DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Trump's Budget is Out ..let the spin begin

Who Wins and Loses in Trump’s Proposed Budget



By ALICIA PARLAPIANO and GREGOR AISCH UPDATED MARCH 16, 2016

President Trump released a partial outline of his 2018 budget on Thursday, proposing billions of dollars in spending cuts to most government agencies to pay for large increases in military and homeland security spending, resulting in a 1.2 percent cut in discretionary spending over all. Related Article





Discretionary spending, in billions



Agency


2017 baseline


2018 proposal


Change


Pct. change



Environmental Protection Agency

$8.2

$5.7

–$2.6

–31%


State and other development programs

38.0

27.1

–10.9

–29%


Agriculture

22.6

17.9

–4.7

–21%


Labor

12.2

9.6

–2.5

–21%


Justice

20.3

16.2

–4.0

–20%


Health and Human Services

77.7

65.1

–12.6

–16%


Commerce

9.2

7.8

–1.5

–16%


Education

68.2

59.0

–9.2

–14%


Transportation

18.6

16.2

–2.4

–13%


Housing and Urban Development

36.0

31.7

–4.3

–12%


Interior

13.2

11.6

–1.5

–12%


Energy

29.7

28.0

–1.7

–6%


Treasury

11.7

11.2

–0.5

–4%


NASA

19.2

19.1

–0.2

–1%


Veterans Affairs

74.5

78.9

+4.4

+6%


Homeland Security

41.3

44.1

+2.8

+7%


Defense

521.7

574.0

+52.3

+10%


Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Totals are shown for fiscal years, which begin in October. They reflect base budget levels for each department, which do not include supplemental money for disaster relief, emergencies or additional war spending. They do include offsetting receipts and proposed changes in mandatory programs (CHIMPS) that are used to offset discretionary spending.


The proposal would also eliminate funding for nearly 20 smaller independent agencies, including the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corporation, which finances legal aid groups.


The blueprint does not include tax proposals or other revenue ideas, and outlines only proposals for discretionary spending, which is money appropriated annually by Congress. Discretionary spending makes up less than one-third of all federal spending. It does not include interest payments on the federal debt or so-called mandatory spending on large programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.



Environmental Protection Agency



$5.7 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$2.6 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–31%

Pct. change


The E.P.A. is among the hardest-hit agencies. The budget calls for the elimination of about 3,200 staff positions — over 20 percent of the department. It would also eliminate all funding for enactment of the Clean Power Plan, the regulations designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. It would also discontinue funding for climate change research and international climate change programs.

The budget would slightly increase funding on drinking and wastewater infrastructure, including a $4 million increase for the State Revolving Funds, which are meant to ensure clean water for local communities and prevent contaminated drinking-water crises like the one in Flint, Mich. —  CORAL DAVENPORT



State and other development programs



$27.1 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$10.9 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–29%

Pct. change


Diplomacy and development would be hit hard. The prime target: the United Nations. Climate-change initiatives at the United Nations would lose all their U.S. funding. The government would cut back its regular contribution to the U.N. and would pay no more than 25 percent of the cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations.

The budget would hit multilateral development banks, like the World Bank, which would be trimmed by $650 million over three years, and cultural programs, like the East-West Center in Honolulu. However, it would safeguard the Fulbright Program. And Israel’s $3.1 billion in annual military aid would be untouched. —  MARK LANDLER



Agriculture



$17.9 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$4.7 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–21%

Pct. change


President Trump wants to reduce funding for the department by making cuts to the National Forest System and by eliminating loan and grant programs for water and sewage systems. The budget would provide $6.2 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, which helps low income families, while making no cuts to the Food Safety and Inspection Service. It continues funding the department’s farmer-focused and competitive research programs. —  YAMICHE ALCINDOR



Labor



$9.6 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$2.5 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–21%

Pct. change


President Trump wants to scale back on a number of job training programs, including those aimed at helping seniors, disadvantaged young people and unemployed Americans. The budget also would help states expand apprenticeship programs and training for disabled workers, while eliminating some training grants for occupational safety and health administration. —  YAMICHE ALCINDOR



Justice



$16.2 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$4 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–20%

Pct. change


President Trump wants to cut this budget, even as he steps up border enforcement, hires more immigration judges and slightly increases the F.B.I. budget. Most of the cuts come from a budget maneuver in which funds classified as “mandatory,” like for the Crime Victims Fund, are reduced in order to offset discretionary spending. His budget also relies on cuts to prison construction, which the administration says can be accomplished because of the decline in the prison population under President Obama.

