Executive Order 13801: Apprenticeships

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13801 is entitled "Expanding Apprenticeships in America" and was issued on June 15, 2017.  This EO has 11 sections.  Skills of workers is a very important topic currently since the rate of technological change is unprecedented and unrelenting.  Increasingly, automation is reducing the number of jobs and for those jobs that remain, the work itself is different and requires computer skills.

Section 1

This section lays out the purpose of the EO, but it also speaks to the administration's policy.  There is an emphasis to change what has been done in the past because it has been ineffective.  The measure of success seems to be whether retrained workers find further employment.  This makes sense, but if the jobs move to a different place, then ultimately the people have to move as well.

Section 2

This section summarizes the administration's policy into a single sentence.  A couple of things seem to pop out of the statement, first, there seems to be an assumption that the trainees will bear the burden of some of the cost.  Since most people will not have a pile of cash in their back pocket for paying for retraining, then it means that people will have to take on debt to finance such retraining.
Second, it mentions easing the regulatory burden on such programs.  This potentially means a roll back in consumer and worker protections for apprenticeship and retraining enrollees.  The fine print in the rule-making will be critical.

Section 3

This defines what an apprenticeship and a job training program are.

Section 4

This section directs the Secretary of Labor to initiate rule-making aimed at promoting the development of apprenticeship programs by third parties.  Here it becomes a question of figuring out what third parties would find sufficiently attractive to have an apprentice work at a job.

Section 5

This section directs the Secretary of Labor to focus spending on apprenticeships towards students at secondary and post-secondary schools.  I think this is completely misdirected.  Frankly, the real problem that everyone keeps talking about is older workers losing their jobs as a result of closure of manufacturing plants.  Retraining of these workers so that they have skills that can be used in other industries which are growing rather than shrinking should be the focus.

Section 6

This section directs that various cabinet members promote apprenticeships.  Both for people who might need retraining as well as the companies that ultimately will provide the apprentice positions that trainees will fill with the hope that at the end of it, they will have a permanent job.

Section 7

This section directs the Secretary of Education to promote apprenticeships at colleges and universities.  This is symptomatic of the anti-intellectualism of this administration and as mentioned above, I believe it is the wrong place to focus.

Section 8

This section creates a Task Force that is to write a report with recommendations that would promote the creation and use of apprenticeship positions.  This task force include the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce and Education and up to 20 others as appointed.  Note that per (g), the attendance to meetings of the Task Force can be delegated to others.  The budget comes from the Department of Labor.  Subsection (e) is interesting and seems to be part of a recent trend wherein the President is delegating his functions or responsibilities increasingly frequently to others (typically cabinet members).

Section 9

This section sets up an awards program to recognize good apprenticeship programs.

Section 10

Finally, the EO is calling for reports to be generated to identify what programs already exist.  The Director of the OMB is directed to create a scoring matrix that will fulfill the concern that programs need to be effective.  The deadline given is the development of the President's FY 2019 Budget which will be released in early 2018.

Section 11

This has the usual legal fine print necessary to assure that the EO is constitutional.

My Commentary

First, I would be really surprised if apprenticeships and re-training has not previously been considered so presenting this as if it was the first time is misleading.  Second, who provides training and how to measure value are valid questions and if the scoring is done in an unbiased and scientific way, that would help.  Finally, I think that the focus on who should get apprenticeships and retraining needs to be focused on older displaced workers and not on young high school and university students.

Memorandum of June 21, 2017

In the Federal Register, a memorandum dated June 21st, 2017 was published.  This Memorandum was quite short, but rather cryptic.  It states:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 10005 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) (the “Act”).

