The Pentagon’s budget is going to fall from $716 billion in 2019 to $700 billion (2.3 percent) in 2020. The US military had been planning on a $733 billion budget in 2020 but Trump has ordered a 5% budget cut.
In Fiscal Year 2019, the federal budget will be $4.407 trillion. The budget cut will not change medicare or social security or interest payment (total of about $2.5 trillion). A 5% budget cut across the board would cut about $100 billion. This would keep deficits stable at about $800 billion.
The order to cut came directly from Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney. All federal agencies and departments had been ordered to make 5% budget cuts.
In his most recent cabinet meeting, President Trump called on every department head to come to the next meeting with a plan to cut 5% of their budgets.
The government reported a 17% jump in the budget deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
The budget deficit grew to $779 billion as the economy is growing by about 3.4% in 2018. The first three quarters had 2.2%, 4.2% and 3.5% growth. The full 2018 year looks like it will have 3.1 to 3.5% GSP growth.
The talk for the 5% cut is that the F-35 program will be protected but buying new ships for the 355 ship plan will be delayed. Other new equipment and some modernization programs will be delayed.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Truth is, if entitlements aren’t controlled then ultimately the budget can’t be controlled, no matter how much discretionary items such as defense are cut.And, of course, there’s the small matter of handing China dominance in Asia.
The greatest threat we face is China in the Pacific, not a land war in Europe against Russia. Military budgets should reflect this reality by emphasizing air, sea, and space power, not so much infantry & tanks.
The CBO says $1.1 Trillion next year, so good luck with keeping the deficit at $800 Billion.And good luck getting them to cut 5%.
See how this shell game is played, kiddies?They rig it so a ‘cut’ occurs after they raised spending…so they get the resulting net spending increase they plaed on having all along while claiming that they ‘cut’ the budget!Meanwhile, ‘cut’ in DC-speak really means ‘cut in GROWTH of spending’…not ‘cut in spending’.
If these predictions of a stockmarket crash and recession in 2019 are true, then it is not external threats, but internal threats we should be worrying about.
So we cut the budget to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. I thought they were supposed to pay for themselves. OK. I understand. We must give more to the wealthy.
A 5% budget cut will mean higher unemployment and drop in tax revenues. Everything is coected. No one is actually sure what next year deficit will be. We will have to see what the tax accounts will do with the new income tax laws.
This is what the Administration has left because of the Democrat instituted madness called sequestration. Since Obama and his Democrats refused to negotiate line by line over any aspect of the budget, failing to perceive limitations to any federal program over time (like Obamacare, remember?), all we have are either continuing resolutions, or dutiful deals to pass any spending program within the limits of sequestration ujust to avoid debate and keep open prospects of ‘deals’ with duplicitous, hot potato Democrats.Would be delighted to see Nancy Pelosi and her clan control the House. There is absolutely nothing they have proposed in spending or spending cuts that any person in their right mind would pass. Now you have a President and a likely expanded GOP Senate that can just sit on their hands, unlike Obama and his Senate, which promoted government shutdowns and budget cut blackmail to send their ‘message’ that incompetent public medicine will not be debated or changed.This leaves the matter of the budget ceiling. This will probably be limited to reflect the new budget projections with the 5% shrinkage. And no reason why GOP’ers anywhere would not offer that as the ‘take it or leave it offer’.NBF science trolls, have a nice day.
Actually, this proposed 5% budget cut is in response to looking at a $ Trillion dollars added to the National Debt, because of a tax cut that almost exclusively benefited the very wealthy .1%. If you leave that out of the equation, then what you say makes sense, but then you are ignoring the real problem.Please, please don’t bother telling me about President Obama raising the debt – putting the Bush Cheney Excellent Iraq War Adventure on the books and bailing out the world economy from his Great Recession. The National Debt completely belongs to the Republicans and has just been a transfer of wealth to a wealthy minority…
This is what the Administration has left because of the Democrat instituted madness called sequestration. Since Obama and his Democrats refused to negotiate line by line over any aspect of the budget, failing to perceive limitations to any federal program over time (like Obamacare, remember?), all we have are either continuing resolutions, or dutiful deals to pass any spending program within the limits of sequestration ujust to avoid debate and keep open prospects of ‘deals’ with duplicitous, hot potato Democrats.Would be delighted to see Nancy Pelosi and her clan control the House. There is absolutely nothing they have proposed in spending or spending cuts that any person in their right mind would pass. Now you have a President and a likely expanded GOP Senate that can just sit on their hands, unlike Obama and his Senate, which promoted government shutdowns and budget cut blackmail to send their ‘message’ that incompetent public medicine will not be debated or changed.This leaves the matter of the budget ceiling. This will probably be limited to reflect the new budget projections with the 5% shrinkage. And no reason why GOP’ers anywhere would not offer that as the ‘take it or leave it offer’.NBF science trolls, have a nice day.
