As everyone already knows (if you did the homework), last night Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union Address to Congress, calling on Congress to act upon his policy agenda. A majority of Trump’s speech centered around nationalism, veterans, immigration, foreign threats, and more veterans. However Trump’s new proposals geared towards the aforementioned topics call into question how the funding will be appropriated and reallocated, seeing that we are already in debt nationally
Firstly, Trump would cut funding directed towards Medicare and other mandatory spending entitlement programs, reversing the universal healthcare that Obama had strenuously worked to implement. An infrastructure deficit would be caused by the additional spending geared towards improving our roads, airports, bridges, etc. using AMERICAN workers,which he stresses repeatedly throughout his entire 80 minute speech. Of course, as most Republican presidents do, he wants to build and strengthen the military and border security by building a nuclear arsenal, increasing border patrol and security, keeping Guantanamo Bay open for detention, building a wall (that is reported to cost around $25 billion), refining detainment processes, and overall amending the structure and size of the military. Alongside, domestic programs including law enforcement and hurricane relief programs would be allocated money. However, he surprisingly fails to mentions mandatory spending reductions which must have been a huge shocker for his fellow Republicans. Regardless of the hefty budget reorganization Trump adheres to, he also never once addresses the national debt, budget deficits, and spending cuts. While he excessively praises himself for creating a tax cut bill that would cut taxes for both the American citizens and corporations, he leaves out a crucial piece of information: in a few years (when we will have to start paying taxes), the taxes will increase again for families, but businesses will continue to pay reduced taxes (30% to 21%)
Forbes analysts reviewed the speech and made the three following conclusions:
- “If the program Trump laid out in his address is enacted, the annual budget deficit will be closer to $1.5 trillion than the $1.0 trillion many are projecting every year through at least the next 10 years.
- Legislated deficit reductions of any kind, including mandatory spending, are not at all likely before the 2018 election.
Opinion: By the tone of the summary, it is quite obvious where I stand on his speech, and to say it was disappointing is an understatement. Trump says he wants to make prescription drugs and medication readily available to ill people, but then goes on to cut funding for healthcare. It is already known that the military receives the most funding, and now he plans to make it bigger along with a 25 billion dollar wall. Guantanamo Bay is also notorious for being overtly inhumane and racist, polarizing against Muslims and Middle Easterns. Also the tax cuts he has proposed would only benefit corporate companies, as if they don’t have enough money. In a few years the tax cuts for citizens will increase again, and as a recent graduate of college, my debts would already be piling up, so I really am excited to have a tax increase too.
Questions:
- Do you think that more funding should be directed towards military and border security? Are there other programs that should be prioritized instead?
- What effect will using American workers for infrastructure projects have on immigrant families and their economic contributions?
- What does Trump’s budget plan mean for the national debt?
8 comments:
I'm honestly confused as to why President Trump, with his America First foreign policy and his commitment to sweeping tax reforms, would hike up military expenditures higher than they already are.
From a foreign policy perspective, it's been proven that a 'peace through force' approach, with multiple military bases on multiple continents is not a safe, affordable or feasible way of approaching world affairs, even as a global power.From a fiscal perspective, I don't have to tell you that if you intend to cut taxes, it's best to cut expenditures as well. However, I do believe that an America-centric foreign policy could concern heightened border security, so perhaps if the president wants to make the security of our borders his pet project, then he could consider re-allocating military expenditures to border security and our national guard.
In terms of other programs, I think that we need the federal government to become a sort of massive investment bank. We need to focus our financial energies and resources into job-creating and GDP-boosting initiatives, like infrastructure, education, and, yes, healthcare-things which are proven to have a financial return in the future.
I had this problem watching Trump's speech as well. He was mentioning all these (extremely pricey) programs he plans to implement in the next 3 years. Infrastructure, security, and border walls are all things that are going to cost a lot of money, but at the same time he is touting these programs, he is also patting himself on the back for all of his tax cuts. This is, as everyone in the world seems to be saying except the president himself, a massive deficit in the national budget. Holding ideas that conflict with reality seemed to be a major the of the president's speech. Although in fairness it is also a theme that is consistent with his life. I also enjoyed the subtle sexism throughout his speech, such as near the end when he mentioned mothers in addition to other traditionally masculine roles, seeming to indicate that a women has to be a mother in order to have value in society. He also did not mention any of the "Me Too" or Black Lives Matter movements that seem an important part of 2017, and worthy of anknowledgement in a State of the Union speech. Oh, well, I guess I should have expected as much.
