Republican proposed Budget

[GMDino]

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/19/537959833/heres-whats-in-the-house-republican-budget-and-why-it-matters

Quote:The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending.


It's true that budgets are often called "political documents" — which is to say that they are more statements of priority than exact plans of how every dollar should be spent. But this 2018 fiscal year budget, released Tuesday, could also allow Republicans to pass one of their big-ticket items — tax overhaul — via reconciliation. That's the powerful tool that allows lawmakers to advance tax and spending legislation with only 51 votes in the Senate, rather than 60 — and the GOP currently has 52 senators.


Even with reconciliation, though, Senate Republicans were unable to get enough support to move forward with their bill to replace the Affordable Care Act. By attaching taxes to this budget, they once again will try to lower the hurdle for passing one of their top priorities. As with health care, the question is then whether Republicans can get enough support to push through something they've hoped to accomplish for years.

That could require some compromise, as House GOP leaders will have to balance the desires of its party's centrist and far-right members. Members of the more moderate Tuesday
Group, as the Hill reported Tuesday, oppose big mandatory spending cuts, while members of the conservative Freedom Caucus would more likely be in favor of drastic cuts.

Here are a few things the House budget proposes:

It would ramp up military spending while slashing other discretionary spending. The House budget would bump up defense spending by around $929 billion over the next decade and save on non-defense discretionary spending by $1.3 trillion.
Broadly speaking, that's similar to the White House budget as proposed in May (and as scored by the CBO), in that both ramp up defense spending and make major cuts to other programs.

The House budget ultimately plans for trillions of dollars in mandatory spending cuts, but in the near term, it calls upon 11 committees to cut $203 billion altogether over a decade. So, for example, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will have to cut $20 billion over the next decade. And the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over a variety of spending programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, would cut $52 billion over the next decade.

It assumes an optimistic economic growth rate. On this one, the House budget echoes the president's. The White House's budget assumed a 3 percent growth rate would create $2 trillion in revenue from tax code overhaul. That was widely panned — aside from the fact that the White House double-counted that $2 trillion as paying for deficit reduction and tax overhaul, most economists agreed that sustained 3 percent growth just isn't possible.

The House budget assumes 2.6 percent growth and says economic feedback would cut the deficit by $1.5 trillion over a decade (and does not double-count that growth). That's still a lofty goal. As we wrote last week, top economists have said that growth around 2.6 percent would be great but difficult.


The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget generally lauded the budget's belt-tightening, but called this growth target "unrealistic."

"Economic growth should not be used to paper-over our dire fiscal picture," said Maya
MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan D.C.-based think tank, in a statement. "You base budgets off the likely, not the hopeful."

For their part, House Republicans presented a five-page paper from conservative economists arguing that 3 percent growth is possible.

It slashes safety net programs. Like the Trump budget, the House budget would slash
Medicaid — it says that via Medicaid cuts plus changes to Obamacare, it would save $1.5 trillion. And the House budget would also impose work requirements on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (known as welfare) and the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (known as food stamps).

It also cuts Medicare. The House bill would cut Medicare by $487 billion over 10 years, while the president's budget, as proposed, barely touched it.

And the House budget proposes deficit-neutral tax changes. This is one significant way that the House plan would break from what the president wants, said one expert.


"The really big picture or takeaway from this budget is that tax reform cannot increase deficits," said Joel Friedman, vice president for federal fiscal policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He said that matters because it contrasts with Trump's plans to "just cut taxes a whole bunch and we don't care about the deficit," as Friedman put it.

That may not be how the White House sees it, but it is true that Trump has pushed some massive tax cuts. That promises to look different from Trump's tax proposal as released in April. That proposal, Trump said, would be "bigger, I believe, than any tax cut ever" — and as the New York Times later reported, would likely add trillions to the national debt. The House budget does include a non-binding "policy statement" that gives general guidance, but not specifics on what that tax code overhaul should look like, or how that deficit neutrality would come about.

Typical.

Ryan's end game forever...cut the safety net as completely as possible while padding the pockets of the people behind the war machine.

[Millhouse]

Country is just under 20 trillion in debt http://www.usdebtclock.org/, in large part due to the last two presidents before Trump. Put it in perspective, each taxpayer is roughly $165k in debt, which is nuts. So cuts need to be made somewhere.

