Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Leading fiscal conservatives are showering President Trump's first federal budget proposal with some of their highest praise: comparisons to Ronald Reagan.

"This is the most fiscally conservative budget since Reagan," Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute and editor of Downsizing Government, told the Washington Examiner.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, called it a "very strong budget" and said it's what the 40th president himself would have submitted if he had both a Republican House and Senate. Democrats controlled the House for all eight years of the Reagan administration, one of the reasons conservatives cite for why even Reagan was unable to achieve enduring federal spending cuts.

Norquist then went a step further. "This is a Reaganite, limited-government, anti-waste and anti-duplication budget," he said. "It certainly makes those Republican critics who said that Trump would be a big-spending populist look like idiots."

Trump didn't run as a government-cutter during the campaign. He explicitly promised to leave Social Security and Medicare spending alone, which his first budget largely does. He campaigned on a populist platform emphasizing both economic and cultural solidarity with mostly white working-class voters.

Some Republicans argued that Trump was essentially a liberal, pointing to his past advocacy of a wealth tax and single-payer healthcare. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a staunch fiscal conservative, was his strongest opponent in the GOP primaries.

Once Trump was elected, many on the Right expected a more protectionist version of the compassionate conservatism of the most recent Republican president, George W. Bush. The Bush administration, the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes wrote, believed in "using what would normally be seen as liberal means activist government for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process."

That's why some fiscal conservatives have been pleasantly surprised by the very un-Bush like discretionary domestic spending cuts in the president's budget, while liberals portray it as a typically draconian Republican attack on the social safety net and a betrayal of Trump's working-class supporters.

"When you've got $20 trillion in debt, it's nice to see a White House that's actually interested in the issue," said Andy Roth, vice president of government affairs at the Club for Growth, a fiscally conservative group that was critical of Trump during the primaries. "We welcome the spending cuts."

"A lot of the cuts are thoughtful cuts, not just blunt cuts," Edwards said. "People are getting trapped on disability where frankly they should be in the workforce."

Consequently, the Trump budget has received strong if qualified praise from leading Tea Party groups.

"Budgets are visionary documents, and President Trump's proposal would put taxpayers first by starting to direct their dollars more efficiently to the most effective programs," Heritage Action CEO Mike Needham said in a statement. "It is the type of document the president promised on the campaign trail, including some serious, structural reforms to our nation's entitlement system."

"Unfortunately, the failure to address Social Security and Medicare will make it difficult to truly rein in our nation's ever growing debt," Needham added. "Nonetheless, Trump's budget presents an opportunity to unite Republicans around fiscally responsible reforms to food stamps, disability insurance and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Even with unified Republican control of government, delivering policy victories has proven difficult in Washington, but enacting these reforms would demonstrate a true commitment to putting taxpayers first."

Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, a former South Carolina Republican congressman who was a member of the House Freedom Caucus, is hailed by fiscal conservatives as a hero in this process, especially given Trump's lack of a track record as a small-government advocate.

"I've told the story several times of sitting in the president's office with a list of possible reforms to mandatory what some people call entitlement spending and have the president at the end of the list go: Yes, yes, no, no, no, no," Mulvaney told reporters during Tuesday's budget briefing. "And the no, no, no's' were always Social Security retirement and Medicare. Didn't change those at all because he promised people that he wouldn't."

"We have great respect for [Office of Management and Budget] Director Mulvaney," said Roth.

"He's got a very good team," Edwards added. "They're taking the job seriously. I give Trump credit for giving [Mulvaney] a lot of running room."

The conservative applause wasn't unanimous. Many considered the 3 percent growth projections required to bring the budget into balance unrealistic. Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., called it a "Goldilocks scenario." Budget hawks thought it boosted Pentagon spending too much, defense hawks too little.

"[W]hile on its face, the president's budget request is balanced, the budget only accomplishes this through a combination of very strong economic forecasting and unrealistic future cuts in domestic discretionary spending," Sanford, a Freedom Caucus member, said in a statement. "Meanwhile, the proposal doesn't touch 40 percent of the annual budget Social Security or Medicare, even though both are on a path toward insolvency."

