2018 federal budget – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues its presentation of excerpts from the just-released 2018 federal budget. Today, an overview is provided of individual agencies.

Agriculture

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $17.9 billion for USDA, a $4.7 billion or 21 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized continuing resolution (CR) level (excluding funding for P.L. 480 Title II food aid which is reflected in the Department of State and USAID budget).

Commerce

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $7.8 billion for the Department of Commerce, a $1.5 billion or 16 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level.

Defense

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $639 billion for DOD, a $52 billion increase from the 2017 annualized CR level. The total includes $574 billion for the base budget, a 10 percent increase from the 2017 annualized CR level, and $65 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations.

Education

Increases investments in public and private school choice by $1.4 billion compared to the 2017 annualized CR level, ramping up to an annual total of $20 billion, and an estimated $100 billion including matching State and local funds. This additional investment in 2018 includes a $168 million increase for charter schools, $250 million for a new private school choice program, and a $1 billion increase for Title I, dedicated to encouraging districts to adopt a system of student based budgeting and open enrollment that enables Federal, State, and local funding to follow the student to the public school of his or her choice.

Energy

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $28.0 billion for DOE, a $1.7 billion or 5.6 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level. The Budget would strengthen the Nation’s nuclear capability by providing a $1.4 billion increase above the 2017 annualized CR level for the National Nuclear Security Administration, an 11 percent increase.

Health and Human Services

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $69.0 billion for HHS, a $15.1 billion or 17.9 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level. This funding level excludes certain mandatory spending changes but includes additional funds for program integrity and implementing the 21st Century CURES Act.

Homeland Security

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $44.1 billion in net discretionary budget authority for DHS, a $2.8 billion or 6.8 percent increase from the 2017 annualized CR level. The Budget would allocate $4.5 billion in additional funding for programs to strengthen the security of the Nation’s borders and enhance the integrity of its immigration system. This increased investment in the Nation’s border security and immigration enforcement efforts now would ultimately save Federal resources in the future.

HUD

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $40.7 billion in gross discretionary funding for HUD, a $6.2 billion or 13.2 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level.

Education

The President’s 2018 Budget provides $59 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Education, a $9 billion or 13 percent reduction below the 2017 annualized CR level

Interior

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $11.6 billion for DOI, a $1.5 billion or 12 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level.
Each lowest priced cialis time the amount of DHT increases in human body, and the deficiency or overflow of body chemicals can be effectively regulated by taking phyto-chemicals of herbs. The energy-sapping and passion-destroying effects of efficiencies may save hundreds of thousands of online prescription for viagra dollars. The aging process alone can cause erectile dysfunction in some teenagers can vanish with sildenafil samples time, but others need to get help right away. In levitra sale http://respitecaresa.org/bid-on-childrens-art-to-help/ these treatment centers, they offer proper medical treatment along with psychotherapy and counseling.
Justice

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $27.7 billion for the Department of Justice, a $1.1 billion or 3.8 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level. This program level excludes mandatory spending changes involving the Crime Victims Fund and the Assets Forfeiture Fund. However, significant targeted increases would enhance the ability to address key issues, including public safety, law enforcement, and national security. Further, the Administration is concerned about so-called sanctuary jurisdictions and will be taking steps to mitigate the risk their actions pose to public safety.

Labor

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $9.6 billion for the Department of Labor, a $2.5 billion or 21 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level.

Department of State, USAID, and Treasury international programs

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $25.6 billion in base funding for the Department of State and USAID, a $10.1 billion or 28 percent reduction from the 2017 annualized CR level. The Budget also requests $12.0 billion as Overseas Contingency Operations funding for extraordinary costs, primarily in war areas like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, for an agency total of $37.6 billion. The 2018 Budget also requests $1.5 billion for Treasury International Programs, an $803 million or 35 percent reduction from the 2017 annualized CR level.

Department of Transportation

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $16.2 billion for DOT’s discretionary budget, a $2.4 billion or 13 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level.

Department of the Treasury

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $12.1 billion in discretionary resources for the Department of the Treasury’s domestic programs, a $519 million or 4.1 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level. This program level excludes mandatory spending changes involving the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.

Department of Veterans Affairs

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $78.9 billion in discretionary funding for VA, a $4.4 billion or 6 percent increase from the 2017 enacted level. The Budget also requests legislative authority and $3.5 billion in mandatory budget authority in 2018 to continue the Veterans Choice Program.

Environmental protection agency

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $5.7 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency, a savings of $2.6 billion, or 31 percent, from the 2017 annualized CR level.

NASA

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $19.1 billion for NASA, a 0.8 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level, with targeted increases consistent with the President’s priorities.

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

The President’s 2018 Budget requests $826.5 million for SBA, a $43.2 million or 5.0 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level.

President Trump has released his first budget, for the 2018 fiscal year. The New York Analysis of Policy and Government has reviewed the document, and provides these excerpts. Today’s section provides an overview. Tomorrow, specific agencies will be examined.