The link in the above did not actually work for me, so here is a different link that should work.
What this is saying is that the President is delegating the responsibility under section 10005 of the Act to the Secretary of Defense.  This is a rather ironic development.  During the campaign, Trump stated that he did not need the generals and that he had a special secret plan for defeating ISIS.  Since taking power, he has issued an Executive Order which requests that a plan is developed by the Generals as to how to defeat ISIS.  Section 10005 provides for spending ($2.4 billion) on defense subject to the President providing a report to Congress (potentially with a classified appendix) on the strategy to defeat ISIS.  So basically, Congress is having trouble getting information on what the current strategy is.  Sad!
Some news outlets, I believe have written this up as Trump delegating his powers as "commander in chief".  This is definitely overstating what is in the memo.  But clearly, the president does not seem to have an interest anymore on figuring out how to defeat ISIS and so has passed the task on to the Secretary of Defense.  Logically the Secretary of Defense would have in large part been involved in the writing of any strategy document, but this oddly pushes the buck down the chain but is within the pattern of behavior we have seen many times before by the President.

Executive Order 13802: Suspension of Visa timeliness goals

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13802 is entitled "Amending Executive Order 13597" and was issued on June 21, 2017.  This EO has only 3 sections.  All it does is delete a subparagraph of an old EO and then directs the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to update the plans that had been created under the old EO.

Section 1

This simply states that section 2(b)(ii) of EO 13597 is deleted.  This said "ensure that 80 percent of nonimmigrant visa applicants are interviewed within 3 weeks of receipt of application, recognizing that resource and security considerations and the need to ensure provision of consular services to U.S. citizens may dictate specific exceptions."

Section 2

This section directs the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to update the plans that had been created under the original EO in line with the deletion of the subparagraph.

Section 3

This section has the usual legal fine print needed to assure the constitutionality of the EO.

My Commentary

The original EO noted that one of the consequences of the 9/11 attacks was ramping up security screenings of foreign nationals and that this dampened tourism.  The targeted subparagraph intended to address concerns about how long it might take to get a Visa to the US.  There can be a chicken and egg problem for some foreign nationals in that they cannot apply for a Visa until they have booked the plane tickets, but you don't want to book the plane tickets until you are sure if and when you will get your Visa.  So maybe it's easier just to go visit Canada.
The goal stated, even though it comes with wiggle room, would require a somewhat different attitude towards foreigners than what has been demonstrated by this administration.  Hence, removing the goal ultimately provides a number of things to the administration.  First, now not meeting it because of the reduced resources at State cannot be a point of attack by critics.  Second, if it does take a long time to schedule nonimmigrant visa application interviews and this discourages foreign nationals from visiting the US, that is a good thing as far as the administration is concerned.  Third, it undoes yet another thing that Obama did.
This EO simply extends the xenophobia that launched this administration and therefore is not surprising in any way.

Presidential Memo Re: Executive Order 13780

On June 14th, 2017, the President issued a memo regarding the effective dates of Executive Order 13780.  EO 13780 was issued on March 6th, 2017 and is entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States".  I have not yet written about this EO in the Blog.  This EO was challenged in part in court and various provisions of section 2 and section 6 of the EO have an injunction against their implementation.
In section 14 of the EO, it had stated that the EO would become effective March 16, 2017.  However, the injunctions were issued prior to the EO going into effect.  The court cases have progressed to a point where they are now going to be appealed to the supreme court with a final ruling by that body.  This memo clarifies that once the cases with respect to the EO are lifted or stayed, the EO sections under dispute become effective 72 hours thereafter.

My Commentary

So, in the meanwhile, part of the reason that was given for needing to have a temporary ban on entry of certain foreign nationals was to examine the vetting system used to determine the identity and security risk associated with individuals from certain foreign nations.  EO 13780 was the second so-called "Muslim ban" (the first being EO 13769) that was written and this was about 90 days ago.
Section 2(b) of EO called for a report on what countries can provide adequate information for vetting to be written within 20 days of the EO.  Further, in section 2(d), it directed that requests be made for the required information with those countries within 50 days of the issue of the 2(b) report.
Section 5 is entitled "implementing Uniform screening and vetting standards for all immigration programs."  This section had never been, as far as I know, affected by the court orders.  One would think that the Department of Homeland Security would by now have made progress in coming up with something here.  So, if they have, then the point of the suspensions of entry is largely moot.  However, I believe the court cases will proceed to finally determine if there is a basis to issue a blanket ban on individuals from a specific nation since most likely the work stemming from section 5 of the EO will recommend such a blanket ban on specific foreign nationals.

