ADVERTISEMENT

Trump's Budget

Unfortunately his supporters/fans will not have read up on the details and implications but only listen to the jingoism of Herr Leader. And ironically the resistance are probably less affected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meridian
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/trump-budget-cuts.html?_r=0
Deep cuts for Medicaid and food stamps, but plenty of money for that wall. This isn't going to play well with many of his voters. Just like health care, it's going to affect the poor more than anyone.

I have given up thinking that his lower income supporters will come to the realization that much of what he is doing is the opposite of what he promised. He said he would not touch Medicaid, his health plan would include everyone, no tax cuts for the rich etc., etc., but in each case he is proposing the opposite. Unfortunately his supporters will not read the details but rather listen to Fox tell them how great this is for them.
 
I have given up thinking that his lower income supporters will come to the realization that much of what he is doing is the opposite of what he promised. He said he would not touch Medicaid, his health plan would include everyone, no tax cuts for the rich etc., etc., but in each case he is proposing the opposite. Unfortunately his supporters will not read the details but rather listen to Fox tell them how great this is for them.

This is about putting power and choice back in the hands of the American people. Our people now have more choice over where they can get sick and/or starve to death. Today is a victory for the American people.

Sincerely,
-Paul Ryan
 
Last edited:
Part of the story line is the budget is part of a shift from the federal government to state government. Supposedly states have a better feel for the needs of the less affluent citizens.

This type of thinking was included in the shift of federal welfare (AFDC) to the states when welfare was reformed in the mid 1990's under Clinton and Gingrich. We have never really reviewed how well this reform has actually worked in terms of taking people of the dole and into work. Now we find ourselves doubling down on this model with Trump's proposed budget.
 
He's going to run it like a business! It'll be great!

 
I know no one is going to pass that budget as is, but I will be curious to see how the public reacts to it. If seriously considered in DC it will prevent the GOP from controlling part of the government for 10 years (at least). Even Draco is offended by that budget being called draconian.
 
I know no one is going to pass that budget as is, but I will be curious to see how the public reacts to it. If seriously considered in DC it will prevent the GOP from controlling part of the government for 10 years (at least). Even Draco is offended by that budget being called draconian.
Correct, it won't get passed. But even that he came up with it SHOULD anger his supporters. But it won't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KEANER
Well, I'm pleasantly surprised.

True -- it doesn't stand a snowball's chance. But, as an opening bid, it's encouraging.

I will say that I'd rather see defense trimmed, too. But I'll take what I can get.
 
Well, I'm pleasantly surprised.

True -- it doesn't stand a snowball's chance. But, as an opening bid, it's encouraging.

I will say that I'd rather see defense trimmed, too. But I'll take what I can get.
Pleasantly surprised at what? The budget? Is it the ridiculous cuts or the $2 trillion accounting "error"/fraud that intrigues you so much?
 
Pleasantly surprised at what? The budget? Is it the ridiculous cuts or the $2 trillion accounting "error"/fraud that intrigues you so much?

Well the cuts, of course. We've got to get started getting our fiscal house in order at some point, ya know.

Obama squandered a golden opportunity to be the architect of our fiscal remodeling -- he even had a bipartisan commission that managed to reach agreement on a series of measures that he subsequently ignored. And anytime somebody refuses to take the lead on things that have to be done, it leaves a vacuum for somebody else to.

Now, I do think that, ultimately, most of the heavy lifting on this will have to come from entitlements. And there isn't much of that here (other than requiring the states to own more of their Medicaid burdens).

But it's a place to start from.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/trump-budget-cuts.html?_r=0
Deep cuts for Medicaid and food stamps, but plenty of money for that wall.
Actually, there's not.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-wall-idUSKBN18J05H?il=0

An internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plan in February estimated the total cost for the wall at $21.6 billion, but the White House's budget proposal for 2018, released in full on Tuesday, included a request for just $1.6 billion.​
 
Well the cuts, of course. We've got to get started getting our fiscal house in order at some point, ya know.

Obama squandered a golden opportunity to be the architect of our fiscal remodeling -- he even had a bipartisan commission that managed to reach agreement on a series of measures that he subsequently ignored. And anytime somebody refuses to take the lead on things that have to be done, it leaves a vacuum for somebody else to.

