Trump to raise federal spending on defense while cutting domestic spending
Politico reports that the president plans to increase spending on defense, homeland security, intelligence, the Department of Justice and law enforcement while cutting deeply into domestic programs like Environmental Protection Agency and the National Endowment for the Humanities;
“We will be substantially upgrading all of our military, all of our military, offensive, defensive, everything. Bigger and better and stronger than ever before,” Trump said. “And hopefully we’ll never have to use it, but nobody’s going to mess with us, folks. Nobody.”
To fund such a buildup without expanding the federal deficit, Trump would likely have to slash deeply into other domestic programs, particularly if he leaves entitlement programs untouched as he promised on the campaign trail.
Office of Management and Budget spokesman John Czwartacki confirmed the budget would contain “only discretionary spending targets” but declined to release more details.
Since defense and law enforcement are two things the Constitution actually says that the government is supposed to do, I don’t see the problem. Especially since the Defense Department and the troops bore most of the brunt of the cuts during the Obama Administration. It’s everyone else’s turn.
Most of the EPA expenditures are related to the court costs defending their policies anyway – a lawyer employment program. If they quit writing policies, they won’t have to defend them in court.
The Department of Education only hands out grants to the states (read Title 34 of the CFR) redistributing tax revenues. Jimmy Carter told us when he established the Department of Energy, that agency would slice through red tape for refineries and drilling for fuel – there haven’t been any refineries built in this country since 1975.
There is a lot of redundancy that can be eliminated, too. Every agency in Washington has it’s own police force – those can be eliminated and they can start relying on a centralized law enforcement agency instead of the Government Printing Office and the Library of Congress each having their own fat donut consumers.
There’s so many possibilities here, I’m almost wetting myself just thinking of it.
Category: Politics
DC can definitely do away with all of the various police forces. If I’m not mistaken, MPDC officers are federal, and while stationed at McNair I counted no fewer than 12 uniformed agencies in the immediate area.
mpdc.dc.gov/page/covered-federal-law-enforcement-agencies
32 agencies on the cooperation list…
As for bolstering the military, hell yeah!
Nice to have someone sane in charge again.
Seriously, and hear me out here. We brag about how our military is bigger than the next 12 countries or something like that. Trump talked about how countries should pay us for our protection overseas (but we will never do that). Why dont we take a step back and reduce what we spend on this giant military we have. Tanks, stealth Jets, Submarines, Javelin systems, pretty much all the expensive toys we have are so far past what we need for the enemy we’ve fought for the last 16 years. Do I support the military? Of course I do, so stop setting them up to go fight every conflict across every continent to defend every other country. We could use with a reduction in our military spend, which only serves to increase our responsibility to protect the world.
The enemy we’ve been fighting? How about the enemy we will fight next?
The Middle East insurgencies are nothing new or unprecedented. Just look at all the times the Marines were deployed to Central America and the Caribbean from 1900-1940, interventions in Mexico around 1912, the Marines, Soldiers, and Sailors deployed to China from 1890-1946, skirmishes and punitive actions in Japan and Korea in the 1880s, the numerous Frontier Indian Wars going all the way back to colonial times. In between all of these never-ending entanglements were a half-dozen major protracted conflicts against powerful conventional enemies, and each of them featured major difficulties, often costing many lives, as the US military went into these wars with most of its forces, especially land forces, oriented towards counterinsurgency and having to expand and alter those forces once already behind the curve. In 1917, we had the luxury of time and isolation to build up the military before committing to combat. We had no such luxury in 1941, due in no small part to technology quickening the pace of warfare, and Kasserine Pass showed that you can’t just build an army from scratch and expect all to go well. If things moved too fast to catch up in 1941, how much faster will they develop in 2019? 2035? 2050?
There will be more insurgencies. There will also be more large conventional wars. We don’t know when or with whom, though smart money is on Red China and possibly Russia.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Theres a lot of water and air between us and both of those countries. I figure we can shoot their planes out of the air and sink their ships before they ever put a boot on the ground in the US. Or better yet, why dont the NATO or UN countries just spend a bit more so we dont have to. We need to reduce our spend, theres no other way to say it. And we need to reduce the over spending on contracts we have now that arent bringing whats been promised.
There’s a vast distinction between policy and capability. Being the world’s cop or not is a matter of policy. Capability, on the other hand, is having the world’s best trained cops with the best damn nightstick.
“Capability”
Use it in a sentence:
We have the capability to vaporize you but we are peaceful.