Executive Order 13782: Federal Contracting

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13782 is entitled "Revocation of Federal Contracting Executive Orders" and was originally published on March 27th, 2017.  This EO is quite terse and does not have a lot to say.

Section 1

This section revokes the following:

• Executive Order 13673
• Section 3 of Executive Order 13683
• Executive Order 13738

Section 2

This section directs the various executive branch agencies and departments to revise any rules that were created as a result of the EO's mentioned in section 1.

Section 3

This section includes the necessary legal fine print to assure the constitutionality of the EO.

My Commentary

Well, What do these other EO's actually say?  EO 13673 requires that there is reporting on suppliers or contractors to the Federal Government as to whether they comply with labor laws.  While this does not change the underlying laws, there will be a lot less transparency as to whether suppliers are complying with requirements.
Section 3 of EO 13683 is just an edit to EO 13673 section 2(a)(i)(I).  I really do not see the reason for needing to strike this even considering the severability clause in Section 7 of EO 13683.
Similarly, EO 13738 is an edit to 4 different clauses in EO 13763.  Again, it seems pedantic to revoke this EO, but I guess the lawyers will take every step to assure no one has an argument against.
So does it matter?  In the end, this will reduce the transparency of how the Federal Government does business.  It does matter.  The argument for the EO is that the original EO, as amended, created a lot of additional overhead for businesses as well as government to provide all of the required compliance reporting.  This is a cost which provides a certain benefit.  That benefit is transparency, better compliance to labor laws by Federal suppliers and contractors and probably higher wages.  It would be hyperbole to suggest that this EO is going to lead to the Gulag where Federal infrastructure projects get done by slave labor.  However, it is certainly a small step in that direction.  I trust the pendulum will swing back after 2020.

Memo to the Secretary of Defense June 13, 2017

In the Federal Register, under Presidential Documents, there was published a Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense entitled "Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 4533(a)(5) of the Defense Production Act of 1950".  This is 82 FR 27607.
This is a very short memo which memorializes that current US industry is not able to provide adequate amounts of aerospace structures and fibers, radiation hardened microelectronics, radiation test and qualification facilities, and satellite components and assemblies.  Since these are deemed to be critical to national defense, the President is directing the Secretary of Defense to buy extras so as to try and stimulate enlarging the industrial capacity of these items.  This is what 50 USC 4533 says.
However, in reading the reference subsection (a)(5), it says "Except as provided in paragraph (7), the President may not execute a contract under this subsection unless the President, on a non-delegable basis, determines, with appropriate explanatory material and in writing, that-".  What follows is verbatim what is written in the memorandum.  I do not see what in the memo constitutes the "explanatory material."
Someone in the Department of Defense, under the authority provided in the memo, is going to buy a bunch of stuff related to satellites and put it into a warehouse and make some private company a bunch of money.  This is so opaque that it is hard to believe someone is not playing games behind the scenes.

Executive Order 13783: Economic Growth

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13783 is entitled "Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth".  This EO was originally issued on March 28th, 2017 and has 8 sections.  However it is in fact rather long in comparison to some other EO's that have been issued and at the time it was indeed rather controversial partly because it actually changed things.  We'll have a look why as we go through it.

Section 1

This section defines the policy and has 5 subsections.  The third subsection directs all executive departments and agencies to immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden production and use of energy resources.  The fourth subsection directs the executive branch to only make regulations when it is clear that it is a federal executive responsibility.  Clearly, there is an assumption here that some rules currently in place should have been State responsibilities or that the rule tries to legislate and is not supported by the underlying legislation.  Finally in the last subsection, this says that environmental regulations need to ensure that there is a net benefit (although it is not mentioned to whom!) and that regulations should be based on science and economics.  There are assumptions hidden in this which are criticisms of the prior administration: the rules protecting the environment were too conservative is considering the effects of human activity and that the science used to justify the rules was bad.