Now, I do think that, ultimately, most of the heavy lifting on this will have to come from entitlements. And there isn't much of that here (other than requiring the states to own more of their Medicaid burdens).

But it's a place to start from.

Dream on if you think his proposals, if they go through, will in anyway reduce the deficit. The cuts will be more than offset by increased defense spending, lower corporate tax rates and lower individual taxes, especially for the rich. And wait until the CBO releases their estimation of the cost of the horrendous GOP health care bill.
 
Dream on if you think his proposals, if they go through, will in anyway reduce the deficit. The cuts will be more than offset by increased defense spending, lower corporate tax rates and lower individual taxes, especially for the rich. And wait until the CBO releases their estimation of the cost of the horrendous GOP health care bill.

Like I said, it's a step in the right direction. I didn't say it was the long-term fix we need to get on a sustainable fiscal path. It's clearly not that.

And, FWIW, Ryan has already said that any tax reform that passes the House will have to be revenue neutral. So there's that.
 
Like I said, it's a step in the right direction. I didn't say it was the long-term fix we need to get on a sustainable fiscal path. It's clearly not that.

And, FWIW, Ryan has already said that any tax reform that passes the House will have to be revenue neutral. So there's that.

Ryan has an unjustified reputation as a policy wonk.
Most of what he says is BS.
If this tax cut is revenue neutral it will be the first one in history,
 
Ryan has an unjustified reputation as a policy wonk.
Most of what he says is BS.
If this tax cut is revenue neutral it will be the first one in history,


He is a more tempered Trump. He will be found out at some point and hopefully sooner than later. What legislation has he ever passed that is of significance?

Great at PX though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
Ryan has an unjustified reputation as a policy wonk.
Most of what he says is BS.
If this tax cut is revenue neutral it will be the first one in history,

Oh well. Whatever his reputation, he's still SOTH.

The key thing is that we start reining in spending. That's historically proven to be the most elusive fiscal shift. When it's all said and done, they're going to have to raise taxes, too. But we've never had a tough time doing that.

Personally, I'd prefer they tackle it all at once. But they can do it in a piecemeal fashion, too.
 
Oh well. Whatever his reputation, he's still SOTH.

The key thing is that we start reining in spending. That's historically proven to be the most elusive fiscal shift. When it's all said and done, they're going to have to raise taxes, too. But we've never had a tough time doing that.

Personally, I'd prefer they tackle it all at once. But they can do it in a piecemeal fashion, too.
If this was a plan to do anything like attempt to balance the budget, we could discuss it in those terms. The plan they put forth clearly is not, not even close. Massive increases to spending (and again, we still spend more than the next 10 nations or so COMBINED), and the border wall that is of limited value (at least 40% and probably more come in legally and overstay).

And of course he adds in fairly hefty tax cuts then proceeded to double count their value to "balance" his budget. Since his budget assumes crazy growth that almost certainly isn't going to happen anyway, all you do with it is slash safety net programs AND blow up the debt, both. I don't see how that is a good thing. And I can't wait to see what happens to the GOP in coal country, those jobs they were promised are never coming back, even the coal companies say that. And now they lose their safety net. Now a lot of other working poor will also experience the safety net slashing beneath them. While handing out huge tax cuts. Should make for interesting elections.

If this were a serious plan that used serious estimates we could have serious discussions. This is a cartoon GOP plan that plays to the "OMG, billionaires have it so rough in this country while the poor lead a life of idle leisure" fantasy. If we want a serious plan, let's talk social cuts, no wall, military cuts, and of course, taxes. Put it all in one plan, and use growth estimates closer to 2%,
 
Well the cuts, of course. We've got to get started getting our fiscal house in order at some point, ya know.

Obama squandered a golden opportunity to be the architect of our fiscal remodeling -- he even had a bipartisan commission that managed to reach agreement on a series of measures that he subsequently ignored. And anytime somebody refuses to take the lead on things that have to be done, it leaves a vacuum for somebody else to.

Now, I do think that, ultimately, most of the heavy lifting on this will have to come from entitlements. And there isn't much of that here (other than requiring the states to own more of their Medicaid burdens).

But it's a place to start from.


You think this is a serious effort at getting something real accomplished? I don't. I don't think it's even a good starting point, because it's so far from political reality that it's just going to be panned and filed in the trash. This is just Mulvaney in a room mentally masturbating with some friends from Heritage.

