I would prefer not to write about President Trump’s new budget, largely because I know it’s not a serious proposal.
Even before he was elected, I pointed out that Trump was 
a big-government Republican who had no intention of dealing with serious fiscal issues such as the rising burden of entitlement spending.
So I wasn’t surprised that he capitulated to swamp-friendly budget deals in 2017, 2018, and 2019. And I’m depressingly confident that the same thing will happen this year.
That being said, I want to comment on how the media is covering his latest budget.
Take a look at some of the headlines that are dominating the news this morning.
From Reuters.
From New York magazine.
From the Washington Times.
From NBC.
From the Associated Press.
From Bloomberg.
From International Business Times.
From Fox.
From the Wall Street Journal.
All of these headlines make is seem like Trump is proposing a Reagan-style budget with lots of cuts, especially with regards to domestic programs.
All of that would be great news…if it was true.
In reality, here’s what Trump is projecting for total spending over the next 10 years.
Can you find the spending cuts?
And here’s what’s happening with domestic spending (mandatory outlays plus domestic discretionary) according to Trump’s budget.
Can you find the spending cuts?
Last but not least, here’s Trump’s plan for domestic discretionary spending.
Can you find the spending cuts?
So why is there such a big disconnect in the media? Why are there headlines about cutting and slashing when government is growing by every possible measure?
For the simple reason that the budget process in Washington is pervasively dishonest, as I’ve explained in interviews with John Stossel and Judge Napolitano. Here are the three things you need to know.
- The politicians created a system that automatically assumes big increases in annual spending, called a baseline.
- When there’s a proposal to have spending grow slower than the baseline, the gap between the proposal and the baseline is called a cut.
- It’s like being on a diet and claiming progress because you’re gaining two pounds each month rather than five pounds.
Defenders of this system argue that programs should get built-in increases because of things such as inflation, or because of more old people, which leads to more spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
It’s certainly reasonable for them to argue that budgets should increase for these reasons.
But they should be honest. Be forthright and assert that “Spending should climb X percent because…”
Needless to say, that won’t happen. The pro-spending politicians and interest groups like the current approach because it allows them to scare voters by warning about “savage” and “draconian” spending cuts.
Remember how Obama said the sequester would wreak havoc because of massive cuts? Except there weren’t any cuts, massive or otherwise. As Thomas Sowell pointed out, Obama was trying to deceive voters.
P.S. The British also use dishonest budgeting.
Trump does not have support of the House or the Senate. Reducing budgetary spending is not possible. But draining the swamp IS within his power. So he is doing what is practical ( yet still criticized ) by sending staff home and reducing those career expenditures of salaries, vacations, medical expenses, pensions, etc..
[…] This piece originally ran on the author’s private site […]
[…] day before, I castigated him for proposing a budget that expands the burden of government spending by $2 trillion over the next […]
Dan –
Fellow bulldog here…I absolutely love reading your blog!
I find this pervasive and incorrect framing maddening, yet you are about the only source I’m aware of calling out this ridiculous premise. Even news and opinion outlets I feel are typically more “accurate” in their reporting on public policy consistently make this same mistake (e.g. an article from Peter Suderman on Reason today “correcting” Elizabeth Warren that “cuts” to Medicare are only $600 billion instead of $750 billion).
Given the common language around “cuts” is such a blatant misrepresentation, I’m shocked that a sub-set of reporting outlets haven’t updated their policies and standards to reflect a more honest accounting of the budget math.
I guess my question to you (likely unanswerable) is why do you think a more honest framing on this issue is ignored even by outlets that should be ideologically predisposed to call out the farcical nature of “reporting” on this issue?
[…] « The Media’s Pervasively Dishonest Coverage of Trump’s New Budget […]
[…] Thoughts on the mendacious media coverage of it. […]
As much as it pains you to write this stuff, it pains me to read it (that is, read the truth). Lol
On repeat: the executive branch should have only 4 permanent agencies — treasury, AG, state and defense. Every other agency and program should have a sunset provision. Social insurance, which I’m not against, should be 100% off-balance sheet and run by independent actuaries appointed for 10 year terms on a rotating basis with Congressional oversight due to taxing powers.
Have a read through William Simon’s “A Time for Truth.” Even back in the late 1970s, the media wailed that any restraint in the growth of federal spending constituted a draconian “cut” with all the same predicted victims of such penury. Nothing’s changed.
The only issue I have with Trump is that he hasn’t fired, retired, or severanced ANY federal bureaucrat that is responsible for these budget figures. Government exists to grow itself and until ALL members of the bureaucracy this problem will never go away.
Blame Trump all you want, but spending is THEE core issue of any government employee. Period. Until they are gone I would say blame Congress more than anyone else as all spending bills have to pass there first.