Trump’s budget to “hammer climate programs” across the Federal government!!!

Guest post by David Middleton


The Promise Keeper keeps delivering…


President Donald Trump’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 can be read as a political document, a statement of his administration’s policy priorities. Many of these proposed cuts won’t get passed by Congress, but it’s a look at what Trump values.

And what’s clear is that Trump wants the US government to pull back sharply from any effort to stop global warming, adapt to its impacts — or even study it further. Under the proposal, a wide variety of Obama-era climate programs across multiple agencies would be scaled back or slashed entirely.


1) Many of the EPA’s climate programs would be terminated. Trump is proposing a sweeping 31 percent cut to the EPA’s budget — from $8.2 billion down to $5.7 billion — shrinking funding to the lowest levels in 40 years. That includes zeroing out funding for many of the agency’s climate programs. Currently, the EPA is the main US entity working to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


2) The Department of Energy’s R&D programs would be reoriented and scaled back.Trump is proposing a 5.6 percent cut to the Department of Energy. And, to do that, he would impose a steep 17.9 percent cut — roughly $2 billion — from core energy/science programs intended to accelerate the transition to new (and cleaner) energy technologies.


3) State Department funding for climate change is axed. As part of the Paris climate deal in 2015, the United States pledged not just to cut emissions, but also to offer $3 billion in aid to poorer countries to help them adapt to climate change and build clean energy. So far, the Obama administration has chipped in $1 billion. This was seen as crucial for bringing these countries into the deal.


4) NASA’s Earth-monitoring programs are cut. One reason we know so much about climate change is that NASA has deployed a fleet of Earth-observing satellites since 1999. They collect data on everything from temperature and precipitation to underground aquifers and ocean currents to wildfires, soil moisture, and storms.

But NASA’s Earth Science Division has come under attack from conservatives who don’t appreciate the agency’s forays into climate science and think NASA should focus on space exploration instead.


5) A key NOAA program to help coastal communities adapt to climate change would be gone. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Sea Grant program provides grants for research efforts intended to help coastal communities deal with a wide variety of challenges. Lately, that has included climate change.


Including Sea Grant, Trump’s budget would eliminate $250 million in NOAA programs for coastal management, calling it “a lower priority than core functions maintained in the Budget such as surveys, charting, and fisheries management.” It’s unclear if Congress would agree to this: The Sea Grant program was established back in 1966 “to foster economic competitiveness” and has rarely been controversial in the past.



If that’s not good enough…

Pruitt, Chao reverse ‘costly’ auto rules


The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation took formal action Wednesday to reverse an Obama-era decision to move forward with some of the strictest regulations for cutting emissions and improving fuel efficiency in cars and light trucks.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao made the decision in a joint declaration just moments before President Trump was supposed to discuss the rollback at an event in Michigan.

“These standards are costly for automakers and the American people,” Pruitt said in a statement. “We will work with our partners at [the Department of Transportation] to take a fresh look to determine if this approach is realistic. This thorough review will help ensure that this national program is  good for consumers and good for the environment.”


Washington Examiner

On a side note, did anyone else notice the Alfa Romeo Giulia advertisement on the Vox page?  I just love irony.  An article whining about Trump’s desire to zero-out climate change spending is accompanied by ad ad for a 280 hp, 149 mph car.  The turbocharged 16-valve inline-4 cylinder engine can do 0-60 in 5 seconds.  Not bad for a 4 cylinder engine.  the Giula gets 22/32 mpg (city/highway)… A bit less than the more than 50 mpg standard that was just erased.

220 thoughts on “Trump’s budget to “hammer climate programs” across the Federal government!!!

  1. Just simmer down, everyone.

    1: No Presidential budget survives arrival in Congress
    2: With only a 2 seat majority in the Senate, the GOP is not likely to get any of this to “stick”.

    • They’ll get quite a lot of it. Budget reconciliation is exempt from the filibuster and there are at least 2-5 Democrats in the Senate who will support some of this. Joe Manchin (D-WV) will probably support all of it.

      • Peters from MI might be another. He was lucky to face such a weak GOP candidate in 2014.