Section 2

This section details the implementation of the review directed in 1(c).  Within 45 days, every agency has to have a plan to conduct the review and complete it within 180 days.  A draft report with recommendations is to be issued, followed by a final version.  Then the Director of the OMB will be responsible to have the approved recommendations acted on.  No doubt this will result in a lot of Rulemaking notices in the Federal Register.

Section 3

This section revokes a number of previous presidential and other documents and then requests the departments to take action to further rescind or modify rules that had been created based on these documents.  Here are the items that have been revoked or rescinded:

• Executive Order 13653
• Presidential memo of June 25, 2013
• Presidential memo of November 3, 2015
• Presidential memo of September 21, 2016
• The President's Climate Action Plan of June 2013
• Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions of March 2014
• Final guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews.(See 81 FR 51866)

Section 4

This section directs that agencies should also review anything related to the "Clean Power Plan".  The intent is that where this is deemed to burden energy producers or consumers, the rules should be revoked.  Also, this asks the Department of Justice to back off on any currently pending prosecutions of companies who are in violation of the rules in the Clean Power Plan.  This clearly shows that this administration does not believe that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

Section 5

This section revokes a number of guidance documents that defined what was a good way to estimate the long-term social costs of Carbon, Nitrous Oxide and Methane emissions.  Also it disbands the group that had written these documents.  Essentially, I think there are no rules now and therefore the long-terms social costs of Carbon, Nitrous Oxide and Methane emissions do not matter in the opinion of the current administration.

Section 6

This section directs the Secretary of the Interior to lift the moratorium on coal mining on federal lands.

Section 7

This section lists a number of rules related to oil drilling and exploration that are to be reviewed by the Secretary of the Interior and to have the Department of Justice back down on current prosecutions related to these rules.

Section 8

This section includes the necessary legal fine print to assure the constitutionality of the EO.

My Commentary

There is a term that has been used in many cases: "The deconstruction of the administrative state".  The thought process here is that the government is too prescriptive in laws, policy and regulation and mandating how people live in a way that is intrusive to privacy, religious beliefs and other rights and freedoms originating from the constitution.  It is very much the embodiment of Republican party positions.  This EO was crafted and written very much in that spirit.
But the real problem is people, inventive greedy people with a weak moral compass.  People who find an opportunity to make a buck because of the ignorance, trust or gullibility of others.  This applies doubly so in corporate settings and on the internet because often in these settings the person who is the mark is some anonymous person who will never find be able to track back to you the action you might be taking today that adversely affects them.  The bad actors are emboldened simply because it seems like there are more levels of indirection and that violations will be very hard to detect.  Will this be the legacy of the current administration, that they emboldened bad actors?
There has been a lot of news recently about the effects of this EO in the coal industry which was a specific target of campaign promises.  So far, there have been a few expansions, but also there have been a some additional closures of coal mines.  Many commentators and reporters have challenged the notion that the only reason that the coal industry and the number of mining jobs has declined in the past 20 years is due to increased environmental regulations.  There are other things that have had an affect.  It seems that this EO may slow the loss of jobs, but it certainly will not bring the jobs back and there will be a cost to the environment because of the EO.

Book Review: The Cold Between

The Cold Between written by Elizabeth Bonesteel is a sci-fi novel.  I picked this up at the Beaverton City branch of the Washington County Library.  It has been recently released and is apparently the first novel by Bonesteel.  The cover was a bit deceiving as it was subtitled "A Central Corps Novel" which led me to believe that this was one of a series of books.  Although searching now I find that the library does have a second novel by Ms. Bonesteel listed in the catalog.
I would give the book 3 out of 5.  Certainly the story was interesting, although it seemed to take about 50 pages for it to develop any kind of a hook to it.  Once it got going, it was nicely paced action steadily to the end.  The universe that the story is set in seems well thought out and relatively rich in detail.  The characters are relatively believable.  Although here, we have a lot of inner thoughts bandied about in a way that I certainly did not really enjoy.  There was a flavor of trashy romance novel in the first part of the book which does eventually subdue towards the end.
Speculative technical science fiction this is not.  It uses technology at the level of what you would see in Star Trek: The Next Generation.  But, while TNG often did episodes around philosophical questions, there is not really any of that done here.  There is a wormhole, and it leads somewhere, but the location of the end point in time and/or space is never revealed despite the hints that it's not where you would expect.
I am doubtful I will read any further work by Ms. Bonesteel.  However, if you like a mix of nerdy and romantic, this book will likely please.