We could vaporize it dozens of times over, thats the point. When will we spend enough money on enough equipment while not spending that same money on what we could use in the states. Schools need more teachers, roads and bridges need fixing, energy needs to be generated. We waste BILLIONS on being ready to kill everyone, while allowing the rest of the world to spend billions on fixing where they live. It needs to change
We could also spend less on outrageous social services, which cost the taxpayer billions each year.
“Schools need more teachers”
No. Schools need better teachers.
“roads and bridges need fixing”
Always will. Like defense.
“energy needs to be generated”
Yeah, more windmills and a solar panel on every roof.
“We waste BILLIONS on being ready to kill everyone”
No, not everyone. Dramah.
“allowing the rest of the world to spend billions”
Most likely our billions.
“It needs to change”
Concur.
“No. Schools need better teachers.” Yeah, I’m sure a lot of hedge fund guys, doctors, nuclear physicists and lawyers are just dying to switch careers because the pay is so good and teachers command such respect.
EAFBOD, Joe. And go scrub the shitters in the girls bathroom.
Great argument Joe. Cripes.
So are all these “better teachers” you guys clamor for gonna fall from the sky or get created in a vacuum?
Not sure Joe, how about you ask Lily Eskelsen Garcia.
Can you see the pattern?
Hedge fund guys, not unionized.
Doctors, not unionized.
Nuclear physicists, not unionized.
Lawyers, not unionized.
The list goes on and on and on….
So what you’re saying is if teachers weren’t unionized, only the brilliant would apply, and they’d be pulling in six or seven figures?
“So what you’re saying is if teachers weren’t unionized, only the brilliant would apply, and they’d be pulling in six or seven figures?”
I replied down below Joe.
By vaporizing the world, I assume that you are referring to our nukes. Nukes serve only as a deterrent to the use of nukes by others. Conventional warfare requires bullets and lots of them. The choice between butter and bullets is a false one. It always has been. If this needs further explanation, you’ll have to do the legwork. I don’t think you’re paying attention so I won’t bother.
So what you’re saying, Tired, is that you want us to scare the crap out of them in a legendary way. What about those of a like mind with THEM who have found a place outside THERE to work havoc on us? Round them up and send them back?
Right now, they are scattered to just about every corner of the Earth, which was their plan in the first place.
It’s exactly like buying an old building and finding it’s full of cockroaches that didn’t show up until you start rehabbing it.
Dear “Tired,”
I have a couple of vehicles. I keep them in good repair. The speedometer on at least one of them goes up to 140 mph. I have never driven 140 mph. Long ago, I did 110 in GTO. I like that at least one of my vehicles has the potential to go 140 mph. Then there’s my air compressor. Sonofagun can handle some serious pressurized air. Never needed more than 120 lbs though. Ovens? Mine goes up to 550 degrees. Why? I have no idea. I never set it above 450. Crazy, huh?
“I have no idea”
Thanks for asking 2/17 Air Cav.
The wider the range, the more accurate the mid range indication is. Also the more precise. But do not confuse accuracy with precision. They are very different concepts.
Your welcome.
Not just police forces, but also SWAT teams.
I do so look forward to the squeeling of Republicans as they are finally forced to vote on what they have been promising for the last half century or more.
As opposed to that “Great Society” that was promised to us in 1965?
Over $20 TRILLION in wealth redistribution and how’s that worked out so far?
The wailing and gnashing of teeth …
Well if he’s going to keep blaming the military every time they lose a SEAL the least he could do is spend a little more getting them some gear…
Never seen a president blame the military for the loss of an operator on a mission the president had to sign off on before proceeding….that may tell you all you need to know about this man’s character or lack thereof…not even 60 days into his presidency, a young man dies on a mission and the commander in chief blames the military instead of accepting that burden himself.
I saw a headline to that effect and had to find the transcript because I didn’t believe what I was reading. This is Leadership 101 – take the blame and share the credit.
EPA: “a lawyer employment program.” Nice one.
VOV. Where did you get that? Got a quote from Trump or a source that I can reach that he blamed the military for the loss?
I read it at Military Times yesterday….didn’t see the HuffPo piece until Hondo pointed it out…
When someone says, they planned it, they came to me with it, and they lost Ryan it doesn’t sound like responsibility it sounds like a lot of “them” did something and lost something.
Had he said “and we lost Ryan” I might think differently. I also understand a successful mission still results in dead young men, I’m not stating that he shouldn’t have been killed it’s just been my experience most presidents state they signed off on it so they are responsible for the outcome good or bad. Perhaps I expect too much from the guy who gets so upset at entertainers he has to take to the Twitter feed in the middle of the night to bash them, as if their opinions as entertainers had actual merit.