        Heitkamp from ND is another. She’s up for reelection next year. So are Tester from MT and Donnelly from IN.

      • Peters is interesting. Trump is definitely winning over the automakers… He may just support some of this. I’m not sure if Tester and Donnelly are smart enough to realize how vulnerable they will be next year.

      • The reconciliation bill is going to be the health insurance thing. They can probably put some of it in reconciliation but not a lot of it, I don’t think. Lets see what comes out of the House first, since the budget has to originate there. Generally Presidential budgets are DOA.

        • It can all go through the budget reconciliation process. Budget reconciliation exempts revenue-neutral items from the filibuster. They only need 50 votes in the Senate (VP Pence is the tiebreaker).

          Trump’s budget proposal is revenue-neutral.

      • Haven’t even read the post yet – however: FANTASTIC VIDEO OF (pick one or more of the following):

        2) Government union pension crisis
        3) What’s about to happen to the global warming we-are-all-going-to-die scam
        4) Gavin Schmidt’s last day at work
        5) The UN creating everlasting world peace
        6) Michael Mann opening the envelope containing his next grant check

        Ok, now I will go back and read the post…

      • David Middleton
        March 16, 2017 at 11:24 am

        IMO both know how lucky they were to win before.

        Tester benefited from a fake conservative candidate financed by the Dumpocraps. He got less than half the vote. Only out of state college kids enabled his victory.

        Donnelly knows he won because of his opponent’s errors. Indiana has a wealth of GOP candidates who could beat him, if he runs again.

      • “The reconciliation bill is going to be the health insurance thing. They can probably put some of it in reconciliation but not a lot of it, I don’t think.”

        The Senate Parliamentarian is who decides what can be included in a reconciliation bill and Vice President Pence can take the place of the Senate Parliamentarian if it is so desired, and Vice President Pence can be the one to decide what is included in the reconciliation bill.

        I think the Republicans ought to fight back hard, since the Democrats are in full obstruction mode, and put every provision of the health care act they can in the reconciliation bill. The Democrats will howl, but they howl about anything and everything anyway, so who cares.

        The Democrats are playing no-holds-barred politics. It’s time the Republicans started responding in kind. Don’t give the Democrats a break. If you have a legal way to get your way, take it.

    • Everyone seems to be forgetting the tactic that Obama used to perfection the last 8 years, establishing a strong precedent.

      Just because money’s in the budget doesn’t mean the Executive has to spend it. The Executive can direct his cabinet chiefs to simply sit on the money and do nothing with it.

      • wws

        Are you sure about that? I would assume that amounts to a “line item veto”, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 1998.

        Just because the self-proclaimed constitutional scholar Obama did it does not make it legal.

      • That used to be the case, but congress passed a law, over Nixon’s veto, that requires the president to spend everything authorized.

    • “Any”?

      Bold talk.”All” might be a better term to allude to.

      There’s plenty of anti-green sentiment on the Hill and in the public as well.

    • Hopefully, results from debate over the federal budget will include:
      1) the EPA’s budget will be reduced far beyond the 30% currently contemplated and,
      2) the current, pseudoscientific program of research on climate change will be replaced by a much less costly but genuinely scientific program.

  2. I think Trump can get some of it to stick. He still has veto power, and he can veto submissions that do not do at least some of what he wants. If Congress wants to stop the government in its tracks just for EPA and related causes, Trump can put some strong countermeasures in their way. I, for one, hope he gets most of what he wants. I want it, too; that’s why I voted him in (along with scores of millions of other voters).

    • And the majority of voters in probably 90% of ALL the Counties in the USA; the REAL popular vote.


      • Trump won 83.5% of counties (2623). Clinton carried 15.6% (489). Johnson, Stein and/or another candidate must have picked up 29 of the 3141 counties in the country.

        But Clinton’s whole alleged popular vote edge can be accounted for by just two of the most corrupt counties in the country, Los Angeles, CA and Cook, IL. Or by Bay Area counties.