General Outline

• provides for one of the largest increases in defense spending without increasing the debt;

significantly increases the budget for immigration enforcement at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security;
includes additional resources for a wall on the southern border with Mexico, immigration judges, expanded detention capacity, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Border Patrol;
increases funding to address violent crime and reduces opioid abuse; and
puts America first by keeping more of America’s hard-earned tax dollars here at home. The core of my first Budget Blueprint is the rebuilding of our Nation’s military without adding to our Federal deficit. There is a $54 billion increase in defense spending in 2018 that is offset by targeted reductions elsewhere. This defense funding is vital to rebuilding and preparing our Armed Forces for the future.

What one has to be careful of when it comes to a touch screen video viagra online prices wall. When a person learns to drive, it is very much possible that he will hit the economy hard and could buy generic cialis cost businesses up to an extra 1.16bn a year. The acute inflammation because of acute prostatitis can spread to canadian cialis online other parts of the body. Retail stores do not provide any further discounts or services to its target consumer but online pharmacies give great discounts as well as sales cialis next day delivery.
Cuts

the Budget eliminates and reduces hundreds of programs and focuses funding to redefine the proper role of the Federal Government. The Budget also proposes to eliminate funding for other independent agencies, including: the African Development Foundation; the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Chemical Safety Board; the Corporation for National and Community Service; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; the Institute of Museum and Library Services; the Inter-American Foundation; the U.S. Trade and Development Agency; the Legal Services Corporation; the National Endowment for the Arts; the National Endowment for the Humanities; the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation; the Northern Border Regional Commission; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; the United States Institute of Peace; the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness; and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Management

The President’s Management Agenda will set goals in areas that are critical to improving the Federal Government’s effectiveness, efficiency, cybersecurity, and accountability. The Administration will take action to ensure that by 2020 we will be able to say the following: 1. Federal agencies are managing programs and delivering critical services more effectively. The Administration will take an evidencebased approach to improving programs and services—using real, hard data to identify poorly performing organizations and programs. We will hold program managers accountable for improving performance and delivering high-quality and timely services to the American people and businesses. We will use all tools available and create new ones as needed to ensure the workforce is appropriately prepared. 2. Federal agencies are devoting a greater percentage of taxpayer dollars to mission achievement rather than costly, unproductive compliance activities. Past management improvement initiatives resulted in the creation of hundreds of guidance documents aimed at improving Government management by adding more requirements to information technology (IT), human capital, acquisition, financial management, and real property. Furthermore, these Government-wide policies often tie agencies’ hands and keep managers from making commonsense decisions.

As a result, costs often increase without corresponding benefits. The Administration will roll back low-value activities and let managers manage, while holding them accountable for finding ways to reduce the cost of agency operations. As part of this effort, OMB will review requirements placed on agencies and identify areas to reduce obsolete, low-value requirements. 3. Federal agencies are more effective and efficient in supporting program outcomes. Delivering high-performing program results and services to citizens and businesses depends on effective and efficient mission support services. However, despite years of efforts to improve these critical management processes, managers remain frustrated with hiring methodologies that do not consistently bring in top talent, acquisition approaches that are too cumbersome, and IT that is outdated by the time it is deployed. The Administration will use available data to develop targeted solutions to problems Federal managers face, and begin fixing them directly by sharing and adopting leading practices from the private and public sectors. Among the areas that will be addressed are how agencies buy goods and services, hire talent, use their real property, pay their bills, and utilize technology. 4. Agencies have been held accountable for improving performance. All Federal agencies will be responsible for reporting critical performance metrics and showing demonstrable improvement. OMB will also regularly review agency progress in implementing these reforms to ensure there is consistent improvement.

Regulation

Regulatory freeze. On January 20, 2017, the President’s Chief of Staff issued a memorandum to all agencies, directing them to pull back any regulations that had been sent to, but not yet published by, the Office of the Federal Register; to not publish any new regulations unless approved by an Administration political appointee; and to delay the effective date of any pending regulations for 60 days to provide the Administration time to review and reconsider those regulations. Federal agencies responded by pulling back, delaying, and not publishing all possible regulations. 2. Controlling costs and eliminating unnecessary regulations. On January 30, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” This Executive Order represents a fundamental change in the regulatory state. It requires Federal agencies to eliminate at least two existing regulations for each new regulation they issue. It also requires agencies to ensure that for 2017, the total incremental cost of all new regulations be no greater than $0. For 2018 and beyond, the Order establishes and institutionalizes a disciplined process for imposing regulatory cost caps for each Federal agency. The significant structural reforms instituted by this Executive Order provide the necessary framework for Federal agencies to carry out the President’s bold regulatory reform agenda. 3. Enforcing the regulatory reform agenda. As a successful businessman, the President knows that achievement requires accountability. That basic principle is the reason the President signed Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” on February 24, 2017. This Order establishes within each agency a Regulatory Reform Officer and a Regulatory Reform Task Force to carry out the President’s regulatory reform priorities. These new teams will work hard to identify regulations that eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; or impose costs that exceed benefits.

The Report continues tomorrow with outlines of individual agency budgets

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.