One budget item to watch: Mr. Trump wants to hire 20 lawyers to obtain land in the Southwest, foreshadowing bitter legal fights with landowners from Texas to California over the seizure of private property. —  MATT APUZZO



Health and Human Services



$65.1 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$12.6 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–16%

Pct. change


The budget makes significant cuts to the department’s spending, by eliminating $4.2 billion in community services programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It also proposes to cut spending at the National Institutes of Health by $5.8 billion, or about 18 percent. This proposal is a nonstarter in Congress as evidenced by bipartisan support for the Cures Act, a biomedical research bill signed in December. Mr. Trump’s proposal includes 21 percent more spending for the Cures Act, about a $200 million increase over 2017. —  ROBERT PEAR



Commerce



$7.8 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$1.5 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–16%

Pct. change


The budget eliminates the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s grants and programs for coastal and marine management, research and education and eliminates the Minority Business Development Agency, which supports minority-owned businesses. It also scales back export promotion, beefs up trade enforcement and provides $100 million more for the 2020 Census. —  YAMICHE ALCINDOR



Education



$59 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$9.2 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–14%

Pct. change


The budget illustrates a full-throated support for school choice programs championed by Education Secretary Betsy Devos. It includes a $1.4 billion increase for public and private school choice programs while eliminating funding for before- and after-school and summer programs. Federal work-study would also be “significantly reduced” while the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, which is reserved for college students with the greatest need for financial aid, would also be eliminated. Funding to historically black colleges would remain the same. —  YAMICHE ALCINDOR



Transportation



$16.2 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$2.4 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–13%

Pct. change


President Trump wants to initiate the privatization of the nation’s air traffic control operations, a proposal championed by the chairman of the House Transportation Committee. The budget also calls for reduced subsidies to Amtrak, including the reduction of all federal support for its long-distance train services. And it would eliminate funding entirely for a program that subsidizes commercial air flights from rural airports — a proposal likely to find opposition among both Democrats and Republicans representing those rural areas. —  NICHOLAS FANDOS



Housing and Urban Development



$31.7 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$4.3 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–12%

Pct. change


The budget would eliminate the Community Development Block Grant Program, which funds local improvement efforts and anti-poverty programs, and cut funding for rental assistance and homeownership programs and affordable housing initiatives. —  YAMICHE ALCINDOR



Interior



$11.6 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$1.5 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–12%

Pct. change


The budget would increase funding for programs that drill for oil and gas on public lands and cut funding for programs such as the National Heritage Areas and the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. It would cut $120 million from a program that acquires new federal lands. —  CORAL DAVENPORT



Energy



$28 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$1.7 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–6%

Pct. change


While the president’s request would cut the agency’s current level, it would give an increase of $1.4 billion, or 11 percent, to the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is focused on managing the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal. It would also include $120 million to restart licensing of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada, which had been frozen by the Obama administration.

The budget would cut or eliminate programs to support research of breakthrough clean energy technology, including the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program. However, members of both parties in Congress have supported those programs, and it is unlikely that they will agree to eliminate them entirely. —  CORAL DAVENPORT



Treasury



$11.2 billion

2018 proposal


⬇︎–$0.5 billion

Change from 2017


⬇︎–4%

Pct. change


The department responsible for printing America’s money would be receiving less of it. The main target is the Internal Revenue Service, which has already faced deep budget cuts in recent years. According to the proposal, its enforcement and tax-collecting capabilities would not be hindered. Savings would be found by diverting resources from old, paper-based systems. —  ALAN RAPPEPORT



Veterans Affairs



$78.9 billion

2018 proposal


⬆︎+$4.4 billion

Change from 2017


⬆︎+6%

Pct. change


This department does well under President Trump’s budget. Most of the money is earmarked for veterans’ health care programs. Notably, the budget funds the extension of the Veterans Choice Program, which has increased options for veterans seeking care outside of V.A. facilities when they are unable to provide timely care. The program is set to expire in August. The budget blueprint also calls for continued investment to improve the department’s claims system and for badly needed I.T. infrastructure. —  NICHOLAS FANDOS