      • Once more, just for the record for those unfamiliar with the United states constitution: The president is not elected by majority vote (never has been); the office is filled by the Electoral College. Of the roughly 60 presidential elections, 5 different presidents (5 of 45, or 11%) have won office without winning the popular vote.

        Despite their comments to the contrary, all politicians and political operatives know this.

        • Of the roughly 60 presidential elections, 5 different presidents (5 of 45, or 11%) have won office without winning the popular vote.

          Point of clarification. Without winning the highest number of popular votes. More than 5 have been elected without a majority of the popular votes. Bill Clinton never got a majority of the vote.

  3. “On a side note, did anyone else notice the Alfa Romeo Giulia advertisement on the Vox page”. Exactly my experience with the local “Environmentally correct” Montreal Gazette. They won’t publish anything critical of the green religion, but the paper is loaded with (and basically derives most of its revenue from) ads promoting gas guzzling, CO2 spewing cars of all kinds. So much easier to goad everyone else into going green than it is to do it yourself.

    • I have to suppress a chuckle every time I see the travel section of The Guardian and it’s accompanying adverts. It seems to be one set of advertisers who aren’t abandoning them yet (others being jobs at the BBC and local government adverts for social workers).

    • I drove (unwillingly) for a long distance in commuter traffic on a freeway this morning BEHIND a Datsun “Leaf'” . Izzat called Nissan these days ?

      I thought a leaf was an all electric battery car.

      Never have I been behind a car that used the brake pedal as much as the driver of that Leaf.

      We were in the fast, usually commuter lane, but only going 80-90% of legal speed, but NOT really stop and go.

      Now I understand the idea of regenerative braking in electric cars; but why the hell would you (if they do) immediately switch from go to brake, by just taking your foot off the gas pedal.

      I presume they don’t, but are in pure free wheel idle, if your foot is not on the pedal, and don’t regenerate, unless you stomp on the brake pedal.

      Anyhow it was the most inefficient use of a battery powered vehicle, that I have ever encountered.

      I virtually never even touched my brakes, unless the chap in front was slowed by traffic in front of him.

      I’m in cruise control all the time, and if I am closing on anybody, I shift into neutral and coast. The car actually seems to accelerate when I do that even on the flat, so about half of my commute is idling miles in between stop and go’s, brought on by brake lights in front of me. I typically coast from one light to the next by shifting to neutral as soon as I get to legal road speed, and only have to brake at the last minute if the light doesn’t turn green. I only coast as far as I can before the guy behind can notice my speed slowing. I don’t want to hold anyone else up.

      But wouldn’t you think a battery car driver would be brake lights savvy ??


      • G, I have noticed the same thing, the other thing was that this winter I have noticed a few e-cars sitting on the side of the highway ( during every cold snap I went out, so probably quite a few more). lonely looking though.

      • I suspect that when you take you foot off the “gas” they start regeneratively braking. I.e. the brake lights may be controlled by software, not by whether you foot is actually on the brake pedal. Of course, greens are known bad drivers, so the driver may just have been driving like a Sydney taxi driver. (For those who haven’t visited Aus, many (immigrant) Sydney taxi drivers don’t have a good concept of driving, so they’re always on the brake or the accelerator, even when trying to hold a steady speed.

        As for ads on sites, Google generally targets ads to readers rather than being selected by the site itself. So if you’re seeing particular ads then that’s because you’re believed by Google to be interested in them, not because that site happens to relate to them. Found this out when we were all mocking a lefty on a particular site when he commented that the (right wing) site had lots of ads for viagra and he thought that probably reflected the audience. Turned out that it actually reflected him….

    • He’s already the greatest President of this century… And I voted for Dubyah four times.

    • Don’t forget that Obama was awarded the Nobbly (sic) Peace Prize early on. Many people would like to pull that back.

    • Yes.

      Top third, maybe. Possibly even Top Ten. We’ll see.

      Based upon achieving their goals, for good or ill, here are my rankings:

      Jefferson* (mixed record but the LA Purchase excuses all)
      Teddy Roosevelt*
      Polk (acquired US west of the Rockies)

      Monroe (acquired FL)
      FDR (failed to end the Depression, but did OK in WWII)

      Truman (despite the Korean War)

      Madison might have made the cut if the British hadn’t burned his house down. Despite Alaska, hard to rate Andrew Johnson highly. Peirce and Buchanan are generally considered the worst.

