Trump’s plan to destroy science, education, and veterans’ health care

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
85,409
Reputation
3,531
Daps
150,638
Reppin
Brooklyn
Bryce Covert
Economic Policy Editor at ThinkProgress. Contact me: bcovert@thinkprogress.org
Sep 16
Trump’s plan to destroy science, education, and veterans’ health care
Scientists, educators, veterans, air travelers: look out.

1*owblGQqA0NKkc4hINUVEOg.jpeg

Donald Trump outlining his plan at the Economic Club of New York. CREDIT: AP Photo/ Evan Vucci

Tucked into the details of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’srevamped tax and economic package is something that sounds benign: the “Penny Plan.”

It seems simple and maybe even, to some, smart. To reduce spending — in an effort to pay for all of the other costly things he proposes, like big tax cuts — Trump promises to institute a rule that would cut everything that doesn’t go to the military, Social Security, or Medicare by 1 percent each year. That, the campaign claims, would reduce spending by nearly $1 trillion over a decade “without touching defense or entitlement spending.”

But the programs that would feel the knife serve a huge variety of vital purposes — and have already swallowed huge cuts.

Non-defense discretionary spending, the category targeted by Trump, is an enormous bucket encompassing programs that do many different things. The money goes to domestic violence shelters. It funds scientific and medical research through agencies like the National Cancer Institute. Some of it goes to education and childcare, particularly for low-income and disabled students. Air travel depends on it. National parks operate with it, as do harbors and waterways. Low-income families get support for housing. The homebound elderly get nutrition through Meals on Wheels.

It even includes things that have been prioritized by Trump, such as border patrol and the veteran health care system.

The amount of money going to fund these programs is already significantly whittled down. It’s currently equivalent to about 3.3 percent of GDP, just barely above the lowest share it’s ever gotten. A big culprit here is the automatic budget cuts that Congress instituted in 2011 as part of its failure to reach a budget agreement, known as sequestration. The caps on spending have wreaked havoc on these programs’ ability to function.

Trump’s plan would make things much, much worse. A new report from the Center on Budget Priorities (CBPP) quantifies just how much of a bite Trump’s penny plan would take. Under his plan, after a decade these programs would have to operate with funding that’s 29 percent lower than what they currently get.


1*Sle9X0CYDevliaISLri0Og.png

And that’s not even the whole picture. The cuts would come on top of and compound the pain of sequestration. That means that, between sequestration’s budget caps and the penny plan, these programs would get 37 percent less funding by 2026 than they did in 2010.

“They add up to a lot of money,” said Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the CBPP and a co-author of the report. “These are not trivial portions of this category of spending.”

If a President Trump decided that some of these programs are important enough to protect from cuts — say, perhaps, sparing the Transportation Security Administration so lines at airports don’t stretch indefinitely — the rest of the programs would have to undergo even deeper reductions to make up for it. “The cut everywhere else has to get deeper, much deeper and very quickly,” Kogan said.

And while spending on non-defense programs is already near the lowest share they’ve ever gotten, it would dip below that record if Trump got his way. By 2026, their share of funding would drop to about 2 percent of GDP, a third below the existing record low. Even under Presidents Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, it never got below 3.3 percent of GDP.

Things could get even worse than the CBPP’s report predicts, however. Earlier this month, Trump said he would call on Congress to lift sequestration’s budget caps on defense spending. If no other changes to existing policy were made, that would mean these non-defense programs would have to shoulder the entire burden of sequestration’s cuts.

Kogan could only estimate, but that could mean cuts going almost a third deeper than what he found in his report, cutting non-defense spending by close to 40 percent over a decade.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-wou...-security-or-medicare-15103b2da426#.ci2oapxcr
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
85,409
Reputation
3,531
Daps
150,638
Reppin
Brooklyn
THE FINANCIAL PAGE
OCTOBER 17, 2016 ISSUE
TRUMP’S OTHER TAX PLOY
Whatever tax savings the candidate has managed to finagle over the years are dwarfed by what the richest Americans can look forward to if he wins.


