When the plan is to just take the equivalent of a shotgun and pepper the entire federal budget full of holes, it's inevitably going to hit programs that, for all Red State conservatives lip-service to "small government/drown the baby" fiscal policy, they actually don't want cut. And when that happens, expect the howls of righteous indignation from the heartland to reach a crescendo, forcing flop-sweating members of the GOP in Congress to pull back from the brink of the budgetary abattoir.
It's going to take decades to fully recover from the next 4 years.
"Overall, the blueprint being used by Trump’s team would reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years."

I know its a bit over simplistic to analyze this as being $1 Trillion per year of cuts. So that would be ~25% of the federal budget ($3.8 trillion) he's cutting. And since he promised throughout his campaign (and via Bernie's poster) that he won't cut entitlements or defense I believe this would mean he's cutting everything else down to 0.

Personally i think its better to simply point out those numbers make no sense in terms of plausible budget cuts.

Says the ignoramus who's so intellectually lazy and unimaginative he couldn't come up with an original screen name, but instead stole the name of a gay Republican.

But at the same time he's been talking about increasing defense spending, so the numbers would be even more out-of-balance.
We can whine about the pittance spent on the NEA when the defense budget is reduced to a level commensurate with the actual threats this country faces.

It makes sense that you probably haven't read anything more recent than novels written by white men from the mid-1800's...
@3: I cringe that my tax dollars support someone training for criminal justice or hotel management. you don't get to decide what's worthwhile for student loans.

unless McConnell dispenses with the filibuster, dems still have the power to block this nonsense. so until then, it's just more bullshit avalanching down bullshit mountain.
@9 Dunning-Kruger disaster looms large future.
Thank God this man is now in office. He will, I suspect, do most everything I and millions of others ask of him. I couldn't be more pleased today.
Setting aside the issue of controversial art, the subjectivity of artistic merit, and the notion of a marketplace of ideas...

Let's consider Maslow's hierarchy, shall we?

While so many Americans struggle to afford housing, medical care, transportation, etc, do public funds really need to be prioritizing the arts? I love the arts, really. But they are the tip of Maslow's hierarchy: self-actualization. To put it bluntly, food comes first. And to tax someone who's struggling to pay his mortgage and get glasses for his kids just strikes me as wrong.

The question isn't whether at has value. The question is whether it takes priority over many of the other public policy considerations.

We've got finite resources, people. The failure to recognize that is as out of touch as "let them eat cake."

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.