Homeland Security



$44.1 billion

2018 proposal


⬆︎+$2.8 billion

Change from 2017


⬆︎+7%

Pct. change


About $2.6 billion would be dedicated for border security technology and infrastructure, including the early stages of a wall between the United States and Mexico. The budget sets aside $314 million to hire and train 500 Border Patrol agents and 1,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel next year. Another $1.5 billion would go toward supporting the detention and removal of illegal immigrants.

The budget makes no mention of the Coast Guard. —  NICHOLAS FANDOS



Defense



$574 billion

2018 proposal


⬆︎+$52.3 billion

Change from 2017


⬆︎+10%

Pct. change


It’s unclear exactly how all of the increases would be distributed. Some of the money would go to accelerating the fight against the Islamic State, and to pay for more warships and fighter jets.

President Trump will face difficulty getting this proposal through Congress, where the threat of automatic spending cuts known as sequestration has acted as a brake on military spending. And many American military officials — the defense secretary included — have denounced efforts to cut foreign aid in favor of more defense spending. Many foreign aid programs, those officials say, contribute to global stability and are seen as important in helping avoid future conflicts. —  HELENE COOPER

so...slash everything, balloon the defense budget.

how is any of this gonna work combined with the fact that they are gonna slash tax rates like a going out of business sale?

Least we will have shiny new military toys . Oh ! and a big new wall to keep out the boogey men . Not a bad time to be a military contractor though .

this would make Cheney proud.

I just don't understand it.

I watched the News tonight and it was one negative after another after another.

Why would my Trumpster put out a budget that was completely negative and without anything that was positive or good for America?

Hard to understand my man. Perhaps it is Hate.

Perhaps Putin wrote it.

Oh it is positive for some not so good for others and downright horrible for some . It'll get sliced and diced and tweaked like it always is every time a President trots one of these things out .

Well then you seem to be a mite understanding so I will ask you...

Over my many years of life and history learning, I do not understand what my Trump is doing. So many of the posters on these boards have assured me that Trump is a Fascist Dictator but I ain't never heard of a Dictator submitting a budget afore. Ain't he supposed to just say what he wants and it becomes law?

Why if I didn't trust the judgement of my fellow posters, I would think he is working within the system like some kind of patriotic American!

What gives?

Cuts UN funding by 50%, or so I read ... if true? ...

Totally de-funds NPR, PBS, and the National Endowment for the Arts; if what I read was true ...

This is a five star post.

J/C ......

Conservatives have been complaining, for years and years, about the growth in the size of the federal government.

Finally a President actually starts cutting the size of the federal government, and many are still unhappy.

He wanted an increase in military spending, in accord with his campaign promises, and it's paid for.

I have no problem with telling the heads of federal agencies to tighten their belts, and make do with less, just as American families have to do all the time. The budget cannot keep expanding as it does.

I saw lots of positives in the cuts. Actually they could have went further. Totally against the defense budget increase and homeland security increase. I knew he would increase those two areas based on election campaign. Basically had to accept them as it is impossible to be 100% satisfied with a candidate. Granted I am only about 50% satisfied, but that was quadruple my contentment with HRC.

More for war, defense? We already out spend every nation on the planet many times over. But whatever.

Nothing-nada-zip even mentioned on infrastructure!!! Nothing! BOOOOO!


This is a horrible budget. America last is what this is.

Yeah and he could cut the size of the gov't in half if he'd eliminate the EPA, the USPS, and the IRS. There all useless an lose billions of dollars a year anyways. But no we'll keep these losers going on forever.

This budget is going to be met with resistance from all sides.... now just try to get on with the business of separating the facts from the BS as it gets broken down and dissected.

My first blush opinion is that I think some of the cuts are way too deep in some areas and the increases in military spending I just don't get....

The same boogy men who whacked 130 people in Paris and Saint Denis in 2015. Put your head in the sand ( or wherever you keep it) but the facts say diligence and preparedness are in order.

