GOP trashes Trumps plan to end dozens of government programs

[babylonsister]

McClatchy DC | McClatchyDC.com
Congress
July 21, 2017 5:05 PM
GOP trashes Trump’s plan to end dozens of government programs

By William Douglas and Anshu Siripurapu


WASHINGTON

President Donald Trump’s plan to eliminate dozens of federal agencies and programs has collapsed, as a conservative Republican Congress refuses to go along.

Among the programs spared are agencies promoting rural business development and the arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Community Development Block Grants and the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. Those and many others are getting money in bills approved by the GOP-run House appropriations committee. The House plans to vote on spending bills throughout next week, and the Senate is expected to consider spending plans shortly.

Trump unveiled his $4.1 trillion budget plan in March, pledging to “reduce the federal government to redefine its proper role and promote efficiency.”

But in the House, where all 435 members face voters next fall, budget legislation has far more money than Trump had sought for a host of programs. The spending bill for agriculture contains $4.64 billion beyond what Trump requested, an increase of about 30 percent. For interior and the environment, the bump was $4.3 billion or 16 percent. For transportation, housing and urban development, the committee approved $8.6 billion, about 18 percent, more than the budget request.

"There’s that old saying in Washington that the president proposes and Congress disposes," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog.

Indeed, after many House and Senate Republicans complained to Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney in hearings about the impact of some of Trump’s cuts, congressional budget-writers quickly made sure they don’t happen.

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article162981173.html

[modrepub]

1. Pyrrhic Victory

You're still looking at substantial cuts for many of these budget items. It's a real estate trick, bid extremely low then meet somewhere in the middle, preferably closer to your number than the seller's. You're still crippling a large fraction of the departments and programs Republicans do not like.

On the flip side, removing money from the budget removes money fed into the economy (except maybe for the military) and in the long run that will reduce tax receipts and hasten economic problems. This administration has yet to be tested IMHO.

[FakeNoose]

7. A lot of qualified, trained people lose their jobs

... that's what this really means.

There's no benefit to anyone if good people get laid off. In the profit-seeking world (by that I mean the regular companies) lower labor costs mean more profits for the company and $ bonuses for the bosses. But it doesn't work that way for governmental systems. Firing people means we all lose, including the bosses who do the firing.

Somebody needs to explain this to Cheeto, quickly!

[modrepub]

9. I don't think the wall between Public and Private is all that defining

I've seen private companies use the same approach; skewer the older better paid employees and fill 'em with kids (who work longer hours and may have newer skill sets). A lot of times this backfires. One of my high school acquaintances worked for a very large environmental consultant. As a cost saving measure the company fired all of their senior staff who made above a certain threshold. The result, all of the clients of the people that were laid off (plus my acquaintance) left the old company when those people formed their own company.

One thing Repubs seem to miss is that whether the like it of not, government spending is part of the economy. Laying off government employees means you have to pay them unemployment and you loose tax revenue from those you lost (they pay taxes too). Double whammy if you have to hire the private sector to do work your public employees once did (though you can shake them down for campaign contributions).

[FakeNoose]

10. Yep - everyone loses

[Nitram]

2. Sounds like Good Cop/Bad Cop.

[DallasNE]

6. My Conclusion As Well

Where do things stand compared to current appropriation levels, not the Trump budget. Block grant funding decreases but that is the only mention of current spending. 16% above Trump's budget could still be 16% below current spending levels so the article leaves a lot out that is vital for decision making.

[Initech]

3. Hey that's their platform.

All they talk about is cut spending, cut spending, cut spending, but they offer no real alternatives for how to bring in revenue.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. A President's "budget request" is ALWAYS DOA in Congress.

But in this case, the news reports of his idiotic and draconian cuts helped to wake people up to go on the offensive.

[Panich52]

5. These programs are ones conservs been targeting f/ years

Can't help but think there must be hidden agenda.

[erpowers]

8. Staying In Office

Republicans are in a tight spot. The American people are angry and Donald Trump is very unpopular. First, eliminating government programs would likely not be popular at any time. Second, since Trump is so unpopular it would likely be even more unpopular to eliminate government programs this year. Third, with Trump being so unpopular it is a good idea to oppose him on issues that Republicans have supported for years.

Things are not working out the way Republicans thought they would. Republicans thought they were going to be able to get their policy wish list fulfilled. However, Trump's incompetence and unpopularity has prevented them from taking advantage of this situation.

[Panich52]

11. Rick & hard place

Repub base won't grow either way. Moving an inch left angers them but staying so RW doesn't gain supporters either.

Maybe this is where Davos comes in. They need to uneducate a whole new generation....