Trump's supporters thought he would stand up for them - but his budget shows it's the opposite
By Josh Hoxie
By Josh Hoxie
The
political theater that passes for serious policy debate is about to run into an
unfortunate reality as Donald Trump’s budget plan comes face to face with its
arch-nemesis: arithmetic.
It’s
impossible to cut taxes, increase spending, and balance the
budget. That’s not political bluster. That’s math.
Throughout
the campaign and since, Trump promised to invest in infrastructure, pass an
enormous tax cut, boost military spending, cut “waste, fraud, and abuse,” and
protect Social Security and Medicare — and, of course, balance the budget.
This
rhetoric has been remarkably effective, the presidential equivalent of offering
free ponies for everyone — but even less practical.
 |
| "OMG...you're going to cut things I care about!!!" |
According
to public opinion polls, Americans believe nearly a third of the budget goes to
international aid. In reality, it’s less than 1 percent.
A survey of Fox News viewers from 2013
showed nearly half believed most federal debt could be eliminated by “cutting
waste and fraud.” It can’t.
Out
of a nearly $4 trillion annual federal budget, about $3.4 trillion is spent on
things that either can’t be cut or Trump has promised he doesn’t want to cut.
This includes Social Security, Medicare, military spending, and interest on the
national debt.
That
leaves just over half a trillion dollars to cover all non-military
discretionary spending. It’s a lot of money, to be sure, but a small proportion
of overall spending. This is the part Trump is proposing to cut.
What’s
included in this side of the budget?
To
name just a few things: The benefits that help veterans get back on their feet
after getting wounded. The nutrition assistance that helps babies born to
low-income mothers. The science research that will mitigate the next infectious
disease outbreak (remember Zika?).
The
list could go on for paragraphs, each a small line item of a big budget, but
each incredibly important to enabling a happy, healthy life in modern society.
Cutting
programs the public depends on in an effort (real or imagined) to balance the
budget isn’t new. Austerity has been in the air in the United States since
Reagan and has taken Europe by storm, too. It’s the justification behind
cutting programs that help the poor while passing tax cuts that exclusively
benefit the rich.
It
is, in short, part of a remarkably effective effort to redistribute wealth —
upwards.
Consider,
for example, Trump’s tax plan.
If
the president were serious about balancing the budget, he’d be quite concerned
about how much money the Internal Revenue Service collected each year. He’d
know if that number went down, it would reduce the effectiveness of his
spending cuts.
He
is, to put it politely, not concerned about this.
As
the Citizens for Tax Justice, a D.C.-based
research group, points out, Trump’s tax plan nearly exclusively benefits the
wealthy while raising the taxes of low- and moderate-income families. The
budgetary impacts of his tax cuts total about a half trillion dollars a year —
the same amount as the entire non-discretionary, non-military federal budget.
In
other words, Trump’s tax plan is a proverbial one-handed middle finger to the
working class. And his spending cuts represent his other hand making the same
gesture.
While
repeated rhetorical distractions may succeed in sidetracking his audience,
Trump can’t use his impressive oratory skills to overcome basic mathematics.
Josh
Hoxie directs the Project on Taxation and Opportunity at the Institute for
Policy Studies. Distributed by OtherWords.org.
