Monthly Archives: May 2017

The Trump administration got caught attempting to commit fake math last week. It didnt succeed.

Heres what happened: Every year, the president is required to send Congress a budget proposal, to lay out his wish list for taxes and spending. President Trump ordered up a plan that would lower taxes, increase military spending and balance the budget within 10 years, all without cutting Social Security or Medicare.

And thats what his budget director, Mick Mulvaney, delivered. But to meet his bosss unrealistic goals, Mulvaney produced a document that didnt make much sense.

Thats not just my view; its the view of fiscal experts in both parties, including several senior Republicans in Congress who quickly declared the presidents budget dead on arrival.

To reach Trumps target, Mulvaney assumed that the economy will grow by an average of 3% a year for the next decade, a rate higher than any mainstream forecast. And he cut spending deeply on almost every non-defense function, from cancer research to Medicaid and other programs for the poor.

Even Republicans said the cuts were unrealistic.

Meals on Wheels, even for some of us who are considered to be fiscal hawks, may be a bridge too far, said Mark Meadows, chairman of the achingly conservative House Freedom Caucus.

Then it got worse. Budget experts noticed an oddity in Mulvaneys arithmetic. The proposal estimated that his 3% growth in the economy would produce more than $2 trillion in increased tax revenue, helping to balance the budget. Most of that growth, in the administrations view, would be produced by the big tax cuts its seeking.

But the budget didnt mention the revenue that would be lost by the tax cuts a number that could reach, oh, $2 trillion or so. Instead, it listed the tax cuts as revenue neutral, meaning theyd produce as much revenue as they lost thanks, of course, to 3% growth.

In short, the White House counted the same $2 trillion twice once to pay for the tax cuts and once to reduce the deficit.

That wasnt the only oddity. The budget called for abolishing the estate tax, but nevertheless counted $330 billion of revenue from estate taxes. It called for funding Trumps wall on the border with Mexico, but provided less than 10% of what the Department of Homeland Security says a wall would cost.

Of course, the Trump administration and its allies have had problems with arithmetic before.

Theyve raged against the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which last week estimated that the House Republicans healthcare bill would result in 23 million more people without health insurance and raise costs for millions more.

The [CBO] is simply incompatible with the Trump era, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote with a double meaning that was presumably unintentional. It is a left-wing, corrupt, bureaucratic defender of big government. (The current CBO director was appointed by the Republican leaders of Congress.)

Trump officials have also contested the governments estimates of unemployment except when the number goes down, in which case they claim credit for the change.

Theyve claimed that Trump was the victim of widespread vote fraud on Election Day, despite the absence of evidence, arithmetical or otherwise. Theyre even spending federal money to investigate the problem.

And the president still thinks he drew the largest crowds in history to his inauguration, even though photographs and calculations prove him wrong.

This refusal to accept that 2+ 2 = 4 isnt ordinary political spin or the quirk of a former real estate developer who once promoted a 58-story building as offering 68 floors. The Trump administrations war on math is just one front in a broader war on facts including the new practice of dismissing any negative report as fake news.

And its strategic. Its aimed at avoiding accountability.

Trumps proudest claim, now that hes president, is that hes keeping the promises he made to voters in his campaign. Only he isnt. His unrealistic budget plan wont produce a balanced budget. The health care bill he backs wont cover everyone, wont reduce their costs, and wont protect Medicaid. The tax cuts he said would benefit the middle class would flow mostly to the wealthy instead.

Whats an embattled president to do when he cant deliver? Attack the scorekeepers whether they are journalists, the CBO, or the budgeteers.

Most people, however, arent buying what Trumps selling.

Being president, as Trump has complained, is harder than being a real estate promoter. Theres far more scrutiny.

In the case of the budget flimflam, for example, Trump may have outfoxed himself. One budget expert, former Senate Democratic aide Stan Collender, says the administrations unrealistic numbers have probably killed Republicans chances for passing a tax bill this year and maybe next year too.

