The White House Budget Proposal Doesn't Add Up
The president's budget won't balance federal spending one bit, but it'll move a lot of money up to the rich.
The political theater that passes for serious policy debate is about to run into an unfortunate reality as Donald Trump's budget plan comes face to face with its arch-nemesis: arithmetic.
It's impossible to cut taxes, increase spending, and balance the budget. That's not political bluster. That's math.
Throughout the campaign and since, Trump promised to invest in infrastructure, pass an enormous tax cut, boost military spending, cut "waste, fraud, and abuse," and protect Social Security and Medicare -- and, of course, balance the budget.
This rhetoric has been remarkably effective, the presidential equivalent of offering free ponies for everyone -- but even less practical.
Working in Trump's favor, however, is that many Americans believe things about the federal budget that are simply not true. There's a lot of misinformation out there.
A survey of Fox News viewers from 2013 showed nearly half believed most federal debt could be eliminated by "cutting waste and fraud." It can't.
Out of a nearly $4 trillion annual federal budget, about $3.4 trillion is spent on things that either can't be cut or Trump has promised he doesn't want to cut. This includes Social Security, Medicare, military spending, and interest on the national debt.
That leaves just over half a trillion dollars to cover all non-military discretionary spending. It's a lot of money, to be sure, but a small proportion of overall spending. This is the part Trump is proposing to cut.
What's included in this side of the budget?
To name just a few things: The benefits that help veterans get back on their feet after getting wounded. The nutrition assistance that helps babies born to low-income mothers. The science research that will mitigate the next infectious disease outbreak (remember Zika?).
The list could go on for paragraphs, each a small line item on a big budget list, but each incredibly important to enabling a happy, healthy life in modern society.
Cutting programs the public depends on in an effort (real or imagined) to balance the budget isn't new. Austerity has been in the air in the United States since Reagan and has taken Europe by storm, too. It's the justification behind cutting programs that help the poor while passing tax cuts that exclusively benefit the rich.
It is, in short, part of a remarkably effective effort to redistribute wealth -- upwards.
Consider, for example, Trump's tax plan.
If the president were serious about balancing the budget, he'd be quite concerned about how much money the Internal Revenue Service collected each year. He'd know if that number went down, it would reduce the effectiveness of his spending cuts.
He is, to put it politely, not concerned about this.
As the Citizens for Tax Justice, a D.C.-based research group, points out, Trump's tax plan nearly exclusively benefits the wealthy while raising the taxes of low- and moderate-income families. The budgetary impacts of his tax cuts total about a half trillion dollars a year -- the same amount as the entire non-discretionary, non-military federal budget.
In other words, Trump's tax plan is a proverbial one-handed middle finger to the working class. And his spending cuts represent his other hand making the same gesture.
While repeated rhetorical distractions may succeed in sidetracking his audience, Trump can't use his impressive oratory skills to overcome basic mathematics.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The political theater that passes for serious policy debate is about to run into an unfortunate reality as Donald Trump's budget plan comes face to face with its arch-nemesis: arithmetic.
It's impossible to cut taxes, increase spending, and balance the budget. That's not political bluster. That's math.
Throughout the campaign and since, Trump promised to invest in infrastructure, pass an enormous tax cut, boost military spending, cut "waste, fraud, and abuse," and protect Social Security and Medicare -- and, of course, balance the budget.
This rhetoric has been remarkably effective, the presidential equivalent of offering free ponies for everyone -- but even less practical.
Working in Trump's favor, however, is that many Americans believe things about the federal budget that are simply not true. There's a lot of misinformation out there.
A survey of Fox News viewers from 2013 showed nearly half believed most federal debt could be eliminated by "cutting waste and fraud." It can't.
Out of a nearly $4 trillion annual federal budget, about $3.4 trillion is spent on things that either can't be cut or Trump has promised he doesn't want to cut. This includes Social Security, Medicare, military spending, and interest on the national debt.
That leaves just over half a trillion dollars to cover all non-military discretionary spending. It's a lot of money, to be sure, but a small proportion of overall spending. This is the part Trump is proposing to cut.
What's included in this side of the budget?