New York Times conservative columnist Ross Douthat dismissed the Trump budget as "just Reagan-era leftovers minus the actually-serious portion of Ryanism (Medicare reform)," the latter a reference to House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

"Ivanka's paid leave program is dumb, not a federal responsibility," said Edwards.

Yet even many of the Republicans in Congress who have declared the budget dead on arrival oppose it for cutting too much. "If Republicans actually do what they said they would do, the prospects [for cuts] would be high," said Roth, whose organization supports conservative GOP primary challengers. "But a lot of Republicans campaign one way and then don't follow through. It is my hope that if they don't follow, there will be consequences."

"We just want to see spending cuts," he continued. "That's a foreign subject to a lot of politicians here on Capitol Hill."

Federal spending is a congressional responsibility under the Constitution and presidential budget requests are frequently modified or set aside. Some of former President Barack Obama's budget proposals failed to receive a single vote in either chamber of Congress.

Some conservatives nevertheless find themselves rooting for the unconventional Trump against more traditional Hill Republicans.

"He's governing as Reagan would have, completely in the mainstream of the modern Republican Party," said Norquist. "What's interesting will be to watch those Republicans who wanted to criticize Trump when he was running to see if they are as Reaganite as Trump is."

Read more:

Trump's budget draws comparisons to Reagan - Washington Examiner

WASHINGTON (AFNS) --

Air Force leaders met with media to discuss specifics of the services fiscal 2018 space investment budget at the Pentagon May 24, 2017. The request totals $7.75 billion, an approximately 20 percent increase from fiscal year 2017.

Dr. David Hardy, the acting deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for space, and Maj. Gen. Roger Teague, the director of space programs for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, highlighted the importance of the fiscal 2018 space budget to the nations security and the Air Forces strategic understanding of the space environment.

According to Hardy, for decades, the U.S. has enjoyed unimpeded freedom of action in the space domain. However, the global space domain is evolving and in the not too distant future, near-peer competitors will have the ability to put U.S. space assets at risk.

As in every other domain, when an adversary understands that something provides a strategic advantage they do two thingsmirror our capabilities and work strenuously to figure out means by which they can deny us, said Hardy. You can summarize the progress we have made over the last three budget cycles by saying we really do have a much firmer understanding of all the component parts that are required to build an overall resilient enterprise.

The Air Forces fiscal 2018 space budget emphasizes investments and improvements in future technology in three major focus areas: space superiority, space support to operations and assured access to space.

Teague explained the focus areas emphasize developing the resilient capabilities the Air Force needs to negate adversary actions and ensure America maintains the critical space capabilities required for national security.

Space is increasingly congested and contested, he said. With this evolving and changing environment, its increasingly critical we must ensure that our capabilities, our future capabilities, outpace the advances in space threats.

To gain and maintain space superiority, the Air Force plans to increase investments in advanced space situational awareness, counterspace and command and control. In addition, the service is committed to the continuation of investments in the Space Fence.

All of these capabilities are going to continue to enhance our ability to understand our operational environment, Teague said. We need to be able to command and control our space forces and capabilities to preserve freedom of operations as well as freedom of maneuver.

The Air Forces space support to operations is integral to combat, mobility and nuclear forces. The budget reflects this role with support to programs including the Space-Based Infrared System, Space Modernization Initiative, Tech Maturation and Cyber Security, space-based environmental monitoring and modernization of protected satellite communications.

To ensure the Air Forces ability to continue to own the high ground, the space budget provides funding for infrastructure, studies and analysis for the three evolved expendable launch vehicle launch services, which are competitive launch opportunities. The Air Force has a total of six launches planned for fiscal 2018.

Teague said the Air Force will continue to evolve the space enterprise to be more flexible, survivable and resilient to ensure the capability to provide space superiority across the spectrum of conflict for tomorrow's highly contested environment.

