Plan B Forum

That budget is horrific and disgusting. Every American that voted for him should be ashamed of themselves:

One popular program facing elimination is “Meals On Wheels,” which uses federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to mobilize volunteers, businesses and donors to provide nutrition to thousands of senior citizens on a daily basis. It supports over 5,000 community-based organizations across America, reaching people in both urban and rural areas. It costs $3 million per year, or, the cost of one weekend at Mar-a-Lago.

And to be clear, the federal government doesn't run "Meals on Wheels" for $3 million, that money is leveraged to support community groups that do the actual work, and is only a portion of the support for the program. This is one example of how federal monies can be used to achieve greater value through grants, compared actually taking on the work of running programs.

No, no, Charlie...don't hold back...tell us how you REALLY feel!

• Every year, during the run-up to Halloween, when Jim DeMint goes to Hell's mega-mall and sits on Satan's lap, he has a list of things he wants for the holiday. The parents of the assembled demons and imps behind him in line often get frustrated because the list is so long. On Thursday, the Trump Administration released its proposed national budget. It's been a long time coming, but DeMint and the rest of the greasy barbarians at Heritage finally got most of what they asked for.
  
  This proposed budget isn't extreme. Reagan's proposed budget in 1981 was extreme. This budget is short-sighted, cruel to the point of being sadistic, stupid to the point of pure philistinism, and shot through with the absolute and fundamentalist religious conviction that the only true functions of government are the ones that involve guns, and that the only true purpose of government is to serve the rich.
  
  There is an increased stirring among allegedly respectable conservatives to separate themselves from the president* and his more manic supporters in the Congress and out in the country. To hell with them. Like Haman, they're dancing on a gallows they spent years devising. This budget represents the diamond-hard reality behind all those lofty pronouncements from oil-sodden think tanks, all those learned disquisitions in little, startlingly advertising-free magazines, all those earnest young graduates of prestige universities who dedicated their intellects to putting an educated gloss on greed and ignorance, and ideological camouflage on retrograde policies that should have died with Calvin Coolidge—or perhaps Louis XVI.
  
  This is it, right here, this budget. This is the beau ideal of movement conservative governance. This is the logical, dystopian end of Reaganism, and Gingrichism, and Tea Partyism, and all the other Isms that movement conservatism has inflicted upon the political commonwealth. This is the vast, noxious swamp into which all those tributaries of modern conservative thought have emptied themselves. People die in there, swallowed up in deep sinkholes of empowered bigotry and class anger.
  
  Meals on Wheels?
  
  Who in the hell zeroes out Meals on Wheels? Who decides that a program that spends $3 million to help volunteers feed the elderly and infirm in their communities is something that the country can no longer afford? Who are the men in the meetings who make this kind of call? What are their names? Trot them out so the country knows who they are. C'mon, David Brooks, find out who they are and explain why National Greatness Conservatism has a problem with starving elderly shut-ins.
  
  The National Endowment For The Arts? The National Endowment For The Humanities? The Corporation For Public Broadcasting?
  
  Who in the hell zeroes out the NEA, or the NEH, or the CPB? Who decides that rural museums, and Ken Burns, and Antiques Roadshow are too elitist for a country full of righteous bumpkins? I'll tell you who does. Newt Gingrich does, that's who, and 23 years ago Newt Gingrich was the superstar of the conservative movement, the intellectual anchor of the modern Right, until, of course, he became a public embarrassment. You know who else does? George Effing Will, just today, that's who. These programs did not become targets last November.
  
  Climate change?
  
  Who the hell eliminates research funding for the climate crisis in an age of mega-storms, and wildfires, and steadily vanishing coastlines? Who pulls the country out of the Paris Agreement? Who takes the United States of Goddamn America out of the fight against the biggest existential crisis the planet has faced since the asteroid landed near the Yucatan? Gee, why don't we take a wild guess and say it's the political party—and the political movement that is its only life force—that for decades has taken billions from the extraction industries, placed a climate denier at the head of the EPA—where he isn't going to have much to do, anyway—and appointed an oilman to be Secretary of State. Which reminds me…
  
  The fcking State Department?
  
  Who the hell virtually defunds the goddamn State Department? The party that tolerates a Tea Party hack like Mick Mulvaney, taking him as such a serious person that he can become to be the director of the Office of Management and Budget, instead of the extremist loon he's always been. Mick Mulvaney didn't need the rise of Donald Trump to become a crackpot who would be marginalized in any sane democratic republic. He was always there on the fringes. He is as much a creature of movement conservatism as Paul Ryan is, even more so because Mulvaney was one of the prime movers in the defenestration of John Boehner.
  
