Patterico's Pontifications

5/1/2019

Report: Trump Favors $2 Trillion for Infrastructure

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:47 am



Hooray for out of control spending:

The White House in 2018 released a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan, under which city, state and local governments would provide 80 percent of project funding, including through private investment, while the federal government would kick in 20 percent.

But Trump said in Tuesday’s meeting he likes the $2 trillion number because he thinks it sounds better than lower figures, according to a source familiar with the conversation.

“I like the number you’ve been using, Nancy. Two trillion,” Trump said, according to a Democratic source. “Two trillion. That number you can talk about.”

Who knows whether the anonymous source who provided that quote is telling the truth, but there is good reason to believe it, as you’re about to see in a video. If this is accurate, Trump superfans will support him, no matter what they have previously said about federal spending under Obama.

Watch Chuckie S. exulting in the tremendous amount of money Trump wanted to spend — more than the Democrats initially proposed:

We agreed on a number, which was very very good, $2 trillion for infrastructure. Originally we had started a little lower, even the president was eager to push it up to $2 trillion. And that is a very good thing.

I’ll close with this quote:

“I would like to do something. It may not be typically Republican,” Trump told the Democrats, according to the senior Democratic source.

Oh, I don’t know about that. Spending taxpayer money like a drunken sailor, at this point, is just as typically Republican as it is typically Democrat.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

101 Responses to “Report: Trump Favors $2 Trillion for Infrastructure”

  1. Exploding the debt is a savvy area to buck the official Republican line because almost nobody actually cares about it. There’s me and about three other people. Some Republican Senators will make a little noise about it and if it’s safe, they may even cast show votes against it, but there will be no serious effort to defeat it. People like spending money. Very few truly understand what the problem is.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Trump could get the deficit to $40 trillion after eight years. That would be in line with previous presidents, who seem to double it every eight years. It’s kind of like the Rule of Seven with investing (which I can’t believe holds any more, given that we (and when I say we I mean Trump and many of you but not me) seem to believe that keeping interest rates low forever is a good thing).

    Patterico (115b1f)

  3. He should announce that all infrastructure improvements will be in red states but paid for by taxes from blue states. That would fire up his base.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  4. People like spending money.

    Especially politicians facing re-election in 18 months.

    It sounds better!

    And the bill will come due after he’s out of office regardless, so as far as Trump is concerned the cost is entirely without consequence.

    Why drain the swamp when you can take credit for turning it into a waterpark for Chuck and Nancy?

    Dave (1bb933)

  5. I understand why Paul Ryan retired….how can a fiscal conservative spin this as anything but unwise? It will be interesting to see how Cruz and Sasse respond.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  6. Drunken sailors spend their own money.

    nk (dbc370)

  7. The president should stop wasting time defending himself against bogus charges and calls for impeachment and focus on real problems, starting… NOW!

    Munroe (f533ee)

  8. 1. Ditto, Pat. I care about it. I find myself suffering from ennui, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care.

    Gryph (08c844)

  9. The president should stop wasting time defending himself against bogus charges and calls for impeachment and focus on real problems, starting… NOW!

    Off topic. What do you have to say about the $2 trillion number, Munroe? I’m genuinely interested.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  10. The report suggests 2 trillion is merely an expansion of the 2018 proposal. Which means Trump expects state and local governments an extra $400 billion to match an extra $100 billion from the federals.

    If my math is right
    2018 $300 billion fed vs $1.2 trillion state local
    Trump 2019 $400 billion fed vs $1.6 trillion state local

    So this is not so much Trump spending money we don’t have as it is Trump telling other people how to spend money they don’t have, and then expecting all the credit.
    To be fair to Trump, that’s the way many politicians act.

    Kishnevi (61bde2)

  11. If I don’t agree with the $2T spending does that retroactively make me never a superfan? Sort of like how Tony’s snap erased Thanos’ snap?

    Frosty Fp (c141b1)

  12. If I don’t agree with the $2T spending does that retroactively make me never a superfan? Sort of like how Tony’s snap erased Thanos’ snap?

    Do you agree with it?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  13. Mr. Patterico, I genuinely hate the $2 trillion. As my boss likes to say, complaints are fine so long as they’re accompanied by solutions. I did see any. Maybe I missed that.

    Government shutdown? Twist the arms of Congress, including Republicans? What? Short of becoming the dictator Trump supposedly admires, what exactly is he supposed to do? What would you do?

    Munroe (e61fc0)

  14. I hate this.

    1. It’s marketing. I don’t like marketing.
    2. If there were a problem we wanted to fix we should lay out that case.

    Roads, Bridges, electrical system, wind/solar/hydro power, rail way, Dams or whatever. Lay out what’s needed and why and how much it costs.

    Even if you want to keep going until you hit a good marketing claim it would be better.

    But this business of ‘lets just go do stuff’ is terrible.

    Time123 (80b471)

  15. $2T infrastructure spending? Without cuts in others?

    Not only “no”, but “Hell no”.

    With next election season is soon, I’m not convinced the GOP Senate would pass it. But, who knows man…

    whembly (b9d411)

  16. Mr. Patterico, I genuinely hate the $2 trillion. As my boss likes to say, complaints are fine so long as they’re accompanied by solutions. I did see any. Maybe I missed that.