We must, as the (chief of staff of the Air Force) has emphasized several times, normalize space as a warfighting domain and focus our efforts to outpace and defeat advanced, demonstrated and evolving threats, said Teague. (The) increases in investment will continue to be necessary to maintain our space superiority and our capabilities in FY 18 and in the future.

See the original post:

AF rolls out fiscal 2018 space budget - Air Force Link

Intolerance, at times exploding into violence, is spreading throughout our society. And its coming from the political left.

Its happening on college campuses. Most recently, students walked out on Vice President Mike Pences commencement address at Notre Dame University.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was interrupted by boos and jeers at her commencement address at historically black Bethune-Cookman University.

Conservative scholar Charles Murray was met with violent protests and physically assaulted at Middlebury College. Another conservative scholar, Heather MacDonald, was violently shut down in a presentation she was giving at Claremont McKenna College. These are just a couple examples.

Now its spreading off college campuses with reports of violence and threats toward Republican members of congress, and their families, as they hold town halls in their districts.

A column in The Hill newspaper bears the headline, Republicans fearing for their safety as anger, threats mount.

Whats happening?

A recent commentary in Forbes Magazine from a London School of Business professor calls this The Post-Truth World.

He describes a prevailing feeling of helplessness as individuals inhabit a world in which knowledge is, in general, exploding but each individual knows, relatively, less and less. And he points to a world in which business and politics are becoming increasingly interdependent.

New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt attributes whats happening to a culture in which young people are not forced to deal with opposing viewpoints. This, says Haidt, is amplified by social media, which serves to reinforce existing biases.

But all this doesnt explain why the intolerance and violence is coming mainly from the political left.

A new survey from the Pew Research Center sheds light on this.

Sixty-six percent of Republicans compared to 29 percent of Democrats say that a person is rich because they worked harder than most people rather than because of having personal advantages in life. This 37 percent difference in attitudes of Republicans and Democrats about why some people are rich is 12 points larger today than where it stood just three years ago in 2014. Seventy-one percent of Democrats compared to 32 percent of Republicans say someone is poor because of circumstances beyond a persons control, rather than because of lack of effort. This 37 percent difference between Republicans and Democrats in attitudes regarding why someone is poor is 19 points larger than where it stood three years ago in 2014.

The nation is becoming increasingly polarized on the very fundamental question regarding the extent to which individuals have control over their own life.

Across the nations whole population, 53 percent feel poverty is the result of circumstances beyond an individuals control compared to 34 percent who see poverty as the result of lack of effort.

What is the meaning of freedom in a country where more than half its citizens feel fate rather than choice governs their life?

With Republicans now in power, trying to restore economic vitality and fiscal balance by limiting government and expanding personal freedom, the left sees this as a threat, not an opportunity.

Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education.

It was big news when Roger Ailes died. Everyone in his industry acknowledged that a serious force in American media ...

Q: My wife and I are expecting our first child. Im excited to be a dad, but also intimidated. My father wasnt ...

DURHAM, England When I first visited England to cover a British election 20 years ago this month, there were ...

Please, somebody tell these boys its 2017. Last weekend, several dozen white people swarmed Lee Park in ...

Roger Ailes was no genius, not in the league of Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. The founding chairman of Fox ...

I learned that it was Jean Kerr, author of Please Dont Eat the Daisies who said, Im tired of all ...

Link:

Liberal fight against freedom turns violent - Marshalltown Times Republican

The Trump trade in stocks may be down, but don't count it out, yet.

In the hours after President Donald Trump claimed victory last November, a group of infrastructure, financial, defense, and U.S.-focused stocks began to rise on hopes that his policies would boost fiscal spending and juice corporate profits with tax breaks. Small caps also gained.

But now many of them are lagging as traders worry Trump and Congress will be distracted from moving on his pro-growth policies by the investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.

Strategas says a case can be made for some, if not all, of those stocks to rally in coming months. The first group of stocks to make a comeback could those that benefit from actions Trump can make or has made without Congressional votes.

