Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Even though Trump's plan does not cut discretionary spending, the second order effects could be like a government spending cut and/or tax hike on the economy.
Stands to reason that the non-defense groups and individuals who will lose incomes over the $54 billion discretionary government spending shift would have higher marginal propensities to spend than the defense related groups and individuals who will now receive that $54 billion. Meanwhile, the actual output of non-defense groups receiving incomes from the discretionary budget directly supports and furthers other economic activity and transactions; whereas, bombs, weapons systems, and standing armies do not.
So I see Trump's "skinny budget" as a net negative for the economy.
His full budget proposal is expected in May.
At this point, we should expect an attack on Social Security and Medicare, even though candidate Trump said he wouldn't do that. He's hardly kept his word on healthcare reform. But for no strange reason, he's not expected to change course on cutting taxes for rich people.
What I fear is that this is all going to lead to higher deficits with nothing to show for it, and then once Trump blows it, we are back again to arguing deficits and debts in a time of crisis.
Democrats fail to understand that Republican Deficit Hawks/Terrorists are trying to trap Democrats into accepting the economic argument that Peter must be taxed in order for government to get the funds to give to Paul. That's not how the monetary system works. That's not how operations work. Federal government spending/lending precedes revenues/repayment because the government is the issuer of the US dollar. We are giving funds to Paul to pay Peter who then can pay taxes. Our concern should be whether or not this all serves public purpose.