Neon Leon: February 2018

"The budget is like a mythical bean bag. Congress votes mythical beans into it, then reaches in and tries to pull real ones out."— Will Rogers

Rogers ( Nov 04, 1879 - Aug 15, 1935 (age 55) , the famous humorist and writer, had a knack of focusing on the absurdity of politics in general.

The old expression that the workings of a democracy is akin to making sausages remains true. The Trump Budget Proposal is an equally messy endeavor, but contains what I believe are truly Draconian elements. This posting will defend that belief, but I will also labor to reveal the logic of those who support these cuts also. An important note: The changes are largely set to achieve their goals after ten years.

So, what's in it?  Here is the site of the original 50 page document. The plan, titled “A New Foundation for American Greatness,” is a blueprint only, and, like all other president's budgets, is dead on arrival to Congress. Many changes will be proposed in numerous committees amidst countless arm wrangling sessions in both parties. The dates established by law: "After June 30th, but Before October 1, Conference Committee Reconciles Both Versions of the Bill, and it is Sent to the President for Final Approval."

Further, the President may sign the bill or veto it. If he signs, the bill becomes law. Otherwise, Congress must pass another bill to avoid a shutdown of at least part of the federal government, a procedure they have had considerable practice doing, of course.

In my opinion, the sheer volume of spending increases in the budget acknowledges that the Republican tax overhaul passed last year would add billions to the deficit and not "pay for itself" as Trump and other Republicans asserted. The long Republican love affair with Trickle Down Economics continues, despite a long history of failure.

Further, while the Trump budget requests are numerically close to the Obama Administration's on average, President Obama had to spend $700 billion to fight The Great Recession.

For this writer, a would wish a pox on all the denizens of Foggy Bottom. The pro-spending lobby in both parties has come to ignore the fiscal handcuffs of budget caps set on discretionary spending and the threat of across-the-board sequester cuts that were created in the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011.

According to Wikipedia, "After the BCA was installed...federal spending fell for three years in a row -- from $3.6 trillion in 2011 to $3.51 trillion in 2014. That was the first time that had happened since the 1950s. The caps have shaved more than $1 trillion from the spending that was supposed to happen without them."

Four years later, we have a new budget proposal which, in my opinion, is a form of fiscal hypocrisy shared by both parties. The Republicans (the party of fiscal hawks who fought for limited government for decades) have abandoned their old values. To me, they seem to be embracing Dick Cheney's famous quote made in 2002: "Deficits don't matter."

Meanwhile, Democrats, who yelled the loudest about Trump's Tax cuts massively increasing the deficit, got what they wanted also. According to Todd Harrison, budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "[the new budget]...gave Dems as much as they could have wished for in their wildest dreams. The cap on non-defense spending would lift by $63 billion this year and $68 billion next year."

However, the Budget Control Act remains in force. If passed, as one wag recently said, the deal is a Get Out Of Jail Free pass for the next two years — only. The authorization bill is already $85 billion above spending caps mandated by federal law for fiscal 2018 according to the bean counters at the Congressional Budget Office.

The Hill (a print and digital news source whose beat is Washington D.C. and widely read by lawmakers) offered this take on the budget (reduced for brevity):

"The Trump [budget] is seeking $1.5 trillion in nondefense discretionary cuts and $1.4 trillion in Medicaid cuts, while adding nearly half a trillion dollars to defense spending."

"Relying on a mix of growth projections that most economists say are extremely optimistic and an assumption that a tax reform plan will...slash tax rates while remaining revenue-neutral, the budget lays out a path to budget
and lower the debt burden to 60 percent of gross domestic product."

"From a budgetary baseline based on the 2011 sequestration deal...between the GOP House and...President Obama, the... budget piles on defense dollars while further cutting nondefense."

"By 2027, defense spending would increase $42 billion over sequestration levels, while nondefense would be cut by $260 billion. In that year, nondefense outlays would amount to just 1.4 percent of GDP. The proportion of defense to non defense discretionary spending would be [the highest] in... 40 years."

"In 2018, Trump’s budget would shift $54 billion from non defense discretionary spending to defense by enacting major cuts to government agencies.

"The budget would cut 31.4 percent from the Environmental Protection Agency, 29.1 percent from the State Department, 20.5 percent from the Department of Agriculture and 10.7 percent from the National Science Foundation. It would make Pell grants available year-round, but raise monthly student loan payments."