Currently 54% of our discretionary budget is spent on defense, of all global military spending we account for about 40% of it, if we can't be "diligent and prepared" for the $520 Billion we spend on defense and the $44 Billion we spend on homeland security... against an enemy that is a loosely concocted rag-tag group of misfits, then we suck at it.

There once was a very powerful nation that devoted almost all of its resources to military power and sacrificed all social and economic programs in that effort.... Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are the ones who get a lot of the credit for causing that nation to fail and collapse... and if you think that can't happen here, think again.

There is NO AMOUNT OF MILITARY SPENDING that is going to prevent the occasional isolated successful terror attack, it's just not possible. The way the terrorists win is if:

1. We spend all of our time in fear of them.
2. We sacrifice our way of life because we fear them.

And we are on the path of making them successful on both fronts.

I hear you bro. But nothing on infrastructure? Nothing?

His team said their infrastructure plan would come in August. Post-healthcare and tax legislation... So yeah, right after August recess.

His team didn't include infrastructure because they don't know where the money will come from. This is so typical of republicans and trump. Spoon feed the masses and see what they think is good or bad. This budget bill will be dead on arrival the way it stands. This is just wrong. Poor planning and forecasting at so many levels.

President Trumps effects on deregulation have done everything from setting up a regulatory reform task force to find ineffective rules to rolling back old unnecessary rules.

Congress is working with the President by using a little known authority that allows them to reverse regulations put into effect since last June.

So how much difference does all this make?

-It has saved $50 Billion dollars in long term compliance costs.

-46 Million man hours of paperwork.

-Jay Timmons of the National Assn. of Manufactures says it is a cumulative total saving of $2.3 Trillion dollars and that is just one sector of industry.



As far as the Military spending issue, Trump said during the campaign that he wanted a large and strong Military that no one would ever even think of messing with, therefor there will be no need to ever use it.

And get ready for billions of dollars of losses when all the class action law suits are awarded for polluting our waters and air.

I gotta give the man credit. You can tell he's no career politician. But he was still able to cut the living crap out of the budget, further overfund the military, and still save the US people a marginal amount of money. Unlike a career politician who wouldn't even bother with cutting the overall budget and would just redirect the money to themselves.

Why do you think the republicans are trying to do away with class action lawsuits?
As another poster would say, ....1+1=.....2 ..... *L*................

Trump being a businessman looks at government like he just took over a large business. He is asking questions like, "Why does The NIH have 7 buildings where their work overlaps when 3 buildings would serve all their purposes?"

It will be a whole new ballgame coming from Washington.

When did Trump ask this question? Who was he asking?

That is a perfectly logical question to ask... as long as Trump listens to the answer from the folks who actually KNOW what the purpose of NIH really is.. because I'm pretty sure neither Trump, nor any of his appointees have the foggiest clue about all of the stuff that NIH does.

My whole concern with this is, who is defining what is "old unnecessary rules".... If the bulk of his advice is coming from those who stand to make the most profit from rolling them back, and my assumption is that is exactly where it's coming from, then I seriously doubt that advice is taking into consideration the potential long term detrimental effects..


1. We pretty much already have that.
2. It could have been achieved through efficiency and technology without increasing the budget.

If Trump was the businessman that people say he is, and he owned the single largest and most awesome casino in the world that could CRUSH any other casino... he wouldn't spend a ton of money to make it bigger and better... he would just look for ways to make it more profitable.. he's not applying his own business logic to the military.

I can understand your concerns with the effects of eliminating the "unnecessary" rules. We will have our answer to that one in time.

As far as the Military issue, Trump has been making strides in lowering costs in addition to the budget.


Chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh says, "The Air Force has 12 entire fleets of aircraft that qualify for antique license plates in Virginia.

Our B-52 bomber fleet is older than most of us and the Air Force is trying to keep them flying into 2040 if at all possible.

The U.S. Army is ranked "weak" and the other branches of services "marginal" when it comes to military power, according a new think tank report.

Overall, American military power is just "marginal" and trending toward "weak," according to the 2017 Index of U.S. Military Power, released Wednesday by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. The scores are based on the military's "capability or modernity, capacity for operations, and readiness to handle assigned missions successfully," the document states.