    Government shutdown? Twist the arms of Congress, including Republicans? What? Short of becoming the dictator Trump supposedly admires, what exactly is he supposed to do? What would you do?

    1. Not spend it.
    2. Propose other things we could not spend money on to pay for it.
    3. Propose ways to raise money to cover the spending.
    4. Put forward a serious budget proposal to cut the deficit and sell it to the American people with the same energy he’s putting into attacking Joe Biden’s endorsement by the fire fighters union. As part of that attack everyone that fights this proposal with the intensity he’s brought to his wall.

    Time123 (80b471)

  17. No, I don’t agree with it based on what I know so far.

    It’s possible we do need to spend a lot of money on infrastructure but so far infrastructure spending is code for a boondoggle. So, I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing with whether we need to spend money on infrastructure.

    This $2T thing seems to be the conclusion to the question of how much do we need to spend and at best I’m stuck earlier in the process.

    Frosty Fp (c141b1)

  18. off topic; according to a source familiar with the conversation

    I’m not sure who we can talk to about this but for me, this is a red flag on an article. Am I the only one who can’t stand how this has created speculative journalism?

    Frosty Fp (c141b1)

  19. 2. Patterico (115b1f) — 5/1/2019 @ 7:55 am

    and when I say we I mean Trump and many of you but not me) seem to believe that keeping interest rates low forever is a good thing).

    Not just a good thing. More like a necessary thing. Unless you want inflation.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  20. AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 5/1/2019 @ 8:08 am

    how can a fiscal conservative spin this as anything but unwise?

    The proponets call it an “investment”

    The real problem is that so much of thsi is more expensive than t needs to be or totally uinecessary.

    The real goal often is spending money but not reducing the “need.”

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  21. Time123 (80b471) — 5/1/2019 @ 8:46 am

    Lay out what’s needed and why and how much it costs.

    It doesn’t “cost: any specific price.

    This is not like buying gasoline or groceries. It’s more like buying prescription medicine.

    Schumer was happy the frirst thing they settled on was adollar amount. That’s maybe the way to budget, but the wrong way to plan.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  22. I am one who has been disgusted with this outrageous spending for years. This reminds me when republicans had the house and senate under bush and spent more than the democrats ever had. Cut the baseline accounting B.S.

    mg (8cbc69)

  23. Trump announced today how he’s saving money by stopping the Defense Department from scrapping an aircraft carrier built in 1998. hWill he be so careful when it comes to infrastructure. In New York Governor Cuomo stopped the closing for one and hald years of the “L” train subway tunnel that also wold have inconveienced people. When they finally start to run out of money, or make life miserable for some people construcion projects do get revised.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  24. Blaming Trump is as sensible as blaming a California republican for the state’s deficit. You can vote, argue, post and complain but you can’t outvote the benefit hungry masses, or the elites at the LA Times, who insisted that a Bullet Train was a grand idea.

    Before 1973, Presidents could and did “impound” appropriated funds to prevent them from being spent.

    Then a democrat congress decided Nixon was “abusing” it. That Democrat congress had been installed in during 1970-in response to Nixon’s budget cuts which were denounced as inhuman.

    Since then, not one gutless-GOP controlled congress has voted to restore the right to impound, limit federal pensions, cut military pensions for non-combat vets, control the border, or limit asylum rights. Or even cut back on endless habeas petitions, or limit emotional support animals.

    As the deficit has grown, the pain of ending it has too. Controlling the deficit is now sucker’s bet: do it and the left will denounce you as inhuman.

    Since about 2000, the GOP has enabled this almost as much as democrats.

    Trump can’t magically control entitlements, stop the stream of illegals costing us a fortune, or add moral fiber to voters enthralled with debt. But he’s doing more than anyone else to at least stem SOME expenses benefitting only foreigners. And is trying to get NATO to pay up.

    All in all, be grateful you didn’t get Hillary.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (6b1442)

  25. Sammy F brings up a good point. Jonah Goldberg argued last year that we don’t need a mass infrastructure program, that our present level of spending is enough to ultimately address the backlog of problems providing we don’t treat infrastructure needs as make-work jobs for unions and campaign gambits for politicians. There has been no bigger “infrastructure project” undertaken in this country over the last decade than the California High-Speed Rail, and regular readers of this blog know how I feel about that whole project. Why should any of us doubt that the Trump-Pelosi-Schumer bill will produce anything different?

    JVW (54fd0b)

  26. Blaming Trump is as sensible as blaming a California republican for the state’s deficit. You can vote, argue, post and complain but you can’t outvote the benefit hungry masses, or the elites at the LA Times, who insisted that a Bullet Train was a grand idea.

    Point taken, but Trump ought to be smart enough to know that even if he wins reelection he won’t be in office long enough to oversee how all of the funds are spent (this is supposed to be a 10-year program, right?), and even if he were, it’s not as if Trump has a reputation for detail and micro-managing to ensure that no money is wasted.