"A sizable [$610 billion] portion of the cuts to domestic spending would be made to Medicaid. The budget assumes full passage of the House...version of the American Health Care Act to repeal and replace ObamaCare, which cuts $839 billion from Medicaid and pulls funding from Planned Parenthood." Editor's note: The cuts would be made by transitioning the program from a traditional entitlement to block grants or a per-capita plan that puts a ceiling on federal funding to states. That specific ceiling number remains to be determined. It would also allow states to impose work requirements for certain Medicaid beneficiaries to reduce costs, and those requirements aren't spelled out either.

"Besides the Medicaid cuts. the budget finds $274 billion in savings from spending cuts to anti-poverty programs. These would include $193 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), $21 billion from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

It also scales back Disability Insurance offered through Social Security, a step critics say breaks Trump’s campaign promise to leave Social Security "untouched."

Those are partial cuts. Here is a list of Independent Agencies totally eliminated:

(1) Chemical Safety Board
(2) Corporation For National and Community Services
(3) Corporation For Public Broadcasting
(4) Institute Of Museum And Library Services
(5) Legal Services Corporation
(6) National Endowment For The Arts
(7) National Endowment For The Humanities
(8) Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
(9) Overseas Private Investment Corporations
(10) Regional Commissions
(11) U.S. Institute Of Peace
(12) U.S. Trade And Development Agency
(13) Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars
(14) Allocations To The Housing Trust Fund And Capital Management Fund

I have long advocated for cuts in some of these agencies, but
they should be addressed by snipping with scissors, not by swinging a meat cleaver. I will include some examples later, but I want to address the "cultural" cuts first. Bear in mind, dear readers, that, according to the Hill website,"...the total budgets of The National Endowments for The Arts, The National Endowment For The Humanities and The Corporation For Public Broadcasting FY 2016 is $741 million, according to published documents, or .016 per cent of the $4.6 trillion U.S. budget."

Republicans have long had all the arts and humanities agencies in their sights, largely because they often produce news documentaries, art, literature and theatrical productions which challenge conservative ideology. While it is true that these agencies enjoy considerable financial support in their communities; it is also true that without some initial startup funding from the feds, many contributors to our culture would not be seen or heard. Chuck Palahniuk, the American novelist and journalist, addressed the necessity of culture this way: "The first step to controlling your world is to control your culture. To model and demonstrate the kind of world you demand to live in, to write the books. Make the music. Shoot the films. Paint the art."

Here are the programs the administration wants on the chopping block which I gleaned from the 50 page blueprint. The blueprint does not cover “mandatory” spending established by law, like farm subsidies, but only addresses “discretionary” programs where lawmakers can adjust spending from year to year. The Trump White House has said it plans to release a traditional full budget with a 10-year outlook for all government spending and revenues in mid-May.

Agriculture Department — $855 million

· McGovern-Dole International Food for Education

· Rural Business-Cooperative Service

· Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account

· Single Family Housing Direct Loans

Commerce Department — $633 million

· Economic Development Administration

· Manufacturing Extension Partnership

· Minority Business Development Agency

National Aeronautics and Space Administration — $269 million

. Five Earth Science Missions

· Office of Education

Education Department — $4.976 billion

· 21st Century Community Learning Centers

· Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants

· Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants

· Strengthening Institutions

· Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants

· Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

· Teacher Quality Partnership

. Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property

· International Education

Energy Department — $398 million

· Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy

· Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program and Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

· Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility

Health and Human Services — $4.834 billion

· Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

· Community Services Block Grant

· Health Professions and Nursing Training Programs

· Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

Homeland Security — $235 million

· Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program

· Transportation Security Administration Law Enforcement Grants

Housing and Urban Development — $4.123 billion

· Choice Neighborhoods

· Community Development Block

· HOME Investment Partnerships Program

· Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program Account

Interior Department — $122 million

· Abandoned Mine Land Grants

· Heritage Partnership Program

· National Wildlife Refuge Fund

Justice Department — $210 million

· State Criminal Alien Assistance Program

Labor Department — $527 million

· Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Training

· OSHA Training Grants

· Senior Community Service Employment Program

State Department and USAID — $4.256 billion

· Development Assistance

Earmarked Appropriations for Non-Profit Organizations

· The Asia Foundation

· East-West Center

· P.L. 480 Title II Food Aid

State Department, USAID, and Treasury Department — $1.59 billion

· Green Climate Fund and Global Climate Change Initiative

Transportation Department — $499 million

· National Infrastructure Investments (TIGER)