This is a political budget, not a substantive policy document. Putting out the POTUS budget is not leadership. It's dog whistle stuff.

It wouldn't get 2 votes in the Senate. It's not a serious document, anymore than the skinny budget of FY17 was. Anymore than Obama's budgets were. These things are jokes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RBB89
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/trump-budget-cuts.html?_r=0
Deep cuts for Medicaid and food stamps, but plenty of money for that wall. This isn't going to play well with many of his voters. Just like health care, it's going to affect the poor more than anyone.

Trump has no idea what is in the "budget" or why. He just panders to the closest person to him so they "like" him and he is as happy as a child (which he is). Someone says "here sign this" and they will clap & he does without the first clue of what he is signing. He has the intellectual curiosity of a toad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider
You think this is a serious effort at getting something real accomplished? I don't. I don't think it's even a good starting point, because it's so far from political reality that it's just going to be panned and filed in the trash. This is just Mulvaney in a room mentally masturbating with some friends from Heritage.

This is a political budget, not a substantive policy document. Putting out the POTUS budget is not leadership. It's dog whistle stuff.

It wouldn't get 2 votes in the Senate. It's not a serious document, anymore than the skinny budget of FY17 was. Anymore than Obama's budgets were. These things are jokes.

Well, all budgets submitted by OMB are political, of course. I'm certainly not going to squabble with you there. But it certainly does communicate something very important -- and budgets, like other legislation, take two to tango. This is one of the dance partners saying just how they'd like to dance. And to say that OMB's budget proposals have no political gravity is just wrong -- unless you think Congress can find a 2/3 majority to pass a budget over his veto.

And, again, it's most certainly not the budget I'd have submitted if I were POTUS. I have my own set of issues with it. More than anything else, I think the proposed cuts are nibbling at the edges and nowhere close to sufficient to tackle our structural fiscal imbalance. We're not going to fix this problem without reforming entitlements -- which is to say make those programs less expensive one way or another.

I'd have MUCH preferred that Obama taken the opportunity of the Bowles-Simpson Commission's bipartisan blueprint as a starting point for structural fiscal reform. Alas, he didn't do that -- and I voiced my displeasure loudly. It was a huge missed opportunity.

But somebody's going to have to do it eventually -- and getting policymakers to do their duty responsibly is going to require whacking the hornet's nest pretty hard. And I'd say that's just what Trump's proposed budget did.

More whacks, please.
 
If this was a plan to do anything like attempt to balance the budget, we could discuss it in those terms. The plan they put forth clearly is not, not even close. Massive increases to spending (and again, we still spend more than the next 10 nations or so COMBINED), and the border wall that is of limited value (at least 40% and probably more come in legally and overstay).

And of course he adds in fairly hefty tax cuts then proceeded to double count their value to "balance" his budget. Since his budget assumes crazy growth that almost certainly isn't going to happen anyway, all you do with it is slash safety net programs AND blow up the debt, both. I don't see how that is a good thing. And I can't wait to see what happens to the GOP in coal country, those jobs they were promised are never coming back, even the coal companies say that. And now they lose their safety net. Now a lot of other working poor will also experience the safety net slashing beneath them. While handing out huge tax cuts. Should make for interesting elections.

If this were a serious plan that used serious estimates we could have serious discussions. This is a cartoon GOP plan that plays to the "OMG, billionaires have it so rough in this country while the poor lead a life of idle leisure" fantasy. If we want a serious plan, let's talk social cuts, no wall, military cuts, and of course, taxes. Put it all in one plan, and use growth estimates closer to 2%,

Well, Obama had a bipartisan blueprint from which to work. He refused to do so....

...leaving the door open for a successor to do it.

I don't care that it's a "serious" plan or not. I care that it pisses the right people off. And it appears to have done that.

In other words -- if you don't like Trump's ridiculous budget that purports to get the nation's fiscal house in order, then put forth a serious one that does it.

Maybe it's a good opportunity for Paul Ryan to get his back out. That would be just fine with me. Or, maybe Messrs. Bowles and Simpson can lobby to have theirs proposed.

We need to get this process rolling and quit kicking the GD can down the road.
 