    This is how fiscal conservatives always lose in the long run. What happens is that Republicans gladly embrace increases in defense spending, and that provides an opening for Democrats to say “Well, we can spend billions more on weaponry but we can’t seem to provide universal health care.” Then Republicans embrace expensive infrastructure programs and Democrats are now able to say “Well, we can spend billions on bridges and railways but we can’t seem to provide free college.” And as Harcourt Fenton Mudd points out, Democrats are very good at getting a gullible electorate to see things their way and the last few remaining fiscal conservatives once again get shafted. I’m betting here and now that a big infrastructure compromise will open the gates for the whole Sanders-Warren-Harris spending agenda, and conservatives who support Trump will wonder how that happened.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  27. If he’s really in agreement with Pelosi-Schumer, it means that Trump is in favor of a gas tax, which is regressive, i.e., the lower-income strata is hardest hit, or he blows up fiscal conservatism and uses deficit spending. Either way, it’s bad.

    Paul Montagu (7968e9)

  28. If he’s really in agreement with Pelosi-Schumer, it means that Trump is in favor of a gas tax, which is regressive, i.e., the lower-income strata is hardest hit, or he blows up fiscal conservatism and uses deficit spending. Either way, it’s bad.

    Yep. The only possible positive outcome would be if Trump patiently explains to the American people that we have to pay for these sort of initiatives, so if they want things like new roads, upgraded rail lines, national health care, tuition-free public college, they have to raise their own taxes for the rest of their lives in order to pay for it today. But patient explanation of hard choices doesn’t really seem to be the President’s strength, does it?

    JVW (54fd0b)

  29. “Short of becoming the dictator Trump supposedly admires, what exactly is he supposed to do?”

    – Munroe

    Hmmm, lemme check my copy of the Constitution for the answer to this mysterious question…

    Oh, there it is. “If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it.”

    Call it the “No Dictatorship Loophole,” if you’d like.

    Leviticus (efada1)


  30. Burgess Everett
    @burgessev
    Sen. Thune, No. 2 GOP leader, says $2 trillion infrastructure bill will have to be paid for entirely to pass the GOP Senate.

    so there ya go
    __ _

    Brian Riedl
    @Brian_Riedl
    1) Good for Thune. But let’s see if they actually mean it this time.
    2) No, infrastructure won’t pay for itself. *Good* investments can later help long-term growth, but any Keynesian stimulus case is A) usually nonsense & B) nonsense on stilts when the unemployment rate is 3.8%.

    _

    harkin (a741df)

  31. Pure ego trip. Trump has made it known he wants an infrastructure program to surpass Eisenhower’s and like Ike’s he wants his name attached to it ! Trump has the attention span and intelligence of a flea. He’ll be distracted by someone’s nonsense tweeter comment and it will go off his radar for months just like the last time.

    The Conservative Curmudgeon (c118b3)

  32. “It can be done. … It will take place and it will go relatively quickly. … If you have the right people, like, in the agencies and the various people that do the balancing … you can cut the numbers by two pennies and three pennies and balance a budget quickly and have a stronger and better country.”

    Davethulhu (9847a2)

  33. InfrasTrumpture!!

    ‘Nuff said.

    “I own buildings. I’m a builder; I know how to build. Nobody can build like I can build. And the builders in New York will tell you that. I build the best product. And my name helps a lot.” – Donald Trump

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  34. 31…or he is encouraging copious purchasing of concrete and rebar which he hopes he can re-purpose on the sly for a highway rotated 90 degrees and called Interstate 0 or Interstate 2 if traditional numbering conventions were followed.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  35. @34 That would be cool if he could do it for something in the millions and not trillions.

    Frosty Fp (c141b1)

  36. Happy may day everyone. Lets start building and pay for it with stock transaction tax, wealth tax. estate tax and 70% tax rate for high income earners.

    lany (828120)

  37. 34…Trump Interstate Zero has an appropriate ring to it. Like the administration it’s the road to nowhere.

    BTW: He couldn’t re-name health care reform “Trumpcare” because Trump doesn’t care.

    The Conservative Curmudgeon (c118b3)

  38. “Hmmm, lemme check my copy of the Constitution for the answer to this mysterious question…”
    Leviticus (efada1) — 5/1/2019 @ 10:52 am

    The Constitution was crafted by a select few white men, without consent of Native people and minorities, and reflects a colonialist mentality — or so I’ve heard.

    Why would you cite a crap document like that, Leviticus?

    Munroe (b299cf)

  39. lany – In 2006, May 1 was the day of the bad Marchas, whereas the ones held in March (March 10 in Chicago, and I think 3 weekends later in LA) were much more warmly received because there was far less cross-streaming with international socialism.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  40. that is what jill lepores turgid runner up to peoples history of the united states suggests,

    narciso (d1f714)

  41. Here’s a not too good Wikipedia article about the L train tunnel project (it sounds like it wasn’t worked on too much after Governor Andrew Cuomo made his intervention.)

    The racking (putting cables on the outside of the walls instead of tearing down the old walls and replacing them with the cables again inside) had been done many many times before in many places. You don’t have to use 1915 technology.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Street_Tunnel_shutdown

    See also http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-l-train-construction-solution-benchwall-20190425-hlr6er2p3zed5l4lwserhtgnnu-story.html

    The Gateway project still has the more time consuming and more expensive alternative:

    Daily News editorial this week:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-gateway-20190429-xi3rcvu3szh7vfmbz7gasl3shu-story.html

    Bury the Gateway plan: The L train method is the proven way to repair the Hudson tubes

    Amtrak’s $30 billion Gateway boondoggle, centered around repairing the Superstorm Sandy-damaged Hudson tubes by building new ones, died Friday night [They mean it should have – SF] with the start of the repairs of the L train’s Sandy-damaged East River tubes.

