The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.
The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.
Most of the money got reallocated to the military though.
They’re cutting 13 billion. 51 billion (over 10 years) is going to local infrastucture; housing, roads, health and sanitation facilities.
Yes, military got more (~82 billion) and I don’t love that. Though, one part I do love is that a chunk of that military is also dual use, so climate emergencies like wildfires, floods etc.
Then give it to firefighters, climate scientists and forestry. The military is reactive not preventative.
Sure, you can dislike the military spending.
That doesn’t mean the budget isn’t investing more in the public than it is withdrawing.
I dislike the increase in spending on military because the returns to the public are minimal, the US has proven that, decades running.
Again, that’s a fine and valid critique of the budget.
This position however, does not seem valid when the budget is putting in more than it removes from actual public services, 51 billion v 13.
That part wasn’t a critique of the budget, it was a critique of your pitch for efficiency. You pivoted the discussion, I followed.