The more I dig into this "budget", the bigger joke it becomes.

For an admin already with a huge credibility problem, this is just extra wood on the fire. These are not serious people.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/23/trump-budget-scam-215183
I love the beginning paragraph.
"I have a plan to dunk a basketball. First, I’ll grow a foot taller. Next, I’ll recapture the athleticism of my youth, so I can jump a lot higher."

I am going to put this plan into practice, starting today. After a year, I will post my success story.;)
 
I love the beginning paragraph.
"I have a plan to dunk a basketball. First, I’ll grow a foot taller. Next, I’ll recapture the athleticism of my youth, so I can jump a lot higher."

I am going to put this plan into practice, starting today. After a year, I will post my success story.;)

The thing you have to understand is that there is a HUGE amount of pressure inside the Beltway to do what's always been done. That's all this comes down to. It is very, very resistant to change of any kind -- because there's a great deal of vested interest in every nook and cranny of the federal budget.

Another line from the Politico piece is this:

And just because a budget is declared “dead on arrival” does not mean it won’t influence the budget that eventually emerges on Capitol Hill;
That's what I mean by "gravity." People can scoff and dismiss OMB budget proposals -- in fact, they do every year. It's certainly true that, in many ways, this one is very different from even every other "dead on arrival" presidential budget proposals. And I'm not unsympathetic to the criticisms against it -- particularly its optimistic growth assumptions, etc. But all of that misses the larger point.

And it's this: our "normal" policymakers have been utterly derelict for many years in tackling a major problem they ALL know exists. So they have zero credibility with me when they whine. Zero. They've had their chances. And they've steadfastly refused to take them. And how embarrassing must it be for them for an unserious, know-nothing clown like Donald Trump to come in and show them up?

I don't care that this budget proposal is a farce. I really don't. To focus on that misses the point. ALL of our (recent, anyway) budgets have been farces -- because they've all pretended that the fiscal tsunami isn't approaching....when they all know full well that it is.

There's a moral to this story: if the serious people don't want unserious people to be charting our country's future course, then they better start acting like the serious people they claim to be.
 
Well, all budgets submitted by OMB are political, of course. I'm certainly not going to squabble with you there. But it certainly does communicate something very important -- and budgets, like other legislation, take two to tango. This is one of the dance partners saying just how they'd like to dance. And to say that OMB's budget proposals have no political gravity is just wrong -- unless you think Congress can find a 2/3 majority to pass a budget over his veto.

And, again, it's most certainly not the budget I'd have submitted if I were POTUS. I have my own set of issues with it. More than anything else, I think the proposed cuts are nibbling at the edges and nowhere close to sufficient to tackle our structural fiscal imbalance. We're not going to fix this problem without reforming entitlements -- which is to say make those programs less expensive one way or another.

I'd have MUCH preferred that Obama taken the opportunity of the Bowles-Simpson Commission's bipartisan blueprint as a starting point for structural fiscal reform. Alas, he didn't do that -- and I voiced my displeasure loudly. It was a huge missed opportunity.

But somebody's going to have to do it eventually -- and getting policymakers to do their duty responsibly is going to require whacking the hornet's nest pretty hard. And I'd say that's just what Trump's proposed budget did.

More whacks, please.

See, I don't think it did at all. It did a bunch of easy stuff....basically reprinting the Heritage Foundation's budget. Tax cuts, rosy growth, and big cuts to non-defense discretionary......all while exacerbating the deficit problem. It takes is FURTHER from any sort of fiscal sanity, not closer.

It lacks any sort of political bravery whatsoever. What you are saying you want and what this actually is are two different things entirely.

Something that truly whacks the hornets nest would be a legitimate budget, with legit growth numbers, with legit entitlement reforms, with legit tax policy (including the tax expenditures/deductions you are going to eliminate). That would take balls. This is ball-less.

As I said, mental masturbation for the Heritage folks who wrote this years ago.
 
The thing you have to understand is that there is a HUGE amount of pressure inside the Beltway to do what's always been done. That's all this comes down to. It is very, very resistant to change of any kind -- because there's a great deal of vested interest in every nook and cranny of the federal budget.