    The MTA was planning to close the L tubes for 15 months to rip out and replace the concrete bench walls. Instead, the bench walls will no longer house power and communication cables, those will be affixed to open racks on the sides of the tube, allowing much easier access.

    The Gateway gang says that they will look at cable racking, meaning the repairs won’t have to wait a decade for a new tunnel. Not good enough. In February 2018, they submitted an environmental impact statement to the feds for approval. Federal law mandates that all alternatives must be formally evaluated, but although the draft runs 1,787 pages, it never mentions racking, although it does discuss a far-out idea for a new Hudson rail bridge above Manhattan and even a new rail tunnel with bicycle lanes.

    The Port Authority, as the sponsor, must withdraw the submission until racking can be rigorously reviewed and made the preferred method. The feds should also reject it for the same reason.

    ….Not only does Amtrak want to waste time and money replacing bench walls in the old tunnel, they want their brand new tunnel to also use bench walls. As we’ve said before, rip up the plans. A new tunnel, needed for added capacity, must be scaled back.

    A delegation of House Transportation Committee members visiting this week will see the damaged bench walls under the Hudson. How about when they get to Penn Station, they take the A train one stop to 14th St. to see how the L tube is being repaired the smart way?

    Let me add something else:

    It’s been six and half years since Superstorm Sandy. If we managed till now, is it necessary to do anything at all? (beyond maybe minor repair work from time to time?)

    There’s waste piled upon waste.

    And another thing: When they repair something, often it would be easy to change it just a little bit to add more capacity, or another station, or some other improvement. This isn’t done because under the terms the money is given (sometimes insurance) nothing more can be added to what was there before. When the number 1 train tunnel was repaired, the route could have been detoured slightly and a station added in Battery Park City.

    I imagine Environmental Impact Statements – is there anything more useless than that? – are another possible obstacle.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  42. If our public servants feel that our degraded infrastructure needs a massive investment and that their voters want to make that investment, these same public servants should at least be honest enough to remind their voters that there is no free lunch.

    The conservative approach should be to raise taxes.

    John B Boddie (66f464)

  43. The conservative approach should be to raise taxes.

    Uh, how about diverting spending from elsewhere, especially failed programs like Obamacare?

    But I am in 100% agreement that conservatives must demand that this project be funded one way or the other.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  44. Prior to this I gave Trump a B+ on policy and an F on conduct and morality.

    This now downgrades him to a C on policy.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  45. “Why would you cite a crap document like that, Leviticus?”

    – Munroe

    To educate you.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  46. Were it my blog, I’d ban people for Avengers spoilers….

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  47. Kishnevi (#10) points out the obvious: Trump inflates all numbers, especially numbers that show him being magnanimous, so that $2 Trillion is mostly money the states need to pony up to get an extra quarter for their dollar.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  48. Not just a good thing. More like a necessary thing. Unless you want inflation.

    OK, Sammy, I’ll bite. How does cheap money fight inflation?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  49. I hate the $2T plan. I hate that any good thing, hard won or a gift, can be abused, exploited, or neglected.

    Speaking of neglect:

    Today is Holocaust remembrance day.

    felipe (023cc9)

  50. Blaming Trump is as sensible as blaming a California republican for the state’s deficit.

    Why can’t I blame a President who says he is *for* spending outrageous amounts of money and actually *increases* the spending proposal? And why is blaming the man who holds the most political power of any single American, who is *for* high spending, similar to blaming a random California Republican for his state’s deficit, when said random Republican a) has no power except his useless vote, and b) is *against* high spending?

    Surely I must be misunderstanding you, because this argument makes less than zero sense. It’s like saying I’m as much to blame for ObamaCare as Obama. Uh, why would *that* be?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  51. What I’m seeing a lot of here from Trump superfans:

    “Hey, I hate this spending proposal as much as anyone, but what is Trump supposed to do? It’s not like he has veto power or any leverage. And anyway, why blame him for the high price tag just because he’s for the high price tag and says he wants the price tag to be higher?”

    IOW, what I’m seeing a lot of from Trump superfans here, makes no sense to me. Surely I am missing something, but I promise that I am not trying to mischaracterize the arguments I am seeing here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  52. InfrasTrumpture Report:

    How’s that wall comin’ along, Captain, sir?!

    Up next, Melania with the weather…

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  53. Nobody cares. Yes, that’s correct. At this point, getting upset about Government spending is a waste of time. The Democrats have ALWAYS spent like drunken sailors. The Republicans starting with Bush-II have been the same. Everyone once and a while, some Moderate Republican fraud like Mitt Romney gets up and natters about the “out of control spending” but then does nothing else.

    Does anyone think Yeb! or that son-of-a-mailman would be keeping a lid on spending? LOL! At least infrastructure will give us SOMETHING, roads, buildings, etc. As opposed to Reparations, medicare for all, or giving the Education Industry another $1 Trillion.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  54. So, rcocean, can I put you down as a “yes” for Trump’s $2 trillion proposal?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  55. “Surely I am missing something, but I promise that I am not trying to mischaracterize the arguments I am seeing here.”
    Patterico (115b1f) — 5/1/2019 @ 5:29 pm

    You’re not mischaracterizing, Mr. Patterico. OK, there’s veto power — and then what? So, we’re for a government shutdown — in which Republicans get blamed 100% of the time? What’s the end game?

    Munroe (7ff072)

  56. The 1.3 trillion Trump signed on for early was a huge mistake. He was suckered by those fools in the republican party. Only a boob would go along with those tools of Donohue. And now the menage a trois infrastructure debacle. Trump helping the democrats get union votes. Idiot.

    mg (8cbc69)

  57. “The Republicans starting with Bush-II have been the same.”

    It started with Reagan.

    Davethulhu (9847a2)

  58. Trump can’t get Congress to do what the American People want and spent a piddling $10 Billion for border security and immigration law enforcement. What makes you think he could STOP Congress from spending $1.5 trillion on infrastructure? So, Trump being a master Politician has decided to get to the head of the parade. He’s not only for it, he’s leading the charge! Besides, if Trump decided to play scrooge, what political support would he get? What new voters would he attract? Would Jonah Goldberg or David French stop hating him? LOL!

    As the Never Trumpers keep saying, Trump has low approval numbers. He’s in no position to take political hits for something Republicans in Congress probably support.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  59. It started with Reagan.

    No, Reagan slowed the growth, and tried to cut back even more. Bush-II didn’t even try.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  60. This new infrastructure deal will be another economic boondoggle by the d.c. malcontents.

    mg (8cbc69)

  61. So, rcocean, can I put you down as a “yes” for Trump’s $2 trillion proposal?

    Sorry, i was so busy typing my second comment, i didn’t see this. Put me down for a reluctant yes. Its bowing to political reality.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  62. Anyone know the Argetinian Anthem?

    mg (8cbc69)

  63. Here’s political reality: Medicare will become insolvent in 2026. Social Security will go broke in 2034. Most government spending on infrastructure should be handled at the state and local level, but spending $2T in federal money that we do not have on infrastructure — and its attendant graft — is an act of fraud.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  64. I would trade a supreme court pick in order to get the deficit to zero.

    mg (8cbc69)

  65. Munroe,

    You’re not mischaracterizing, Mr. Patterico. OK, there’s veto power — and then what? So, we’re for a government shutdown — in which Republicans get blamed 100% of the time? What’s the end game?

    rcocean:

    Put me down for a reluctant yes. Its bowing to political reality.

    To hear you guys tell it, Mr. Bull in a China Shop, Mr. Shakes Things Up, Drain the Swamp, Sometimes You Need an Asshole … why, he just has to do this. He doesn’t want to. But he has no choice but to spend recklessly.

    Except that’s not how the article reads. He doesn’t sound reluctant at all. He upped the bidding. You guys want $1.5T? Let’s make it $2 trillion. You can call it Fake News but Chuckie S. was on TV saying that’s what happened, and I have seen zero tweets from Trump denying it and I know he watches TV.

    He is all in. There’s nothing reluctant about it.

    You might as well say Obama had no choice but to sign ObamaCare.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  66. I would trade a supreme court pick in order to get the deficit to zero.

    Did you vote for Bill Clinton? He did it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  67. I’m not keen on it, largely because the last trillion went the way of David Copperfield, so federal expenses will be 200 billion, if I read that right.

    Narciso (851766)

  68. felipe (023cc9) — 5/1/2019 @ 4:23 pm

    Yikes! That link was supposed to go directly here.

    Sorry about that.

    felipe (023cc9)

  69. “He is all in. There’s nothing reluctant about it.”
    Patterico (115b1f) — 5/1/2019 @ 5:55 pm

    I’m one who doesn’t trust Chuck Schumer.

    So, he’s all in — therefore, my question “What’s the end game?” isn’t worth exploring? Really, I’d like to know your answer. How does a President Patterico engage this fight to a successful end?

    Once that’s answered, maybe we’ll understand why there’s no reluctance.

    Munroe (62571b)

  70. 69.

    How does a President Patterico engage this fight to a successful end?

    I reject the premise of that question. Patterico has far too much character and moral rectitude to run for president. 😛

    Gryph (08c844)

  71. I did not vote for Clinton. But I would trade Roberts in a heartbeat.

    mg (8cbc69)

  72. I’m one who doesn’t trust Chuck Schumer.

    Same here. That’s why my argument does not depend on Chuck Schumer’s trustworthiness. My argument, which I’ll quote again, was:

    He upped the bidding. You guys want $1.5T? Let’s make it $2 trillion. You can call it Fake News but Chuckie S. was on TV saying that’s what happened, and I have seen zero tweets from Trump denying it and I know he watches TV.

    You say:

    So, he’s all in — therefore, my question “What’s the end game?” isn’t worth exploring? Really, I’d like to know your answer. How does a President Patterico engage this fight to a successful end?

    Once that’s answered, maybe we’ll understand why there’s no reluctance.

    Upping the bidding goes beyond “no reluctance.”

    President Patterico starts by not saying “Hey how does $2 trillion sound, I know you wanted less but that sounds like a good round number, it’s not typically Republican but whaddya gonna do?”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  73. Did you vote for Bill Clinton? He did it.

    Well, it would not have happened with a Democrat Congress. The GOP had something to do with it. Clinton vetoed a number of welfare reform bills until he got something he could stand.

    And they did the one thing that no one thought would ever happen — they zeroed out farm supports. But when Gingrich and Clinton were replaced by W and Hastert, they started them up again.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  74. But I would trade Roberts in a heartbeat.

    For whom? It matters.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  75. 73. That’s what really mystifies me about Trump worship. Even if Donald J. Trump was pure as the wind-driven snow, even if every policy he dropped was the constitutional bees’ knees, no future administration or congress is bound by anything done now.

    Protip: If you’re worried about what your preferred candidate’s opponent might do when he gets into office, maybe the problem isn’t the people, but it’s the office itself that has too much power.

    Gryph (08c844)

  76. I have seen zero tweets from Trump denying it and I know he watches TV.

    Trump tweeting about numbers is prone to error.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  77. it’s the office itself that has too much power.

    Actually, the President has increasingly less power year after year. The bureaucracy and the courts wield much of it now. Sure, he signs laws, but it’s very hard to pass a law. Regulations granting power to the bureaucracy that wrote them are FAR easier.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  78. No, Reagan slowed the growth, and tried to cut back even more. Bush-II didn’t even try.

    That is the opposite of the truth, on both counts.

    Appropriations signed into law by Ronald Reagan
    Deficit as fraction of GDP:
    FY 1982: 3.9%
    FY 1983: 5.9%
    FY 1984: 4.7%
    FY 1985: 5.0%
    FY 1986: 4.9%
    FY 1987: 3.1%
    FY 1988: 3.0%
    FY 1989: 2.7%
    Eight-year Reagan average: 4.15% of GDP

    Appropriations signed into law by George W Bush
    Deficit as fraction of GDP:
    FY 2002: 1.5%
    FY 2003: 3.3%
    FY 2004: 3.4%
    FY 2005: 2.5%
    FY 2006: 1.8%
    FY 2007: 1.1%
    FY 2008: 3.1%
    FY 2009: (*)
    Seven-year Bush average: 2.4% of GDP

    The 2% GDP deficit increase in FY08 over FY07 was about half due to higher spending (+1.1% of GDP) and half due to decreased receipts (-0.9% of GDP) as the housing crisis slowed the economy.

    Due to the financial crisis, receipts were down almost 20% (2.5% of GDP) in FY2009, over FY2008, and spending increased by 4.2% of GDP (about $550B).

    If you include FY09, but exclude Obama’s Porkulus (estimated by CBO to have increased the FY09 budget deficit by $185B), the eight-year Bush average is 3.15% of GDP. This is still an overestimate because Obama signed other FY09 spending into law, but it is exactly a full point LESS than Reagan.

    And the largest deficits (in FY08 and 09) were due to sharply falling receipts as well as increased spending.

    Receipts, spending and deficits from Trump White House OMB website
    Porkulus numbers from Wikipedia

    Dave (1bb933)

  79. 77. Most of that bureaucracy lies in the executive branch. And that’s not an accident. Just page through the office directory at your local federal building. It’s pretty much all either cabinet-level offices or sub-divisions thereof. That the president doesn’t exercise veto power doesn’t mean he can’t; it just means he suborns his power to the bureaucrats beneath him willingly.

    Gryph (08c844)

  80. 74 see 64

    mg (8cbc69)

  81. @ Kevin M, #74:

    For whom? It matters.

    Maryanne Trump Barry.

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  82. Lindsey Graham weighs in on Trump’s infrastructure proposal* (language warning):

    *not really. He’s quoting a Peter Strzok text.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  83. evin M (21ca15) — 5/1/2019 @ 4:01 pm

    How does cheap money fight inflation?

    By keeping interest rates low. .

    High interest rates cause inflation because they’re a cost that goes into everything. That has been demonstrated over and over again only they assume the casility goes the other way around.

    Strange that inflation never gets started until just after the Federal Reserve Board begins fighting it.

    Saammy Finkelman (385c0e)

  84. The 2% GDP deficit increase in FY08 over FY07 was about half due to higher spending (+1.1% of GDP) and half due to decreased receipts (-0.9% of GDP) as the housing crisis slowed the economy.

    Due to the financial crisis, receipts were down almost 20% (2.5% of GDP) in FY2009, over FY2008, and spending increased by 4.2% of GDP (about $550B).

    The epending increeases were also caused by the financial crisis, which began about August, 2007 when housing sales froze,

    Sammy Finkelman (385c0e)

  85. ‘President Patterico starts by not saying “Hey how does $2 trillion sound, I know you wanted less but that sounds like a good round number, it’s not typically Republican but whaddya gonna do?”’
    Patterico (115b1f) — 5/1/2019 @ 6:12 pm

    Fair enough, Mr. Patterico. On its face, and assuming the reporting is true, I can’t say it’s to my liking. So, I concede to you on that basis. You’re right.

    But, it hasn’t played out yet. And, Trump has a way of negotiating such that first looks can be deceiving. Let’s see.

    Munroe (7fd706)

  86. but spending $2T in federal money that we do not have on infrastructure — and its attendant graft — is an act of fraud.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/1/2019 @ 5:52 pm

    Hear, hear!

    Matador (39e0cd)

  87. Count me as one of the few remaining conservative libertarians fundamentally opposed to spiraling deficits and exploding debt. It’s mortgaging the future and burdening the next generations with unsustainable obligations. Hard choices are going to have to be made and soon, because in just a decade or so, as Beldar points out, entitlement spending will consume the entire federal budget, leaving none for discretionary spending, which includes defense, and total tax revenues won’t be able to cover the interest on the debt. At that point, deep cuts in spending and massive tax increases will be required, or the US will be in default. I blame the Baby Boomers, or Generation Worst. They were given the world on a silver platter and promptly turned it into a turd on a paper plate. Every previous generation endeavored to make everything better for the next. In other words, they planned and built for the future. Not the Boomers, they planned and built for themselves, then stuck their children and grandchildren with the bills.