      *Mt. Rushmore

      • I rated them based upon their presidencies, not what they did before or after.

        Madison is an important Founder and Framer, but sucked as president. New England nearly seceded over the War of 1812, which was unnecessary and poorly fought, except for victories by the splendid heavy frigates authorized by Washington and completed by Federalist Adams. The Naval Act of 1794 barely passed the House. If Madison wanted to win, he should have repositioned what tiny army we had. Jefferson also left him with an absurd navy, based upon practically worthless coastal defense gunboats, ie maritime militia, rather than ships of the line and more frigates, which would have cost about the same as the disgusting “Jeffs”.

        I do admire Madison for opposing internal improvements as unconstitutional, while regarding them as beneficial.

        • Then, I think we can at least agree with this…

          March 3, 1817

          To the House of Representatives of the United States:

          Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

          The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

          “The power to regulate commerce among the several States” can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.


          I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

          James Madison,
          President of the United States

          200 years ago, I would have been a Democratic-Repblican.

      • The War of 1812 didn’t just lead to the burning of Washington, but the disaster at Detroit, which wasn’t entirely Madison’s fault, although he must share the blame.

        To this day, Canadians claim, and apparently actually believe, that they beat the US the only time we ever fought. Of course, there was no Canada then, just British colonies, and most of the troops, including their national hero Isaac Brock, were British, or American Indian. Most English-speaking “Canadians” at that time were ex-American Tory refugees from the Revolutionary War. They played little role in the war.

        Our heavy frigates did win respect, and Jackson did beat the British at New Orleans after the war was already over, but in general the war did not gain the US much esteem among the powers. Over 30 years later, the Duke of Wellington expected Santana to beat Winfield Scott in Mexico, despite the Texicans having previously ignominiously whipped the generalissimo and president. That’s how much of a force the Iron Duke reckoned our army to be.

      • David,

        I would have been an anti-Federalist, like Patrick Henry and Monroe, ie those who insisted on a Bill of Rights before supporting the centralization of power embodied in the Constitution. I’d have sided with the western PA Whiskey Rebels put down by Washington, but on military spending, I’d have gone with the Federalists. My political beliefs and positions now are a mix of D-R and Federalist. The latter of course faded away under Monroe, in the Era of Good Feeling, which didn’t last long.

        Monroe’s Doctrine owes more to his SecState J. Q. Adams than to the president himself. And the annexation of FL both to Adams and General Jackson. But those developments happened on his watch.

        • I would have probably been an Anti-Federalist as well. Although Madison’s contributions to the Federalist Papers would have made me think about supporting the Constitution.

      • Lincoln provoked the Civil War and illegal went to war against a sovereign nation (the Confederacy)
        killing more Americans in the process than dies in all of her other wars. He freed no slaves (he hoped to be able to free then deport all the Southern slaves), and destroyed the Southern states economies for the next 100 years. He eliminated most civil rights in his northern states for no particular reason. He eliminated the civil judicial system at the same time. He improsioned tens of thousands f political prisoners – anyone who had expressed doubts about his illegal and unconstitutional actions. He paid no attention to the Constitution or the Supreme Court, ordering the chief Justice to be arrested. He was the most evil national leader until Hitler and Stalin came along.
        We should be celebrating John Wilkes Booth’s actions to eliminate this evil SOB. It should be proclaimed a national holiday, and Lincoln should be impeached in absentia and removed from the list of U.S. Presidents. .

      • Federalist Hamilton also made good points in the Papers. I probably would have supported the Constitution with the secure promise of a Bill of Rights, for which thank God!

        Unfortunately the courts have warped the Constitution such that its fathers wouldn’t recognize it. Also amendments like direct election of senators. The Anti-Federalists’ worse fears are being realized.

      • “Jefferson* (mixed record but the LA Purchase excuses all)” leaves out that he ended the Barbary Pirates, freeing European merchant marine trade from incredibly high tribute payments and America from high insurance rates. Just bringing back the Marines should get him on the list without being dissed.

