Trump Seeks “Historic” $54 Billion Increase To Defense Spending

I judge people by what they do, not what they say. This is not what Trump promised during the campaign. The military industrial complex is alive and well. The stock prices of Wall Street banks are up 40% since Trump’s election. I wonder why. 
Tyler Durden's picture

As observed earlier in the day, as part of the leaked preliminary Trump budget, the president was set to unveil major spending increases for US defense offset by cuts to federal agencies, and other non-defense sectors. And on Monday morning, the first details emerged, including that the boost to defense spending is expected to be about 10%, or some $54 billion, and will be revenue neutral, offset by cuts in non-defense areas, and will not “add a dime to the deficit.” As Trump said, he is seeking a “historic increase” in military spending.

“This budget will be a public safety and national security budget,” Trump told state governors at the White House. “It will include an historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States of America at a time we most need it,” he said.

One of the officials cited by Reuters said Trump’s request for the Pentagon included more money for shipbuilding, military aircraft and establishing “a more robust presence in key international waterways and chokepoints” such as the Strait of Hormuz and South China Sea.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

A second official said the State Department’s budget could be cut by as much as 30 percent, which would force a major restructuring of the department and elimination of programs.  Some defense experts have questioned the need for a large increase in U.S. military spending, which already stands at roughly $600 billion annually. By contrast, the United States spends about $50 billion annually on the State Department and foreign assistance.

The White House will send federal agencies their proposed 2018 budget allocations at noon Monday, according to an Office of Management and Budget official. The official provided no specific details during a call with reporters about the rest of the budget, including the baseline figure being used for the cuts or over what period they would be made. The initial blueprint of the president’s budget will be released in mid-March, and the administration’s entire fiscal proposal is expected later in the spring.

The outline due next month will include only targets for discretionary spending programs, which represent around one-third of total federal spending. The blueprint won’t include proposed changes on tax policy or mandatory spending.

To offset the defense spending increase, the White House is seeking corresponding cuts of $54 billion in non-defense categories, including “large spending cuts” to foreign aid, the EPA, the State Department and safety programs. The official also added that most agencies would see funding reductions.

“Most federal agencies will see a reduction as a result,” the official said, with cuts falling most heavily on “lower priority” programs as well as foreign aid. When asked where the extra $54 billion will be spent, the official said “predominantly it will go to the Pentagon,” but declined to name specific offices.

According to The Hill, the budget will fundamentally alter the spending rules known as the sequester brokered in a 2013 deal between President Obama and Congress. That agreement set a cap on discretionary spending across the federal government, which affected defense and non-defense spending equally.

The punchline: according to the White House, the budget, at least as it stands right now, won’t add a dime to the deficit, suggesting that if only for the time being, the dramatic debt-funded spending spree remains on hold.

According to the WSJ, the Trump administration said the funding request will show that Mr. Trump is following through on promises he made during his campaign to boost military spending and put “America First,” a campaign theme he sounded in his inaugural address last month. It isn’t clear how the offsetting cuts will allow him to also make good on promises to ramp up funds for border security, infrastructure and veterans’ health care.

For now we await more details. As the NY Times reported ovenright, Trump’s plan which is a collaboration between budget director, Mick Mulvaney; NEC director Gary Cohn; and Steve Bannon, is meant to make a “big splash” and has been carefully timed to come the day before the president’s address to Congress.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
24 Comments
pyrrhus
pyrrhus
February 27, 2017 1:11 pm

A very bad idea. A better idea would be to get rid of NATO and bring home hundreds of thousands of troops stationed uselessly, but at great expense, all around the world. And I have been a strong Trump
supporter for two years…..
Didn’t Trump just tweet about out of control spending?

Anonymous
Anonymous
  pyrrhus
February 27, 2017 1:50 pm

You may have missed this: ” …………….. and will be revenue neutral, offset by cuts in non-defense areas, and will not “add a dime to the deficit. ”

Revenue neutral means total spending is not being increased.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  Anonymous
February 27, 2017 3:39 pm

When you’re the brokest country in the history of the world, “revenue neutral” ain’t good enough. How about cut non-defense spending and cut defense spending, too? This is the guy who finally finished the Wollman rink in a few months for 1/4 what NYC had already spent on it. The bigger the bureaucracy the more the waste.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Iska Waran
February 27, 2017 3:45 pm

Yeah, even Venezuela and Zimbabwe are doing better than us.

A shame we can’t be as wealthy as they are.

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
  Anonymous
February 27, 2017 5:58 pm

It’s still hundreds of billions wasted every year on completely useless activity. Of course, these offsets on spending never actually happen, as we saw for 8 years during the Reagan administration.

Ed
Ed
  Anonymous
February 27, 2017 8:41 pm

Revenue neutral also means that total spending isn’t being decreased, but only in the areas mentioned.

kokoda - the most deplorable
kokoda - the most deplorable
  pyrrhus
February 27, 2017 2:20 pm

pyrrhus….Agree; Trump hit it out of the park on NATO during the run for Pres. I never heard this from anyone else.
Last I heard, we had over 200 U.S. military bases in Germany alone. That is all waste.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  Anonymous
February 27, 2017 10:04 pm

Meaningless words.