That said, I am not a fan of this current proposal with the increase in military spending.

[ballsofsteel]

Yeah, increase defense spending. best way for all those crooked politicians to get their share of kickbacks. The opposite
Robin Hood approach, take from the poor to give to the rich.

[Benton]

(07-20-2017, 06:54 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Country is just under 20 trillion in debt http://www.usdebtclock.org/, in large part due to the last two presidents before Trump. Put it in perspective, each taxpayer is roughly $165k in debt, which is nuts. So cuts need to be made somewhere.

That said, I am not a fan of this current proposal with the increase in military spending.

Pretty much my thoughts.

I would add, you can't keep cutting taxes and spending at our rate. It's insane.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-20-2017, 06:54 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Country is just under 20 trillion in debt http://www.usdebtclock.org/, in large part due to the last two presidents before Trump. Put it in perspective, each taxpayer is roughly $165k in debt, which is nuts. So cuts need to be made somewhere.

That said, I am not a fan of this current proposal with the increase in military spending.

Agreed.

I am okay with the cuts, but they need to be extended to defense as well. There's a lot of bloat that can be cut back without changing effectiveness. People just need to make the hard calls on cuts without thinking about kickbacks, donations, and lobbyists.

[*michaelsean*]

Yeah cut everything including the military, and my guess these cuts don't mean they are getting less than they are now, but rather less than they would be getting.

[GMDino]

(07-21-2017, 09:19 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah cut everything including the military, and my guess these cuts don't mean they are getting less than they are now, but rather less than they would be getting.

Many of the safety net programs would be cut to almost nothing.  Medicare would go to a voucher system.

It's Ryan's wet dream budget plan.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-21-2017, 09:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: Many of the safety net programs would be cut to almost nothing.  Medicare would go to a voucher system.

It's Ryan's wet dream budget plan.

Cut almost to nothing?  Did I miss the $20 trillion cut over ten years?

[GMDino]

(07-21-2017, 09:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Cut almost to nothing?  Did I miss the $20 trillion cut over ten years?

The House budget ultimately plans for trillions of dollars in mandatory spending cuts, but in the near term, it calls upon 11 committees to cut $203 billion altogether over a decade. So, for example, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will have to cut $20 billion over the next decade. And the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over a variety of spending programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, would cut $52 billion over the next decade.




Billions cut for the safety net while they spend more on the military.


But as long as we can INCREASE military spending why worry about helping those in the most need or education, right?


That's the kind of stuff that has Paul Ryan stocking up on kleenex and lotion. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-21-2017, 09:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: The House budget ultimately plans for trillions of dollars in mandatory spending cuts, but in the near term, it calls upon 11 committees to cut $203 billion altogether over a decade. So, for example, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will have to cut $20 billion over the next decade. And the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over a variety of spending programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, would cut $52 billion over the next decade.




Billions cut for the safety net while they spend more on the military.


But as long as we can INCREASE military spending why worry about helping those in the most need or education, right?


That's the kind of stuff that has Paul Ryan stocking up on kleenex and lotion. 

And what I am guessing is the cuts don't mean they will be getting less in ten years than they are now, but rather less than their set increases.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-21-2017, 09:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: Many of the safety net programs would be cut to almost nothing.  Medicare would go to a voucher system.

It's Ryan's wet dream budget plan.

(07-21-2017, 09:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: The House budget ultimately plans for trillions of dollars in mandatory spending cuts, but in the near term, it calls upon 11 committees to cut $203 billion altogether over a decade. So, for example, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will have to cut $20 billion over the next decade. And the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over a variety of spending programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, would cut $52 billion over the next decade.




Billions cut for the safety net while they spend more on the military.


But as long as we can INCREASE military spending why worry about helping those in the most need or education, right?


That's the kind of stuff that has Paul Ryan stocking up on kleenex and lotion. 

A Google search tells me that in 2014 TANF had a budget of $17.35b. Fair to say it's more than that right now and has scheduled increases every year.

$52b/10 years ("the next decade") = $5.2b/yr.

That's still over $12b/yr, not including the increases. Sure glad to see that over $12 billion/over 70% of the norm is "cut to almost nothing".

We apparently have vastly different definitions of what almost nothing means.