I think that our generation has been very privileged to have grown up listening to arguably one of the best public speakers to ever be President in Mr. Obama. Obviously, most of us lived through Bush's whole eight years, but frankly, who actively participates in politics when they're five years-old? You're supposed to be enjoying a care-free life, not one plagued by the stresses of government. Anyways, I think that because of this privilege we have grown up with, we inherently have a very high standard for Presidential speeches, not taking into account how truly unique Obama was at giving them. President Trump definitely didn't meet this standard, but he did what everyone expected him to do, which was try to act professionally and moderate his views. It was also obvious to see how each of his multiple invited guests had very unique, and very non-representing stories to tell. He tried to diversify his guests as much as possible, making it seem as though his constituency of followers isn't so lopsided after all, yet you could easily find out that that is terribly misleading and false with a few clicks on Google. From watching the speech and then all the news panels held after, it is easy to see that neither the Democrats nor Republicans were convinced by this "new" Trump, and rightly so. It is incredibly hard to trust someone who is very public about his thoughts and opinions about certain things, much to the chagrin of his own party members. He changes his opinion from one radical thought to another so quickly that it seems like you never know what he's actually going to do. Overall, I agree with Shweta that this speech was very disappointing and that it really told us nothing with certainty about what he actually plans to do over the next year.
One of the biggest highlights of the whole speech was Trump's comments on bridging gaps between American citizens, as well as political parties.
"All of us, together, as one team, one people, and one American family. So tonight I am extending an open hand to work with members of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, to protect our citizens, of every background, color, and creed."
In this time of widespread polarization, I hope this comment comes to fruition. But just looking at how many Democrats didn't clap or stand throughout the entire speech, I doubt we will become closer as a people.
I also noticed what Josh did about the clapping, and I don't really expect any different from the Democratic politicians. I doubt people in our liberal leaning school would clap either, or even sit through 2 minutes of the speech. Our nation will stay polarized, politics will continue to become more emotional in a positive feedback loop. Of course every "wants" unity when given a chance to speak about it, but they simply laugh when the other side extends a hand, and past disagreements can never be forgiven. I do think Trump has done and said a LOT of dumb things, but if he really means what he says, we should at least listen to him. Most of the "fact-checking" done on him was not done to check the facts, but address things he didn't mention that counteracts his positive statistics. The fact that he can convincingly "lie" or choose his statistics simply makes the speech a good one, and it's not like he's the first president or famous person to cherry pick statistics to prop up their ego.
I think one thing that was interesting was that everyone had such crazy protests against Trump trying to end DACA and deport dreamers, even though he never said he would, and he ended up compromising. Now, after the fact, people still hold onto the outrage but don't acknowledge that Trump responded to it. The article and Shweta mention things that Trump left out that wouldn't look good for him, but if I were giving a speech, I wouldn't want to dwell on the negatives either. The article and this analysis of it is also so focused on what Trump did wrong that they refused to acknowledge the positives of Trump's politics and the good aspects of his speech, which is a bit hypocritical, as they make it seem like such a heinous crime to leave out things that don't necessarily help one's case.
I also want to respond to the question, "What effect will using American workers for infrastructure projects have on immigrant families and their economic contributions?" because it is a question that shows a complete misunderstanding of the immigration debate that has perpetrated for the last year. When Trump talks about border security, he is not talking about immigrants. He is talking about illegal immigrants. The "immigrants" referred to in the question are Americans, so the question makes no sense. If immigrants come in legally, they are Americans and will have their chance to become naturalized. If we allow prospective immigrants to come in based on merit, as Trump suggests, they will become contributing members of society, have their economic contributions rewarded, and do perfectly fine. I don't see everyone criticizing Australia for being racist when it has turned away middle eastern refugees and employs similar immigration security and a merit-based entry system. America is already more lenient than Australia, but somehow Trump is a villain for emphasizing legal immigrants (and the rest of the American people) over illegal immigrants, even after protecting the children who have already grown up here illegally. I understand that Trump has said things about Muslims, Mexicans, and African countries, but those quotes are either taken out of context and cut at the right places to make them sound worse, or from momentary anger. I just think we should at least try to learn about the real issues instead of ignoring them to bash one person, but unfortunately it's probably too much to ask
Michael said it best on polarization. Everybody claims they want unity when asked if they do, but their actions say otherwise. The democrats aren't really any better than Trump in this regard. Their rejection of honest discussion is what got Trump (another person who rejects honest discussion) elected.