"There are stocks that are going to be impacted by regulatory changes that have nothing to do with Congress," said Daniel Clifton, head of policy research at Strategas.

Strategas has created a portfolio of 25 companies that would benefit from Trump's agenda on fiscal spending, deregulation and taxes. Clifton said companies that stand to benefit from regulatory changes and those that need Congressional action have all fallen in the portfolio. "There's a bit of bifurcation happening among the ones that sold off, related to Trump. There's going to be an opportunity in the short run on companies impacted by regulation, not legislation," he said.

Source: Strategas Research

For that reason, financials, up just 1.5 percent year-to-date, could gain because the regulatory changes possible without legislation, could help them. Regional banks would be particularly boosted by changes to some of the stress test requirements. Other sectors should benefit too, like energy infrastructure since Trump has cleared the way for more pipeline approvals.

The Trump administration also included infrastructure spending with its budget this past week, and Clifton said it's possible that there will be an initiative to push it through in some form, since it could have bipartisan support.

Infrastructure could ultimately be a political bargaining chip if Republicans need Democrats to avoid a debt ceiling crisis when the U.S. nears the limit this fall.

"It's likely to be a bi-partisan dealdefense for infrastructure for debt ceiling deal," said Clifton, adding he does see potential for infrastructure spending.

The Trump trade in individual sectors and small caps has faded, even as the broader stock market grinds to new highs. Many small companies pay a higher corporate tax rate than large companies do and would benefit if Congress was able to move forward with plans to significantly cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent. Small caps also make most of their revenues in the U.S.

But those pro-Trump agenda trades are no longer hot, as it looks like even the Republicans can't see eye to eye on legislation, based on disagreements around the health care bill, which barely passed the House and won't pass the Senate in its current form. Without tax reform, there won't be the boost investors were hoping for any time soon. Those same concerns have taken the "Trump trade" out of the dollar, which has lost all the gains it made since Election Day.

The same can be seen in interest rates, as Treasury yields moved lower amid uncertainty and are well off their post-election highs.

Steven DeSanctis, equity strategist at Jefferies, looked specifically at how small caps have reacted to the Trump trade unwind. The small cap index, Russell 2000 is up just 1.8 percent year-to-date, versus 7.8 percent for the S&P 500.

"Every once in a while, it bounces back, and you see some of the groups perform better. But we've seen outflows from financialsoutflows from materials and industrialsThat is not Trumpesque," he said.

There was also the greatest divide between the best and worst performing small cap sectors to start the year, since 2009, he said. Earlier this week, small cap energy was down more than 19 percent and health care, including small cap biotech, up 11 percent.

"It just shows you that if you could pick sectors, you could do pretty well because the spread is a pretty big gap. Energy has been such a big laggard after such a good fourth quarter in 2016. People were bulled up on energy coming into this year and they really lost faith in the group," said DeSanctis. He said he likes financials and sees the selling as overdone. He too says the financial group could benefit from changes in regulation, but also interest rate hikes.

Source: Strategas Research

Clifton says there's one big motivating factor that could bring Republicans together to drive through tax reform. That is fear that they could lose their majority in the 2018 mid-term election.

"If Republicans can figure out a way to pass a FY 2018 budget, and put together a coherent tax plan, expectations may begin to reverse," Clifton notes.

Already, the Freedom Caucus has criticized spending in the president's budget, setting up for a battle between House. That could also carry through to a clash with some Senate Republicans who would rather work with Democrats

than see deep cuts.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has asked Congress to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a dramatic showdown in the fall, but the Freedom Caucus said it would not back it, and said the U.S. government would "spend into oblivion."

"The madness happening in May, June, July and August will create a path forward for legislative activity in September, October and possibly tax reform in the first quarter of 2018, and that's where the opportunity is going to be," said Clifton.

The Strategas Trump portfolio includes names in the defense sector, which has gained 2.5 percent this week, after Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia included major defense deals. Lockheed Martin is one name in the portfolio.

United Health is also included, since it could benefit if Republicans replace Obamacare. Martin Marietta Materials, an infrastructure play is another component, as well as some biotech names. There is also aluminum and steel, representing trade.

Quanta Services is an energy infrastructure play in the portfolio. Several companies with a lot of overseas cash were also included, since they would be encouraged by any corporate tax law changes to bring their money home and then be set to benefit from a lower corporate tax rate.

Watch: Trump's $2 trillion budget mystery

Read more here:

These stocks could gain if Republicans get their act together - CNBC

The US has sent a navy warship near an artificial island in the disputed South China Sea as part of the first "freedom of navigation" operation under President Donald Trump, in a move likely to provoke Beijing.

The guided-missile destroyer USS Dewey conducted a patrol within 20 kilometres of Mischeef Reef, part of the Spratly Islands over which several countries, including China, have competing claims.

The exercise is the first since October.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said, "We operate in the Asia-Pacific region on a daily basis, including in the South China Sea. We operate in accordance with international law."

The patrols are "not about any one country, or any one body of water," he told the Wall Street Journal in a statement.

The "freedom of navigation" operation is a signal intended by the US to assert its intention to keep critical sea lanes open, The Hill newspaper reported.

"In conducting the freedom of navigation patrol, President Trump is likely to anger China at a time when the US is seeking increased cooperation with the country to help rein in North Korea," it said.

China claims almost all of the South China Sea. But Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, and Vietnam have rival claims over the region.

Since 1979, the freedom of navigation programme has demonstrated non-acquiescence to excessive maritime claims by coastal states all around the world. It includes consultations and representation by US diplomats and operational activities by US military forces, another Pentagon official said.

In February USS Carl Vinson Strike Group arrived in South China Sea but did not conduct Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) against Chinese maritime claims around its artificial-island bases in the Spratly and Paracel islands.

Early this month, Davis told foreign journalist that the FONOPS is a routine activity carried out by the US around the world.

"We did last fiscal year, freedom of navigation assertions against 22 different countries all over the world. Many of those countries are friends and allies," he said.

"It's not about one country. It's not about one body of water. Unfortunately, I think the public narrative has made it about China and the South China Sea. It's not that. It's about asserting international rights to navigate in waters that international law accepts, and these are rights and benefits that benefit all countries on Earth, to include China," Davis said.

"We do these. We will continue to do them," the Pentagon spokesman said.

In an annual FNOPS report released by the Pentagon in February, the Department of Defence said that in 2016 it carried out freedom of navigation operations against 22 countries, including India. Other major countries were Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

See the original post here:

US sends Navy ship near island claimed by China in SCS - Business Standard

The Indian Express

Indian Oil Corp Finds - Surprise - That Less Bureaucracy Means Higher Profits Forbes State-owned Indian Oil Corp (IOC) saved over Rs1,000 crore last fiscal after the government gave state-owned refiners the freedom to formulate their own crude import policies. IOC chairman B.Ashok said the freedom allowed the companies to decide on ... Indian Oil saves Rs 1000 crore in FY17 on import policy headroomTimes of India all 36 news articles »

More here:

Indian Oil Corp Finds - Surprise - That Less Bureaucracy Means Higher Profits - Forbes

(CNN)President Donald Trump is in the middle of his 9-day foreign trip. But the big news here in Washington on Tuesday was the release of his budget blueprint -- the administration's wish list heading into the next fiscal year. It landed with a thud -- as Republicans largely avoided even talking about it and Democrats threw it in the trash. Literally. For some perspective on what's in the budget, what's not and whether it all matters, I reached out to the man who knows more about the budget than anyone: Qorvis MSL's Stan Collender. (Doubt me? Stan's Twitter handle is @thebudgetguy. I rest my case.) Our conversation, conducted via email and lightly edited for flow, is below.

