The House Appropriations Committee has proposed a State Department budget with significant cuts of 14 percent. However, those proposed cuts are only half of the proposed “deep state” spending cuts in President Donald Trump’s budget outline.
WASHINGTON DC – […] The panel’s spending bill for State and Foreign Operations which includes State Department funding and other agencies and programs is $47.4 billion, an overall 17 percent cut. That figure includes $12 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding that does not count toward budget caps.
The cuts, while deep, are less severe than those proposed by President Trump in his budget. The president’s blueprint would have cut State’s funding by roughly twice as much. (read more)
It might be challenging to see what this budgetary angle is to the larger aims of the Trump administration, but the spending proposal of the Trump administration is actually targeted toward a larger objective of swamp draining. And therein, we find the entire apparatus of the administrative state, ‘deep state’, UniParty pushing back.
The State Department’s spending is the root cause of foreign government lobbying within the U.S. and within DC specifically. The larger aim to eliminate the influence of lobbying is best achieved by actually eliminating the need for the lobbying.
Cut off the source of funds the lobbyists are paid to solicit and you necessarily stop the lobbying itself. If there are no resources, financial or otherwise, for foreign governments to try and capture, there’s no reason for their lobbyists to try and influence the politicians toward their own international objectives.
This budgetary approach is, at its root purpose, specifically fundamental to understanding how President Trump is methodically putting into place a system to eliminate the corrupt influence upon elected officials in Washington DC. However, the politicians have become accustomed to the indulgences afforded to them by the outside foreign interests.
Various foreign governments spend lavishly on politicians in order to gain benefits from the U.S. Treasury and domestic policy. The politicians get rich from these expenditures and live a life filled with indulgence.
If President Trump is successful on reducing the amount of money the politicians can spend the DC swamp begins to drain. Cut off the head and the rest of the snake begins to wither.
The DC apparatus, both sides of the UniParty, will fight any reductions in spending specifically because of this reason.
[…] Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the panel’s ranking member, said the cuts harmed “critical” areas of national security.
“Diplomacy and development are critical pillars of our national security, and a 17 percent cut to these investments will only hurt the United States’ ability to help our allies, alleviate poverty and disease, and promote democratic values,” she said.
The bill maintains the same $6.1 billion for embassy security, an issue that gained prominence after the 2012 attack in Benghazi.
The bill also withholds funds from the United Nations Security Council and U.N. bodies headed by countries that support terrorism. (link)
Here’s where you insert your prior understanding of the Trump mid-East policy that withdraws U.S. financial support, and policy, for nations that engage in the advanced messaging of extremist entities (See Qatar -vs- the GCC).
Without filled coffers to apportion, senators like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, et al will not have anyone knocking on their door with *quid-pro-quo junket tickets etc. Deep State becomes less influential and politicians are forced to focus their time on U.S. best interests.
A reminder how the influence and indulgences game is played:
♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
*NOTE→ ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
Remove the money, and you remove the ENTIRE purpose of the multinational lobbying.
See how that works?