To name just a few things: The benefits that help veterans get back on their feet after getting wounded. The nutrition assistance that helps babies born to low-income mothers. The science research that will mitigate the next infectious disease outbreak (remember Zika?).
The list could go on for paragraphs, each a small line item on a big budget list, but each incredibly important to enabling a happy, healthy life in modern society.
Cutting programs the public depends on in an effort (real or imagined) to balance the budget isn't new. Austerity has been in the air in the United States since Reagan and has taken Europe by storm, too. It's the justification behind cutting programs that help the poor while passing tax cuts that exclusively benefit the rich.
It is, in short, part of a remarkably effective effort to redistribute wealth -- upwards.
Consider, for example, Trump's tax plan.
If the president were serious about balancing the budget, he'd be quite concerned about how much money the Internal Revenue Service collected each year. He'd know if that number went down, it would reduce the effectiveness of his spending cuts.
He is, to put it politely, not concerned about this.
As the Citizens for Tax Justice, a D.C.-based research group, points out, Trump's tax plan nearly exclusively benefits the wealthy while raising the taxes of low- and moderate-income families. The budgetary impacts of his tax cuts total about a half trillion dollars a year -- the same amount as the entire non-discretionary, non-military federal budget.
In other words, Trump's tax plan is a proverbial one-handed middle finger to the working class. And his spending cuts represent his other hand making the same gesture.
While repeated rhetorical distractions may succeed in sidetracking his audience, Trump can't use his impressive oratory skills to overcome basic mathematics.
The political theater that passes for serious policy debate is about to run into an unfortunate reality as Donald Trump's budget plan comes face to face with its arch-nemesis: arithmetic.
It's impossible to cut taxes, increase spending, and balance the budget. That's not political bluster. That's math.
Throughout the campaign and since, Trump promised to invest in infrastructure, pass an enormous tax cut, boost military spending, cut "waste, fraud, and abuse," and protect Social Security and Medicare -- and, of course, balance the budget.
This rhetoric has been remarkably effective, the presidential equivalent of offering free ponies for everyone -- but even less practical.
Working in Trump's favor, however, is that many Americans believe things about the federal budget that are simply not true. There's a lot of misinformation out there.
A survey of Fox News viewers from 2013 showed nearly half believed most federal debt could be eliminated by "cutting waste and fraud." It can't.
Out of a nearly $4 trillion annual federal budget, about $3.4 trillion is spent on things that either can't be cut or Trump has promised he doesn't want to cut. This includes Social Security, Medicare, military spending, and interest on the national debt.
That leaves just over half a trillion dollars to cover all non-military discretionary spending. It's a lot of money, to be sure, but a small proportion of overall spending. This is the part Trump is proposing to cut.
What's included in this side of the budget?
To name just a few things: The benefits that help veterans get back on their feet after getting wounded. The nutrition assistance that helps babies born to low-income mothers. The science research that will mitigate the next infectious disease outbreak (remember Zika?).
The list could go on for paragraphs, each a small line item on a big budget list, but each incredibly important to enabling a happy, healthy life in modern society.
Cutting programs the public depends on in an effort (real or imagined) to balance the budget isn't new. Austerity has been in the air in the United States since Reagan and has taken Europe by storm, too. It's the justification behind cutting programs that help the poor while passing tax cuts that exclusively benefit the rich.
It is, in short, part of a remarkably effective effort to redistribute wealth -- upwards.
Consider, for example, Trump's tax plan.
If the president were serious about balancing the budget, he'd be quite concerned about how much money the Internal Revenue Service collected each year. He'd know if that number went down, it would reduce the effectiveness of his spending cuts.
He is, to put it politely, not concerned about this.
As the Citizens for Tax Justice, a D.C.-based research group, points out, Trump's tax plan nearly exclusively benefits the wealthy while raising the taxes of low- and moderate-income families. The budgetary impacts of his tax cuts total about a half trillion dollars a year -- the same amount as the entire non-discretionary, non-military federal budget.
In other words, Trump's tax plan is a proverbial one-handed middle finger to the working class. And his spending cuts represent his other hand making the same gesture.
While repeated rhetorical distractions may succeed in sidetracking his audience, Trump can't use his impressive oratory skills to overcome basic mathematics.