Started By
Message
locked post

Trump to battle GOP on spending cuts

Posted on 1/23/17 at 8:48 am
Posted by KeyserSoze999
Member since Dec 2009
10608 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 8:48 am
The thing we've been talking about for years, well some of us. Apparently the real fight will be in the senate(no suprise). So what leverage does Trump have against the GOP snators? Bully pulpit? Threatening to shut down the Government?

LINK


quote:

Trump, GOP set to battle on spending cuts

Donald Trump may be headed into a big fight with Republican lawmakers with his plans for dramatic cuts to federal spending.

Trump transition officials are combing through conservative budgets to find ways to save money in an effort to get rid of the “tremendous waste, fraud and abuse” that Trump pledged to eliminate during the campaign.

Many of the proposals that Trump’s team are reviewing would gain support from a majority of conservative House Republicans, who have sought to cut the federal deficit by scrapping government programs they view as unnecessary.

But some of Trump’s targets have fans in the GOP-controlled Congress, particularly in the Senate.

Trump's team is working with the Office of Management and Budget to lay the groundwork for the new administration’s initial budget proposal, which is expected to reach Congress in the next 45 days.
In their search for savings, Team Trump is relying on proposals outlined last year by the Heritage Foundation in its “Blueprint for Balance: a federal budget for 2017.”

Many of the cuts hew closely to the fiscal year 2017 budget plan adopted by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a caucus that represents a majority of House Republicans. Incoming Trump budget director, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), is an RSC member.

One likely target is the Legal Services Corporation, a federal agency providing financial support for civil legal aid to low-income people. Conservatives have long sought its elimination, arguing it has become beholden to liberal causes and noting the Congressional Budget Office has recommended its defunding. Eliminating it would save nearly $400 million next year.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, this week warned that it’s not a battle worth fighting.

“I think that would be hard thing to do. Even if you wanted to do that, you couldn’t get it through the Senate,” he said.

President Ronald Reagan tried to abolish the agency shortly after taking office in 1981 but ran into a wall in Congress.

“It’s been repeatedly tried but the reality it’s the only way that a lot of poor folks especially rural poor get any kind of legal help,” said Jim Dyer, who served for 13 years as the Republican staff director of the House Appropriations Committee.

“It’s almost like they sat down over there and dragged out all of their old wish list, most of which of has been discarded, and said to themselves, 'Let’s put it on the table and see who salutes,'” he added.

Another proposal embraced by Heritage and the RSC budget plans is the elimination of the essential air service program, a program that subsidizes rural airports serving sparsely populated communities.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she would pull out all the stops to fight for it.

“What?! What?!” she exclaimed. “I care about it a great deal.

“It would basically shut down rural Alaska,” she added. “If there is discussion about that, we as the Alaska delegation really have to ramp it up and let people know how critical it is. This is not a nice to have, it’s a must have.”

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), a senior member of the House Transportation Committee who said he was attending his 10th presidential inauguration Friday, echoed Murkowski’s concern.

“That won’t happen,” he said of the possibility of zeroing out the air program. “Remember Congress still plays a role in this.

“We don’t have any highways in Alaska, that’s why it’s called essential air service,” he added.

Trump’s team is discussing the elimination of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, as well as the privatization of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Those proposals are likely to find support form conservatives, but some GOP lawmakers are warning that efforts to tackle the nation’s fiscal problems through discretionary spending are short-sighted.

“Any effort to balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending is not a straightforward approach,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

He argues that discretionary spending, which accounts for only a third of the federal budget and was subject to cuts known as sequestration during President Obama’s tenure, is under control.

“The part of the budget that is creating the debt is the entitlement part of the budget,” he said, referring to spending on Medicare and Medicaid.

Trump has vowed, however, to not make cuts to Medicare or Social Security.

Some senior Republicans say they’re willing to look at cutting or reforming programs within their jurisdiction.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said he would look carefully at programs that have been criticized as corporate welfare.

Trump transition officials are looking at eliminating the International Trade Administration, the Economic Development Administration, the Minority Business Development Agency, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

“It’s useful to have a fresh set of eyes on a lot of these programs and to reexamine them in light of what our needs are,” he said.

But others are girding for battle, setting up internal fights over spending for later this year.

Mississippi Republicans will oppose proposals in the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint and the RSC budget to eliminate the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) catfish inspection program.

Mississippi is the nation’s leading producer of catfish with 35,000 acres of water devoted to catfish farms, according to the USDA.

The Heritage Foundation argues that requiring the Agriculture Department to inspect catfish duplicates work being done by the Food and Drug Administration and creates a trade barrier by applying new regulatory requirements to foreign exporters.

But Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) says doing away with the program “would be a problem and wouldn’t save any money.”

He noted that conservatives already tried to kill the program under the Congressional Review Act but fell short in the House.

“We’ll engage in this fight if we have to but it’s a ship that really has already sailed and the American taxpayer is better off and the American consumer is better off,” he said.

Posted by Pax Regis
Alabama
Member since Sep 2007
12911 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 8:52 am to
Trump is about to expose all the Senators, including Republicans, as being the reason why we have a HUGE deficit. No one wants to get real about reducing spending because each of them has their own pet projects that need protection.