    Anyway, maybe I’m confused or don’t understand this White House plan, but is the now $2 trillion of other people’s money Trump wants to spend on infrastructure the projected total amount for the project, or is it the 20% the federal government will pledge? Because if it’s the latter, then city, county and state governments will have to spend $8 trillion, and that’s money they definitely don’t have. Is this a $10 trillion infrastructure project, with 80% paid for by cities, counties and states? Or is it a $2 trillion project, with the federal government contributing $4 hundred billion and cities, counties and state contributing $1.6 hundred billion?

    Either way, that is not going to happen. I fail to see how the Congress, which has sole authority over spending, can mandate how city, county and state governments spend their taxpayer dollars on infrastructure.

    So it’s an idiotic plan to begin with.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  88. That is the opposite of the truth, on both counts.

    1 I’m talking about the SIZE of Government, especially Domestic spending. You quote Deficit numbers. Apples and Oranges.

    2. Reagan tried to reduce Government and was blocked by Tip O’Neill and Democrat House of Rep. Bush NEVER tried, even when he had R Control of BOTH houses of Congress.

    3) Bush inherited a balanced budget and ended with a massive deficit. Reagan inherited a budget deficit and made things not as worse. Apples and Oranges. Reagan brought Top tax rate down to 50%. Bush tried to cut taxes even when the top rate was 40%. Bush NEVER cared about the deficit period.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  89. That the president doesn’t exercise veto power doesn’t mean he can’t; it just means he suborns his power to the bureaucrats beneath him willingly.

    You believe that the President can veto a regulation? I don’t. He can fire the agency head, I guess (assuming that’s not obstruction or discrimination or something), or ask the agency to withdraw an in-process regulation, but once it’s gone through the approval process someone will sue if he tries to block it. And even if he does, sooner or later someone else will be President and the ratchet clicks over another notch.

    The problem is that the AGENCIES have too much power, mostly delegated from a legislature that tried to retain a veto but could not (INS v Chadha).

    As I’ve said before, one of the reasons that our politics have become so bipolar is that whomever we put in power has limited ability to change the bureaucratic structure. The President cannot kill regulations by saying so; changing or repealing them requires a new round of regulatory approval, and anyone harmed in the process can sue.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  90. That is the opposite of the truth, on both counts.

    The last 3 years of Reagan’s deficits were lower than what he inherited. Economic growth through that period was robust and continued more or less unabated throughout the 90’s (the short recession of 1991 was due to the Cold War ending and the economic devastation that had on Southern California, not any macroeconomic problem).

    The ability that Clinton and Gingrich had to balance the budget in the late 90’s was due to this robust expansion, and their willingness to do it. Reagan said we’d grow out of our deficit and we did. The current situation is more due to the Bush/Hastert/Pelosi/Obama agreement on increasing hte scope and cost of government.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  91. but spending $2T in federal money that we do not have on ANYTHING is an act of fraud.

    FIFY

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  92. Either way, that is not going to happen. I fail to see how the Congress, which has sole authority over spending, can mandate how city, county and state governments spend their taxpayer dollars on infrastructure

    The assumption (originally proposed by me) is that tnis is an expansion of an idea proposed in 2018, the total spending being 2 Trillion, of which the Feds would pay 20% and state and local governments would pay the rest.

    I think this would be in some sort of matching grant. The Feds would contribute 20% once the state or locals rounded up financing on the remaining 80%. But no state or local government would be forced to spend or borrow anything if they didn’t want.

    Kishnevi (782bbb)

  93. The problem is that the 20% probably would not even cover the compliance costs.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  94. I’m talking about the SIZE of Government, especially Domestic spending. You quote Deficit numbers. Apples and Oranges.

    You’re still just making sh*t up.

    Average outlays as percentage of GDP (FY82-FY89): 21.7%
    Average outlays as percentage of GDP (FY02-FY08): 19.3%

    That’s almost 2.5% of GDP per year less spent by Dubya.

    Even if you attribute all FY09 spending, including Obama’s Porkulus, to Bush, he spent, on average, 1.8% of GDP per year LESS than Reagan.

    If you want to talk non-defense discretionary spending, you’re wrong again.

    Average non-defense discretionary spending as percentage of GDP (FY82-FY89): 4.9%
    Average non-defense discretionary spending as percentage of GDP (FY02-FY08): 3.1% (or 3.3% if all FY09 is attributed to Bush)

    And there was no clear trend for the latter numbers in either administration; these numbers fluctuated within a very narrow range of +/- 0.2% of GDP.

    And Reagan (PBUH) didn’t fight and win two shooting wars and save the economy from a financial meltdown at the same time.

    Source: OMB historical data from Trump White House website

    Dave (1bb933)

  95. I’m with Kishnevi on this. Because it’s in Trump’s character. Big bun, no beef. Big wrapper, little candy. Promise them anything and give them Arpege. Not that I’m complaining. This is one time when it’s good to have a lying, double-crossing, blowhard making deals with Chuck and Nancy.

    nk (dbc370)

  96. Trump doing “something” to trim the deficit: it would as of now result in mass unemployment, and trigger a massive GOP loss of Congress. And where to cut? Who will support it?

    Remember what happened to the GOP in 1970 when Nixon tried it? Congress lost. Crazy leftists like Frank Church for years. And that was when we had some remaining consensus that deficits were bad.

    And don’t forget our gift of Bubba when the fed decided to escalate interest rates in 1991-92. The Country is not ready for it. The GOP is not ready for it.

    The only thing we’d get is a loss of congress, a reactive deficit to stimulate the economy, Kamala Harris in the WH, and money expansion that would light inflation on fire. For what? So Never Trumpers could sleep well in the aftermath, having “tried” to do the right thing.

    I agree these deficits are sobering, even terrifying. But only Thatcher evaded an election loss on a slumping economy–with a successful war. The country is not ready for a cut back of any material size.

    Building things if done well is an investment, so at least there is that.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (6b1442)

  97. @92 Okay, so the proposal is to spend $2 trillion on infrastructure, with the federal government contributing 20% and city, county and state governments putting up the remaining 80%. But on what projects and where? There is no plan, no specifics. Infrastructure is such a hazy word, because it encompasses roads, highways, over- and underpasses, tunnels, bridges, railways, port enhancements (both air and sea), and so on. Of course there are sections of the country where some of these need to be upgraded, if not abandoned and replaced, but that’s a matter of concern for city, county and state governments. And many of them simply don’t have the money. Several states have balanced budget amendments–they cannot spend what they do not take in through income, sales and property taxes. For them to come with funding for mystical infrastructure projects would require tax increases in all three, and some states, like Florida and Texas, don’t have income taxes, so the burden would fall on consumers and property owners. That would cause an outrage among the citizenry.

    Moreover, I don’t think the federal government can allocate funds for infrastructure unrelated to interstate commerce. I could be wrong about that, but it seems to me that the federal government contributing 20% to projects that city, county and state governments cannot afford and/or do not want or need is a waste of taxpayer funds. It sounds good–oh, you want to upgrade your infrastructure, we’ll give you 20%, you just have to come up with the rest–but it’s a nonstarter.

    @93 Right.

    @96 The obvious solution is to have a comprehensive forensic audit of the entire federal budget with the purpose of eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, duplicate and triplicate programs that sever no purpose other than to hire unneeded federal employees.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  98. 97. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 5/2/2019 @ 5:55 pm

    Several states have balanced budget amendments–they cannot spend what they do not take in through income, sales and property taxes.

    I think that usually does not apply to capital projects. Otherwise such states could never s=issue any bonds, and I don’t think there;s any state that doesn’t.

    Now the problem here is, if money can be borrowed on;y for certain specific purposes, there;s no strong inentive to save money on the projects – spending less cannot make any practical difference in people’s daily lives but there are people who benefit from spending the money. Usually it oays for them not to compete the job because they have an excuse to spend even more.

    hire unneeded federal employees.

    I think they’re almost always state employees, or that of contractors. Federal employees can’t bargain over wages and benefits I believe.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  99. @96 The obvious solution is to have a comprehensive forensic audit of the entire federal budget with the purpose of eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, duplicate and triplicate programs that sever no purpose other than to hire unneeded federal employees.

    Yes, it’s the “obvious” solution and it’s also a completely uninformed and ineffective one.

    If you eliminated every last dollar of non-defense discretionary spending, the government would still be running a deficit.

    We have less non-defense discretionary spending now (as a % of GDP) than we did the last time there were budget surpluses in 2000/01.

    Repeat after me: “It’s the entitlements.”

    According to the most recent data on the Office of Personnel Management website, the Federal government employs 1.35 million people outside the Department of Defense and the Post Office.

    If they are each compensated $400,000/year, that’s $540B.

    The FY2018 budget deficit was $780B.

    So (even assuming wildly overestimated levels of compensation) if you fired *every* federal employee who doesn’t work for DoD or the post office, you’d still only eliminate about 2/3 of the budget deficit.

    Repeat after me: “It’s the entitlements.”

    Dave (1bb933)

  100. It’s the entitlements.

    nk (dbc370)

  101. 97: well there is:

    (1), “raise the full SS retirement age to 68 for anyone now under 50;
    (2), raise the initial retirement age to 63 for anyone now under 50;
    (3), limit our UN dues to $500m annually no matter what;
    (4) pass a law that says refugee status is limited to 1,000 people a year;
    (5) reinstate the law that used to say, roughly, that anyone sponsoring an alien into the US has to agree to be responsible for the expense if they become a public charge, and apply that the charities that fecklessly support refugees;
    (6) limit federal court injunctions of federal laws to their state or circuit;
    (7), end limitless habeas writs and the associated court expenses and overhead;
    (8), mandate “I’m fleeing persecution” refugees to submit to expulsion or a hearing at the border in 30 days with no appeal, and no government provided lawyer, and no court reporter;
    (9), limit federally insured loans for non-STEM students to 30% of STEM loans;
    (10), end the mortgage int deduction for 2d homes if it still exists.

    You know. A start.

    But if these simple defensive and sensible things can’t be done, its fantasy to talk about cutting entitlements to the current recipient class.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (6b1442)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0961 secs.