As Predicted – Washington Swamp Worried Trump Won’t Spend Enough Money…

This is one of those paradigm shift CTH predictions that many people scoffed at back in 2015/2016 when we discussed a Trump federal budget, and how Washington DC politicians would respond to a president who actually planned to cut spending.  Back in February we warned:

[…] The UniParty is going to fight hard, very hard, to retain their spending. Don’t be surprised to see GOPe “conservatives” demanding President Trump spend more money. We have been repeating this warning since he announced his bid for the presidency in 2015. (link)

Today’s headline reads “Fears Grow That Trump Could Ignore Congress on Spending“. Traditional thinking, at first glance of the headline, would be the President might ignore budgetary levels and spend more than he should. However, in reality, the paradigm shift is the exact opposite.  DC is worried that President Trump won’t spend enough money.

Let that sink in for a minute.

THAT’S a prime example of: A.) evidence of the DC UniParty; and, B.) how ridiculously dysfunctional and broken the federal budgetary and spending process has become.  DC lawmakers are now consulting attorneys and planning to sue the President and force him to spend money.

WASHINGTON – Lawmakers and activists are preparing for the possibility that President Donald Trump’s administration, in its zeal to slash the federal budget, will take the rare step of deliberately not spending all the money Congress gives it — a move sure to trigger legal and political battles.

The concern is mainly focused on the State Department, where Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has drawn criticism for failing to spend $80 million allocated by Congress to fight Russian and terrorist propaganda and for trying to freeze congressionally authorized fellowships for women and minorities. Activists and congressional officials fear such practices could take hold at other U.S. departments and agencies under Trump.

“We’ve seen just too many instances these past few months … where there is clear congressional intent and funds provided, yet an unwillingness or inability to act,” Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement to POLITICO.

Advocacy groups are consulting lawyers and gathering information on current spending and the laws that govern the budget; one nongovernmental-organization network is even surveying humanitarian organizations to gather more facts. Capitol Hill staffers are scouring the fine print of appropriations bills, hunting for loopholes that would allow the executive branch to slow down or stop spending.  (read more)

It’s bizzarro world.

Good grief. Republicans control the House and Senate.  Republicans don’t need a single Democrat to pass a budget. Not one.  The House originates a budget with a simple majority, and the Senate passes it with reconciliation (51 votes).  [That’s actually the primary and original intent of the “reconciliation” process in the senate.]

We haven’t had a federal budget in a decade.  The last federal budget was signed into law by George W. Bush in September of 2007 for fiscal year 2008.  The entire Obama presidency went two terms without a single budget ever passed by congress and signed into law.

Now, the same DC apparatus who intentionally avoided any spending restrictions during the Obama years is suing the first year Trump administration for not spending money.

spending-graph-2

♦ President Trump is proposing a 10% first year increase in defense spending.  That equals approximately $54 billion more for defense.   If you look at the income from his projected GDP growth (4% = $200 billion), you can see how easily that expenditure is covered.

♦ President Trump is proposing significant wholesale cuts to all other departments including Dept of State and EPA.  The U.S. State Department has over 70,000 employees, that alone is ridiculous.  Easily the DoS can eliminate 20% of staff, and find efficiencies well beyond those numbers.

Essentially, President Trump’s proposed budget outline (full pdf and explanation here) is a decrease of 10% per department.  Easily attainable, especially when you consider these departments have been operating at around 3% rates of growth due to nine years of base-line budget growth without a federal budget in place.

You only need to look back to 2006 to see federal spending was under $3 trillion.  Fiscal year 2008 was the last year we had a federal budget  in place.  Every year since then has been continuing resolutions, omnibus spending, debt ceiling increases and base-line budget growth (spend 3% more) based on prior year expenditures.

President Trump is the first President in 30 years to actually propose a budget that reduces spending in whole numbers from the prior year.

President Trump is proposing a reduction in actual spending, not a reduction in the rate of growth of spending. Remember, 3% of the proposed cut is just not spending more than the prior year (that’s the base-line budget growth); consequently depending on the department the actual cut is much less than 10%.