Treasury Department — $43 million

· Global Agriculture and Food Security Program

Environmental Protection Agency — $493 million

· Energy Star and Voluntary Climate Programs

· Geographic Programs

National Aeronautics and Space Administration — $269 million

· Five Earth Science Missions

· Office of Education

Whew! Those numbers are too large for most of us to fathom. I am probably like most citizens whose budgetary expertise is limited to local, "kitchen table" numbers. So before your eyes start to glaze over, check out this quick and easy reference for the rationale behind the cuts, which is right here:

Of course, Mick Mulvaney, who heads up the Office of Management and Budget is happy to fill us in on the merits of the proposal. Consider these statements, which have been duly noted on television and a multitude of media sources from across the political spectrum:

The Social Safety Net

"We believe in the social safety net. We absolutely do,” Mulvaney said. A well-administered safety net, he continued, could boost economic activity by mitigating risk for would-be entrepreneurs."

When asked how the proposals square with Trump’s campaign promises (not to cut Medicare or Social Security), Mulvaney said "...the cuts would allow the programs to keep covering people who need them. Work requirements would get able-bodied people off the rolls, and closer scrutiny would ensure that people receiving disability help were truly disabled. We are no longer going to measure compassion by the number of programs or number of people on those programs.”

“If you’re on food stamps and you’re able-bodied, we need you to go back to work.” The same is true, he added, "for people who get disability benefits but should not receive them."

Mulvaney also argued that "the natural growth path for such spending was nonsensical." In referring to the Mandatory spending programs which grow based on eligibility, he said, " the baseline usually goes up from year to year. [so] Washington looks at steady levels as a cut."

He also said that "most people think of Social Security as referring only to the retirement program, so cuts to disability insurance don't count."

“We’re not kicking anybody off of any program who really needs it. We have plenty of money in this country for people who need help,” Mulvaney said. The only people who would be affected by the changes, he said, were those who shouldn’t rightfully be receiving help. The folks who want to work are not the problem. It’s the folks out there who don’t want to work.”

Climate Change

Speaking with reporters the day the Trump administration rolled out its first full budget proposal, Director Mick Mulvaney said climate spending has often been wasteful: “I think what you saw happen during the previous administration is that the pendulum went too far to one side, where we’re spending too much of your money on climate change, and not very efficiently.”

“We don’t get rid of it here. Do we target it? Sure. Do a lot of the EPA reductions aim at reducing the focus on climate science? Yes. Does it mean that we are anti-science? Absolutely not,” he continued.

“We’re simply trying to get things back in order to where we can look at the folks who pay the taxes and say, ‘Look, yeah, we want to do some climate science, but we’re not going to do some of the crazy stuff the previous administration did.'”

Mulvaney justified his position in part by bringing up a National Science Foundation grant that gave $700,000 to a theater company to produce a climate change science education musical, but that is an isolated incident chosen to stereotype grants in general.

For some perspective, let's take a quick look at the past as well as the future, and it ain't a pretty picture: After seven years of fitful declines, the federal budget deficit is projected to swell again. The $20.6 trillion debt is already headed to $30 trillion in the next decade, even without this new spending spree, as stated by projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The numbers reveal, in my opinion, the extreme stress that government debt could have on the economy as President Trump presses to slash taxes and ramp up spending.

Homeland Security

The budget includes an outlay of $23 billion for border security, most of it for building the border wall.

From Wikipedia, the following truly massive negative impact of the wall proposal is brought to light, to wit: On September 12, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice that Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke would be waiving "certain laws, regulations and other legal requirements" to begin construction of the new wall near Calexico, California. The waiver allows....Homeland Security to bypass the National Environmental Policy Act the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Conservation Act, The Archaeological Resources Protection Act. the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Noise Control Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Antiquities Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act."

"Walls currently cover about one-third of the border with Mexico; the administration wants to eventually spend up to $18 billion to extend the wall to nearly half the border. Trump [says] Mexico pays for it; Mexico says that's a non-starter." Ed. note: The $18 billion number was an earlier estimation only. $23 billion is the figure that is more current.