Collender: This is not serious at all; it's just a Trump campaign document pretending to be a president's budget. Submitting a budget that is likely ... or even possibly ... going to be adopted and implemented by Congress apparently wasn't the administration's primary goal. Communicating to the ultra-hard right wing of the Republican Party -- the Trump base -- seems to be its only real purpose.

Cillizza: The early readout is that the budget is a win for the wealthy and a loss for the poor. Oversimplification? Why or why not?

Collender: Not an oversimplification at all. Big tax cuts for the wealthy combined with deep spending cuts for the poor and the middle class are the perfect way to describe this budget.

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney used different terms, of course, when talking about his opus, but there is no doubt what he was saying. If he and President Trump get their way, taxpayers (i.e. the wealthy and relatively wealthy) are no longer going to pay for things for non-taxpayers (i.e. the poor and working poor).

It's the Trump equivalent of "Let them eat cake."

Cillizza: How will this budget land among House Republicans?

Collender: Dead on arrival, dead before printing, dead before typesetting, etc. (Does anyone set type anymore?)

By the end of this week, Mulvaney will be the only Republican talking about this budget favorably. Other than the members of the House Freedom Caucus, House and Senate GOP'ers will either be criticizing or ignoring what Trump proposed.

I'm not sure everything Trump proposed will be acceptable to the Freedom Caucus either.

Cillizza: Name the best things for Republicans to sell to the public? Are there things in the budget that Democrats will -- or should -- like?

Collender: Republicans will cling to the proposed increase in the Pentagon budget like a scared child walking with him mother or father in a crowded shopping mall. They'll also applaud the budget showing a surplus at the end of 10 years even if that estimate is based on political and economic science fiction.

Democrats will like that they now have a handful of new issues with which to attack Trump and congressional Republicans in 2018.

Cillizza: Finish this sentence: "The single word that best describes Trump's budget is ____." Now, explain.

Collender: "Twilight Zone" (Yes, I know that's really two words). The Trump 2018 budget is based on such unreal scenarios of how the US economy will perform and what Congress will accept that the White House must be in an alternative universe where up is down, black is white and 2+2=7.

See the rest here:

Donald Trump's budget: '2+2 = 7' - CNN

Perhaps in an attempt to find the truth behind what President Trump has decried as fake news, requests for government documents under the Freedom of Information Act have soared since he took office, according to an analysis released Tuesday by Syracuse University.

Donald Trump

The 63 public record lawsuits filed in April represented a 25-year high, said officials at The FOIA Project at the Newhouse School at the New York university said. Further, with 60 lawsuits filed already in May, it, too, is likely to be another record-setting month, they said.

Information sought includes records on Trumps executive orders and last months missile attack on Syria. Lawsuits have also been filed to get warrant applications for surveillance activities and internal agency communications about China. People and organizations are also seeking paperwork about actions taken by the new director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and border searches by the Department of Homeland Security.

If the pace continues, university officials said they expect more than 579 public records lawsuits will be filed before the fiscal year ends in Sept. 30. By comparison, 512 Freedom of Information Act lawsuits were filed during the last fiscal year of the Obama Administration.

Like Loading...

See original here:

New record for Trump: lawsuits seeking public records soar - MyPalmBeachPost (blog)

by

May 23, 2017, 3:02 PM EDT

Republicans and Democrats welcomed what they see as a scaled-back vision of one of President Donald Trumps signature campaign promises: a big, beautiful wall on the 1,933-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

Trumps first full-year budget released Tuesday provides a $1.6 billion down payment for new and replacement sections of a wall. The president has estimated that completing the barrier would cost $8 billion to $12 billion, with many experts saying the actual cost would be far higher.

The Trump administration says the wall remains a presidential priority to keep undocumented immigrants out of the U.S. During the campaign, Trump said that Mexico would pay the bill, which that country has refused to do.

Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican and chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, called the fiscal year 2018 funding request a pragmatic decision by a White House that knows lawmakers -- particularly in the Senate -- would balk at paying the full cost.

Asking for $12 billion in a budget for a border wall is not going to be met with great receptivity in the Senate, Meadows said.