The group's Army assessment is the same from last year (the index began in 2015) and stems from the service's decision to decrease the size of the force and delay equipment upgrades to improve readiness -- yet only a third of its units are prepared for war, according to the document.

"Even for units deployed abroad, the Army has had to increase its reliance on contracted support to meet maintenance requirements," the report states. "In summary, the Army is smaller, older, and weaker, a condition that is unlikely to change in the near future."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/16/us-army-ranked-weak-in-new-think-tank-report.html

Infrastructure is largely local and state owned pieces. Yes there is some federal pieces and the feds need to find those repairs but the local and state problems need financed by locals and state. When your house needs repaired you can't go to Unca Sugar to fix you own problems.

Wow, the majority of his supporters are about to get screwed over. And for what? To increase defense spending?

How is this a good thing? You guys want to sacrifice americas quality of life just to build more bombs? So much stupidity. but if course Trunp supporters, as well as YTowns fence riding ass, love this budget plan. He loves the uneducated, after all.

Rural America and farm sector to take a hit with Trump's budget plan

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rural-america-farm-sector-hit-192500853.html

CNBC
Jeff Daniels
CNBCMarch 16, 2017

Rural America and the farming region where President Donald Trump found some of his strongest support would take a big hit under the White House's fiscal 2018 budget blueprint.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were critical of the plan's cuts to rural and farm programs.

In particular, the U.S. Department of Agriculture would see a whopping 21 percent cut in discretionary spending, including reduced funding for water programs, statistical areas and staffing of its local Farm Service Agency offices around the country. There would be cutbacks in discretionary activities in rural development and rural business too.
Trump's election showed he had strong support in the nation's heartland and key farming regions. Rural areas facing economic hardship due to lower crop prices and weaker farmer incomes turned out in big numbers for Trump.
"Our members across the country know that we have to balance the budget," said John Newton, director of market intelligence for the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest farm organization. But the trade organization still opposes cuts to agricultural programs.
According to the so-called skinny budget, Trump requests $17.9 billion in discretionary spending, or a $4.7 billion decrease from the annualized continuing resolution level of government funding.
House Ag Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson of Minnesota said the cuts in USDA are bad for the heartland. "It demonstrates a lack of understanding of farm programs and their impact on rural America," he said.
Added Peterson, "Cuts to the water and wastewater loan program are wrongly portrayed as duplicative when they are the only ways for small rural communities to update their waste systems. County offices are already understaffed and further cuts would mean private organizations would be tasked with helping farmers navigate farm programs. Again, it's a general lack of understanding of what really takes place in rural America."
USDA is still operating with an acting deputy running the department. Former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue was nominated for the Agriculture secretary post but still hasn't been confirmed.
"I hope once an Agriculture secretary is in place that he will be able to explain the value of these programs and services," said Peterson, who is a member of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) also was critical of the Trump plan to slash USDA's budget.
"I am concerned that the cuts, while relatively small in the context of the total federal budget, could hamper some vital work of the department," Conaway said. "I think it is very important to remember that net farm income is down 50 percent from where it stood just four years ago. America's farmers and ranchers are struggling, and we need to be extremely careful not to exacerbate these conditions."
A spokesperson for the USDA said they had no further information to share on details of the budget blueprint or cuts. "The details of the budget should be forthcoming in the next few weeks," the official said in an email response.
Mandatory programs under the USDA such as food stamps, or the federal government's nutrition assistance program, represented more than 80 percent of the department's $156 billion in spending during 2016. Mandatory programs also include child nutrition and school lunch programs.
The Trump administration's fiscal 2018 budget blueprint document said the cuts in discretionary spending at USDA's farm agency centers will streamline county office operations and "re­flect reduced rural development workload, and encourage private sector conservation planning." The USDA operates more than 2,100 farm service centers, with a presence in nearly every rural county.
"Some of those folks [at centers] are boots on the ground representatives of the USDA across the country so that's also something that would be a concern," said Newton. He noted that the centers are located at the county level across the nation and work with individual growers on farm loan programs, marketing loans, commodity support and conservation initiatives, among other things.
While the draft budget calls for cuts in USDA's statistical capabilities, it also said the department would maintain "core" analytical functions.
Even so, it's unclear from Trump's budget exactly where the USDA's statistics capabilities would be cut. The research staff at the department produces regular reports and statistical information about many livestock commodities, including cattle and hogs, as well as major crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat and sugar beets.
"We're not exactly sure what areas of statistics will be cut," said Newton. "But we would be very concerned because all growers rely on market information to make planting and selling and harvesting decisions."
Moreover, he said the USDA research is used to help settle markets and for price discovery to help industry participants.
Back in 2013, sequestration forced funding cuts to the USDA that resulted in the agency suspending a number of statistical estimates and reports. At the time, the agency cut one monthly cattle report and suspended data collection and survey programs for some specialty crops.
"The people at the USDA that I know are probably sweating it now," said David Maloni, chief commodity strategist at the American Restaurant Association.
Maloni said he doesn't expect any major cuts that would affect price reporting or for crop reporting. Instead, the USDA may look to cut where there's some overlap in information.
Overall, the USDA is made up of nearly 30 agencies and offices, and it has nearly 100,000 employees at more than 4,500 locations across the country and overseas. Some USDA employees work in foreign offices to help promote agricultural trade.

