ShareThis Page
New Trump budget is a horror show for Dems and Paul Ryan’s dream come true |
Featured Commentary

New Trump budget is a horror show for Dems and Paul Ryan’s dream come true

President Trump’s 2020 budget outline arrives on Capitol Hill at the House Budget Committee, in Washington, Monday morning March 11, 2019. Trump’s new budget calls for billions more for his border wall, with steep cuts in domestic programs but increases for military spending.
Highlights of President Trump’s 2020 federal budget proposal

You may remember that when he ran for president in 2016, Donald Trump said lots of unusual things, among which were regular pledges that unlike his Republican primary opponents and others in his party, he’d protect the safety net. In the speech announcing his candidacy, he said, “Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts. Have to do it.”

Trump liked to emphasize how this position distinguished him. “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,” he said in an interview not long before that announcement. His campaign liked this promise so much they later published it on their web site. In fact, as early as 2011, when Trump was turning himself into a Republican political celebrity with Roger Ailes’ help with a regular gig on “Fox & Friends,” he attacked Paul Ryan for the congressman’s plan to cut entitlements, calling it an electoral “death wish.”

Yet the budget that the Trump administration just released contains enormous cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention domestic programs. In a word, it is positively savage. Some of the highlights:

• The Trump budget cuts $846 billion from Medicare over 10 years

• It cuts $241 billion from Medicaid

• It turns Medicaid into block grants, capping the amount each state receives, which when the money runs out would result in pared-back benefits, recipients being tossed off the program, or both

• It cuts $26 billion from Social Security

• It imposes work requirements on recipients of food stamps, Medicaid, and housing assistance, forcing them to navigate a bureaucratic maze or lose their benefits

• It cuts $220 billion from food stamps

• It cuts $1.1 trillion from domestic discretionary programs, which does not include Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security

• It cuts the Department of Housing and Urban Development by 16 percent and the Department of Education by 12 percent

• It cuts the EPA by 31 percent

In short, it’s Paul Ryan’s dream come true.

Whenever Trump talked about protecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, any sane person could tell he didn’t believe it out of some personal conviction about our mutual obligations to one another. It was a purely political calculation, and a smart one at that. Republicans’ greatest political problem is the widespread perception that they only care about the welfare of the rich, so Trump presented himself as a populist who cared about the common folk and would advocate for them.

As president he has done nothing of the sort, of course. In fact, there may be no president in modern history who has worked so hard for those at the top, combining tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations with an agenda of ruthless regulatory rollback whose targets are any regulations that protect consumers, workers, or people who enjoy breathing air and drinking water. If anything, since becoming president, Trump has only proven that he’s a different kind of Republican in ways that are damaging — going even further than most Republicans are willing to go on immigration and destructively upending our trade relationships, while going all in with the very worst aspects of the Republican philosophy of government on taxes and spending.

What makes this all the remarkable, however, is that it comes right after Paul Ryan and Republicans lost control of the House, in a referendum on all the ways in which Trump has implemented his own version of Republican rule.

Consider: The midterm elections were all about Trump’s immigration agenda, the Trump/GOP effort to repeal Obamacare, and the massive GOP tax giveaway to corporations that Trump signed. And Democrats won the House in their largest victory since Watergate.

This is the first Trump budget that has come after that public verdict on Trump/GOP rule. Yet on one front after another, it blithely ignores that verdict.

Trump is seeking an additional $8.6 billion for his border wall — after making the election all about the border (he even sent in the military as a campaign prop), and after losing a government shutdown battle over this same topic, one in which majorities firmly sided with Democrats.

Trump is seeking to block-grant Medicaid and impose work requirements — after an election in which Democrats routed Republicans in districts across the country by campaigning on a vow to protect Obamacare, which of course includes an open-ended expansion of Medicaid in states that have opted in.

And the Trump budget would make the tax cuts he signed permanent — after Republicans suffered a dramatic repudiation at the polls, despite their effort to sell those tax cuts as their primary accomplishment of the Trump era. Those tax cuts, of course, have led to an explosion of the deficit, repudiating GOP economic theory. Yet this budget only doubles down on that thinking and the broader set of priorities embedded in them, deeply cutting spending to help fund tax cuts and his border wall, even as his budget would produce trillion-dollar deficits in coming years.

“His budget doesn’t adapt to new political realities,” Joel Friedman, vice president for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told us. “It adheres to the same structure that we’ve seen from Congressional Republican budgets dating back to Paul Ryan — tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in programs that provide core public services, and cuts to the safety net that are assisting the most vulnerable.”

This budget appears to enshrine the notion that the 2018 elections never happened. Which may be exactly the point.

Paul Waldman is an opinion writer for the Plum Line blog. Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog. He joined The Post in2010, after stints at Talking Points Memo, New York Magazine and the New York Observer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.