Graphic: Heres What We Know About Trumps Mexico Wall

Democrat Tom Carper of Delaware, a member of the Senate Homeland Security panel, said the president may be awakening to the idea that Congress controls the purse strings and that some Democratic support will be needed for his ideas. Theres bipartisan consensus for securing the border by using more fencing, technology to monitor illegal crossings and additional border patrol agents, he said.

There are some places along the U.S.-Mexico border where a wall makes some sense, Carper said. Most places it does not. And well take a look and see what they have in mind.

The $1.6 billion is included in Trumps request of $2.6 billion in new border infrastructure and immigration enforcement resources in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

That includes $300 million to recruit and hire more immigration enforcement agents; $239 million for aircraft and other aviation assets to track border crossings; $202 million for equipment like radios, weapons and computers; and $197 million for radars, sensors and other surveillance technology.

The $1.6 billion for border wall construction and replacement would let the Border Patrol decide the best locations. The request would cover 32 miles of border wall construction, 28 miles of levee wall in the Rio Grande Valley, and 14 miles of a new border wall system to replace fencing south of San Diego, according to Department of Homeland Security documents.

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Tuesday that Trump stands by his campaign promise for the wall.

We are absolutely dead serious about the wall, Mulvaney told reporters. The administration is pleased with border-security funds in this months 2017 spending bill and will press on to bolster resources at the border with Mexico, he said.

Still, Democrats and most Republicans remain opposed to the physical barrier advanced by Trump.

I thought the Mexicans were going to fund it, Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican said when asked about the budget request. We need border security. Im not sure we need to spend billions for a physical wall.

Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican and member of the Freedom Caucus, said hes disappointed Trump didnt ask for more funding. He said hes concerned that too many of Trumps campaign promises arent being kept.

Were not moving forward with the things we said wed do, he said.

Read more:

Trump's Budget Seeks Fraction of U.S.-Mexico Border-Wall Cost - Bloomberg

President Donald Trump's proposal to cut federal spending by more than $3.6 trillion over the next decade - including deep reductions for programs that help the poor - faced harsh criticism in Congress on Tuesday, where even many Republicans said the White House had gone too far.

While some fiscally conservative lawmakers, particularly in the House, found a lot to praise in Trump's plan to balance the budget within 10 years, most Republicans flatly rejected the White House proposal. The divide sets up a clash between House conservatives and a growing number of Senate Republicans who would rather work with Democrats on a spending deal than entertain Trump's deep cuts.

"This is kind of the game," said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas. "We know that the president's budget won't pass as proposed."

Instead, Cornyn said he believes conversations are already underway about how Republicans can negotiate with Democrats to avoid across-the-board spending cuts that are scheduled to go into effect in October. Those talks could include broad spending increases for domestic and military programs that break from Trump's plan for deep cuts in education, housing, research and health care.

"I think that's the only way," Cornyn said of working with Democrats on spending. "It would be good to get that done so we can get the Appropriations Committee to get to work."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said such spending talks would be inevitable.

"We'll have to negotiate the top line with Senate Democrats, we know that," McConnell told reporters Tuesday. "They will not be irrelevant in the process and at some point, here in the near future, those discussions will begin."

As Senate Republicans were discussing a bipartisan spending agreement, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney stood across town pitching Trump's proposal to dramatically alter the role of government in society, shrinking the federal workforce, scaling back anti-poverty programs and cutting spending on things like disease research and job training. The $4.094 trillion proposal for fiscal year 2018 includes $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years to anti-poverty programs including Medicaid, food assistance and health insurance for low-income children.

It would slightly increase spending on the military, immigration control and border security and provide an additional $200 billion for infrastructure projects over 10 years. It would also allocate $1.6 billion for the creation of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

Budget experts questioned many of the economic assumptions that the White House put into its plan, saying it was preposterous to claim that massive tax cuts and spending reductions will lead to a surge in economic growth. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, for example, said that using normal economic projections, the White House's proposal would not eliminate the deficit and would allow U.S. debt to continue growing into the next decade.