Defense Department

The Sacred Cow

Now for the (pick one) Top Dog, Big Kahuna or Big Enchilada in the proposed Trump Budget. Some highlights from Military Times magazine on Nov. 17, 2017 click right here. include:

"The Senate finalized a nearly $700 billion defense authorization bill on Thursday, setting the stage for a 2.4 percent pay raise for troops next year, a boost in military end strength and a build-up in military equipment and readiness."

"It includes...$634 billion in base defense spending and... $66 billion for overseas contingency operations. It also includes a wide range of policy items that...directly affect rank-and-file troops and service leaders."

"Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain.... called the authorization bill’s passage 'the baseline for our leaders' as appropriations negotiations continue. Appropriators are still considering a boost in that limit of about $55 billion, similar to the president’s request earlier this year."

"The pay raise...for 2018, which matches the expected growth in private-sector wages for next year, is the largest...since 2010. It [is] about a $680 annual boost...for younger enlisted troops, and about $1,080 a year for more senior enlisted and junior officers."

"More troops: The authorization bill backs plans to add 8,500 new soldiers...5,000 new sailors...5,800 new airmen... and 1,000 new active-duty Marines."

More aircraft: Lawmakers provided authorization for 90 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, 24 new F/A-18 Hornets, 12 new V-22 Ospreys and 71 AH-64E helicopters. All of those are above White House and Pentagon equipment requests.

More ground combat vehicles: The bill matches White House requests for joint light tactical vehicles and armored multipurpose vehicles, but adds wider authority to purchase more Abrams Tank upgrades (85 tanks) and Bradley Fighting Vehicles (93 vehicles) than the administration had sought.

More ships: Naval officials had pushed for the power to purchase one new Littoral Combat Ship. The authorization bill...includes three, and an extra DDG-51 destroyer above the two requested by military leaders.

"Expanded health care services: The measure makes more reservists eligible for Tricare after mobilization, and it...requires new mental health assessments and physical exams...before their orders expire, in an effort to better identify their service-connected injuries."

"No new base closing round: Pentagon and White House officials have lobbied lawmakers to close excess military capacity for years. But the idea remains unpopular on Capitol Hill, and is not included in the final draft. "

I underlined portions of the above passages to emphasize that Congress is still in thrall with what President Eisenhower termed The Military Industrial Complex 60 years ago. It was a warning that funds for the military all too often serve as mere boondoggles for Congressional districts that house military bases as well as corporations who manufacture weapons of war.

Finally, the defense budget has unknown, but surely huge expenditures legislators seek but are not fully revealed yet. Consider the secret Silent Barker Space Program . The Military Times had this revelation in the same issue noted earlier:

"Gen. John W. Raymond, the head of Air Force Space Command, said, in written testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in May 2017, that Silent Barker is a “collaborative acquisition program” between the National Reconnaissance Office and the Air Force. [It] aims to improve satellite threat intelligence and space situational awareness." Translation: Space has become an arena for fighting wars and we have to meet the challenge.

"Since then, in media roundtables, Air Force officials have declined to say much about the program. But in a formal solicitation released Jan. 31, the Air Force said it planned to launch the new capability in fiscal 2022. It is one of five launches the service revealed in a final request for proposals...from aerospace industry giants."

However, while some degree of secrecy is necessary in creating these programs, the challenge is for Congress to mandate bipartisan oversight of this new frontier. Honest data about the degree of threat posed by competitors as well as honest cost projections are critical.

Infrastructure

In 2009, President Obama stood under decaying bridges and overpasses repeatedly and proposed an infrastructure program priced at some $600 billion. The new Republican majority turned a deaf ear to his plan, because, in my opinion, they simply did not want to allow infrastructure improvements to become a feather in Obama's hat.

However, Obama's efforts served to create widespread awareness that billions of dollars are needed to repair roads, bridges, water facilities, power plants, airports and schools. But then, as now, there is little agreement of how to pay for it.

America's infrastructure is indeed "close to failing" according to The Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which was detailed in its 2017 "infrastructure report card". They gave the nation's overall infrastructure a grade of D+.

In addition, the 2017 report card projected a total investment of $4.59 trillion that would be required to bring U.S. infrastructure from where it stands today — at a D+ — to a B grade.

In his State of the Union Address, Trump said "We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, and waterways all across our land," Trump said in announcing the plan. "And we will do it with American heart, and American hands, and American grit. It will produce the biggest and boldest infrastructure investment in American history."

Well, not really. Instead of a promised a $1 trillion infrastructure plan touted endlessly during his presidential run, the actual plan rolled out is a $200 billion federal infrastructure plan, which I have summarized into the following four parts: (source is the plan link above.)

$100 billion in matching funds to be made available to states and cities.
A $50 billion rural block grant program given to states based on the miles of rural roads and the extent of the rural population that they have.
A $20 billion fund for “projects of national significance” meaning, according to briefings with administration officials, “projects that can lift the American spirit, that are the next-century-type of infrastructure as opposed to just rebuilding what we have currently.”
Another $20 billion would go to federal loan programs that underwrite private financing of profitable infrastructure projects.
A $10 billion capital financing program that would fund the construction of federal office buildings and similar infrastructure for actual government use.

Federal transportation infrastructure in the USA is primarily financed by the gas tax that was set at 18 cents per gallon in 1993. But 25 years later, cars use much less fuel, so that funding stream is running out of gas. Trump isn’t proposing to increase that tax (or any other tax) to generate the $200 billion fund he’s calling for. But he’s also not saying the $200 billion can be deficit-financed, the way his $1.5 trillion tax cut or $160 billion military spending build-up was.

Nor is there any major increase in economic performance either, according to a report by Trump's alma mater at Wharton. In fact, the Penn Wharton analysis found, "investment across all levels of government would increase between $20 billion to $230 billion, including the $200 billion federal investment."

At those spending levels, they estimated, the plan would have "little to no impact" on gross domestic product.

In addition, it is vitally important to note that Trump's budget office assumes that the economy will hit 3 percent growth in five years and sustain that growth through 2028, but The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the nation will see a 1.9 percent growth on average for the next 10 years!

Here are a few comments from opponents of Trump's Budget as published in a Politico newsletter two weeks ago :

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer... said the plan took a “meat cleaver” to the middle class “by gutting the programs that help them the most, including many that help create jobs and power the economy: transportation is cut, education is cut, programs that promote scientific and medical research are cut, programs that protect clean air and clean water are cut.”

“The Trump budget would make inequality and poverty significantly worse, while allowing deficits...to soar,” said Bob Greenstein, president of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities."

"Robin Rudowitz, an associate director for the Kaiser Family Foundation, says that the level of cuts in the budget far surpasses what might be saved from “fairer” eligibility requirements.

'I would say that our data does not support the notion that you could make up $800 billion plus in reductions and financing for Medicaid with imposition of a work requirement'. Citing federal health care reports, she noted that 'Some 80 percent of adults on Medicaid live in working families, and a majority are already working themselves. Most of those not working have major disabilities or impairments.' "

In addressing the major cuts to International Aid programs, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), a frequent Trump critic, said proposed cuts would mean "we’d have to retreat from the world and put a lot of people at risk,” and lead to “a lot of Benghazis."

The Biggest Losers

As I go to publication, the average approval rate from national surveys pegs Trump at 32%. Those supporters are primarily his die hard, true believers stretched across the heartland. In my opinion, those folks are in for a rude awakening, when they realize that their vaunted leader's tax and budget cuts will not bring them to The Promised Land.

Trump’s budget proposal hurts the Rust Belt factory towns that voted for him in multiple ways. My analysis draws, for the most part, from the  American news and opinion website,  Vox Media. Vox, according to Wikipedia "is noted for its concept of explanatory journalism and its use of "card stacks" that define terms and provide context within an article."

The White House budget slashes millions of dollars in spending to revive economic growth in factory towns like Flint, Michigan.
President Donald Trump has vowed that dying American industries and factory towns will come “roaring back” under his presidency. But if his budget proposal for 2019 is any sign, his administration won’t do much to make that happen.

Here's why: As I noted earlier, the White House has proposed slashing more than $300 million in spending on some of the few federal programs meant to boost manufacturing in distressed communities — the same industrial towns in decline that turned out heavily for Trump.

Trump’s administration wants to end key economic development programs run by the Department of Commerce. The budget calls for the agency to completely eliminate the Economic Development Administration (EDA), which, among other things, provides grants to help American manufacturers compete with global competitors.

These programs are “unnecessary,” and “duplicative,” according to the White House budget plan.

Yet the companies and workers that rely on that money disagree.

“It really points out the hypocrisy of the president’s messaging,” said Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, a nonpartisan business and labor group in Washington, DC. “These programs help the very communities that have suffered the manufacturing job losses that Trump said he supported. Now you want to eliminate them?"

The EDA bills itself as the only federal agency focused entirely on promoting economic development in the United States. Since 1965, the agency has focused on providing matching grants for local programs to boost business development in distressed areas. It has programs to promote business innovation in coal communities and in declining manufacturing areas.

In Flint, Michigan, for example, the agency invested $1.9 million to build an automotive research center in partnership with a local university, according to its 2016 annual report. The agency said four Fortune 500 companies wanted to partner with the center in 2016 to test self-driving cars and other automotive technology.

That year, the agency also invested $2 million in Bluefield, West Virginia, to renovate an old train station depot and launch a business incubator to revive the shrinking industrial manufacturing economy. The incubator helped launch a small business focused on producing industrial casings.

In fiscal year 2016, the agency invested $15 million in coal communities and $13 million to help struggling US manufacturers find new ways to compete in a globalized era. Most of the grants for manufacturers hurt by NAFTA went to states that supported Trump in the election — including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Now the White House wants to dissolve the entire EDA because it says the agency’s grants have “limited measurable impacts.” That's true to an extent--the GAO published a report in 2012 saying that the agency needed to do more to fully measure the impact of its Trade Adjustment Assistance program for businesses hurt by international trade deals. However, the GAO’s report found that a manufacturer's participation in the program is “statistically associated with an increase in firm sales.”

“Notably, 73 percent reported that the program helped them with profitability; 71 percent that it helped them retain employees; and 57 percent that it helped them hire new employees,” the study concluded.

The GAO’s report suggested improving data collection, not eliminating the agency altogether.

The Trump budget also proposes scrapping another manufacturing-focused program. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which was launched in 1988 through the Department of Commerce, and is the main source of federal funding for states that are trying to grow their manufacturing industry. The Trump budget plan says eliminating the program will save $125 million.

The program partners with state and local agencies to operate innovation centers in every state. The idea is to help small and medium-size manufacturers develop new products and customers, expand and diversify their markets, and adopt new technologies.

For example, a 2014 audit by the GAO described how the program helped a manufacturing firm in Pennsylvania respond to steep price increases in 2011:

The Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center ... trained company staff on methods to achieve efficiencies and helped identify areas for improvement in the company’s production process, resulting in increased productivity and reduced inventory levels that allowed the company to save space and lower costs, as reported by the manufacturing firm.

A 2016 analysis by the W.E. Upjohn Institute concluded that the program generated a huge economic return for every federal dollar invested:

Comparing forecasts with and without MEP activities included, the study found that the $130 million invested in MEP during FY2016 generated $1.13 billion in federal personal income tax, which is an 8.7:1 return to the federal treasury.

OK, here's my view from the cheap seats section:

While there are always abundant opportunities to reduce spending, the Military Industrial Complex still routinely receives monies for the production of stuff that the military brass have repeatedly said they do not want.

There are thousands of tanks that have been parked in American deserts for many years, yet the new budget calls for 85 more.

Funding for the F22 Raptor, which was ended in 2014, continues but only to maintain the operational capabilities of the current flock of 187 planes. The plane has never seen action in Iran, Afghanistan, or Syria, and in an age of asymmetrical warfare, spending 2 billion more on the plane is kinda dumb.

It is important to note that the war budget, known as the Overseas Contingency Operations account, or OCO, is not capped, and that the Pentagon has been accused of using it as a slush fund, pouring in tens of billions of dollars that have nothing to do with fighting wars, basically as a maneuver for evading the caps on its regular budget.

Finally, what's missing from the any anticipated growth in manufacturing jobs is one simple fact: Those workers, primarily men, will not and can not return to their former jobs because THEY SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE. As I stated in my Oct. 17th posting ("The Pink Slip Hurricane Barrelling Your Way")-- Nearly half of American jobs, are at risk of being automated within 15 years."

Fear not, however, as an amazing future awaits those who can learn how to adapt repeatedly to the continuing changes in the world of work. Does this require further education? Of course. But you can also build on the knowledge and experience you possess now.
History has shown over and over again that the end of old technology in the workplace almost invariably is replaced by new jobs created by new technology.

I will leave you with this:  Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.--John F. Kennedy

“

Neon Leon

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Neon Leon: The Trump Budget--Let It Bleed

The Trump Budget--Let It Bleed