could lead to a financial crisis, because the USA government might not have enough money to pay its bills. It's up to Congress to decide which cuts benefit Americans.