The UniParty is going to fight hard, very hard, to retain their spending.   Don’t be surprised to see GOPe “conservatives” demanding President Trump spend more money.  We have been repeating this warning since he announced his bid for the presidency in 2015.

Part IWhy Congress is not providing President Trump legislation in 2017

Part IIWhat it means when congress is not providing Trump legislation

Part IIIA possible solution to the larger problem – A Prediction.

Part IVDC Lobbyists Admit they control the legislation.

Part V –  Trump building a 21st Century “Main Street” Banking System

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Budget, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Legislation, media bias, Mike pence, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, President Trump, Professional Idiots, Tea Party, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

276 Responses to As Predicted – Washington Swamp Worried Trump Won’t Spend Enough Money…

  1. PDQ says:

    DC lawmakers are now consulting attorneys and planning to sue the President and force him to spend money.

    I wonder if PDJT is surprised by this or expected it?

    Liked by 3 people

    • maiingankwe says:

      PDQ,
      I don’t think he’s surprised at all. He knows how much they love to spend our money over frivolous things.

      Reading this reminded me of his answer on Putin sending home over 700 of our govt employees. He said, he was thankful because it’s now saving us money. We no longer have to pay their wages since they are no longer needed. I’m sure that ticked off a lot of the D.C. elite, but it sure had the forgotten man laughing.

      Back to your question though, I really do believe he is ready for their lawyers and has been for awhile. I don’t think the D.C. behavior much shocks him anymore. Newly disgusted each time? Yes, absolutely. But it just goes to show at what lengths these insidious politicians will go too.

      Liked by 7 people

      • You are so right about the Forgotten Man laughing maiingankwe.

        And cheering.

        This is something that we all need to talk about now right during an election cycle.

        Who exactly are these chuckleheads who want to spend our hard earned tax money like drunken sailors ( sorry no offense to sober, had working sailors).

        Honestly, sometimes I think these guys in Congress are trying to lose their seats.

        They could at least pretend to be on our side once in a while.

        This is an issue that almost all democrat, republicans and independent voters will be in favor.

        Spending less of our hard earned money.

        I am sure they will talk only about sick and starving babies that only the feds can save or something like that.

        But we are ready for just about any cock and bull story they send our way.

        We have been waiting for an elected official to say this and then do it for decades.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. William Ford says:

    Don’t expect to see a passed this year either. Probably never again. The Congress likes not having a budget. They spend as much as they want, when they want, for whatever they want. The Republicans are no different from the Democrats. Spending will never be contained unless there is cataclysmic event like a depression.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Joe says:

    Well, I guess the dirty little secret is out. If a government agency doesn’t spend their budget, the next years budget is automatically reduced to the amount spent.

    I would get frantic calls from government agent flunkies offering me juicy stories about fraud and abuse from OTHER government agencies…but ONLY if I did a story about their agency with the hook being I had to promote their service so they could burn through their budget before the deadline.

    Agencies you had no idea even existed.

    Every. Single. Year.

    No, I never played.

    Liked by 10 people

    • sturmudgeon says:

      Yep… in our county, if we have less snow in a season, o..ne still sees the massive snow equipment running up and down the bare highways, doing basically nothing but burning fuel and issuing paychecks

      Liked by 7 people

      • Founding Fathers Fan says:

        Unions. Doing ‘work’ that doesn’t need to be done.

        Liked by 2 people

      • maiingankwe says:

        I always wondered why it would take two to three people in one of their snow plows. One to drive, one to play with the levers and the other to make sure they stay awake even though he was usually the one sleeping? Always wondered on that.

        And around December they would all be freaking out because they were almost out of money and you know, their job is so important because they ensure everyone else gets to work safely. 🤦‍♀️ SMH.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. nimrodman says:

    Optics of this will be just fab, fab, fab for PresTrump re-election in 2020 and for Trump-endorsed America-First mid-term candidates in 2018.