Analysis of the President's Budget Message

The President released his FY2018 budget on May 23rd, 2017.  In this post, we will review the President's message and I will provide commentary thereon.

 

 

This Budget’s defining ambition is to unleash the dreams of the American people. This requires laying a new foundation for American Greatness. Through streamlined Government, we will drive an economic boom that raises incomes and expands job opportunities for all Americans. Faster economic growth, coupled with fiscal restraint, will enable us to fully fund our national priorities, balance our budget, and start to pay down our national debt.

Here in this second paragraph of the message, we see some stated goals of the administration and it defines what the administration is looking to achieve with the release of this budget.  Indeed, talk of a balanced budget has long been missing from Congress and the Whitehouse.  During the 2006-2008 financial crisis, it was deemed necessary to do whatever is required to avert the possibility of a new Great Depression with high unemployment, deflation and mass suffering.  The President at the time did what had to be done, damn the consequences to the debt, to keep the greater economy from crashing even though the financial markets had.  But in some ways, the previous Presidents failed because in rural American, de-industrialization continued, small towns and family farmers suffered when unlike their urban cousins whose lives did largely return to normal, these rural residents quietly applied for government aid and sometimes resorted to alcohol and drugs when the psychic pain proved to be too much to handle.

In the press, the budgetary control aspect has been described as overreaching as well as cruel.  I concur.  However, are we on a path that will lead soon (possibly before 2020) to a further financial crisis because of the US Government debt?  I have memories of the early 1990's where one of the memes at the time was a hyperinflationary spiral in the style of Zimbabwe besetting the US due to increasing budget deficits.  In the past eight years, it seems that there has been a complacency that has set in with regards to government deficits.  One would have thought that the Republicans who controlled Congress since 2010 could have negotiated some progress on reducing the deficit, but this has not happened.

Our moral commitment to replacing our current economic stagnation with faster economic growth rests on the following eight pillars of reform:

 

Health Reform. We need to enable Americans to buy the healthcare they need at a price they can afford. To this end, we must repeal Obamacare and its burdensome regulations and mandates, and replace it with a framework that restores choice and competition. This will lower the cost of care so that more Americans can get the medical attention they need. Additionally, Medicaid, which inadequately serves enrollees and taxpayers, must be reformed to allow States to manage their own programs, with continued financial support from the Federal Government.

At this point, an eight point agenda is laid out to express the key policy aims of the administration and also to discuss briefly how these are achieved through this budget.  Up first is Healthcare.  The idea that Amercians can "buy the healthcare they need at a price they can afford" is the trick required.  Currently, Americans cannot do that.  The government does not and will never actually provide healthcare except for Veterans.  Most people cannot absorb the consequences of a negative catastrophic health event and need to have insurance.  The government largely does not provide insurance other than Medicare and Medicaid.  Often right-wing opinion leaders invoke government-run health care or health insurance to argue extreme libertarian positions.  This is a straw man argument because if we ever get to universal coverage in the US, it will be because Congress has provided a legal framework that assures that everyone gets coverage although the insurance and services will be provided by private parties.  This works in other countries, why not here?

Just one other point.  So many people were up in arms because of the individual mandate where everyone has to get healthcare insurance, but yet everyone seems to be fine with requirements for liability auto insurance.  That is hypocritical.

Tax Reform and Simplification. We must reduce the tax burden on American workers and businesses, so that we can maximize incomes and economic growth. We must also simplify our tax system, so that individuals and businesses do not waste countless hours and resources simply paying their taxes.

 

Here, I have to agree with the idea of simplification of taxes, specifically income taxes.  Surcharges, tax credits, tax deductions all have been used as a way to implement social policy through tax policy and every administration has been guilty of doing this.  However, I strongly feel that the tax burden does need to increase, although the distribution of the tax burden needs to be looked at.  I do not see any issue with a marginal tax rate of 80% for income over $1,000,000 (although I admit it is easy for me to say because it will never affect me personally).  Further, since the 1980's, I think that the idea of supply-side trickle down economics is largely debunked.