Can we not build highways in Alaska? I'd rather spending a few billion building them some roads which would put some people to work than continue to fund mountaintop clearings as airports.
Posted by dkreller
Laffy
Member since Jan 2009
30248 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 8:53 am to
I look forward to it.
Posted by llfshoals
Member since Nov 2010
15324 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 8:58 am to
quote:

Can we not build highways in Alaska?
Honestly I don't think it would be feasible.

Weather is a serious concern.
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
41628 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 8:59 am to
Yeah this is going to be a problem. So many little money wasters that are important to small groups of people who will get a fight from their reps. Trump needs to use every trick in his book to make the deals.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
51416 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 8:59 am to
"Don't cut my program, cut someone else's" - said every Congressman ever (which is why very few are ever cut and the debt has reached such a dangerously high level).
Posted by BaddestAndvari
That Overweight Racist State
Member since Mar 2011
18277 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:01 am to
quote:

Can we not build highways in Alaska? I'd rather spending a few billion building them some roads which would put some people to work than continue to fund mountaintop clearings as airports.



Never been to Alaska I presume?

To answer your question, in these areas: no

I'm not against this proposal mind you, it doesn't affect me after all, so frick them.
This post was edited on 1/23/17 at 9:01 am
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
98290 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:02 am to
He's going to expose these frickers as the provincial bastards they are. Declare everything is on the table and make THEM justify the continued spending. Some (like essential air service in Alaska) will be able to do that easily. Others (National Endowment for the Arts) will not.
Posted by skrayper
21-0 Asterisk Drive
Member since Nov 2012
30816 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:03 am to
Well, to be honest, he has little wiggle room in the Senate (52-48 majority). If 3 are ticked off at him, Pence won't be able to cast the deciding vote. If THOSE Republicans lose support of their party, then it is likely they'll lose to Independents or Democrats in their next election.

He'll have to play politics. Washington never really changes, even with an outsider in the office.
Posted by Pax Regis
Alabama
Member since Sep 2007
12911 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:07 am to
quote:

Never been to Alaska I presume?


No, I've never been. I'd love to but have not.

Still, is it really worth it to have these subsidized airports? What public good are we serving to have airports that service such small places? Make the State pay for that shite - or the local government.
Posted by cokebottleag
I’m a Santos Republican
Member since Aug 2011
24028 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:11 am to
quote:

No, I've never been. I'd love to but have not.

Still, is it really worth it to have these subsidized airports? What public good are we serving to have airports that service such small places? Make the State pay for that shite - or the local government.


I've been.

Alaska definately needs their rural airports.

Maybe, now, this is crazy, but hear me out.

MAYBE, Alaska can fund them, instead of cutting a check to every man, woman, and child.

I dunno, call me crazy, but isn't there a STATE government and treasury in that area?
Posted by cokebottleag
I’m a Santos Republican
Member since Aug 2011
24028 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:14 am to
quote:


Can we not build highways in Alaska? I'd rather spending a few billion building them some roads which would put some people to work than continue to fund mountaintop clearings as airports.



We really can't. The expense of building improved roads across thousands of miles of permafrost is large, but the maintenance is even worse. Permafrost turns roads impassable quickly (years/decades) and the roads require constant maintenance.
Posted by Pax Regis
Alabama
Member since Sep 2007
12911 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:14 am to
quote:

MAYBE, Alaska can fund them, instead of cutting a check to every man, woman, and child.


Forgot about the the royalty payments. Yes, they can pay for their own airports. Choosing to live in an arctic wilderness has its price.
Posted by bhtigerfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
29401 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:16 am to
quote:

Can we not build highways in Alaska?
I was a bush pilot in Alaska years ago. It would be extremely difficult if not impossible to build highways on the tundra.

Maybe make an exception for Alaska to continue the funding. I would prefer not to ruin the Alaskan wilderness with a highway network.

Imagine trying to build a highway across this.

This post was edited on 1/23/17 at 9:18 am
Posted by Pax Regis
Alabama
Member since Sep 2007
12911 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:19 am to
That looks like a slightly dryer version of the Everglades.
Posted by bamarep
Member since Nov 2013
51788 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:20 am to
The voting public is the leverage.


We voted for change and we'd better damn well get it.
Posted by dkreller
Laffy
Member since Jan 2009
30248 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:22 am to
I doubt the problem with roads in Alaska is moisture.

The problem is prob the extreme temperature changes.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123745 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:24 am to
quote:

One likely target is the Legal Services Corporation, a federal agency providing financial support for civil legal aid to low-income people. Conservatives have long sought its elimination, arguing it has become beholden to liberal causes and noting the Congressional Budget Office has recommended its defunding. Eliminating it would save nearly $400 million next year.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, this week warned that it’s not a battle worth fighting.

“I think that would be hard thing to do. Even if you wanted to do that, you couldn’t get it through the Senate,” he said.

Seems the solution would be for the Executive Branch to simply let it whither on the fine. Don't fill positions. Don't approve new initiatives, etc.
Posted by cokebottleag
I’m a Santos Republican
Member since Aug 2011
24028 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:27 am to
It's a huge area to run a road network over as well. From Fairbanks to Nome is 521 miles as the crow flies. From Anchorage to Prudhoe bay is 1,100 miles.

That's farther than NOLA to Minneapolis.
Posted by dkreller
Laffy
Member since Jan 2009
30248 posts
Posted on 1/23/17 at 9:27 am to
Unfortunately the money would still get put aside for it even if there are no employees.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram