Trump Seeks "Historic" $54 Billion Increase To Defense Spending

Zero Hedge ^ | 02/27/17 | Tyler Durden

[Enlightened1]

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.

[Enlightened1]

I like it the fact it's tax revenue neutral.

Just shifting the money around, and getting back to government #1 role.

[Enlightened1]

[wastedyears]

Can someone explain how $54 billion is historic?

And it’s a shift in assets, which is how it should be.

[Lisbon1940]

Can we fully fund the Osprey?

[simpson96]

Cue the liberal heads exploding.. :-)

[Lisbon1940]

It’s the avian equivalent of a post turtle.

[ObozoMustGo2012]

[ Cue the liberal heads exploding.. :-) ]

Butz... who’s gonna pays for all mys aborshuns...”

[Zarro]

Can someone explain how $54 billion is historic?

If it's revenue-neutral, that probably explains it.

Defunding foreign aid works. How about defund the UN?

[al baby]

How about congress buy their own obamacare no more caddilac planes

[Enlightened1]

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.

 

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.

 

Here is an additional link the article refers to

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-27/trump-seeks-sharp-increases-military-spending-drastic-cuts-state-department-epa

 

 

 

[DoodleDawg]

If it's revenue-neutral, that probably explains it.

If.

[Ancesthntr]

I LOVE the idea of cutting the State Dept. budget to fund military increases. Sometimes, the best diplomacy is to have a very tough military.

Or, to quote a poster that I saw long ago with a picture of a mean, old junkyard dog, “Diplomacy: The art of saying “Nice Doggie!” until you can find a big rock.”

Well, Jim Mattis and the DoD are our big rock.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Historic? Wasn’t the sequester $50 billion?

[Pearls Before Swine]

Historic? Wasn’t the sequester $50 billion?

[rednesss]

How about we claw back some of the $400 billion already spent on the F-35 boondoggle from Lockheed?