I also understand the parsing of the words to indicate maybe he was talking about the Ryans losing their son…at the end of the day we have a president who played at soldiering but didn’t actually become a soldier. I believe he’s better than the last president but it’s a small bar if that’s the standard. I did well under Obama and I’ve no reason to expect I’ll do worse under Trump so it’s a win for me regardless….
He’s probably referring to crap like this spin job from the HuffPo, 2/17 Air Cav:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-ryan-owens-seal-raid_us_58b58852e4b0780bac2d58c6
Selective quotation, taken out of context for propaganda purposes. A “Progressive” specialty since at least the days of the old Soviet Pravda.
Thanks. If that’s it, they got nothing. He didn’t blame the military. The headline writer must not have read the story.
Closest I have seen was at one point Trump said the operation started under his predecessor…. not sure that counts as either denying all responsibility or blaming the military. Unfortunately we have a civilian populace which has had 40 years+ of bedwetters thinking no operation is successful unless it has zero casualties…especially among civilian combatants- er, ah, bystanders.
It’s true that the op was planned and sealed before Trump took office and it’s true that when he was asked about the op he related as much. But that’s a far cry from blaming the military for the loss of someone.
You can hand-wave that this isn’t blaming the military, but with all the focus placed on Obama’s use of the word ‘I’, the ‘they’ here is pretty telling. It wasn’t his fault, Obama started the planning of this mission. It wasn’t his fault, the generals wanted to do it. It wasn’t his fault, they (the generals) lost Ryan. To me, that’s shifting the blame on to anyone else.
You can fairly argue that he’s not responsible for deaths from enemy action, obviously, but part of being a leader is taking the blame when things go wrong under your watch. Ultimate responsibility rests with the President. As does credit, though that should always be shared – that’s how it works.
Here’s the transcript:
“-his father has said that he didn’t want to talk to you. Your reaction to that?”
I would have preferred that Trump had said, “The man’s son was killed in service to our country. He is grieving and my heart goes out to him. That’s my reaction.”
“You can fairly argue that he’s not responsible for deaths from enemy action, obviously, but part of being a leader is taking the blame when things go wrong under your watch.”
Here’s a news flash, LC. There was no blame to take. Military actions often result in serious injury and death, even to the good guys.
If you feel ‘blame’ is a poor choice of words, how about ‘responsibility’? The President is responsible for actions that happen under his watch. Good or bad alike.
What we’ve got now is, “The buck stops here… if it’s a good buck, that is. If it’s a bad buck, it’s totally someone else fault and I had nothing to do with it.” That’s poor leadership in my opinion.
“The President is responsible for actions that happen under his watch. Good or bad alike.”
Just over a month ago, one was labeled a racist if they said that out loud.
The standards must have been different for the other guy.
I certainly would never label anyone a racist for saying that.
I generally dislike politicians; I hold them to the same set of standards regardless of their party.
The solution isn’t to say “the other side is bad, too, they did X”, it’s to hold people accountable when they veer away from the standards they should be held to. If you’re the President, you need to accept responsibility for actions you approve of.
The Huffington Post so-called “news” story is a political hit piece intended to push an agenda. Why it wants to push such an agenda makes perfect sense if you consider the source:
Igor Bobic is a Muslim immigrant from Bosnia. His bio lists no formal training in journalism, or work experience with any reputable news organization. His most significant prior exposure has apparently been as a failed actor.
Arianna Huffington is a Greek immigrant who started the Huffington Post after her political-figure husband announced he was gay, and later killed himself. Her most noteworthy skill at the time HuffPo launched was that of a gifted Southern California social climber. She also had no prior journalism training or work experience.
It’s not a mystery why the news business faces accusations of bias.
And to top it all off it’s been said that the Federal Deficit has been cut by $12 billion while it increased $200 billion in the first thirty days of his predecessor’s administration.
“That’s poor leadership in my opinion.” LC
Surely you recognize there’s a difference between owning up to your responsibility as a leader, and honoring someone’s sacrifice?
But since you don’t like my words, I’ll quote someone else about leadership:
https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/398887965302091776
I really don’t care LC. That’s the truth. See things your way and I’ll see them mine. If the twain doesn’t meet, then the twain doesn’t meet. And don’t call me Shirley.
Remember, Bitches gotta bitch. It’s what they do. And progtards gotta ‘tard because it’s what they do.
It is a fundamental principle, even for the pseudo-erudite ones.
Why is the left suddenly outraged over counterterrorism and such in the ME?
Where was Obama’s leadership during Benghazi? My brain may be fuzzy but wasn’t he in debate prep that evening? Did he take responsibility?
