Major budget cuts and agency eliminations coming from Trump?


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

It appears that the first budget Trump administration is putting together will include some dramatic budget cuts and the outright elimination of many government agencies, and are based on numerous recommendations made by a variety of conservative policy proposals.

Overall, the blueprint being used by Trump’s team would reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years. The proposed cuts hew closely to a blueprint published last year by the conservative Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has helped staff the Trump transition. Similar proposals have in the past won support from Republicans in the House and Senate, who believe they have an opportunity to truly tackle spending after years of warnings about the rising debt. Many of the specific cuts were included in the 2017 budget adopted by the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), a caucus that represents a majority of House Republicans. The RSC budget plan would reduce federal spending by $8.6 trillion over the next decade.

Read the article. I can’t quote it all here, but the cuts would dramatically weaken the Washington leftwing community’s ability to push its agenda. More important, the generally conservative make-up of Congress means that, for the first time in decades there is a real chance these cuts will happen.

Share

9 comments

  • Ted

    “Draining the swamp”

  • Jim Jakoubek

    As usual with every newly minted President, the goals are lofty and far reaching.

    This is only the opening salvo in the upcoming budget battle. Trump will get some of what
    he wants but not all. Still it will be a step in the right direction.

    I fully expect the Democrats and their allies in the media to declare that the republic itself
    is in danger of collapsing when funding for PBS is cut off and children will be damaged for
    life because Big Bird and company will have to wear shirts with Coca-Cola logs on them!

    The will be fun to watch as this drama unfold.

  • Willi

    All new White House site. Mention of global warming AKA climate change is gone. All English. Yahoo!!!

  • Mitch S

    I hope Mattis has the inclination and ability to reign in and redirect Pentagon spending.
    $300mil “inexpensive” fighters and half billion$ frigates that don’t work doesn’t help nat’l defense.
    Nor do generals who live like Wall St executives or 240 golf courses.

  • Mitch S

    Mattis sent out this memo:

    Together with the Intelligence Community we are the sentinels and guardians of our nation. We need only look to you, the uniformed and civilian members of the Department and your families, to see the fundamental unity of our country. You represent an America committed to the common good; an America that is never complacent about defending its freedoms; and America that remains a steady beacon of hope for all mankind.

    Every action we take will be designed to ensure our military is ready to fight today and in the future. Recognizing that no nation is secure without friends, we will work with the State Department to strengthen our alliances. Further, we are devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer dollar spent on defense, thereby earning the trust of Congress and the American people.

    I am confident you will do your part. I pledge to you I’ll do my best as your Secretary.”

    A good start!

  • Edward

    I saw nothing about undoing the permanent welfare state that Obama put back in place. Bill Clinton limited welfare, but Obama made it unlimited again. We need most of those people working, again, not sitting around collecting unearned, undeserved, unentitlements. Our welfare system was supposed to be a safety net, not a luxurious hammock.

    Jim Jakoubek,
    Have you watched PBS in the past quarter century? Their stations already run advertisements; they just call them “sponsors.” Oh, wait. The networks have called theirs “sponsors” ever since they started broadcasting.

  • Jim Jakoubek

    Edward –

    PBS is not a commercial entity in the way CBS or ABC is as an example. It is a program distributor
    funded partially by the government as well as viewers donations and various foundations.

    There is nothing that PBS does that is unique or can not be found on commercial television. It can not
    however survive without government support as it is now. If people want it, then let them support it and
    all is well.

    Propping it up with tax dollars? The time has passed for that.

  • Edward

    Jim Jakoubek wrote: “PBS is not a commercial entity in the way CBS or ABC is as an example.

    True enough, but their foundation-donors get advertising, not just their names mentioned, even if the total advertising isn’t as much as on the networks.

    Speaking of the networks, has anyone else noticed how little advertising is revenue ads and how much advertises other programming?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *