As populist budget plans go, President Trump has delivered one that is certain to make his supporters happy and politicians terrified. For that, he deserves a great deal of kudos. When Nancy Pelosi says things like, “This budget is a really a slap in the face of the future,” she clearly doesn’t understand that it’s a slap intended to hit DC itself.

That’s the good news. This trend of doing the things he promised is arguably the most endearing part of the Trump’s early presidency. He said he was going to build a wall and he’s budgeting for it. He said he was going to boost the military and he’s finding the money in government agencies. As The Hill details:

Unveiled earlier in the day, Trump’s 2018 budget outline attempts to make good on the president’s campaign promise to boost the military and border security efforts while dramatically shrinking domestic programs across almost all other agencies. The proposed reductions include a 31 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency, 28 percent to the State Department, 18 percent to the Health and Human Services Department and 16 percent to the Army Corps of Engineers.

Now, let’s discuss the future. I’ve always been critical of Trump for being a “big government” guy and this budget doesn’t change that criticism. He’s making cuts to pay for things he promised, not because he’s trying to rein in DC. However, it can be used in the future as a blueprint to demonstrate major cuts in departments and agencies will not result in the end of their little bureaucratic worlds. Global warming isn’t going to send hurricanes ripping through Kansas. They’ll have to tighten up their belts, but they’ll survive. Even the agencies and departments that have no reason to exist such as Education and Environment will still continue. They’ll find a way. After all, they’re still running their individual departments with more money than many small countries use to run their entire governments.

This brings us back to the question of whether or not it’s good to up spending on the military and the border wall. As much as I’d like to say that we don’t need to spend the additional money, I can’t. The fiscally conservative principles of Federalism must be applied in stages. That means that the wasteful spending of the past combined with poor tax plans must still be reconciled. The borders need to be secured and the military needs to be brought up to snuff.

The question of whether or not Trump’s populist budget is justifiable won’t be answered this year. We’ll need to see what cuts can be made elsewhere. We’ll need to determine with portion of the administrative state can be killed off altogether. Most importantly, we need to make sure he doesn’t give into his big government leanings and continue big spending after his military and border security promises are fulfilled.

The President is making cuts to initiate his plans. Will he have the discipline to keep cutting and then to stop adding to spending once his projects are compete? If so, the slap in the face the Democrats are describing will only sting them and their big government goals.

On Monday, March 6th a thud so loud it registered on the Richter Scale was heard all across the United States.  That thud was the sound of Speaker Paul Ryan’s ObamaCare replacement plan being released.  Very quickly his replacement plan was greeted by a chorus of angry criticism from the Freedom Caucus, Freedom Works, the Tea Party Patriots, and so many other conservative/libertarian organizations.  All of those organizations saw Speaker Ryan’s proposal as a betrayal of their principles.  Labels such as ObamaCare 2.0, ObamaCare Lite, RyanCare, and RinoCare were immediately thrown at the proposal .

Here is an excerpt from a Senator Rand Paul interview, which was published in this Breitbart Article, where he criticizes Speaker Ryan’s legislation.

I think the reason why the House leadership bill is Obamacare Lite is because it retains subsidies. Obamacare had subsidies for people to buy insurance. In the Paul Ryan bill, they keep the subsidies—they just call them refundable tax credits. Some people are predicting that it’s actually going to be more expensive than the subsidies we have under Obamacare. This isn’t you getting your own money back, this is you getting somebody else’s money

The second thing that Paul Ryan’s Obamacare Lite bill does is they keep the Obamacare taxes—all of them—for a year. And then after a year, they keep the Cadillac Tax forever. That’s the tax on if you have really good insurance, Obamacare taxes that. So will Paul Ryan’s plan.

The third thing they do that is Obamacare-like is they keep the individual mandate. It seems like every Republican says they were against the individual mandate. That’s if you didn’t buy insurance you had to pay a penalty to the government, a tax. Obamacare Lite, Paul Ryan’s plan, just changes it so you have to pay a penalty to the insurance companies.

Then the fourth thing they do is they actually subsidize the insurance companies. Right now, insurance companies are losing money and Obamacare has this rescue thing called ‘risk corridors’ to bail out the insurance companies. Paul Ryan has got the same thing, he just calls it reinsurance and it’s $100 million worth. I predict that might not even be enough.

Speaker Ryan claims that his proposal is the best that can be done, because the repeal and replace needs to be done under Budget Reconciliation, to avoid a Democrat filibuster in the Senate.  According to Speaker Ryan his legislative proposal is just step one in a 3 step process.  Here is how he describes this process on his official website

As Speaker Ryan explained at his press conference, this approach has three overarching phases:

The American Health Care Act, which takes full advantage of the budget reconciliation process to avoid a Democratic filibuster;

Administration actions, notably by HHS Secretary Price, to stabilize the health insurance market, increase choices, and lower costs; and

Additional legislative policies, such as allowing individuals to purchase coverage across state lines, that by Senate rules cannot be included in a reconciliation bill.

Unfortunately, Speaker Ryan’s original proposal is such a miserable starting point for this Herculean effort it makes achieving anything worthwhile nearly impossible.

Many Republicans have stated that Speaker Ryan’s proposal is open to amendments.  This is what Representative Mark Sanford had to say about amendments in this Breitbart Article:

With regard to a healthcare bill moving forward, I see leadership’s healthcare plan as an opening proposal,

The debate that is forming will allow conservatives to enhance and improve what has been proposed, and I think this could represent a win for patients, healthcare providers, and the taxpayer alike.

Hopefully major amendments to Speaker Ryan’s proposal will be allowed,  but I’m not at all optimistic about that.

Why is Speaker Ryan’s proposal such a miserable first attempt?  Conservative Review has a very insightful theory  which they shared in this Article

In order to benefit individuals, a plan would have to focus on choice, competition, flexibility – the things that allow people to purchase what best suits their needs. Enter the next act in the health care reform drama – Paul Ryan’s “American Health Care Act” (AHCA for short). Republicans believe in free markets, right? So clearly the fundamental underpinnings of a Republican-designed health care plan will focus on freedom and individual choice, right? Uh … right?

A close look at the AHCA reveals a different operating philosophy, one more tied to preserving the status quo and appeasing industry interests than to improving cost of care, and choice for individuals. Put more simply, Paul Ryan’s Obamacare substitute is fundamentally geared toward keeping a stable customer base for insurers and encouraging universal insurance coverage rather than toward enabling a free market for health care.

According to this article, The Federalist has a theory about why Speaker Ryan’s proposal fails to repeal ObamaCare:

If you want to know why Republicans have bogged down, notice one peculiar thing about the Obamacare debate so far. It’s not really a debate over Obamacare, it’s a debate over Medicaid. That’s because Obamacare mostly turned out to be a big expansion of Medicaid. The health insurance exchanges that were supposed to provide affordable private health insurance (under a government aegis) never really delivered.

Ever since the passage of ObamaCare, Republican were united under the banner of full repeal and then replace.  Unfortunately, Speaker Ryan’s proposal is only a partial repeal. After the release of RyanCare, the Republicans are now seriously, if not hopelessly,  divided.  I believe only a return to full repeal will unite the Republican Party.  After the full repeal then the Republicans can pass a free market, patient centered replacement such as the one Senator Rand Paul authored.  Here is a link to his plan: Rand Paul Plan.

Roger Cobb: Terry? I guess it wasn’t meant to be between us. I’ll always regret that. But I want you to know that, wherever it is you’re going, I hope you’ll be very happy.
Terry Hoskins:: I will. I’ve got a wonderful house, beautiful horses and all the money in the world why shouldn’t I be happy?
Roger Cobb: What?
Terry Hoskins:: If you think I’m really going through with this you’re not just stupid, you’re crazy.
Edwina Cutwatter {in Roger’s Body} What?
Roger Cobb: I’ll handle this. What?
Terry Hoskins::From the beginning I thought if mad Edwina wants to give her money away, she may as well give it to me. I never thought that “Flying Nun” could do it.

All of Me 1984

One thing about the Trump Tax story that’s actually more interesting than the left going from:

 Trump is keeping his tax returns from the Public because it will hurt him

to

Trump tricked us into releasing his tax return to the public because it will help him

Is  this question being asked by Allahpundit:’

Maddow’s fans idolize her as a smart liberal with a supposedly foolproof bullsh*t detector — yet here she was last night not only bullsh*tting them at length about the news value of the returns but quite possibly doing so as an unwitting pawn in a limited hangout by the Trump White House. She got suckered by someone, maybe the Republican president himself, which is something that should never, ever happen to MSNBC’s liberal eggheads. It’s sufficiently bad for her brand that it’s hard to imagine how she could have rationalized one night of mega-ratings as being worth the letdown and loss of faith in her judgment that she’d suffer among her regular fans. So I ask again: Why the ridiculous hype? I can’t figure it out.

which is even more cogent given this excellent point

by the time she finally got into the details of the 1040, it was Geraldo and the Al Capone vault all over again. Which brings us back to the question: Why? Why make viewers wait with bated breath for something you know can only disappoint them?

John Ziegler’s explanation is that hype is usually inversely proportional to actual news value. That is, it’s because Maddow knew she had nothing that she had to draw out the suspense. If there was anything truly juicy in the return, he reasons, don’t you think it would have been revealed by NBC’s hard news division, most likely Lester Holt’s program, instead of by Maddow during the 9 p.m. hour of liberal power?

So the questions on the floor are:

Why did Maddow push this?

Why are MSNBC and the rest of the press are still pushing it‘?

The Answer is as Stacy McCain alludes to is:  this is what the liberal rubes want.

After finally “reporting” the numbers, Maddow then filled the extra time with a lot of blabber — wild speculation about what sinister secrets might be hidden behind those opaque numbers. She suggested there could be debts owed to shady foreign entities (Russians, nudge, nudge, wink, wink) who could thereby influence Trump’s policies. While it is of course possible that such things could be true, speculation is not news, or else I could win a Pulitzer Prize for my seven-part series speculating that Rachel Maddow could be having a secret affair with Mika Brzezinski. Because, hey, why not?

The circular logic of Maddow’s “investigative journalism”:

  1. Donald Trump is a Republican;
  2. Republicans are evil;
    therefore
  3. Somewhere, there must be evidence of how evil Trump is.

Really, that’s all she’s got — a belief in Trump’s evil, which permits her (and every other liberal journalist) to constantly locate mountainous “scandals” where anyone with common sense sees only a molehill. Ever since Hillary lost the election, the media have been dogpiling every possible variation on the Russians-hacked-the-election conspiracy theory, because that’s what their core audience of disappointed Democrat voters want to believe. [emphasis mine]

Remember we’ve seen this before, when the Target was Michelle Bachmann

For many months we’re heard about Bachmann “scandals” that have been ready to break .

With a left dying to beat her and a media scoffing at and hating her it would be only a matter of time before the chickens would come home to roost.

Bull.

You have an IRS that was leaking tax information to the left, you have an AG going after Fox news reporters and their families, you had a press united in their disdain for the congresswoman and you think if there was some there there we would not have seen some actual meat out there?

And of course there was Fitzmas, when the entire left was convinced that prosecutor was just a step away from indicting Karl Rove, who would lead to Dick Cheney and maybe even George W. Bush.  Do you remember the anticipation, the jokes on late night and all that?  Stacy McCain did

For the love of God, have we forgotten “Fitzmas,” the 2005 rumor that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s federal grand jury was about to indict Rove or Cheney or both? Who could ever forget the ridiculous farce of “investigative journalist” Scott Leopold “reporting” in May 2006 that Rove had been indicted?

And most importantly how it ended for them

05.10.25.BlueFitzmas-X

Stacy again

All of that ridiculous “PlameGate” nonsense was taken very seriously by the mainstream media, as though it were a real scandal that might implicate the president in High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and yet it was transparently absurd from start to finish.

That sounds really familiar doesn’t it, Trump Russia, Trump and Taxes, Trump and Bannon, etc etc etc the MSM keeps pushing this stuff, not because they believe it but because they know their customer base on the left does and will keep believing, and even if They’re burned

They just keep grabbing the next one.

You see liberalism is a religion and Their primary belief is that Conservatives/Republicans are the focus of evil in the world and we’re only one leak or investigation away from them being exposed forever.

That’s why this 2nd tweet from Ali is evergreen

Just substitute Bush, or Cheney, or Rove, or Palin, or Bachmann, and that tweet would be true in the past. We can put Conway or Bannon instead or (or along with) Trump and that sentence still works. And someday and someday in the future those names will be replaced by Republicans we’ve never heard of.

But the Democrats will still be the same and the MSM and the professional left will be there to play them, just as Ironically Buzzfeed reports that even Brett Kimberlin is back to play the rubes. Yeah Kimberlin is a bomber, a con man, a violent mendacious serial litigator but he’s not so stupid as not to recognize an easy mark when he sees them.

This is religion for the left and they’ll keep believing no matter what reality says to the contrary and if it doesn’t pan out they’ll wipe away their memory of their last failure just like Wikipedia wiped away Fitzmas removing its entry & redirecting it down the memory hole and grasp the next “scandal”.

I’ll give the last word to Peter Cook and Rowan Atkinson who demonstrate here

that Monty Python isn’t the only British comedy that the left has mistakenly decided was actually a guide to life.


Alas there isn’t as much money in just reporting and telling the truth as we see it. But if you’d like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in dollars we will always happily accept your prayers.