who said he's not cutting enough?
In practice the current budget bill is wildly unbalanced and will vastly extend our debt, despite extensive cuts to important programs.
We either need massive cuts in mandatory spending (fundamental changes to social contract) or increased revenue (politically not viable).
There's also near zero evidence we actually need a balanced budget for a healthy economy.
Is that really true? Seems like its just an issue of how you frame it.
It makes it clear that the fundamental issue is not government revenue, but government spending. Every single time you give the government $1 they find a reason to spend $1.05. Why would you expect this to change if you give them $1.05, instead of them now just finding a reason to spend $1.10?
I think that democracies are probably just fundamentally incapable of caring about long-term problems like debt when acting irresponsibly has substantial short-term benefits. It's almost like some spin on a tragedy of the commons.
The alternative is to pay an ever increasing amount of interest on our ever increasing debt.
The other alternative is to default on our debt obligations.
Neither option is good.
I don't think this is really supportable. Obviously one can appeal to the practically endless examples of countries that destroyed their own economies with debt. Of course the obvious argument to this is that this hasn't happened to the US. But there were extremely unique, and liminal, circumstances that explain this, that a search on "exporting inflation" [1] can largely explain. And those days are mostly behind us.
We can see this playing out in practice. Current interest payments on the debt are now $1.1 trillion per year. They've grown exponentially, far faster than the debt has. [2] The reason for this is that we can't just handwave away inflation so easily anymore, so we're now experiencing more like what would happen to other countries that let their money printers get a bit too excited. The Fed is keeping rates high in hopes of bringing inflation down, but it's just not really working. What this means is that when the government sells treasuries (which is how they 'print money') they need to offer ever higher interest rates. Notably even 20 year treasuries right now are offering yields of about 5%, so it seems most are not enthusiastic about things getting much better.
I think we're well on our way to becoming another of history's cautionary tales that the next great power will also certainly think doesn't apply to them, because if something hasn't exploded in 50 years, that must mean it'll never explode.
---
These three words are doing quite a lot of heavy lifting.
You do know the military spend on research dwarfs any other federal agency, right? The DoD research budget is about 5X that of NASA.
This gets to the point early where it’s easy to be in favor of cuts in the abstract but much harder in practice once you see that it touches something you favor.
The charitable reading of parent's comment is "reduce the spending on the parts of the military that aren't research (or research solely dedicated to killing people)".
I'm sure they were thinking more along the lines of bombing various countries (or $40MM birthday parades) rather than the next onion routing protocol coming out of the Naval Research Laboratory.
You can still disagree with that, of course, but responding to the steelman version of someone's argument is much better than a snarky "You do know XYZ, right?".
If you really want a balanced budget, you need to figure out how to slow the growth of mandatory spending and increase revenue. Neither of which Trump or the GOP seem interested in doing.
Total Revenue: 4.9 trillion
Mandatory Spending: 4.1 trillion
Net Interest: 0.9 trillion
Discretionary Spending: 1.8 trillion
Yes, we could zero out discretionary spending and just barely eke out a balanced budget. We either need more revenue OR a complete reset on the social contract for a long-term balanced budget.
I.e. if there are 100 cement trucks in the economy and 95 are allocated for state projects, the private sector needs to produce additional cement trucks under the increased burden of taxation. In the near term, cement construction costs have been increased. From this point, perhaps another bureau will enter by nationalizing the cement truck industry, "To secure our vital national interests and remain competitive"
Without decentralized market price signals, we are unable to value the end goals of the state's construction project. More troubling still, we wouldn't know of how the market may have allocated those trucks or if those trucks would have been used in a more productive way. However, we can observe empirical historical examples of lowered productivity which correlates with central planning.
I'm sure it'll also have other deleterious effects on the economy such as brain drain which would be difficult to reverse.
Citation absolutely required. Amongst other things, NASA has set huge piles of money on fire (literally!) building a rocket program that should probably be shut down entirely. Now, whether or not these particular scientific programs are a net positive investment is a more subtle point that is certainly up for debate, but "NASA has a positive ROI for the American economy" is pure assertion.
Speaking as someone who is generally pro-science -- to the point where I actually went out and got a PhD, in science -- we can't just assume that "science" is net beneficial to society. From direct experience, most science is just useless crap, and a lot of scientific funding is pure political patronage, dressed up in a white lab coat.
I do think it's a situation where the line item is fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but in a world where the government is quickly going broke, hard choices must be made, and cutting this kind of stuff will also not be the end of science.
You have to be painfully credulous to believe that that NASA would find anything to the contrary.