Another line from the Politico piece is this:

And just because a budget is declared “dead on arrival” does not mean it won’t influence the budget that eventually emerges on Capitol Hill;
That's what I mean by "gravity." People can scoff and dismiss OMB budget proposals -- in fact, they do every year. It's certainly true that, in many ways, this one is very different from even every other "dead on arrival" presidential budget proposals. And I'm not unsympathetic to the criticisms against it -- particularly its optimistic growth assumptions, etc. But all of that misses the larger point.

And it's this: our "normal" policymakers have been utterly derelict for many years in tackling a major problem they ALL know exists. So they have zero credibility with me when they whine. Zero. They've had their chances. And they've steadfastly refused to take them. And how embarrassing must it be for them for an unserious, know-nothing clown like Donald Trump to come in and show them up?

I don't care that this budget proposal is a farce. I really don't. To focus on that misses the point. ALL of our (recent, anyway) budgets have been farces -- because they've all pretended that the fiscal tsunami isn't approaching....when they all know full well that it is.

There's a moral to this story: if the serious people don't want unserious people to be charting our country's future course, then they better start acting like the serious people they claim to be.
The answer to the last item is that serious people should not elect a total buffoon. But it happened and I suspect not because of serious people. Frankly part of me hopes this passes. The military industrial complex gets richer, Trump and his family gets richer, and there will be 5 Republicans left in elected office by 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
The answer to the last item is that serious people should not elect a total buffoon. But it happened and I suspect not because of serious people. Frankly part of me hopes this passes. The military industrial complex gets richer, Trump and his family gets richer, and there will be 5 Republicans left in elected office by 2020.

Oh but you're wrong, Marvin. Stick with me here...

What cleared the political path for Donald Trump? Several things, I'd say. But (a big) one of them is an erosion of faith in our traditional political institutions. Some say that Trump is causing that. But they couldn't be more wrong -- it's been building for years and he's clearly one of the results of it.

Well, why have people lost so much faith in our political institutions? Again, there are various reasons. One is a failure of the political class to deal with illegal immigration. It's been a big issue for years and their failures to deal with it were huge fodder for Trump or somebody like him to capitalize on and gain political traction. Well, the same goes for our political establishment's refusal to deal with the untenable fiscal situation that they themselves (and their predecessors) created.

I'm not saying this directly led to Trump's election the way their failures on immigration did. But it very much did feed into the erosion of public confidence which contributed to the toxic political environment.

If Very Serious People (that's a gratuitous shout-out to our recently returned prodigal son) don't take and do their jobs seriously, then it clears a path for unserious people to pick up the reins of leadership. They have only themselves to blame for it.

The antidote is simply for them to take the reins themselves, instead of throwing them on the ground, and do the hard work of governing responsibly.

Don't like Trump's approach to right our ship? Fine. What's a better one?
 
See, I don't think it did at all. It did a bunch of easy stuff....basically reprinting the Heritage Foundation's budget. Tax cuts, rosy growth, and big cuts to non-defense discretionary......all while exacerbating the deficit problem. It takes is FURTHER from any sort of fiscal sanity, not closer.

It lacks any sort of political bravery whatsoever. What you are saying you want and what this actually is are two different things entirely.

Something that truly whacks the hornets nest would be a legitimate budget, with legit growth numbers, with legit entitlement reforms, with legit tax policy (including the tax expenditures/deductions you are going to eliminate). That would take balls. This is ball-less.

As I said, mental masturbation for the Heritage folks who wrote this years ago.

All the more reason for its critics to put forth a more realistic budget blueprint that seems grounded in our fiscal reality.

Doing something other than "business as usual" is hard. That's why business as usual is so....usual.

So, I'm curious...put yourselves in Mr. Mulvaney's shoes. What are a few headline items you'd be putting out there?
 
Oh but you're wrong, Marvin. Stick with me here...

What cleared the political path for Donald Trump? Several things, I'd say. But (a big) one of them is an erosion of faith in our traditional political institutions. Some say that Trump is causing that. But they couldn't be more wrong -- it's been building for years and he's clearly one of the results of it.

Well, why have people lost so much faith in our political institutions? Again, there are various reasons. One is a failure of the political class to deal with illegal immigration. It's been a big issue for years and their failures to deal with it were huge fodder for Trump or somebody like him to capitalize on and gain political traction. Well, the same goes for our political establishment's refusal to deal with the untenable fiscal situation that they themselves (and their predecessors) created.