"Rather than making unrealistic assumptions, the president must make the hard tax and spending choices needed to truly bring the national debt under control," it said.

The White House proposals represent a defiant blueprint for a government realignment that closely follows proposals made in recent years by some of the most conservative members of the House, a group that once included Mulvaney himself. Trump has alleged that safety net programs create a welfare state that pull people out of the workforce, and his budget would cull these programs back.

Mulvaney pointed specifically to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the modern version of food stamps. The White House plans to propose forcing states to pay a portion of the benefits in the program, which reached more than 44 million beneficiaries in 2016.

"We are not kicking anybody off of any program who really needs it," Mulvaney said. "We have plenty of money in this country to take care of the people who need help. . . . We don't have enough money to take care of . . . everybody who doesn't need help."

Mulvaney, who served in the House from 2011 until earlier this year, is a co-founder of the Freedom Caucus. Many of the provisions in Trump's first budget reflect long-standing priorities of the Republican Party's far right in cutting back federal spending to get the nation's long-term fiscal picture under control - largely by cutting entitlement programs that mainly benefit the poor.

Republicans are keenly interested in passing a budget this year because they hope to use that legislation to lay the groundwork for a GOP-friendly rewrite of the tax code. Many GOP members hope to attach the tax reform to the budget process in order to advantage of special Senate rules that would allow both the budget and tax rewrite to pass with 51 votes, rather than the 60 that are needed to pass most other legislation. That special treatment could be critical to the success of the GOP tax effort in the Senate, where Republicans control a slim 52-to-48 majority.

White House officials knew their budget proposal would be jarring and launch a political fight, but they think it is a necessary debate given a wing of the Republican Party that wants the government to shrink.

But the cuts were met with intense criticism even among the majority of GOP members who hailed Trump's desire to pare back spending, including many who worried about the size of some of the proposed cuts.

Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), chairman of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, said he was encouraged by early reports of new curbs on food stamps, family welfare and other spending. But he said he draws the line on cuts to Meals on Wheels, a charity that Mulvaney earlier this year suggested was ineffective.

"I've delivered meals to a lot of people that perhaps it's their only hot meal of the day," Meadows said. "And so I'm sure there's going to be some give and take, but to throw out the entire budget just because you disagree with some of the principles would be inappropriate."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he backs Trump's proposal for a temporary burst of new defense spending, which White House officials say would allow them to add 56,400 service members in 2018. But he worries that Trump would finance those increases by cutting critical programs like the National Institutes of Health.

"My number one goal is to have a more balanced budget," said Graham, who also endorsed the idea of entering into spending talks with Democrats. "NIH is a national treasure, and it would be hurt, too."

Graham is part of a long-standing alliance between defense hawks who want increased military spending and Democrats who are willing to back military programs in exchange for more spending on domestic priorities. The two sides have forged several past agreements, including a two-year plan for increased spending that is set to expire at the end of September.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said that formal spending discussions have not yet begun but he is prepared to work with GOP leaders when the time is right.

"The idea that we'll work on a bipartisan budget independent from the president's is ripe in the air," Schumer said.

But such a deal is sure to anger conservatives in the House, where many of the most hard-line members staunchly defended aspects of Trump's proposal.

Although Meadows said Meals on Wheels cuts might be "a bridge too far," he praised much of the rest of the Trump budget. "It probably is the most conservative budget that we've had under Republican or Democrat administrations in decades," he said.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.), a Freedom Caucus member, rejected the argument that Trump's budget represented a betrayal of some of his populist campaign promises, notably to protect Medicaid spending.

"If we don't do something to protect the program for the people who really need it, then they're not going to have access to that, so I think we can't continue to ignore these big-ticket items," he said. "If we're ever going to get our budget to balance and pay down our debt, we're going to have to make these tough choices and have these tough votes."

More here:

Even some Republicans say Trump's steep budget cuts go too far - Chicago Tribune