By James Surowiecki



ILLUSTRATION BY CHRISTOPH NIEMANN

The revelation that Donald Trump’s business losses in the mid-nineties may have enabled him to avoid paying federal income tax for nearly two decades may be the biggest “October surprise” of any recent Presidential campaign. But the substance of it was no surprise at all. When, in the first debate, Hillary Clinton challenged him about years in which he may not have paid federal taxes, he boasted, “That makes me smart.” And his real-estate empire, such as it is, was built on exploiting just about every government tax abatement, credit, and subsidy available.

Still, whatever tax savings Trump has finagled over the years are dwarfed by the huge tax break he plans to give wealthy Americans if he wins. According to the Tax Foundation, Trump’s tax plan would boost the after-tax income of the top one per cent by ten to sixteen per cent, while average households would gain only between .08 and 1.9 per cent. He would lower the estate tax, which only the rich pay. He would slash the corporate tax rate by more than half, to fifteen per cent, and has said that any business would be able to take advantage of that lower rate, even so-called pass-through corporations, whose profits are typically taxed via personal income taxes rather than via corporate taxes. That would mean a huge windfall for, among others, hedge-fund and private-equity managers.

None of this is shocking, given Trump’s obvious affection for paying as little in taxes as possible. But it’s worth noting how oddly tax cuts for the wealthy fit with the rest of his campaign. Trump has presented himself as an outsider sticking up for the ordinary voter against fat cats and special interests, and, as he says, “taking on big business and big media and big donors.” He has burnished his populist credentials by challenging G.O.P. orthodoxy on issues like trade and immigration, while promising to protect Social Security and Medicare. Yet his tax plan follows conventional Republican supply-side economics: hefty tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations, and blind faith that cutting marginal tax rates will drive growth.

This ploy—Palin in the streets, Reagan in the balance sheets—is a crucial part of Trump’s strategy for winning in November. No matter how much his core supporters love him, he has no chance unless he can persuade traditional Republicans, many of whom would have preferred a more traditional candidate, to turn out. There’s little that this base cares about more than cutting taxes, an issue that has taken on the status of a moral creed. In 2012, the Republican platform stated, “Taxes, by their very nature, reduce a citizen’s freedom.” Trump’s tax plan signals to conservatives that he is ultimately on their side.

There are political risks to Trump’s embrace of supply-siderism. After all, more than sixty per cent of Americans think that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. And his plan will only reinforce the image of the Republican Party as the home of rich people, something that has already started to worry a few Republicans, known as reformocons. “There are a lot of voters who look at Republican politicians and say that all they care about is cutting taxes for rich people,” Michael Strain, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told me. Strain and other reformocons think that the Party could draw new supporters if it started thinking creatively about using tax credits and subsidies to incentivize work, education, and long-term investment.

But, though Trump’s tax plan may not attract many independents, let alone Democrats, it’s unlikely to bother the white working-class voters who are his most ardent fans. Few voters pay attention to the small print of tax proposals, which makes it easier for tax-cut proponents to put their policies in the best possible light, as Trump is doing by insisting that cutting taxes for the rich is really all about boosting employment. “The wealthy are going to create tremendous jobs,” he said in the first debate. More fundamentally, polls show that taxes just aren’t an emotive issue for most voters. As long as Trump’s working-class supporters believe that he’s with them on the issues they care about most—bringing back jobs, keeping immigrants out—no tax policy will drive them away.

Put simply, white working-class voters are willing to tolerate a handout to the rich in exchange for the rest of Trump’s ideological agenda, while the Republican establishment is willing to elect an ethno-nationalist populist in exchange for tax cuts. The fact that more than eighty per cent of registered Republicans now say they’ll vote for Trump demonstrates that, as long as a candidate can be counted on to bring taxes down, traditional Republicans will overlook any number of heresies and offensive statements. Coming out against free trade and open borders, defending entitlements, attacking veterans, cozying up to foreign autocrats, indulging in openly racist and xenophobic rhetoric: none of these things have hurt Trump with the vast majority of Republican voters and politicians. If he had wavered on tax cuts, it would have been a very different story. Trump may be the most politically incorrect man in America, but even he knows that there are some taboos you can’t violate. ♦

Trump’s Other Tax Ploy
 

Trece

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
4,660
Reputation
588
Daps
15,331
Reppin
Los Angeles
Bryce Covert
Economic Policy Editor at ThinkProgress. Contact me: bcovert@thinkprogress.org
Sep 16
Trump’s plan to destroy science, education, and veterans’ health care
Scientists, educators, veterans, air travelers: look out.