I'm not saying this directly led to Trump's election the way their failures on immigration did. But it very much did feed into the erosion of public confidence which contributed to the toxic political environment.

If Very Serious People (that's a gratuitous shout-out to our recently returned prodigal son) don't take and do their jobs seriously, then it clears a path for unserious people to pick up the reins of leadership. They have only themselves to blame for it.

The antidote is simply for them to take the reins themselves, instead of throwing them on the ground, and do the hard work of governing responsibly.

Don't like Trump's approach to right our ship? Fine. What's a better one?
As Trump supporters must inevitably do, you're defending the indefensible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
See, I don't think it did at all. It did a bunch of easy stuff....basically reprinting the Heritage Foundation's budget. Tax cuts, rosy growth, and big cuts to non-defense discretionary......all while exacerbating the deficit problem. It takes is FURTHER from any sort of fiscal sanity, not closer.

It lacks any sort of political bravery whatsoever. What you are saying you want and what this actually is are two different things entirely.

Something that truly whacks the hornets nest would be a legitimate budget, with legit growth numbers, with legit entitlement reforms, with legit tax policy (including the tax expenditures/deductions you are going to eliminate). That would take balls. This is ball-less.

As I said, mental masturbation for the Heritage folks who wrote this years ago.
As this discussion illustrates, most self-proclaimed deficit hawks are really deficit peacocks. They talk about deficits, but what they really want is tax cuts.
 
As Trump supporters must inevitably do, you're defending the indefensible.

No, I'm defending upsetting an apple cart that has needed to be upset for a long time but apparently wasn't going to be upset by all the people eating apples from it.

When I said I was pleasantly surprised by the proposal, I didn't mean that I supported it. I'm just encouraged by the fact that the people who typically screw our budget up are so miffed by somebody else proposing to screw it up.

It may be exactly the sort of thing that needed to happen to finally get the ball rolling.
 
As this discussion illustrates, most self-proclaimed deficit hawks are really deficit peacocks. They talk about deficits, but what they really want is tax cuts.

Speaking only for myself, I've said multiple times here that we're going to eventually have to see tax hikes, not tax cuts.

But, again, we've never had much problem hiking taxes. What we've struggled with is reining in spending to something that is sustainable and rational to our economic wherewithal.
 
No, I'm defending upsetting an apple cart that has needed to be upset for a long time but apparently wasn't going to be upset by all the people eating apples from it.

When I said I was pleasantly surprised by the proposal, I didn't mean that I supported it. I'm just encouraged by the fact that the people who typically screw our budget up are so miffed by somebody else proposing to screw it up.

It may be exactly the sort of thing that needed to happen to finally get the ball rolling.
So you're not "defending" the indefensible, you're just arguing that the indefensible is a good thing. I'm glad we cleared that up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
Speaking only for myself, I've said multiple times here that we're going to eventually have to see tax hikes, not tax cuts.

But, again, we've never had much problem hiking taxes. What we've struggled with is reining in spending to something that is sustainable and rational to our economic wherewithal.
Whatever supposed deficit hawks say, what they inevitably do is support tax cuts -- so here you're defending a budget that would explode the deficit with tax cuts as a "first step" toward deficit reduction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
So you're not "defending" the indefensible, you're just arguing that the indefensible is a good thing. I'm glad we cleared that up.

No, I'm arguing that if the normal people are derelict in doing their duty, then I welcome an abnormal person coming in from the outside and knocking them from their comfort zone.

This is not to say that I actually want what the abnormal person proposes to do...but that the normal people get off their asses and start making the hard decisions they've long been avoiding.

What I know is that we can't keep going in the direction we've been going. Anything that helps us change direction, I'll support it. Because before we can figure out where we are going, we first have to be knocked off the current path. And that has heretofore been proven nearly impossible.
 
Whatever supposed deficit hawks say, what they inevitably do is support tax cuts -- so here you're defending a budget that would explode the deficit with tax cuts as a "first step" toward deficit reduction.

No, if I had written it, it would've raised taxes on everybody -- along with trimming spending across the board.

But I also would very much welcome competing ideas on how to make ends meet.

I'm not pining for a tax cut (with the lone exception of fixing the stupid repatriation of retained foreign earnings policy).
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT