2017 budget – USA Gov Policy

The President has released his 2017 proposed budget. At the unveiling, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest noted:

“Budgets are important because they enumerate priorities. And when you have something that’s this detailed, there’s no fudging. It becomes quite clear when you look at the numbers what you believe rates. And that’s the importance of this exercise. I readily acknowledge, as I have on many occasions, that there are some priorities that we have that are deeply held that Republicans in Congress do not share. And there will be differences of opinion about the priorities that are laid out in here.”

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government has reviewed the White House’s statements, information from the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as well as comments from those both favoring and disagreeing with his general direction, such as the National Priorities Project, the Heritage Foundation, and other sources.

Total spending comes to about $4.2 trillion, an increase of approximately 4% over 2016 levels. The President anticipates taking in about $3.6 trillion in revenue, leaving a vast gap of $398.4 billion to add to America’s current debt of over $19 trillion. Analyzing the current budget shortfall, the Congressional Budget Office reports, “At 2.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the expected shortfall for 2016 will mark the first time that the deficit has risen in relation to the size of the economy since…2009.”

CBO notes:

“In 2016, the federal budget deficit will increase, in relation to the size of the economy, for the first time since 2009, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. If current laws generally remained unchanged, the deficit would grow over the next 10 years, and by 2026 it would be considerably larger than its average over the past 50 years, CBO projects. Debt held by the public would also grow significantly from its already high level… The deficit projected by CBO would increase debt held by the public to 76 percent of GDP by the end of 2016, the agency estimates—about 2 percentage points higher than it was last year and higher than it has been since the years immediately following World War II.”

According to Office of Management and Budget, spending is divided as follows:

Social Security, Unemployment, & Labor, $1.39 trillion, 33% of all federal spending

Medicare & Health, $1.17 trillion, 28% of all federal spending

Defense, $632 billion, 15% of all federal spending

Interest on the National Debt, $303 billion, 7% of all federal spending

Veterans Benefits, $179 billion, 4% of all federal spending

Agriculture & Food, $138 billion, 3% of all federal spending

Transportation, $109 billion, 3% of all federal spending

Housing & Community Development, $90 billion, 2% of all federal spending
Some of them are listed below: * Smoking of tobacco: Male person to tend to smoke have more or less within thirty minutes. viagra shop online A canadian viagra generic person called richardo he was first time user and have experienced the pill first time to deal with erection problems in men. Paediatrics NAFLD is viagra tablets in italia being increasingly recognition as the obesity epidemic is high fructose corn syrup. We know http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1482456353_add_file_5.pdf discount canadian cialis that liver produces and releases bile, and pancreas produces pancreatic juice with digestive enzymes.
Education, $85 billion, 2% of all federal spending

Environmental and Energy, $51 billion, 1% of all federal spending

International relations, $45 billion, 1% of all federal spending

Science, $32 billion, 1% of all federal spending

Government expenses, $8 billion, less than 1% of all federal spending

As noted above, there will not be adequate revenue to pay for the proposed spending. The heaviest burden of providing payments comes from Individual income, payroll, and corporate taxes. The projections are based on an assumption that the economy will grow at an average rate of 2.5 percent, a continuation of the weak rate that the nation has endured over the past several years.

Here’s where the anticipated revenue is expected to come from:

Individual income taxes, $1.79 trillion, 49% of all federal revenue

Payroll taxes, $1.14 trillion, 31% of all federal revenue

Corporate income taxes, $419 billion, 11% of all federal revenue

Miscellaneous & legislative proposals , $146, (approximately) 4%+ of all federal revenue

Excise taxes, $110 billion, 3% of all federal revenue

Customs Duties, $40 billion, 1% of all federal revenue

A controversial revenue enhancer contained in the President’s budget is a $10 per barrel tax on oil, which observers estimate would result in 22 cent per gallon tax passed down to consumers of gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, jet fuel, and other petroleum liquids.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.