If hes right, thats a big problem for Trump. Those tax cuts were the core of the presidents economic program, the key to producing anything like 3% growth. No tax cuts means no Trump bump. And voters would notice.

Trump is still waging his war on facts. But the facts are pushing back.

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

Twitter: @DoyleMcManus

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook

Link:

The Trump administration wants us to think 2 + 2 = 5 - Los Angeles Times

|

Posted: May 24, 2017 12:01 AM

Intolerance, at times exploding into violence, is spreading throughout our society. And it's coming from the political left.

It's happening on college campuses. Most recently, students walked out on Vice President Mike Pence's commencement address at Notre Dame University.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was interrupted by boos and jeers at her commencement address at historically black Bethune-Cookman University.

Conservative scholar Charles Murray was met with violent protests and physically assaulted at Middlebury College. Another conservative scholar, Heather MacDonald, was violently shut down in a presentation she was giving at Claremont McKenna College. These are just a couple examples.

Now it's spreading off college campuses with reports of violence and threats toward Republican members of congress, and their families, as they hold town halls in their districts.

A column in The Hill newspaper bears the headline, "Republicans fearing for their safety as anger, threats mount."

What is happening?

A recent commentary in Forbes Magazine from a London School of Business professor calls this "The Post-Truth World."

He describes a prevailing feeling of helplessness as individuals inhabit a world in which knowledge is, in general, exploding but each individual knows, relatively, less and less. And he points to a world in which business and politics are becoming increasingly interdependent.

New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt attributes what's happening to a culture in which young people are not forced to deal with opposing viewpoints. This, says Haidt, is amplified by social media, which serves to reinforce existing biases.

But all this doesn't explain why the intolerance and violence is coming mainly from the political left.

A new survey from the Pew Research Center sheds light on this. Sixty-six percent of Republicans compared to 29 percent of Democrats say that a person is rich "because they worked harder than most people" rather than because of having personal advantages in life. This 37 percent difference in attitudes of Republicans and Democrats about why some people are rich is 12 points larger today than where it stood just three years ago in 2014.

Seventy-one percent of Democrats compared to 32 percent of Republicans say someone is poor because of "circumstances beyond a person's control," rather than because of "lack of effort." This 37 percent difference between Republicans and Democrats in attitudes regarding why someone is poor is 19 points larger than where it stood three years ago in 2014.

The nation is becoming increasingly polarized on the very fundamental question regarding the extent to which individuals have control over their own life.

Across the nation's whole population, 53 percent feel poverty is the result of circumstances beyond an individual's control compared to 34 percent who see poverty as the result of lack of effort.

What is the meaning of freedom in a country where more than half its citizens feel fate rather than choice governs their life?

Not surprisingly, for the first time in 8 years, according to Pew, more Americans (48 percent) say they want bigger government than say they want smaller government (45 percent).

Conservatives are exposed to the same cultural and technological forces as liberals. But it's not what comes from outside that determines human behavior. It's what comes from inside -- the individual's attitudes and approach to life.

Liberal mentality, increasingly dominated by moral relativism, produces a culture of victimhood. The victim sees life exclusively in political terms, seeing political power and government as the means to a better life, rather than freedom and personal responsibility.

With Republicans now in power, trying to restore economic vitality and fiscal balance by limiting government and expanding personal freedom, the left sees this as a threat, not an opportunity.

We all should be deeply troubled that, in the "land of the free and home of the brave," some are turning to violence to battle the prospect of becoming freer.

Obama-Appointed Federal Judge Tosses Benghazi Families'Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton

Read more here:

Liberal Fight Against Freedom Turns Violent - Star Parker - Townhall - Townhall

Air Force leaders met with media to discuss specifics of the services fiscal 2018 space investment budget at the Pentagon May 24, 2017. The request totals $7.75 billion, an approximately 20 percent increase from fiscal year 2017.

Dr. David Hardy, the acting deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for space, and Maj. Gen. Roger Teague, the director of space programs for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, highlighted the importance of the fiscal 2018 space budget to the nations security and the Air Forces strategic understanding of the space environment.