      • Indeed Dolly did. Our shortest president Little Jemmie was lucky to have her.

        My favorite Madison story is from the “Bladensburg Races”, the battle at which the British humiliated the Americans trying to keep them out of Washington. Despite his involvement in drafting the Constitution, he wasn’t exactly sure of what the duties of Commander-in-Chief consisted. So he rode out to Bladensburg with two pistols stuck in his belt. In the event, he, along with all the other Americans skedaddled as fast as they could. He was lucky to be mounted. And not to weigh much.

        Thus Dolly was alone when she saved Washington’s portrait in the soon to be burned White House.

      • Kalifornia Kook
        March 16, 2017 at 1:11 pm

        But he saddled Madison with the revolting Jeff gunboats, which arguably cost us the War of 1812. After relying on the navy v. the Barbary Pirates, he then practically destroyed the navy out of ideological malice, feeling it only benefited his political enemies, the northern merchant class.

      • RWturner
        March 16, 2017 at 12:36 pm

        Truman is a mixed bag. He gets kudos for the atomic bombs and for standing up to unions, remarkably for a Democrat, but he didn’t root out communists in the government because he didn’t want to give the GOP a campaign issue, flubbed Korea, weakened the army too precipitously after WWII, tried to get rid of the Marine Corps and scrap aircraft carriers.

        Maybe I rated him too highly. Middle third might be better.

      • arthur4563
        March 16, 2017 at 12:24 pm

        I agree that Lincoln was a tyrant, what the French call a sacred monster, but my ratings were based upon achieving goals, for good or ill. Lincoln did provoke the war, but his goal was to break the “slave power”, ie the self-styled aristocrats of the Southern planter class and their hold on national power via the Senate. He achieved that goal, regardless of what you and I may think of his accomplishment.


        I should have added the Marshal Plan and Cold War to Truman’s credit. He threatened Stalin with atomic bombing if he didn’t pull out of Iran, and stood up to the Commies in Greece and elsewhere postwar.

      • all these complaints about Lincoln – it reminds me of the stories about my wife’s great grandmother, a Genteel Southern Lady, who reportedly go into a rage whenever That Tryrant’s Name was mentioned, and which always caused her to tell once again how those Damned Yankees ripped the lid off the families grand piano and let the horse eat hay out of it.

      • Well I wasn’t here, or just wasn’t ,for all of them but for my money:

        Reagan Truman Kennedy.

        No I’m not a Democrat (not nuffin).


      • JFK was a disaster. Not only did he guarantee that we’d lose the Vietnam War, but he legalized federal employee unions. Just for starters.

        He’s definitely in the bottom third. But not as bad as LBJ, who’s in the bottom five.

      • George,

        Dunno if my comments on JFK’s miserable, abject failures and catastrophes might be lost in cyberspace, or under moderation.

        Short list: Vietnam and federal employee unions.

      • Oh my, there are still people defending the Confederate secession and blaming Lincoln for the civil war. Amazing.

      • hunter
        March 16, 2017 at 6:18 pm

        Pointing out that Lincoln was a blood-soaked, hideous, repulsive monster and statist tyrant is only to state the truth. He wanted that war, and easily could have avoided it. All he had to do was evacuate Ft. Sumter, as had already been done at other federal military installations in the seceded states. He suckered the fire-breathers in SC into firing on the fort.

        Had he abandoned Ft. Sumter, there would have been no war with 750,000 military and an unknown number of civilian deaths, black, white and red. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas would have stayed in the Union and the CSA would have withered on the vine.

        But South Carolinian firebrands took the bait, giving Lincoln the excuse he needed to call up a volunteer army to conquer the South. His raising of an army caused more states to secede, as he knew it would. But, as he said, he hoped God was on his side, but he needed Kentucky, and managed to hold onto it and Missouri early in the war, sealing the fate of the Confederacy.

        It would have been better for all concerned if slavery had ended, as it would have done, without federal military power. Lincoln didn’t care about the slaves. He only wanted to destroy the planter class.