[GMDino]

(07-21-2017, 01:44 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: A Google search tells me that in 2014 TANF had a budget of $17.35b. Fair to say it's more than that right now and has scheduled increases every year.

$52b/10 years ("the next decade") = $5.2b/yr.

That's still over $12b/yr, not including the increases. Sure glad to see that over $12 billion/over 70% of the norm is "cut to almost nothing".

We apparently have vastly different definitions of what almost nothing means.

In relation to the amount spent on the military that will be INCREASED it is a pittance.

But, again, this is what Ryan has always wanted:  Kill the safety nets. Kill Medicaid.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-21-2017, 01:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: In relation to the amount spent on the military that will be INCREASED it is a pittance.

But, again, this is what Ryan has always wanted:  Kill the safety nets. Kill Medicaid.  

My post wasn't about military spending increases. I've made my stance very clear on this board where I stand on that.

My post was about you calling over $12b/yr, and over 70% of the original number "cut to almost nothing".

If we were splitting a candy bar, and I gave you roughly three fourths of it, would you complain that I gave you almost nothing?

[GMDino]

(07-21-2017, 03:13 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: My post wasn't about military spending increases. I've made my stance very clear on this board where I stand on that.

My post was about you calling over $12b/yr, and over 70% of the original number "cut to almost nothing".

If we were splitting a candy bar, and I gave you roughly three fourths of it, would you complain that I gave you almost nothing?

If I was used to getting a whole candy bar and you were getting an addition 100 candy bars...yes.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-21-2017, 03:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: If I was used to getting a whole candy bar and you were getting an addition 100 candy bars...yes.

And yet once again you bring it back to the increase in military spending, which isn't part of what we were talking about. Probably because you won't acknowledge how absurd you sound when you say over 70% is almost nothing, and you didn't expect someone to call you out on it.

[GMDino]

(07-21-2017, 05:48 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And yet once again you bring it back to the increase in military spending, which isn't part of what we were talking about. Probably because you won't acknowledge how absurd you sound when you say over 70% is almost nothing, and you didn't expect someone to call you out on it.

I've explained that cutting anything while adding to something else is wrong.

I consider billions being taken away to cutting it to bare bones, almost nothing, in the scheme of things.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-21-2017, 05:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: I've explained that cutting anything while adding to something else is wrong.

I consider billions being taken away to cutting it to bare bones, almost nothing, in the scheme of things.

So you would be against it then if they cut military spending in order to increase the budget of assistance programs? ...Mmhmm...

- - - - - - 
$12b = nothing
$17b = not nothing

Got it.

I think they should cut both, but the fact that you can't admit over 70% isn't almost nothing, and that you were being over-the-top dramatic, is really telling.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-21-2017, 06:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So you would be against it then if they cut military spending in order to increase the budget of assistance programs? ...Mmhmm...

- - - - - - 
$12b = nothing
$17b = not nothing

Got it.

I think they should cut both, but the fact that you can't admit over 70% isn't almost nothing, and that you were being over-the-top dramatic, is really telling.

I can't figure out how to check, but Washington doesn't actually cut anything but the rate of increase.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-21-2017, 06:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I can't figure out how to check, but Washington doesn't actually cut anything but the rate of increase.

That is correct I think.

When they say 20% cut, it's a cut on the increase not the whole amount.

Last year, widgets was budgeted at $100.00
This year, there is a 10% increase to make the budget $110.00
Proposed budget cut is 20%
New budget for widgets will be $108.00

Is that correct?

[Belsnickel]

(07-21-2017, 07:00 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: That is correct I think.

When they say 20% cut, it's a cut on the increase not the whole amount.

Last year, widgets was budgeted at $100.00
This year, there is a 10% increase to make the budget $110.00
Proposed budget cut is 20%
New budget for widgets will be $108.00

Is that correct?

It depends on the programs. For mandatory spending, that is typically the way they are calculating the cuts since it is difficult to cut those programs. So things like Medicare and Medicaid fall into that category. They can just talk straight cuts, though, for discretionary funds. For instance, DoD makes up about half of the discretionary budget and is a very malleable budget section. There can be more immediate cuts done to that. The reason for the difference is that some programs are set to increase at rates tied to inflation and projected for growth, not all are.