  Now, he's in a position to enact all those policies that made him a star. From ABC News:

  • The president's vision is to add $54 billion to military spending and cut the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development by 28 percent. "There is no question this is a hard power budget, it is not a soft power budget," the president's budget director, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters Wednesday. "The president very clearly wanted to send a message to our allies and our potential adversaries that this is a strong power administration, so you have seen money move from soft power programs, such as foreign aid, into more hard power programs." While Mulvaney described the cuts to the State Department as "fairly dramatic," he said the country's core diplomatic functions will not be impacted by the cuts, which he said are focused on reducing foreign aid. "That is not a commentary on the president's policies toward the State Department, that is a comment on the president's policies toward what is in their budget," he said. "The foreign aid line items just happen to fall in State."

  There are other goodies in here besides. The budget proposes to privatize the air-traffic control system, finishing the work that Reagan started in 1981, and adapting the system to a philosophy that has worked so very well in the prison system and in education. Speaking of which, the Department of Education is taking a 13.5 percent cut, but there's going to be $1.4 billion shifted over into various charter and voucher schemes that have proven worthless in practice, but that warm the heart of Betsy DeVos, our anti-public-education Secretary of Education. Pell Grants also take a whack. I'm sure that any kid from, say, McDowell County in West Virginia who dreams of a college education will be thrilled by that news.
  
  A lot of this is going to make the members of Congress choke, so a lot of it may not pass. It's very existence is important, though, as a document that lays out quite clearly the vision of government shared almost everywhere in modern conservatism. This is a DeMint Budget, a Heritage Budget, a Gingrich Budget, a Reagan Budget, and a Tea Party Budget. It may be crude and lack a certain polish, but its priorities and goals are clear. There is no modern Republican Party without movement conservatism, and this budget is the most vivid statement yet of that philosophy.
  
  None of the people who have become rich and influential through shining this philosophy up needed the election of Donald Trump to become what they are. If the country allows them to step away from him and his budget—the way they all stepped away from Gingrich when he became toxic, or Reagan when he became senile, or George W. Bush, when everything went wrong—then the country does itself no good service. This budget isn't what they want. It's who they are.
  
  Meals on wheels?
  
  Jesus Christ, these really are the fcking mole people.

Exactly. The fucking mole people. Not you and me Econo. And not close to a majority of the American people, which gives me hope.

Dan Rather had some excellent words of his own:

"Cruel and unusual," the phrase rings in my head as I read the press reports of President Donald Trump's proposed budget.

But to even talk about it as a budget is to miss the point. It is not a budget. It is a philosophy, and one that may come as a surprise to many of the people who voted for Mr. Trump. They will hurt in real ways. Meanwhile it confirms the worst existential fears of those who see his presidency as a threat to the very being of the United States they know and love.

This is a man who made a lot of promises on the campaign about helping those struggling in society, about leading the United States to greatness in such things as fighting disease. If anyone had any doubt about the hollowness of his words, this philosophy is all the evidence one would need.

This is a philosophy that doesn't believe in helping the poor, rural or urban, or the power of diplomacy or the importance of science. It is a philosophy that doesn't want to protect the environment. It doesn't believe in the arts. This is about putting a noose around much of the United States federal government and hanging it until it shakes with life no more. In the name of reining in waste, it rains pain and suffering amongst the Americans who already are the most vulnerable. It must be remarked that many of these programs are really small budget items in the greater scheme of things, rounding errors in the federal budget. The purpose is to send a message, not to save money.

Rather than investing in what truly will make America great, this philosophy pounds its chest with false bravado. People will die because of this budget. People will suffer. Diseases will spread, and cures will not be found (really? slash science research?) Our nation will be darker and more dangerous. You know it's a philosophy because the budget has few details really in it. And here is where I see its saving grace.

This philosophy is not the United States I think a majority of Americans would recognize. I believe that we are not so cruel, so shortsighted, so dark. It's easy to rail against the federal government on the campaign stump, but cutting programs that people rely on, that is the kind of thing that can break through the fake news into reality very soon. We have already seen the mess that has become of the health care efforts.

This philosophy is no longer theoretical and it will be a rallying cry for a reverse philosophy. Those who champion an empathetic America, an America prepared for the challenges of the modern world, will have plenty of evidence to point to. Mr. Trump has already put many Republicans in Congress on a defensive footing, on Russia and on healthcare. Wait until the constituents start calling about how they won't be able to heat their homes in the winter or the agricultural programs that were slashed.

"The administration's budget isn't going to be the budget," Senator Marco Rubio told the Washington Post. "We do the budget here. The administration makes recommendations, but Congress does budgets." You can expect to hear a lot more of that kind of rhetoric.