Immigration Reform. We must reform immigration policy so that it serves our national interest. We will adopt commonsense proposals that protect American workers, reduce burdens on taxpayers and public resources, and focus Federal funds on underserved and disadvantaged citizens.

The policy here is to restrict immigration into the US.  There is an attempt to use an economic argument to cloak the true motivations: bigotry and xenophobia.  Between attracting the world's best and brightest and needing young people to mitigate the ongoing demographic shift, there are good reasons to increase immigration.

Reductions in Federal Spending. We must scrutinize every dollar the Federal Government spends. Just as families decide how to manage limited budgets, we must ensure the Federal Government spends precious taxpayer dollars only on our highest national priorities, and always in the most efficient, effective manner.

This is the opposite side of the coin from the Tax Reform bullet point above.  Republicans have long argued, especially on the libertarian wing, that the US government has become involved in too many facets of everyday life and that it is issuing too many rules and regulations (see below).  To achieve a balanced budget, you must reduce spending, increase taxes or a combination of both.  I think there is a need to have a look at the effectiveness of spending and do something about programs that can be clearly shown to be ineffective, but this budget makes assumptions wholesale and cuts everything in sight.

Regulatory Rollback. We must eliminate every outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective Federal regulation, and move aggressively to build regulatory frameworks that stimulate—rather than stagnate—job creation. Even for those regulations we must leave in place, we must strike every provision that is counterproductive, ineffective, or outdated.

What is the yardstick to be used?  There are regulations relating to the disposal of lead.  These lead to companies that utilize lead having higher costs and substitute materials are more expensive to incorporate into processes and products.  Should these regulations be repealed because this would stimulate job creation?  What of environmental clean-ups and health care costs when factories be toxic to their workers and the surrounding flora and fauna?  Do we add these to the additional jobs column as well?  And yet regulations were passed because it was determined that the costs in human life, suffering and degradation of the environment, although they cannot be measured in dollars and cents, were more than some number of jobs that were lost.
This approach invariably privatizes the profits but socializes the costs.  At some point when plant is shut down and quarantined as a site contaminated by hazardous materials, the corporation will bail and leave government to deal with the mess.

American Energy Development. We must increase development of America’s energy resources, strengthening our national security, lowering the price of electricity and transportation fuels, and driving down the cost of consumer goods so that every American individual and business has more money to save and invest. A consistent, long-term supply of lower-cost American energy brings with it a much larger economy, more jobs, and greater security for the American people.

Oddly, this statement is actually oxymoronic.  Currently one of the drags on the American economy is actually the low price of oil.  Many companies in the oil and gas sectors are reducing personnel and cutting back on capital expenditures because current and future projects will not provide a return on investment unless the price of oil rises somewhat.  Yes, this will increase the price of gasoline and electricity, but it is not a 1:1 relationship.  Stimulating the Energy sector to pump more oil and gas and create more electricity will lower oil prices because demand will remain flat.  Because of the recent increases in energy efficiency and the relatively small size of the manufacturing sector, reduced energy costs will not swell manufacturing significantly or drive down prices for manufactured products.

Welfare Reform. We must reform our welfare system so that it does not discourage able-bodied adults from working, which takes away scarce resources from those in real need. Work must be the center of our social policy.

This statement is dogma disconnected from reality.  U3 unemployment rate is at near record lows.  The reason why the population participation rates are so low is because of all the old people who have retired but have not died yet.

 

 

Education Reform. We need to return decisions regarding education back to the State and local levels, while advancing opportunities for parents and students to choose, from all available options, the school that best fits their needs to learn and succeed.

This statement is a dog whistle to conservative Christians who wish that their schools which include the inculcation of students with unscientific religious based prejudices should also be able to get Federal funding.  Words fail me to describe just how destructive this would be if passed.

 

To unleash the power of American work and creativity—and drive opportunity and faster economic growth—we must reprioritize Federal spending so that it advances the safety and security of the American people.