Research Obama’s comments, wait I mean Josh Earnest, on Keating and Wheeler for starters.
So Now We’re Outraged About Botched Raids and Civilian Deaths in the Middle East
I don’t speak for the Left, obviously – I’m not even on the Left, I’m just more to the Left than most here. If you go through my comment history you’ll find plenty of scorn for Clinton and general annoyance at the Democrats as well.
The point is, we should hold our leaders to a certain standard. Not our Democratic leaders, or our Republican leaders, our leaders – regardless of party. Saying, “But what about Obama during Benghazi?!” isn’t a valid excuse for Trump’s behavior. And at some point in the future when a Democrat wins the White House again, saying, “But what about all the stupid shit President Trump did?!” shouldn’t excuse their lack of responsibility either.
When a President –any President- signs off on a mission, he is ultimately responsible for what happens. It’s his decision, his responsibility, his credit and/or blame. Feel free to quote me on that any time in the future, too. I’ll stand by it, regardless of who the President is.
I posted Trump’s tweet above where he agreed (when he wasn’t President), and while we can debate his sincerity, here is Obama agreeing:
Link: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/president-obama-on-benghazi-i-am-always-responsible/
Let’s hold both sides to the same standard, and call them out on it when they fail to live up to it. Fair enough?
“Let’s hold both sides to the same standard, and call them out on it when they fail to live up to it. Fair enough?”
That is the problem, only one side ever gets held to any standards.
I do agree that Trump should be called out.
I’m not sure I agree – and, seriously, hear me out. If you had said only one side gets held to any standards on a particular issue, I’d agree. Obama rarely got called out for all the people killed in his drone strikes. But at the same time, the Trump senior staff team isn’t getting called out for their use of private e-mail servers. These are just two examples of people being held to different standards than others, but they’re on different sides of the political fence. I can list more if you want.
So, I fully agree that the media is unfair… but I don’t know enough to say it’s unfair to one side or the other. I mean, you can say that CNN and MSNBC are liberal, and Fox is conservative, so that’s 2:1 and thus there’s a big bias. But Fox also apparently has 13 of the 15 most-watched news programs – so does that make it a 2:13 conservative bias?
I think it’s easy to let our frustration with the other side get to us. I know plenty of liberals who complain about how President Trump is not held to any standards. More to the point, I’m pretty sure that if a news organization was somehow able to truly present an objective view on things, the extreme Left and Right would both decry it as propaganda of the other side.
At the end of the day, the biases are so omnipresent and pervasive the best we can do is try to look past them, understand issues from multiple sides, and hold our politicians to a single set of standards regardless of their party, skin color, religion, whatever.
Round and round we go.
Some of us cranky fuckers can be pissed off at both Obama and Trump…this doesn’t require an either or solution.
Just for you Joe.
“So what you’re saying is if teachers weren’t unionized, only the brilliant would apply, and they’d be pulling in six or seven figures?”
The sky is the limit Joe.
I never said “better teachers”. But you seem to think that current teachers are not brilliant.
The NEA is the largest labor union in the country, is this the best they can do for their fellow educators? Those web of rules can really bite you in the ass when they adversely affect educational outcomes.
Have you reached out to Lily Eskelsen Garcia yet? Lily and staffers are rolling in the dough.
Wow, check this out:
During the crash of 2008, then NEA Secretary-Treasurer Lily Eskelsen received a base salary of $248,349 and allowances of $54,285 for a total of $302,634. Not too shabby for a lunch lady! Also at that time, NEA President Reg Weaver raked in a whopping $686,949. I bet they struggled to make mortgage payments on their beach houses that year, bless their little hearts.
Fast forward:
LILY ESKELSEN GARCIA, NEA PRESIDENT
Salary Breakdown (2015)
Total Compensation
$416,633.00
Gross Salary: $303,934.00
Allowances: $77,197.00
Official Business: $20,594.00
Other Compensation: $14,908.00
BECKY PRINGLE, NEA VICE PRESIDENT
Salary Breakdown (2015)
Total Compensation
$371,278.00
Gross Salary: $268,594.00
Allowances: $58,678.00
Official Business: $35,903.00
Other Compensation: $8,103.00
PRINCESS MOSS, NEA SECRETARY TREASURER
Salary Breakdown (2015)
Total Compensation
$429,851.00
Gross Salary: $327,195.00
Allowances: $62,962.00
Official Business: $39,273.00
Other Compensation: $421.00
According to you, the top 1% in the NEA are the brilliant ones, you know making six or seven figures. Don’t fret Joe, the top three at the NEA are female.