Mr. Trump's philosophy is an opening salvo in a battle for the soul of America that is only beginning. This will be a battle fought trench by trench. But I think it is winnable and America will reconfirm a governing philosophy that is hopeful, compassionate, and wise about the role of government in making our world a safer, fairer, and more just place to live.

I'd wager that many who pulled the lever for Drumph receive some type of assistance from these very programs facing cutbacks or elimination.

Sad

Defense Doves always like to quote Eisenhower, (and many Liberals also frequently pine for those 70% marginal tax rates from the 50s...about the only thing they seem to like about the 50s) here's an article that puts both Ike's view and those tax rates into perspective:

Military Spending in Perspective

by Kevin D. Williamson October 8, 2015 9:16 PM

In 1957, the nation was more or less at peace, the budget ran a small surplus, and we spent 9.8 percent of GDP on national defense. That was down sharply from the years immediately before (winding down of Korean War expenses, I guess) but quite a bit higher than it was in 1950 and 1951. In 1950, we spent only 4.9 percent of GDP on national defense, half that 1957 number. This year, we’re going to spend about 3.3 percent of GDP on national defense.

That’s less than we spent during the first Clinton administration, a fairly peaceable time. It’s less than we’ve spent since before the budgetary beginning of the post-9/11 era, by which I mean, since 2002. Looking at 1957 from the other side of the ledger, tax receipts were 17.2 percent of GDP. This year, taxes are expected to come in at 17.7 percent of GDP, a little bit more.

My lefty friends sometimes say that Republicans should endorse those high Eisenhower-era personal income tax rates, but in fact the government took in slightly less in taxes then than it does now. Not many people paid those sky-rate 1950s tax rates on much of their money. Certainly not Ike—he had his million-dollar book deal structured as a capital gain. The 1957 story isn’t about the taxes.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/42 ... williamson

Now, there's more to the article that I didn't quote (mainly the author's opinions) I present this just for the numbers...

Even though this comes from a conservative publication, (National Review) I doubt very seriously that the author is simply making up the numbers about defense spending as a percentage of GDP, or the numbers about the effective federal tax rates....

If you think he is, please feel free to post a reputable source showing that, and (unlike somebody around here who when his numbers are shown to be rubbish) I promise I will not dig myself a deeper and deeper hole trying to defend what has been objectively refuted, but instead I will say mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maixima culpa and humbly apologize and admit to being wrong...

But, for the sake of argument, for the moment at least, lets assume these numbers are correct. That means:

That at the time Ike spoke the words he spoke, he was speaking from the perspective of living in a country that was spending nearly 10% of its GDP on defense...

A time when the figure was nearly three times what it is today, (and even with the proposed increase would only move from 3.3 % to maybe 3.5 or 3.6%...This article was written in late 2015, and the GDP has also gone up since then; not just the proposed defense spending)

A time before Medicare, or Medicaid, or the expansion of SSDI, or any of the other social programs enacted in the 1960s...

All of which should surely somewhat reduce the "theft" level...

(I won't go into the effective tax rate comparison...It's kind of a digression from this thread topic...I just included it because I found it in the same article and it supports a point I've made a number of times before...very few people actually paid those confiscatory tax rates...)

As a general principle, I strongly support the proposed 9% increase in the defense budget. Even Obama's Sec. of Defense, (at the time The Sequester was considered a remote apocalyptic possibility before it became a reality) said:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned Monday that if the bipartisan debt “supercommittee” fails and an across-the-board spending cut is enacted, the result will be “devastating” for the Pentagon, creating a “substantial risk” that the country’s defense needs might not be met.

“Unfortunately, while large cuts are being imposed, the threats to national security would not be reduced,” Panetta wrote in a letter to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), two of the GOP’s most prominent voices on defense issues. “As a result, we would have to formulate a new security strategy that accepted substantial risk of not meeting our defense needs.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2ch ... 26fb4db394

I agreed with Leon then, and I agree with him now...

But I have some caveats:

The most important consideration is that this additional money is spent wisely, where it is most needed...

(And I wouldn't trust the Trump bunch to organize a two car parade wisely, which makes me highly skeptical on this point...though I do have a certain amount of confidence in Sec. of Defense Matis...if he's the one who's primarily making the decisions about how this money should be spent...)

If the bulk of this money is going to shiny new weapons programs, that's a huge mistake...

The Sequester has hollowed out the defense we already have, and produced huge force readiness issues that desperately need to be addressed...