Calling BS. Go talk to a farmer now a days and ask him how much he's making for subsidies on corn and other produce. It won't be much. What those subsidies really go to is gigantic industrial farms that have the land area to benefit off such subsidies. I think the official stat is 75% of agriculture subsidies go to industrial farms.

We will see. That's a nasty hit the farmers have to take if this budget goes through.

Part of me feels bad for trump supporters cause they are gonna lose their healthcare coverage, lose programs that help their kids during and after school, and now rural whites might take a nasty hit with their farms. It sucks.

But then I remember: they voted for this. So now I don't even care all that much. Hope they all have lifeboats!!!

Also, and I'm directing this at everybody who talked trash about my concern with the department of education director talking about cutting food programs for low income kids. Especially you, Arch:

Mulvaney specifically cited Head Start, which runs early-childhood programs including free breakfasts for children from low-income families, as an example of an unjustified expenditure, arguing that there was no proof that children performed better in school when they weren’t hungry.

“They’re supposed to help kids who don’t get fed at home get fed so they do better in school,” Mulvaney said in discussing the purpose of Head Start programs. “Guess what? There’s no demonstrable evidence they’re actually doing that. No demonstrable evidence they’re actually helping results, helping kids do better in school, which is what, when we took your money from you, to say, ‘Look, we’re going to go spend it on an after-school program,’ the way we justified it was: ‘These programs are going to help these kids do better in school and get better jobs.’ And we can’t prove that that’s happening.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cuts-to-pover...-211630818.html


Now what? This is absolutely disgusting. Screw the kids, right Arch? We need more bombs!!!

Lets just keep going going deeper and deeper into debt ... yup ... that sounds like a WINNING PLAN ...

Looks like we're going deeper into debt anyway.

Screw those kids, right Diam?

Is that what I actually said?

Bud, you have to draw a line somewhere and I understand that. Budget cuts have to be made. But somewhere you also need to look at the cost verses the benefit.

In many cases, kids don't really have anywhere to go. Their home life may be filled with drug abuse and alcohol. Many are abused. Having after school programs and food gives them an option to keep themselves off the street. Away from the gang lifestyle. In the grand scheme of things, cutting such a program saves very little.

It's just like meals on wheels. Many of those people are mentally ill, elderly and infirmed. It's not a very expensive program. Cuts are certainly needed. But when the burden starts to fall on the elderly, poor children and the infirmed, I can't promote that.

The difference between myself and some posters is that I understand the budget is a process. I understand the fact that in all likelihood, these programs will not end because this is simply the beginning of the negotiations. I understand how this process works. But to even have these two items being as proposed cuts is simply wrong.

I have to wonder how these after school programs have helped crime fall over the past two decades. How many more gang bangers we'd have on the streets and how many more kids would go hungry or fall to drugs if they didn't have such after school programs. Some programs do benefit society and that takes just a little investment.

On November 9, I said: "There will be buyer's remorse."

So now, the poor, the neglected, the disenfranchised take it on the chin- again.



"Same as it ever was..."