President Trump signed the Budget bill with no Fiscal Responsibility evident.
President Donald Trump got elected for a reason but apparently his business experience and business Fiscal Responsibility has not carried over.
Analysis: Let’s Face It, Neither of These Awful Parties is Actually Serious About Fiscal Responsibility
In our Thursday post, we assessed the bipartisan budget deal as “not good.” Yes, Pentagon leaders — including people I trust and admire — have urged busting the sequester’s defense spending caps, on national security and military readiness grounds. And not every piece of the approved domestic spending increases are wasteful or indefensible. The biggest problem with the compromise is that abandons all pretense of fiscal restraint, and virtually guarantees more harmful and irresponsible can-kicking. The GOP-led Congress has agreed to a two-year plan that will add $1.5 trillion to deficits over a decade, establishing a higher baseline from which “cuts” will be opposed, and on which additional spending will be built. And Republicans have done so while surrendering a powerful mechanism (reconciliation) that allows them to pass budget policies without requiring the help of tax-and-spend Democrats (as they did on tax reform). The result:
So there will probably be no further major GOP legislation before the midterms, save perhaps a DACA deal. Without the ability to do reconciliation, GOP can’t use 50 votes to pass anything like entitlement reform or major Obamacare fixes.
Critics of the budget deal, whose spending worries are certainly valid, have yet to explain one thing: How an obviously needed increase in military spending could have gotten through the Senate without concessions on domestic spending.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) February 9, 2018
Here’s what bothers me: Republicans didn’t even really try. They could have attempted a full-court press explaining the need for increased military funding, while arguing that in an era of $4 trillion in annual federal spending (up from less than $1.8 trillion in fiscal year 2000, just for some perspective), breaking caps on domestic spending is unnecessary. Or they could have demanded that in exchange for some heightened domestic spending for discrete priorities, Democrats would have to agree to some modest and mathematically-essential entitlement reforms. Instead, we got this:
In 2017, for the first time in the post-Tea Party era, Republicans finally gained unified control of government. They spent months blundering on healthcare, and ultimately reneged on their eight-year promise to repeal Obamacare. They have now agreed on a deal with Democrats that would blow up the spending caps that were a legacy of the Tea Party movement — to the tune of $300 billion over the next two years…The agreement would boost military spending by $165 billion above the 2011 caps and nonmilitary spending by $131 billion; it boosts emergency disaster relief spending by $90 billion (remember when the Tea Party Republicans believed emergency spending needed to be offset?); provides $6 billion in more money to fight opioid addiction; has $20 billion in infrastructure funding; it provides more funding for community health centers; and it repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board, one of Obamacare’s cost-containment initiatives, without any significant alternative ideas to curb Medicare spending. Now, let’s get one thing clear. It’s possible to rein in long-term debt while keeping taxes relatively low and military spending relatively high, but only if those policies are met with a dramatic strategy to restrain entitlements and other nondefense spending. But that’s not what Republicans are doing.
President Trump delivered a huge win for the military and signed a two-year, bipartisan budget bill this morning that ends Congress’ brief overnight shutdown of the federal government. Read more in 1600 Daily: https://t.co/qWknEHeliY
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 9, 2018