Skip to comments.Trump budget chief nominee Mick Mulvaney a huge advocate of spending cuts
Posted on 12/19/2016 11:36:40 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
Of all the excellent cabinet and staff picks Donald Trump has announced thus far, there may be none bigger than the choice of U.S. Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) as director of the Office of Management and Budget. The federal government faces no more urgent challenge than $20 trillion in debt and no existing plan but to add more of it through deficits as far as they eye can see.
Mulvaney is not just a fiscal conservative in word. He was a fierce critic of former House Speaker John Boehner over Boehners unwillingness to stand up to Barack Obama on spending measures. A lot of us felt the same way. Boehner had the power of the purse, and the federal government couldnt spend a time if the Republican-controlled House didnt authorize it. But Boehner was afraid to go to battle with Obama for fear of a government shutdown that the media would blame on Republicans.
Is he an advocate of more than 90% spending cuts? Because that is what it’s gong to take to get the feds back into its constitutional cage and for America to have a rebirth as a Free Constitutional Republic.
On NPR there was a report this morning about information from the four counties in the US where the average income of blacks was greater than that of whites. Interestingly, the one thing those four counties have in common is a large FedGov installation. In the case of Hardin county in this report, it is the home to Fort Knox.
But the correlation to highly payed blacks and FedGov is interesting.
South Carolina has a chance to show the rest of the country they can elect somebody who isn’t a Cheap Labor Express stooge.
I am more than willing to have a discussion about allowing at least part of the 11 million people here illegally to have some type of status, he said. Im just disappointed that more people in my party dont want to do that.
Amnesty stooge who delivers speeches in Spanish and then tells his English speaking constituents he wasn’t speaking to them when th ask what he said. Terrible pick real disappointment.
That 90% figure is probably in ballpark.
From related threads
Note that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. This is evidenced by the following excerpt.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Based on the Courts statement above, here is a rough approximation of how much taxpayers should be paying Congress annually to perform its Section 8-limited power duties.
Given that the plurality of clauses in Section 8 deal with defense, and given that the Department of Defense budget for 2015 was $500+ billion, I will generously round up the $500+ billion figure to $1 trillion (but probably much less) as the annual price tag of the federal government to the taxpayers, not the $5 trillion annual budget now being projected for the feds.
In other words, the corrupt media, including Obama guard dog Fx Noise, should not be reporting multi-trillion dollar annual federal budgets in budget discussions without mentioning the Supreme Courts clarification of Congresss limited power to appropriate taxes.
Trump supporters need to get him up to speed on the idea that a good percentage of the federal taxes that he, his rich friends, and possibly all other taxpayers have been paying throughout their lives are probably unconstitutional.
Patriots need to work with Trump to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes. Then the states will probably find a tsunami of new revenues that they wont know what to do with.
No one is in favor of that but I think we will see some dramatic spending cuts proposed by the Trump admin (at least I hope so). The problem will be the US Senate with a slim majority fortified by RINOs. Trump will need to cut some deals with the RINOs to get the votes there.
Every Presidential budget has been dead on arrival to Congress, regardless of party, for scores of decades.
OK, well I just did a quick and dirty estimate based solely on departments I consider unconstitutional and I’ve come up with basically 70% of the federal government being unconstitutional and needing to be cut. Maybe someone could tell what other areas should be included besides these departments.
Note: Form what I can tell, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is the costs to run the agency, not the expected outlays to recipient. I don’t see any constitutional authority to the feds for the SSA. However, the feds have taken massive amounts of money from individuals and owe them, so the decommissioning of the social security process would be a long process. But it should be a goal. In the meantime, why do we have to spend $888.2 billion on the SSA?
Also, where I could I put the actual appropriations (”outlays”) for 2016 but it was mostly difficult to find such and often had to use the budget request instead. I suspect it is not by accident that getting these numbers is so difficult.
Below is the detail.
The unconstitutional portion of the federal government, and, therefore, that which needs to be dismantled, is 69%. Below is the calculation.
The FY 2016 budget for the federal government is $3.9 trillion. https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget
I’ve calculated the unconstitutional portion of the federal government to be $2.7 trillion. Below, I have listed a detailed breakdown by department of what I believe to be federal departments not authorized by the Constitution, the Constitution being the ONLY basis of authority of the feds.
Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) $148.0 http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy16budsum.pdf
Dept. of Commerce $95.2 http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY16BIB/EntireDocument-WebVersionWithCharts.pdf
Dept. of Education $215.7 https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget16/budget-factsheet.pdf
Dept. of Energy (DOE) $29.7 https://www.aip.org/fyi/2015/fy-2016-appropriations-department-energy-office-science-grow-56
Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) $1,110.6 https://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2017/budget-in-brief/
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development $38.3 https://smartgrowthamerica.org/2016-federal-appropriations-bill-increases-funding-for-transportation-housing-and-urban-development/
Dept. of Labor (DOL) $49.8 https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/general/budget/2016/FY2016BIB.pdf
Dept. of Transportation $77.2 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FY2016-DOT-BudgetHighlights-508.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) $8.6 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/epa_fy_2016_congressional_justification.pdf
Social Security Administration (SSA) $888.2 http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016-Estimate
Small Business Administration $0.3 http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016-Estimate
TOTAL Unconstitutional Departments: $2,661.6
Well, I’ve just done a quick review and I see where at least 70% of the federal government is unconstitutional (”90%” was a very rough gut feel, not factually based).
EVERYONE should be in favor of slashing the unconstitutional portion of the feds. Otherwise we continue to have tyranny, and we MUST do what it takes to once again have a Free Constitutional Republic, for which the flag and this site stands.
Post #9 has the detail if you’re interested.
That is the reason he is well-placed in OMB, not DHS.
Great. Good luck with that!
Well, if we want to free our country from tyranny (defined as unconstitutional federal acts) and get our Constitutional Republic back, we should all be looking for a way to do that.
That is what my website (still under construction) is dedicated to. Check it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.