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
  kokoda - the most deplorable
February 27, 2017 6:01 pm

NATO is actually used to prop up unpopular regimes, and is a grab bag of corruption for every country involved, especially the US. And why would the US taxpayers pay to defend countries who won’t pay to defend themselves?

musket
musket
  kokoda - the most deplorable
February 28, 2017 8:30 am

kokoda….please do not forget the slight of hand exercise called the Base Realignment and Closure Act in the late 80’s. They failed there big time in that it would have put federal workers out on the street without a job……..

We still have the bases and the legacy post BRAC costs too…….unless a sweetheart deal was arranged to buy them like Ft Sheridan, IL and the Presidio in CA

Gloriously Deplorable Paul
Gloriously Deplorable Paul
February 27, 2017 1:19 pm

There’s more than $54B to be had in savings by reducing (note I didn’t say eliminating) waste/fraud/duplication in the Pentagon. The recent report on military spending “efficiency” that was at first authorized then quashed by high ranking Pentagon officials makes that clear.

Obviously this goes for the rest of the government as well. There’s plenty of money. Most of it’s wasted.

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
  Gloriously Deplorable Paul
February 27, 2017 6:03 pm

Spending money on high value targets called “ships” for low cost missiles and long range torpedoes (and soon lasers) is just plain crazy, and the Pentagon knows it. Good luck on the fraud and waste cleanup, never happened before…

monger
monger
February 27, 2017 1:33 pm

The show must go on…

TrickleUpPolitics
TrickleUpPolitics
February 27, 2017 1:34 pm

Can we get the money back that Obama gave the Eskimo’s to find Sasquatch?

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  TrickleUpPolitics
February 27, 2017 3:41 pm

If we could, we could buy a couple of extra hammers to send to our many bases in Germany where Frau Merkel is using all of their money to destroy western civilization.

Undeterred
Undeterred
February 27, 2017 4:05 pm

Defense / deterrent is one thing; offense / nation building is quite another. For now I’ll give Trump the benefit of the doubt and trust him on this. Obviously, he believes this is part of making America great again.

Call me a naive deplorable hold-out, whatever, but the world has become even more dangerous under the last 8 years of Democratic Party foriegn policy and maybe Trump is looking at this spending as leverage. I realize we can’t afford it, but can we afford to speak loudly with little sticks?

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
  Undeterred
February 27, 2017 6:04 pm

It’s not dangerous for the US….we have thermonuclear weapons, lots of them.

Ed
Ed
  Undeterred
February 28, 2017 8:45 am

I haven’t been able to find any difference in US foreign policy in the past 28 years. Maybe it’s just me but GHW Bush’s foreign policy looks remarkably like Obama’s and it doesn’t seem to have changed at any time between those two presidents.

Diogenes
Diogenes
February 27, 2017 4:21 pm

Doesn’t the US have other businesses besides the war machine. What a fucking waste of resources, not the mention the immorality of the shit we are doing overseas. Supposed to be defense not offense. Well with all the money the CIA is making on the poppy crop couldn’t they offset some of the expense. Looks like Trump has the zionist dick in his mouth. I’ll never vote again.

Ginger
Ginger
  Diogenes
February 27, 2017 5:58 pm

Well, there is those great movies from hollywood, oh wait.

Ed
Ed
February 27, 2017 5:57 pm

This is typical ZH. The current Tylers slap together these mishmash pieces clipped from various MSM sources and throw a hundred of them up every day. How many readers here take anything that the WSJ or NYT prints seriously? That’s what a Tyler Durden article is, msm shit sources C&P’ed into articles.

They were tossing out pieces daily before the inaugural about Trump being set to appoint Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani or John Bolton and every bit of it came from Reuters, AP, CNN, NYT, WSJ, NPR, PBS, CNBC, Fox etc. All of it is aimed at getting Trump supporters pissed off at Trump, apparently.

Why anybody reads the Tyler articles anymore is a mystery to me. Those guys are assholes running a clickbait site for ad revenue and nothing else.

Boat Guy
Boat Guy
February 27, 2017 10:05 pm

No more foreign military intervention any where shut everything down bring everybody home ! Screw every body else in the world but us ! America and Americans first ! Now for the billions pissed away on the phoney war on drugs ! Billions saved on coast guard lay off all the DEA and legalize adult use of everything tax the sale and regester addicts and give them free drugs or treatment we will save a ton of wasted money and effort not to mention crime will drop prison costs go down ! When there is no money to make of drugs illegally the criminals will find something else to do but nothing perpetuates waste of blood and treasure like a war on anything !

BUCKHED
BUCKHED
February 28, 2017 12:04 pm

The funny thing is that the way gooberment is run there won’t be any true cuts to other departments . As was explained to me by a friend in the gooberment,every year we get an increase in the budget. Typically it’s 4% so we “Cut The Budget ” by 2% which means they’ll only get a two percent increase . Then hugs and praise is sent to everyone for cutting back …SMH.

pyrrhus…you’re right about the ships being targets for low cost missiles . Imagine the fun of a half dozen or more nuclear ships at the bottom of the ocean…creating lots of glowing fish .