Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is Trump Really Committed to Shrinking the Federal Government?
This article from TheHill.com today has set conservative hearts a-flutter.
Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned. The changes they propose are dramatic.
The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized, while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely.
Overall, the blueprint being used by Trump’s team would reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years.
I have to be honest, I’ve had a silly grin on my face all day long, ever since I read that article. Cutting the size of the federal government in a significant, meaningful way has been a pipe dream of conservatives since the days of FDR’s New Deal.
But how serious is Trump to cutting the waste and corruption in our system? A clue might be found in his testimony from 2005 in front of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security concerning the dramatic cost overruns involved in the remodeling of the United Nations Building in Manhattan.
Trump, at his core, is a real estate developer, and he knows that a project that goes over-budget and past its due date is a project that is doomed to failure. Even if he isn’t able to enact cuts as dramatic as the ones laid out today, he’s put the Federal government on notice that “business as usual” will not be tolerated anymore.
Published in Domestic Policy
That would involve a lot of ox-goring, with teeth gnashing heard throughout the halls of Congress. Yet our health demands we cut out the malignant growth of overweening bureaucracies that spread into every fiber of our society.
Trump is the businessman president that Romney only pretended to be. Trump truly knows what it’s like to make a payroll. He knows what cost overruns are, and yes, often he stiffed his creditors. But to me that means he’s willing to cut costs by any means necessary. Let’s take a chainsaw to the federal budget! Let the contractors go cry to their mamas!
If he achieves spending reductions anything like that I will take back every bad thing I ever said about him and eat crow from now to my dying day. Sadly, I’m not at all sure that is mathematically possible without hitting the entitlements he’s declared sacrosanct.
My goodness! I sure hope he (and the congress) can do this. As Cato Rand says, I’ll take back a lot of what I thought about him if he can pull this off. There will be lots of howls from the Left and even moderates and some conservatives about their favorite programs being cut, but it has to be done.
Here are my questions:
1. Are cuts like these going to require 60 votes to get through the Senate?
2. Are we going to have an omnibus bill this year, or will we have several smaller spending bills?
3. Will the Democrats be able to force a government shutdown over this, or does that only work when they have the presidency?
There is no way to cut 10.5 Trillion over 10 years without hitting entitlements or defense. Entitlements make up 62% of the budget defense is 20% of the budget leaving 18% for everything else. $10.5 Trillion over 10 years is basically everything else.
Trump is impressive in this video. He is goal and task oriented and focused on details.
He may be a very effective President.
The U.N renovations, btw, end up costing 2.1 billion and took 6 years.
Not everything can be tackled at once. Entitlements will wait they’re turn. First, there are some things to prove and confidence to build. And there is an midterm election in 2 years.
Budget items cannot be filibustered. If something like PBS or NEA is zeroed out the Democrats cannot stop it. What they can stop is legislation to transition things like PBS. That is ordinary legislation. So, the can increase the pain for those losing their jobs. That’s okay by me when it comes to federal workers. After all, the Democrats have been increasing the pain for private sector workers who have lost their jobs since 2008. Let the civil service workers who never thought they would face economic reality feel what it is like.
Seawriter
Simple answer to your question, Kevin. I guess we wait until he’s the President, makes some decisions, and then we’ll evaluate.
No! Duh, to address the title question. He might reduce transaction and operational costs in areas. But there’s nothing to suggest he’s committed to the traditional idea of limited Govt with defined powers. He seems to like power and I think understands that cutting social services and medical programs will be unpopular with many voters. Correcting budget problems is for a future government.
Agreed. This is the guy they ridiculed as a buffoon, when some of us actually saw this guy.
He’s going to be a very effective President. People are going to continue to be surprised since they have been hostage to the propaganda media interpretations.
Predicting a very impressive inspiring speech tomorrow.
I’m confused by the juxtaposition of this claim about gutting the Department of Energy and Rick Perry’s recent apology for wanting to end Energy entirely. Why apologize if he will serve mainly to organize its dismantling?
And did he tip his hat to global warming alarmists only to avoid Democrats’ grandstanding?
Reducing the size of government is not only a cost saving measure. Fewer bureaucrats- fewer people to come up ways to make life more difficult for us in the private sector
Don’t forget that interest is a healthy chunk of “everything else” as well. We can’t cut that either.
Most of the hearings have been about avoiding democrat shenanigans.
Yes. That $10.5 trillion over 10 years is a very dubious figure. That comes to $1 trillion per year, which is extremely implausible — basically all non-entitlements. But if they can even get $200 billion a year in such cuts, I’d be very impressed and very happy indeed.
Here are the 2014 numbers and it has only gotten worse.
According to Veronique De Rugy, Trump’s budget is based on a proposal from the Heritage Foundation. Trump has shown an affinity for solutions that the Heritage Foundation comes up with: His list of 20 potential Supreme Court nominees from last year was cribbed from their list.
I’m liking where this is headed.