Money needs to spent on having more of the hardware (planes, ships, tanks, etc) we already have up and combat ready... (One thing Trump did have right in his Norfolk speech was the appalling percentage of military aircraft that are out of commission because the money hasn't been available for proper maintenance)

Money also needs to be spent on training and properly equipping troops and increasing the number of standing forces we would have available for even a semi-large deployment of 50-100 thousand troops...( Meeting that kind of commitment with extended troop deployments, calling up reserves for long rotations, and paying premium prices for "contract" soldiers not only carries an unfair human cost, but is also penny wise and pound foolish)

I'm also not in favor of funding this increase by trying to take it out of the hide of the State Department...(which you couldn't do if you wanted to, and State Department dollars that are spent wisely are defense dollars)

I'd pay for it with some modest changes in entitlements (like a gradual rise in the retirement age) and yes...

Even some borrowing... (if we're going to borrow money for anything now would be the time , with rock bottom interest rates)


*************************************************************************

As far as the rest of the proposed budget is concerned, this post has gone on long enough without getting into that in detail...

Suffice it to say for now that after watching Mr. Mulvaney's performance during the press briefing today, it seems to me that Radical Randianism is the guiding philosophy behind it...

Some of what he was saying was quite jaw dropping, even to a lifelong Republican and hardcore Reagan Conservative...

Without getting into the budget specifics, the perspective he demonstrated he's coming from clearly has nothing to do with contemporary Conservatism...

Mr. Mulvaney isn't about "the government that governs least governs best", or about a healthy suspicion of government efficiency, or about creative ways to make government work better in partnership with the private sector...

He struck me as a true believer not in "how to make the social contract work better", but in how to repeal it in its entirety...

Like William Graham Sumner, his answer to the question "what do social classes owe to each other?" would be "nothing"...

This is not just bad policy from a moral standpoint; it is also bad policy from a practical standpoint...

If you have the point of view that it is immoral to take anything from the "haves" to assist the "have nots" then sooner or later you're going to have a revolution on your hands...

As a prudent conservative, I believe we should pursue policies that avoid that...

The new America...

LJ, please explain to me why the US military could possibly need 2,457 F-35 jets?

BoSoxGal wrote:LJ, please explain to me why the US military could possibly need 2,457 F-35 jets?

That's when the other 2400 are grounded.

• Gob wrote:The new America...

  
  

This headline from a Vox.com article says it well:
Yup, pretty much. A strategic warning shot across the bow.

And then, what the Republican congresscritters come up with will be horrible, but not this horrible...and everyone will sigh a sigh of relief.

what the Republican congresscritters come up with will be horrible, but not this horrible...and everyone will sigh a sigh of relief

And thus the art of the deal

Yep, he's a real genius.

This man knows nothing of arts or deals. He only knows the tweet and a continued refusal to behave or control himself.

Again, he's proof of the old saying, If you're so rich, how come you're not smart?

oldr_n_wsr wrote:

what the Republican congresscritters come up with will be horrible, but not this horrible...and everyone will sigh a sigh of relief

And thus the art of the deal

How can you gloat over the likely evisceration of the social safety net?!

You may think you are impervious oldr, but I assure you, you are not. There are countless ways your best laid plans could blow up in your face.

Remind me to laugh when that happens.

Econoline wrote:

• Gob wrote:The new America...

  
  

In case anyone was wondering about the airplane — Tupolev Ant-20 Maxim Gorkij

http://flyghistoria.se/tupolev_ant20E.html

-"BB"-

It's a Marie Antoinette moment. Let them eat cake, indeed.

I still can't get over that Mulaney character's performance at his press conference this week...

Laying aside the question of whether providing poor children with meals improves academic performance, (there's plenty of evidence that it does, and apparently in the specific case that came up at his press conference the local authorities provided test score improvement statistics showing that performance had gone up since the institution of this program) the shocking and jaw dropping thing to me about this guy was this:

The idea that preventing poor children from going hungry could be in and of itself a "good result" is not even on his radar screen; that concept does not even exist in his moral universe...

The same thing with the idea of feeding elderly people who would otherwise go hungry...

I guess if providing meals on wheels doesn't cause those old farts to jump up and get jobs as Walmart greeters, money spent on it is just flushed down the toilet...

This "philosophy" is not conservative...

It's Dickensian...

It's immoral, uncivilized, even borderline sociopathic...

The idea that preventing poor children from going hungry could be in and of itself a "good result" is not even on his radar screen; that concept does not even exist in his moral universe...

As I posted elsewhere. To Libertarians, Ayn Randians*, and many Republicans taxing one group to give the money to someone else is morally wrong no matter what the money is used for and no matter what the practical result.


*Like Allen Greenspan.


yrs,
rubato