    Trump Train will keep rolling over the opposition.

    Liked by 14 people

  5. nimrodman says:

    Note in the budget bar chart the extra full TRILLION dollars in the Obama years over 2006 levels. Obama’s slush fund.

    Sundance pointed out long ago that no one was going to want to pull away the punch bowl, and that there’d be great gnashing of teeth.

    Gnash time, ladies and gentlemen.

    Liked by 10 people

  6. sturmudgeon says:

    Yes, the “brain set” (not only in government) that to ‘economize’ might mean some have to do with a bit less, and actually become More Productive… not much wonder some hate this guy.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Wayne says:

    I restructured 3 major companies in the energy patch. We achieved at least a 30 reduction in headcount and improved processes and systems that would better support the companies, their customers/services, the regulatory environment and stockholders. We also changed the management structures and delayered the organization to make it more efficient. If we had not achieved all these cuts and improvements I would have considered our efforts a failure. If business can do this, I assure you that government can cut the bloated bureaucracies. But, with the RINOS, DEMS and the socialists entrenched it is difficult, but not impossible. President Trump needs more time and we need to get more RINOS out as well as replace some of the DEMS. First step is to get rid of the Management usually. For me, that would be McConnell, Ryan, Flake, Graham, Schumer, Pelosi, Corker, just to name a few. I could go on and on with a list of names. Trump also needs to clean house in his Administration. He has a few more he needs to fire, and the sooner the better. We also need two more new Conservative Supreme Court justices sooner than later.

    Liked by 13 people

  8. scott467 says:

    “It’s bizzarro world.

    Good grief. Republicans control the House and Senate. Republicans don’t need a single Democrat to pass a budget. Not one. The House originates a budget with a simple majority, and the Senate passes it with reconciliation (51 votes).”

    _______________

    All we need to know is this:

    Does DJT want us to vote out EVERY LAST Republican, or does he want us to spare anyone in particular?

    And is DJT working on primary challengers against every incumbent Republican seat in Congress, and will he be supporting and campaigning for them throughout 2018?

    Because those appear to be the two options. Especially if DJT blows the lid off the entire Uni-Party scheme to the public, so that the whole country understands just how corrupt Congress actually is.

    If we don’t have primary challengers and we just throw out every Republican incumbent, that would leave us with a Democrat majority for the next two years. The Democrats are clinically insane, so they would start impeachment proceedings the following day, and then the American People would rise up and take back their country by force.

    Or we support primary challengers against every incumbent Republican, in which case, they better be searching for viable candidates NOW.

    Somebody better have a plan… and let us know, with enough time to carry it out…

    Liked by 3 people

    • Howie says:

      On to the primary elections. I can’t wait.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Founding Fathers Fan says:

        Here’s hoping that voter turnout is massive in republican primaries. The average is a paltry 17%.
        Synonyms cheap, cruddy, deplorable, despicable, dirty, grubby, lame, lousy, mean, nasty, contemptible, pitiable, pitiful, ratty, scabby, scummy, scurvy, sneaking, sorry, wretched

        Related Words abhorrent, abominable, condemnable, detestable, execrable, hateful, loathsome, odious; disgusting, reptilian, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, revulsive; discreditable, disgraceful, dishonorable, disreputable, ignominious, shameful; base, ignoble, low, shabby, sordid, squalid, vile; blamable, censurable, reprehensible, reproachable; cowardly, craven, dastardly; unethical, unprincipled, unscrupulous

        Liked by 4 people

    • Founding Fathers Fan says:

      Step 1: Remove incumbent RINOs in the primary.

      Liked by 5 people

    • nimrodman says:

      “Does DJT want us to vote out EVERY LAST Republican, or does he want us to spare anyone in particular?

      “And is DJT working on primary challengers against every incumbent Republican seat in Congress, and will he be supporting and campaigning for them throughout 2018?”

      Scott467 – I’m sure there will be a plan. And I’m sure it’ll be made public and be a high-profile effort. It’s likely to be some umbrella group like the recent announcement of a slate of America-First candidates.