According to Hardy, for decades, the U.S. has enjoyed unimpeded freedom of action in the space domain. However, the global space domain is evolving and in the not too distant future, near-peer competitors will have the ability to put U.S. space assets at risk.

As in every other domain, when an adversary understands that something provides a strategic advantage they do two thingsmirror our capabilities and work strenuously to figure out means by which they can deny us, said Hardy. You can summarize the progress we have made over the last three budget cycles by saying we really do have a much firmer understanding of all the component parts that are required to build an overall resilient enterprise.

The Air Forces fiscal 2018 space budget emphasizes investments and improvements in future technology in three major focus areas: space superiority, space support to operations and assured access to space.

Teague explained the focus areas emphasize developing the resilient capabilities the Air Force needs to negate adversary actions and ensure America maintains the critical space capabilities required for national security.

Space is increasingly congested and contested, he said. With this evolving and changing environment, its increasingly critical we must ensure that our capabilities, our future capabilities, outpace the advances in space threats.

To gain and maintain space superiority, the Air Force plans to increase investments in advanced space situational awareness, counterspace and command and control. In addition, the service is committed to the continuation of investments in the Space Fence.

All of these capabilities are going to continue to enhance our ability to understand our operational environment, Teague said. We need to be able to command and control our space forces and capabilities to preserve freedom of operations as well as freedom of maneuver.

The Air Forces space support to operations is integral to combat, mobility and nuclear forces. The budget reflects this role with support to programs including the Space-Based Infrared System, Space Modernization Initiative, Tech Maturation and Cyber Security, space-based environmental monitoring and modernization of protected satellite communications.

To ensure the Air Forces ability to continue to own the high ground, the space budget provides funding for infrastructure, studies and analysis for the three evolved expendable launch vehicle launch services, which are competitive launch opportunities. The Air Force has a total of six launches planned for fiscal 2018.

Teague said the Air Force will continue to evolve the space enterprise to be more flexible, survivable and resilient to ensure the capability to provide space superiority across the spectrum of conflict for tomorrows highly contested environment.

We must, as the (chief of staff of the Air Force) has emphasized several times, normalize space as a war fighting domain and focus our efforts to outpace and defeat advanced, demonstrated and evolving threats, said Teague. (The) increases in investment will continue to be necessary to maintain our space superiority and our capabilities in FY 18 and in the future.

Read the original here:

AF rolls out fiscal 2018 space budget - Aerotech News - Aerotech News (blog)

Leading fiscal conservatives are showering President Trump's first federal budget proposal with some of their highest praise: comparisons to Ronald Reagan.

"This is the most fiscally conservative budget since Reagan," Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute and editor of Downsizing Government, told the Washington Examiner.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, called it a "very strong budget" and said it's what the 40th president himself would have submitted if he had both a Republican House and Senate. Democrats controlled the House for all eight years of the Reagan administration, one of the reasons conservatives cite for why even Reagan was unable to achieve enduring federal spending cuts.

Norquist then went a step further. "This is a Reaganite, limited-government, anti-waste and anti-duplication budget," he said. "It certainly makes those Republican critics who said that Trump would be a big-spending populist look like idiots."

Trump didn't run as a government-cutter during the campaign. He explicitly promised to leave Social Security and Medicare spending alone, which his first budget largely does. He campaigned on a populist platform emphasizing both economic and cultural solidarity with mostly white working-class voters.

Some Republicans argued that Trump was essentially a liberal, pointing to his past advocacy of a wealth tax and single-payer healthcare. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a staunch fiscal conservative, was his strongest opponent in the GOP primaries.

Once Trump was elected, many on the Right expected a more protectionist version of the compassionate conservatism of the most recent Republican president, George W. Bush. The Bush administration, the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes wrote, believed in "using what would normally be seen as liberal means activist government for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process."