1*owblGQqA0NKkc4hINUVEOg.jpeg

Donald Trump outlining his plan at the Economic Club of New York. CREDIT: AP Photo/ Evan Vucci

Tucked into the details of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’srevamped tax and economic package is something that sounds benign: the “Penny Plan.”

It seems simple and maybe even, to some, smart. To reduce spending — in an effort to pay for all of the other costly things he proposes, like big tax cuts — Trump promises to institute a rule that would cut everything that doesn’t go to the military, Social Security, or Medicare by 1 percent each year. That, the campaign claims, would reduce spending by nearly $1 trillion over a decade “without touching defense or entitlement spending.”

But the programs that would feel the knife serve a huge variety of vital purposes — and have already swallowed huge cuts.

Non-defense discretionary spending, the category targeted by Trump, is an enormous bucket encompassing programs that do many different things. The money goes to domestic violence shelters. It funds scientific and medical research through agencies like the National Cancer Institute. Some of it goes to education and childcare, particularly for low-income and disabled students. Air travel depends on it. National parks operate with it, as do harbors and waterways. Low-income families get support for housing. The homebound elderly get nutrition through Meals on Wheels.

It even includes things that have been prioritized by Trump, such as border patrol and the veteran health care system.

The amount of money going to fund these programs is already significantly whittled down. It’s currently equivalent to about 3.3 percent of GDP, just barely above the lowest share it’s ever gotten. A big culprit here is the automatic budget cuts that Congress instituted in 2011 as part of its failure to reach a budget agreement, known as sequestration. The caps on spending have wreaked havoc on these programs’ ability to function.

Trump’s plan would make things much, much worse. A new report from the Center on Budget Priorities (CBPP) quantifies just how much of a bite Trump’s penny plan would take. Under his plan, after a decade these programs would have to operate with funding that’s 29 percent lower than what they currently get.


1*Sle9X0CYDevliaISLri0Og.png

And that’s not even the whole picture. The cuts would come on top of and compound the pain of sequestration. That means that, between sequestration’s budget caps and the penny plan, these programs would get 37 percent less funding by 2026 than they did in 2010.

“They add up to a lot of money,” said Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the CBPP and a co-author of the report. “These are not trivial portions of this category of spending.”

If a President Trump decided that some of these programs are important enough to protect from cuts — say, perhaps, sparing the Transportation Security Administration so lines at airports don’t stretch indefinitely — the rest of the programs would have to undergo even deeper reductions to make up for it. “The cut everywhere else has to get deeper, much deeper and very quickly,” Kogan said.

And while spending on non-defense programs is already near the lowest share they’ve ever gotten, it would dip below that record if Trump got his way. By 2026, their share of funding would drop to about 2 percent of GDP, a third below the existing record low. Even under Presidents Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, it never got below 3.3 percent of GDP.

Things could get even worse than the CBPP’s report predicts, however. Earlier this month, Trump said he would call on Congress to lift sequestration’s budget caps on defense spending. If no other changes to existing policy were made, that would mean these non-defense programs would have to shoulder the entire burden of sequestration’s cuts.

Kogan could only estimate, but that could mean cuts going almost a third deeper than what he found in his report, cutting non-defense spending by close to 40 percent over a decade.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-wou...-security-or-medicare-15103b2da426#.ci2oapxcr


Wow we better vote Hillary Brehs!!

Next you will be posting articles titled "Trump plans to destroy Earth with giant laser".
 
Top