      It’s not likely to come from PresTrump directly for various reasons, one being the necessity of working with Congress in the meantime.

      But I have no doubt there will be a coordinated effort of America-First candidates, and it’ll be apparent which ones have PresTrump’s blessing even if he finds it politically astute to not come out with public endorsements. Although there’ll probably be some of that as well.

      With Bannon back at Breitbart, that’d be a good place to keep our eyes out. Someone mentioned in another comment Bannon’s public prediction or goal that “Trumpism will rule for 50 years”.

      And people on this web site have started working up lists, there’s one on the Presidential thread today.

      So it’ll all emerge. It’s early just yet.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Delilah says:

      Send George Washington back to DC to help Trump drain the swamp….

      There are 60+ million Trump voters.

      In order to fund every single primary challenger, all we need to do is send them $1, and they’d have more than enough money than they’d need to fund a run for office.

      And nobody ever misses a dollar. The only thing you’re out is five minutes of your life to mail the letter…..

      Imagine the message that would send to DC if they got inundated with George Washingtons, the guy that fought the tyranny of the elitist, King George

      Like

    • starfcker says:

      No. There is a third option, the one that makes sense. Concentrate resources, particularly presidential firepower, on races with the following criteria. Primary high profile GOPe where, a) there is a credible opponent that has upside to the incumbent. b) the incumbent is more popular in DC than with his constituents. c) where the loss of that person will instill fear in incumbents in 2020. Case study would be Jeff flake

      Like

    • Contrarymary says:

      Ummm, I’m not so sure I want him picking the candidates. He picked Rene elmers and now Luther strange against judge Roy Moore? Roy Moore is a strict constitutionalist and he is the only senator I could conceivably call honorable senator. Remember he back McCain and Paul Ryan too. I know, I know, people will say he had to but where is it written you have to back an incumbent? I never trusted Sarah palin after she backed McCain. I know she said she was fulfilling a promise, but your word is your word.

      Like

  9. nimrodman says:

    Someone upthread was complaining that our population would not hear good news such as the 3%-plus GDP because the mainstream media will not give fair coverage of PresTrump’s good news.

    All Bannon’s got to do is put out a Breitbart article with some “expert” predicting 6% GDP and the mainstream media will go ballistic and pile on with their own coverage of how “that’s ludicrous, the recent quarter was no better than 3.7% !!!”

    LOL. I’m cracking myself up.

    Liked by 17 people

  10. scott467 says:

    Sundance: “It’s bizzarro world.”

    ________________

    Good, let’s focus on that for a moment.

    It is bizarre. It’s Twilight Zone level bizarre.

    So starting with that recognition, work backwards to find out where (and why) the political-class took a detour straight out of reality into an alternate universe.

    Because they are clearly living in an alternate universe. They are operating according to a worldview, monetary system and Constitution which plainly doesn’t exist in our universe.

    Has America been subject to the equivalent of a corporate ‘hostile takeover’?

    Was there a silent coup?

    Are the ‘powers that be’ secretly operating and transacting business on the gold standard, and the fiat currency system is only maintained for appearances, which would explain why it doesn’t matter how much money is created by Fed policy, or how high the national debt goes, or how much Congress spends?

    Is the Constitution no longer in effect? Do we have a shadow government that has been in complete control for some time now, and the idea was to keep it a ‘secret’, to maintain the outward appearances of the old Constitutional government, so as not to startle or alarm the sheep, and make for a smooth transition of power to the actual (currently unknown) leaders of our country?

    That might go a long way toward reconciling the alternate universe in which our corrupt government operates with the real universe in which we live.

    .

    Like

    • RM says:

      Mr. President Trump, sir: You get rid of the CONgress crooks and we will get rid of the one’s that enable them. I give you my honor sir.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ken says:

      Has America been subject to the equivalent of a corporate ‘hostile takeover’?

      The answer is America is the “United States Corporation”. The United States was incorporated in 1871.