That's why some fiscal conservatives have been pleasantly surprised by the very un-Bush like discretionary domestic spending cuts in the president's budget, while liberals portray it as a typically draconian Republican attack on the social safety net and a betrayal of Trump's working-class supporters.

"When you've got $20 trillion in debt, it's nice to see a White House that's actually interested in the issue," said Andy Roth, vice president of government affairs at the Club for Growth, a fiscally conservative group that was critical of Trump during the primaries. "We welcome the spending cuts."

"A lot of the cuts are thoughtful cuts, not just blunt cuts," Edwards said. "People are getting trapped on disability where frankly they should be in the workforce."

Consequently, the Trump budget has received strong if qualified praise from leading Tea Party groups.

"Budgets are visionary documents, and President Trump's proposal would put taxpayers first by starting to direct their dollars more efficiently to the most effective programs," Heritage Action CEO Mike Needham said in a statement. "It is the type of document the president promised on the campaign trail, including some serious, structural reforms to our nation's entitlement system."

"Unfortunately, the failure to address Social Security and Medicare will make it difficult to truly rein in our nation's ever growing debt," Needham added. "Nonetheless, Trump's budget presents an opportunity to unite Republicans around fiscally responsible reforms to food stamps, disability insurance and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Even with unified Republican control of government, delivering policy victories has proven difficult in Washington, but enacting these reforms would demonstrate a true commitment to putting taxpayers first."

Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, a former South Carolina Republican congressman who was a member of the House Freedom Caucus, is hailed by fiscal conservatives as a hero in this process, especially given Trump's lack of a track record as a small-government advocate.

"I've told the story several times of sitting in the president's office with a list of possible reforms to mandatory what some people call entitlement spending and have the president at the end of the list go: Yes, yes, no, no, no, no," Mulvaney told reporters during Tuesday's budget briefing. "And the no, no, no's' were always Social Security retirement and Medicare. Didn't change those at all because he promised people that he wouldn't."

"We have great respect for [Office of Management and Budget] Director Mulvaney," said Roth.

"He's got a very good team," Edwards added. "They're taking the job seriously. I give Trump credit for giving [Mulvaney] a lot of running room."

The conservative applause wasn't unanimous. Many considered the 3 percent growth projections required to bring the budget into balance unrealistic. Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., called it a "Goldilocks scenario." Budget hawks thought it boosted Pentagon spending too much, defense hawks too little.

"[W]hile on its face, the president's budget request is balanced, the budget only accomplishes this through a combination of very strong economic forecasting and unrealistic future cuts in domestic discretionary spending," Sanford, a Freedom Caucus member, said in a statement. "Meanwhile, the proposal doesn't touch 40 percent of the annual budget Social Security or Medicare, even though both are on a path toward insolvency."

New York Times conservative columnist Ross Douthat dismissed the Trump budget as "just Reagan-era leftovers minus the actually-serious portion of Ryanism (Medicare reform)," the latter a reference to House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

"Ivanka's paid leave program is dumb, not a federal responsibility," said Edwards.

Yet even many of the Republicans in Congress who have declared the budget dead on arrival oppose it for cutting too much. "If Republicans actually do what they said they would do, the prospects [for cuts] would be high," said Roth, whose organization supports conservative GOP primary challengers. "But a lot of Republicans campaign one way and then don't follow through. It is my hope that if they don't follow, there will be consequences."

"We just want to see spending cuts," he continued. "That's a foreign subject to a lot of politicians here on Capitol Hill."

Federal spending is a congressional responsibility under the Constitution and presidential budget requests are frequently modified or set aside. Some of former President Barack Obama's budget proposals failed to receive a single vote in either chamber of Congress.

Some conservatives nevertheless find themselves rooting for the unconventional Trump against more traditional Hill Republicans.

"He's governing as Reagan would have, completely in the mainstream of the modern Republican Party," said Norquist. "What's interesting will be to watch those Republicans who wanted to criticize Trump when he was running to see if they are as Reaganite as Trump is."

Read more:

Trump's budget draws comparisons to Reagan - Washington Examiner