This Budget, therefore, includes $639 billion for the Department of Defense—a $52 billion increase from the 2017 annualized continuing resolution level. This increase will be offset by targeted reductions elsewhere. This defense funding is vital to rebuilding, modernizing, and preparing our Armed Forces for the future so that our military remains the world’s preeminent fighting force and we can continue to ensure peace through strength. This Budget also increases funding to take care of our great veterans, who have served their country with such honor and distinction.

Echoes of 1984 (the book by Orwell) where war is peace.  It is nonsense to try to achieve freedom through a police state.  Incarceration rates are the highest in the world and to top that off, recidivism rates are also very poor.  With all the extra money pouring into the military there will be reasons to push to use the capability as well.  And as it has been discussed above, some of the actions and priorities will decrease the security of the American people rather than increasing it because of unintended consequences of the simplistic thinking that has been applied.

The Budget also meets the need to materially increase funding for border security, immigration enforcement, and law enforcement at the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice. These funding increases will provide additional resources for a southern border wall, expanded detention capacity, and initiatives to reduce violent crime, as well as more immigration judges, u.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and Border Patrol agents. The Budget also invests significant resources in efforts to combat opioid abuse.

This strikes me as a move towards a police state.  The resources applied to combat the effects of opioid abuse are probably law enforcement and not for prevention or treatment.  The administration seems to think that the only solution is to lock up people who have done something wrong, no matter how small.  This is headed towards East Germany in many ways.
 

In these dangerous times, our increased attention to public safety and national security sends a clear message to the world—a message of American strength and resolve. It follows through on my promise to focus on keeping Americans safe, keeping terrorists out of our Nation, and putting violent offenders behind bars.

It does not send a message of strength and resolve.  This sends a message of fear, hatred of others and of a new introversion.  The unintended consequence of all of the additional law enforcement and military is to instill fear in the population.  Yes, there are bad people out there, but not significantly more now than 8 years ago.  When the conversation is all about wrong-doing, it ends up being self-fulfilling and one of the things that might drive up crime statistics from their relatively low levels currently is that more people will become desperate.  Some of the policies and priorities listed in the budget will have unintended consequences of creating desperation because of cutbacks in the social safety net and other things.
 

As this Budget returns us to economic prosperity, it will also allow us to fund additional priorities, including infrastructure, student loan reform, and initiatives to help working families such as paid parental leave. We will champion the hardworking taxpayers who have been ignored for too long. Once we end our economic stagnation and return to robust growth, so many of our aspirations will be within reach.

As has been mentioned in the media, the concept that this plan will get us back to a balanced budget is a complete fiction based on bad assumptions and bad math.  Based on what has been legislatively achieved in the first 4 months, there is serious doubt that any intricate measures will actually be able to be passed by Congress and signed by the President.  "The hardworking taxpayers" that are championed by this budget proposal are not the people who voted for Trump.  They are not the urban middle class that voted in high proportions for Clinton.  They are the 1% who have disproportionate influence on the politicians.  The policies of this administration are not strongly fostering growth, in fact a budget such as this one will actually reduce GDP because it is reining in spending.  If the budget were to spend $400 billion less next year, to maintain the current anemic 2% growth, private industry or consumers will have to increase their spending by $400 billion.  If they do not, then growth will come in at 0%.
 

It is now up to the Congress to act. I pledge my full cooperation in ending the economic malaise that has, for too long, crippled the dreams of our people. The time for small thinking is over. As we look forward to our 250th year, I am calling upon all Members of Congress to join me in striving to do big and bold and daring things for our Nation. We have it in our power to set free the dreams of our people. Let us begin.

It is a good thing that this proposal is a pipe dream and just a political document.  It is wrong in so many ways.  Because of the 52-48 split in the Senate, getting a budget passed will be really difficult.  There are other financial legislation needed as well such as continuing resolutions and raising the debt ceiling.  I think that having a government shutdown within the next couple of years is going to be 50-50.  The country is too divided.  We need a unifier, but is the gap too great for anyone to be able to step in?