      Like

    • cdquarles says:

      Yes. It began shortly after the end of the Civil War. First shots fired in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. It really got going in the late 1920s and 30s. It picked up steam in the 1960s and 70s. The early 1980s were a brief reprise. It has been going full steam ahead since, up until November 2016. Our current president has advantages that Ronaldus Magnus didn’t have. It is up to us to MAGA! Let’s roll 🙂

      Like

  11. darren says:

    Here is what I don’t get: so Trump is taking a beating from just about anyone who has a voice. And not only him but his family too. The elite money want to destroy his will by treating him like dirt, hurt his business image and even treat him and his family like criminals. He has become a voice for the voiceless – simple people who can never repay him. I probably couldnot even afford to take my family to one of his resorts for a week.

    Now I could potentially see an individual willingly take this level of abuse for the good of the country as a patriot. But he is subjecting his children too this abuse too. And it’s seemingly for the voiceless masses who can never repay him. It is a frigging trip if you think about it.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Howie says:

    The Loot! Loot Season is almost here. Trump is a party pooper. The Festival of the Spending of the Loot is coming fast. The Porkaticians are licking their chops. Nothing must stand in the way of the annual looting.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. USA loves Melania says:

    Government bathroom –

    $2,000,000 and 7 years to build:

    I have 2 words in response to this: WOLLMAN RINK.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Frustrated says:

    When Congress returns, Pres Trump should (1) follow through and eliminate the congressional waiver for health care and tell the American people that if Congress won’t repeal Obamacare they should live under it like everyone else, and (2) publicly announce that we have not had a budget for at least 8 years, it is Congress’s responsibility to pass one and they have not done so. Therefore, he will not sign any omnibus spending bill or continuation budget. He will only sign a complete federal budget ( which only requires a majority vote). Put the burden back on Congress where it belongs.

    Liked by 8 people

  15. youme says:

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Howie says:

    I think republicans have less credibility than MSM and democrats.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t think that is possible they all have absolutely zero credibility. Is it possible to have less than zero credibility?

      Like

      • Contrarymary says:

        Yes it is possible. I hate the repukes more than I do the dems. If someone’s a dem, you know right up front they are corrupt communist dirtbag and they will tell you to your face what they are. The repukes pretend to be one thing and then flip when they get your vote. I find that more detestable.

        Like

  17. Howie says:

    FOX trashing Trump as usual. Had to cut the stream they are so disgusting.

    Like

  18. 30_yr_Veteran says:

    Technical budget question for any Treeper who might know the answer. If Congress fails to pass a budget and elects to use a continuing resolution for the 9th year running, how restrictive is it for the POTUS to reallocate funding between departments & agencies? e.g. can the POTUS elect to tax say the EPA to plus-up the Defense budget or reallocate 10% of funding from across the government departments and apply it toward the DHS (= wall). A little flexibility like that would be nice and serve as a lesson as to why Congress must pass a budget each year.

    Like

    • cdquarles says:

      I want to say that there is a 1974 act of Congress that precludes it. Act passed after Nixon’s resignation, if I am remembering this correctly.

      Like

    • cdquarles says:

      Oh, the business of baseline budgeting happened after that, in 1976 or 1977, again if I am remembering correctly. If there wasn’t an Act that made that possible, a continuing resolution, by itself, couldn’t make the spending automatically increase.

      Like

  19. jeans2nd says:

    FTA –
    “Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has drawn criticism for failing to spend $80 million allocated by Congress to fight Russian and terrorist propaganda”

    “Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee…”
    (The Magnitsky Act, sponsored by Russia-phobic Senator Ben Cardin. Don’t get me started…)

    “in one sign of his mentality toward federal spending, Trump thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this month for ordering the U.S. embassy in Moscow to cut its staff by hundreds of people, “because now we have a smaller payroll.” State Department officials were furious over Trump’s remarks”

    “Any attempt by Trump officials to avoid spending money on ideological grounds would face legal roadblocks”

    Get on board the Russiaphobia train, or else…

    “Jim DeMint and Mike Pence are strong allies and good friends from all earlier battles on Capitol Hill.”
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/04/28/part-iii-prediction-jim-demint-will-join-the-trump-administration/

    Jim DeMint, poltical side of the mainly policy-oriented Heritage Foundation, who has advised Pres Trump on several occasions.

    Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
    =Title X: Impoundment Control= – Impoundment Control Act provides that nothing contained in this Act, or in any amnendments made by this Act, shall be construed as: (1) asserting or conceding the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President;

    Impoundment of funds has been used since Jefferson
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Power+of+Impoundment
    Constitutional law is not my forte. However, Title X (1) seems like it could be used both ways.

    This takes us back to 1986 debate over the Balanced Budget Amendment.
    “A key issue is whether the Comptroller is an officer of Congress or an officer of the United States within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution…”

    “the Comptroller, with the advice of the Congressional Budget Office and the White House Office of Management and Budget, in effect to order the President to pull back as many billions in appropriated funds as he finds needed.”

    “The cut in any year would be determined by the Comptroller’s predictions of revenues and expenditures, based on the Comptroller’s forecasts of economic growth and other factors.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/10/us/budget-law-and-constitutional-powers.html

    But, squirrel! Congress’ hypocricy comes back to bite them.

    CONGRESSIONAL BUDGETING
    RECLAIMING CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
    THROUGH THE ‘POWER OF THE PURSE’
    Chairman Tom Price, M.D.
    2 Aug 2016

    “Earlier this year, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court in Washington, DC issued a ruling that reasserted the power of the purse as one of Congress’s most important instruments for governing. Judge Collyer ruled the Obama Administration had violated the Constitution by reimbursing health insurers for discounts on copays and deductibles under the Affordable Care Act [ACA]. Congress had expressly refused to appropriate funds for that purpose, so the administration drew resources from other accounts in the health care program. In rejecting the administration’s actions, Judge Collyer’s ruling said in part: “Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”1”

    “Following the decision, The Wall Street Journal editorial page opined: “The ruling is a vindication of the separation of powers under the Constitution, which in Article I gives Congress sole power over spending. This is a crucial check on tyranny. If a President can combine the legislative power to spend with the power to execute laws, he can ignore Congress and govern by whim.”

    “the Budget and Accounting Act (of 1921) imposed on the U.S. Constitution’s arrangement of three separate but coequal branches of government a budget procedure designed for a parliamentary system.”

    Relevant history is discussed further, culminating in
    “Programs funded this way – mainly entitlements – pay benefits directly to groups and individuals without an intervening appropriation. They spend without limit. Their totals are determined by numerous factors outside the control of Congress”

    “Control of spending, properly understood, means the power to spend or not to spend taxpayer money. Automatic/mandatory spending destroys Congress’s ability not to spend.”

    “With two-thirds of the budget no longer in the control of Congress, the so-called “power of the purse” has been effectively ceded to the Executive Branch.”

    “the simple inability of Congress to follow its own budget procedures is a de facto failure to exercise its governing authority.”

    “A complete rewrite of the Congressional Budget Act is needed”

    “the budget resolution…should define the priorities guiding its allocation of resources. It should reflect the delegation of powers between the Federal and State governments as envisioned in the Constitution.”
    http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/article-i.pdf

    Dr. Tom Price is now HHS Sec. What a tangled web we weave.
    The Congressional id10ts are trying to stop Pres Trump based on “intentions” (cue James Comey).
    President Trump has the law, a cadre of Constitutional attorneys, plus Congress’ own words on his side.
    Bitcoin on POTUS. In the meantime, pitchforks, tar, and feathers.

    Like

  20. CountryclassVulgarian says:

    I am speechless. Utterly, totally, completely, knocked-off-my-feet speechless.

    Like

  21. Liz says:

    Our public schools are ran the same way..Trying to trim the budget isn’t in their vocabulary and in fact will get you fired…The government is so screwed up I don’t know if it can ever be fixed.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s