Actually, this proposed 5% budget cut is in response to looking at a $ Trillion dollars added to the National Debt, because of a tax cut that almost exclusively benefited the very wealthy .1%. If you leave that out of the equation, then what you say makes sense, but then you are ignoring the real problem.
Please, please don’t bother telling me about President Obama raising the debt – putting the Bush Cheney Excellent Iraq War Adventure on the books and bailing out the world economy from his Great Recession. The National Debt completely belongs to the Republicans and has just been a transfer of wealth to a wealthy minority…
This is what the Administration has left because of the Democrat instituted madness called sequestration. Since Obama and his Democrats refused to negotiate line by line over any aspect of the budget, failing to perceive limitations to any federal program over time (like Obamacare, remember?), all we have are either continuing resolutions, or dutiful deals to pass any spending program within the limits of sequestration ujust to avoid debate and keep open prospects of ‘deals’ with duplicitous, hot potato Democrats.
Would be delighted to see Nancy Pelosi and her clan control the House. There is absolutely nothing they have proposed in spending or spending cuts that any person in their right mind would pass. Now you have a President and a likely expanded GOP Senate that can just sit on their hands, unlike Obama and his Senate, which promoted government shutdowns and budget cut blackmail to send their ‘message’ that incompetent public medicine will not be debated or changed.
This leaves the matter of the budget ceiling. This will probably be limited to reflect the new budget projections with the 5% shrinkage. And no reason why GOP’ers anywhere would not offer that as the ‘take it or leave it offer’.
NBF science trolls, have a nice day.
Well, federal revenue (income from taxes) is up this year and at a record high. Even with the tax cuts. Spending is also at a high. It has more than doubled, even adjusting for inflation, what it was less that 20 years ago. DOUBLED. We have plenty of income after the tax cut. We just have a lot more we are spending money on also.
Could you explain why not. It seems obvious to me but I am willing to entertain alternatives.
Well I’m glad then that Social Security and Medicare are paid for by taxes on employment and aren’t entitlements. So now if the rest of the entitlements are going to bust the budget, don’t you think tax cuts and increased military spending might be bad ideas?
Well, Duh? Is some little backwards country on the other side of the Pacific ocean with no Navy or Air Force really a threat to America? Nope, the danger is corruption, which even Ayn Rand got right. Greed means you can spend a few million dollars to get control of billions of dollars in corporations or public funds…, saddle them with debt, steal all you can and leave a smoking heap behind. Hedge funds do it all the time. It’s greed and immorality you should fear.
That’s hysterical. There was a tax cut… or did you forget about that? It is now leading to a $1 Billion deficit this year. Now they are talking about a budget cut because of that deficit.So no supply side economist has ever said tax cuts pay for themselves. I guess you have never heard of Arthur Laffer or the Laffer curve used to talk Ronald Reagan into the first recent experiment in supply side economics… quite accurately called “voodoo economics” by the elder Bush. Apparently you have a very weak knowledge of history, but it is not my job to teach you. I suggest you reread your Any Rand books and get some sleep.By the way, all modern wealth is generated by civilization and taxes are the price of civilization.
A 5% budget cut will mean higher unemployment and drop in tax revenues”Ridiculous.
So we cut the budget to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy”No. We cut the budget because spending it out of control. Tax cuts of course are bigger for those who pay more in taxes! Duh!” I thought they were supposed to pay for themselves.”Libtard nonsense. No supply side economists has ever claimed that tax cuts pay for themselves — especially when the spending side is not disciplined. “We must give more to the wealthy.”Give what? THEIR own money back? You seem to have a problem with understanding who’s money belongs to whom.
