With big spending cuts, Trump鈥檚 budget highlights clash of values
| Washington
To the Trump team, the president鈥檚 budget proposal is rooted in unassailable values: respect for the people 鈥渨ho are actually paying the taxes,鈥� as White House budget director Mick Mulvaney puts it.
In President Trump鈥檚 $4.1 trillion fiscal 2018 budget plan, released Tuesday, that approach translates into deep cuts in social safety-net programs that Mr. Mulvaney suggests discourage work and hinder economic growth. To others, the values reflected in the Trump budget are no less than 鈥淩obin Hood in reverse鈥� 鈥� take from the poor to give to the rich, in the form of tax cuts.
But is this really a clash of values, or just differing pathways toward realizing the same values? That question burns at the heart of the American debate over the role and size of government.
Leaders of both parties espouse the desire to help Americans have greater prosperity and security. Where Democrats see a strong role for the federal safety net and are girding for battle over Trump's proposed cuts,聽Republican budget plans seek to promote self-reliance, free markets, and a preference for state or local policies over federal ones.
鈥淭here鈥檚 a certain philosophy wrapped up in the budget, and that is that we are no longer going to measure compassion by the number of programs or the number of people on those programs,鈥� Mulvaney said. 鈥淲e're going to measure compassion and success by the number of people we help get off of those programs, and get back in charge of their own lives.鈥�
Mr. Trump鈥檚 budget blueprint, called 鈥淎 New Foundation for American Greatness,鈥� calls for deep cuts in health care for low-income Americans, food stamps, student loans, farm subsidies, and assistance for the disabled, while boosting spending on defense, border security, veterans鈥� care, and school choice. As Trump promised during the campaign, his plan doesn鈥檛 touch the Social Security retirement program or Medicare, health-care for seniors. (Details below.)
Trump鈥檚 budget also aims to get more Americans working, as an essential piece of two central goals: reaching an ambitious economic growth rate of 3 percent and a balanced budget in 10 years.
鈥淚f you're on food stamps, and you're able-bodied, we need you to go to work,鈥� Mulvaney told reporters. 鈥淚f you're not truly disabled, we need you to go back to work. We need everybody pulling in the same direction.鈥�
To some budget experts, the proposals in Trump鈥檚 blueprint represent a stark choice that would have an immediate impact on the lives of Americans.
鈥淚t certainly makes a decision to value the elderly over children,鈥� says Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a fiscal watchdog group. 鈥淥ne can be cynical and say that the elderly vote and kids don鈥檛.鈥�
'Abandoning many people'
As always, the president鈥檚 budget is an opening bid in a protracted legislative process, and has no chance of becoming law. But as a reflection of the administration鈥檚 priorities, it sets the stage for debate in the months to come, both between Democrats and Republicans in Congress and among factions within the parties.
Mulvaney, a former House member from South Carolina and a founder of the conservative Freedom Caucus, returned repeatedly in a press briefing聽to the perspective of Americans who work and pay taxes, and to making sure that the programs Americans pay for are effective.
It is a classic conservative approach rooted in a philosophy of self-reliance, but the starkness of the cuts 鈥� juxtaposed with tax cuts that disproportionately benefit upper-income Americans 鈥� may well make it politically unpalatable. The Trump plan would cut more than $1 trillion in spending on social programs over 10 years, cuts that would potentially hurt many of the rural and low-income voters who supported Trump last November.
鈥淲e fear that Tuesday鈥檚 budget will show that the president is essentially abandoning many people the economy has left behind 鈥� a large number of whom voted for him 鈥� and is pursuing policies that would make their lives more difficult than they already are,鈥� says Robert Greenstein, president of the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
On Capitol Hill, some Republicans pushed back on Trump鈥檚 budget. Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky called cuts to the social safety net 鈥渄raconian.鈥� Senate majority whip John Cornyn of Texas called the budget 鈥渄ead on arrival.鈥� But House Speaker Paul Ryan praised the projection of a balanced budget in 10 years, despite a widespread view among economists, including the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, that reaching 3 percent economic growth is unrealistic.
Polls: government should do more
Trump鈥檚 budget also faces a countervailing shift in public opinion. Just six months after voters handed control of the White House and both houses of Congress to the Republican Party, two recent polls show a significant uptick in Americans鈥� support for a bigger government that does more rather than a smaller government that does less.
An last month found that 57 percent of Americans favor government doing more to solve the nation鈥檚 problems, an all-time high for that poll, up from 50 percent two years ago. found a similar result. Support for government rose regardless of party affiliation, though it remained lower among Republicans.聽
Karlyn Bowman, an expert on polling at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said she wasn鈥檛 sure why the change in attitudes has occurred, but she floated a theory: 鈥淐ould it be the public reacting as a counterweight to Republican control of the budget?鈥� she asked.
Another possibility is that Trump, a populist with a long history outside the Republican Party, has enhanced public expectations for what he can accomplish as president, coming to the position as an outsider. Trump鈥檚 promise to 鈥渄rain the swamp鈥� by eliminating programs and shrinking the Washington bureaucracy held wide appeal with his supporters, many of whom agreed with his plans to go after the 鈥渨elfare state.鈥�
Much also depends on what voters mean by 鈥渁 government that does more.鈥� Some may interpret that as enhancing domestic security, beefing up the military, and cracking down on illegal immigration, all measures Trump has taken.
To Matt Erickson, a machine shop supervisor in Peoria, Ill., Democrats鈥� 鈥渟ocial policies鈥� keep him resistant to the party, despite his reluctance in voting for Trump last November.
Mr. Erickson objects in particular to 鈥済iving people money to not work,鈥� and food stamps that he sees abused, hearing stories from his mother who works at an Aldi鈥檚 grocery store.
Policy experts say that many food stamp recipients already work, and the federal benefit is designed to avoid giving recipients a disincentive to work.聽
One element of the Trump budget that stuck out was a provision calling for $25 billion over 10 years to provide six weeks of paid parental leave, an initiative promoted by presidential daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump.
Mulvaney noted the seeming incongruity of the proposal, and pitched it as part of his drive to get more Americans working.
鈥淚t goes right to the heart of the matter on 3 percent growth,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e try and create the environment where people are more comfortable going back to work and staying at work knowing that if they do have a child, they鈥檒l be able to spend time with that child under the paid parental leave program.鈥�
Details of the Trump proposal
Overall, the Trump budget would cut $3.6 trillion of projected government spending over 10 years, even as it boosts spending on some areas.
Proposed spending reductions include:
鈥�29 percent cut to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a.k.a. food stamps.
鈥�19 percent cut to Children鈥檚 Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
鈥�17 percent cut to Medicaid, government health insurance for the poor.
鈥�17 percent cut to the Centers for Disease Control.
鈥�13 percent cut to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, formerly known as 鈥渨elfare.鈥�
鈥�12 percent cut to unemployment insurance.
鈥�8 percent cut to the Earned Income Tax Credit.
鈥�3 percent cut to Supplemental Security Income.
鈥�2 percent cut to Social Security Disability Insurance.
鈥liminating federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
Some areas of increased spending:
鈥�10 percent increase in discretionary defense spending ($469 billion).
鈥�$200 billion over 10 years for infrastructure.
鈥�$29 billion over 10 years for Veterans鈥� Choice Program, which allows veterans to seek medical care in private facilities outside the VA system.
鈥�$19 billion over 10 years for new paid parental leave program.
Staff writer Francine Kiefer contributed to this report from Peoria, Ill.