It seems in your writing that you assume Trump has evil intent in what he's doing. For example "Trump says he wants to make prescription drugs and medication readily available to ill people, but then goes on to cut funding for healthcare."
Trump and Republicans believe that government is the problem in healthcare and not the solution, which honestly isn't that far-fetched of a claim. Medicare could save money if it was allowed to negotiate down drug prices. The FDA approval process means that generic drugs come to the market much later than expensive brand-name ones. It's also my opinion that the healthcare industry in general needs to be shrunk down to emergencies only. In medical practices that aren't covered through healthcare (ex: lasik eye surgery) costs are down and patient satisfaction ratings are up.
You don't have to agree with any of the above, but you should at least recognize that Trump has reasons for doing what he's doing. That's step one on the path to answer your question of what programs should be prioritized.
At the end of the day, Trump's speech was decent even though he isn't the best performer. He took credit for the economy and talked about how his budget plan is so great... That's what any president would do.
Just about everything is a bigger financial priority than the military. No foreign country would dare attack America, so there is no reason to expand the nuclear arsenal. The US currently has 4,000 nuclear weapons ready to be used if need be, and that is far more than enough. By comparison, France has only 300 nukes, yet that is plenty to deter any hypothetical invasion. All recent attacks against America have been perpetrated by civilians, who can't be deterred by Nukes.
America could benefit by having infrastructure improvement, but prioritizing American workers for being American hurts everyone else. We shouldn't avoid American construction workers, but specifically hiring Americans will come with a price premium. This will hurting American taxpayers and increase the national debt for no good reason.
While I did notice many of the shady exclusions in Trump's speech that Shweta pointed out, I have to agree with Michael and say that Trump gloating about his accomplishments during the speech and failing to address the potentially unfavorable "stipulations" is expected of a president in a State of the Union address; he is supposed to talk about what his administration has accomplished and will accomplish in the future. Outlining all of his successes and leaving out the stipulations, especially the ones that are not relevant at this time (family tax cuts being temporary but businesses enjoying the tax cuts permanently in 2025) is logical and frankly, fair. Every president does this and it is not their responsibility in the State of the Union to detail exactly what each of their acts or bills will do. They can choose to talk about the accomplishments that make them look good.
However, I did think that Trump's State of the Union address lacked a lot of policy discussion (especially in matters moving forward) typically featured in the speech. He used a lot of anecdotal evidence, referenced a lot of guests and talked a lot about what he was able to push into legislation rather than addressing impact and problems in the nation. He enjoyed talking about himself and telling stories much more than speaking about policy, and given his constant displays of pride and self-absorption, this seemed pretty consistent with his character.
The few policy claims and goals he did touch upon were exaggerated, falsely credited or hypocritical. For instance, Trump grossly overcredits himself with the stock market gains and decrease in unemployment rates, (he does deserve some credit, just not as much as he's giving himself). Both Obama and the elder Bush had higher stock market gains that Trump did in their first year (33.7%, 22.8%, 21.4% respectively according to NYT) AND Trump is riding one of the longest bull markets. Presidents don't usually credit themselves with stock market behavior, but Trump probably had a lack of additional material to boast about.
I felt that his rally for "unity" and compromise in the country was one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard, and while I truly hope that he will carry through, I don't think it's very feasible. The Democrats refusing to applaud for Trump's address is hardly the most prominent evidence of obstacles to this goal, and while I do agree that political party polarization on both sides is a giant problem, the most hypocritical roadblock to national unity and acceptance is the president himself. He failed to condemn white supremacists in Charlottesville, made degrading and racist comments about minority races and other countries, faced multiple sexual assault allegations and how he's calling for unity? How can the country unify when so many groups of people feel unsafe and attacked by the one person who represents the country?
Finally, to address the actual questions that were asked, the national debt right now is over $19 trillion. The debt will increase another $1.5 trillion in the next 10 years, if national deficit follows the pattern Congress estimates. Now is not the time to be increasing debt, much less allocating even more funds to defense spending and increasing our nuclear arsenal to the point that we can blow up the world four times over instead of just three. With the Baby Boomer generation beginning to retire and health care becoming an increasingly important issue for all political parties, there are smarter and better things to invest the national budget in. Trump's tax cut and reform are also coming at an inopportune moment, as Sam mentioned, given the amount of government money he is planning to spend.
Post a Comment