If these predictions of a stockmarket crash and recession in 2019 are true, then it is not external threats, but internal threats we should be worrying about.
Could you explain why not. It seems obvious to me but I am willing to entertain alternatives.
So we cut the budget to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. I thought they were supposed to pay for themselves. OK. I understand. We must give more to the wealthy.
Well I’m glad then that Social Security and Medicare are paid for by taxes on employment and aren’t entitlements. So now if the rest of the entitlements are going to bust the budget, don’t you think tax cuts and increased military spending might be bad ideas?
Well, Duh? Is some little backwards country on the other side of the Pacific ocean with no Navy or Air Force really a threat to America? Nope, the danger is corruption, which even Ayn Rand got right. Greed means you can spend a few million dollars to get control of billions of dollars in corporations or public funds…, saddle them with debt, steal all you can and leave a smoking heap behind. Hedge funds do it all the time. It’s greed and immorality you should fear.
That’s hysterical. There was a tax cut… or did you forget about that? It is now leading to a $1 Billion deficit this year. Now they are talking about a budget cut because of that deficit.
So no supply side economist has ever said tax cuts pay for themselves. I guess you have never heard of Arthur Laffer or the Laffer curve used to talk Ronald Reagan into the first recent experiment in supply side economics… quite accurately called “voodoo economics” by the elder Bush. Apparently you have a very weak knowledge of history, but it is not my job to teach you. I suggest you reread your Any Rand books and get some sleep.
By the way, all modern wealth is generated by civilization and taxes are the price of civilization.
“A 5% budget cut will mean higher unemployment and drop in tax revenues”
Ridiculous.
“So we cut the budget to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy”
No. We cut the budget because spending it out of control.
Tax cuts of course are bigger for those who pay more in taxes! Duh!
” I thought they were supposed to pay for themselves.”
Libtard nonsense. No supply side economists has ever claimed that tax cuts pay for themselves — especially when the spending side is not disciplined.
“We must give more to the wealthy.”
Give what? THEIR own money back? You seem to have a problem with understanding who’s money belongs to whom.
A 5% budget cut will mean higher unemployment and drop in tax revenues. Everything is coected. No one is actually sure what next year deficit will be. We will have to see what the tax accounts will do with the new income tax laws.
If these predictions of a stockmarket crash and recession in 2019 are true, then it is not external threats, but internal threats we should be worrying about.
So we cut the budget to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. I thought they were supposed to pay for themselves. OK. I understand. We must give more to the wealthy.
A 5% budget cut will mean higher unemployment and drop in tax revenues. Everything is connected.
No one is actually sure what next year deficit will be. We will have to see what the tax accounts will do with the new income tax laws.
Truth is, if entitlements aren’t controlled then ultimately the budget can’t be controlled, no matter how much discretionary items such as defense are cut.And, of course, there’s the small matter of handing China dominance in Asia.
The greatest threat we face is China in the Pacific, not a land war in Europe against Russia. Military budgets should reflect this reality by emphasizing air, sea, and space power, not so much infantry & tanks.
The CBO says $1.1 Trillion next year, so good luck with keeping the deficit at $800 Billion.And good luck getting them to cut 5%.
See how this shell game is played, kiddies?They rig it so a ‘cut’ occurs after they raised spending…so they get the resulting net spending increase they plaed on having all along while claiming that they ‘cut’ the budget!Meanwhile, ‘cut’ in DC-speak really means ‘cut in GROWTH of spending’…not ‘cut in spending’.
Truth is, if entitlements aren’t controlled then ultimately the budget can’t be controlled, no matter how much discretionary items such as defense are cut.
And, of course, there’s the small matter of handing China dominance in Asia.
The greatest threat we face is China in the Pacific, not a land war in Europe against Russia. Military budgets should reflect this reality by emphasizing air, sea, and space power, not so much infantry & tanks.
The CBO says $1.1 Trillion next year, so good luck with keeping the deficit at $800 Billion.
And good luck getting them to cut 5%.
See how this shell game is played, kiddies?
They rig it so a ‘cut’ occurs after they raised spending…so they get the resulting net spending increase they planned on having all along while claiming that they ‘cut’ the budget!
Meanwhile, ‘cut’ in DC-speak really means ‘cut in GROWTH of spending’…not ‘cut in spending’.