        I believe that the Union is a voluntary association. I hope that California does secede. Then its interior counties would secede from it, and the coastal watermelons would starve and die of thirst in the dark.

      • It should be noted that the Yankee in charge of Ft Sumter had moved his command from Ft Moultrie (IIRC) on the northern mainland to a position in the heart of Charleston harbor in spite of a stand fast order because it offered a better threat to the City. Taking an active military threat is hardly a peaceable act, but people only consider the firing on the fort as the start of hostilities.

        Lincoln wanted to seize the vast profits from the South’s 98% of the cotton market via the new tariffs to support his Northern industrialists protectionist campaign against Europe. The Slave issue was a sham, he supported the Corbin Amendment which would have “guaranteed” slavery forever (sure, like the 19th amendment couldn’t repeal the 18th) . He ended up destroying the South and virtually eliminating the cotton industry in the US. as it moved to Egypt and India.

      • Lincoln caused the Civil War, hardly something to be proud of. He also trampled all over civil rights in order to prosecute his war.

      • hunter, the south had every right to seceed and every other country got rid of slavery without having to fight a war. It was Lincoln’s incompetence that made a war necessary.

        • Hunter, the American people rejected the powerful slavery interests that were attempting to expand it into the Territories and the new states. This is what necessitated the birth of the Republican Party, and this is what the Lincoln vs Douglas elections determined: Americans were now largely anti-slavery, and wanted free states of equal citizens to be added, just as the Founders intended.

          And damright, the addition of non-slave states would have ended slavery without a shot. That is why the South seceded and attacked the North, with plans to expand and take control of the Western Territories.

        • By the way, since the President has issued a proclamation making March 2017 Women’s history month, this is a good time to study the suffragette, Lucy Stone. She organized anti-slavery rallies and worked for equal pay for women, as well as the right to vote.

          She parted ways with Susan B Anthony, who was inviting KK K leaders to speak at her rallies. If she wanted crowds, she was asked, why didn’t she just get circus gorillas instead?

          Again, the Republican Party was formed because Americans were rejecting the slave south and its expansion into the west. The result was the passage of the XIII Am and the outlawing of peonage as well.

      • Sorry. Lincoln was the worst president. He violated the Constitution and fought an illegal war against Southern Independence. That war and the genocide against Southern culture via reconstruction and its aftermath is the primary reason that race relations are so bad.

    • I wish Floyd Mayweather acted different than he does, too. But they both know what they’re doing.

      Look at the Immigration EOs. On sight, I could see the opposition was going to wad these into a little ball and stuff ’em where the sun don’t shine.

      And Trump couldn’t see that, as easily as I could? He knows what he’s doing … on the budget, too.

    • He’d be hammered regardless because he hammered the Washington elites and their global NWO plans. Richard, there still is a real America, the types you and your friends make fun of and despise, you know, the types that won your wars for you and saved your a55es.

      My personally favorite analogy (which I believe I invented first) is the Nile crocs snapping at the a55es of the biologists who are trying to save them from extinction. I don’t expect sore losers to recognize their savior.

    • You could easily start reversing the debt by cutting defense. If a department is unable to account for trillions of dollars, it is obvious that it is getting WAY TOO MUCH money to start with. You don’t reward those that can not figure out how to manage their accounts. Besides, if money was spent wisely there – no excuse for cost overruns in the millions to billions – you could upgrade and improve the existing “defense product” without budget increases.

      • The obvious reason why Defense can’t account for gobs of money (the dog ate it), is we don’t want them to account for it. Some of it is spent on projects we don’t want to publicize. A lot these days is spent on people we don’t want to admit are on the job.

        Being the sole global superpower costs a lot of money, but it would still be worth it, for a lot more.

      • The $2000 toilet seat cover was for a nuclear submarine. The cover had to clamp to the frame and handle I forget how many pounds per square inch. It was also a one of design so all the engineering costs had to be rolled into only a handful of actual seat covers.
        It was entirely justifiable, however those who know nothing, and don’t want to know anything always use it as an example of defense dept waste.
        PS: The $500 coffee pot was a pressurized one for the B-52s.

  4. I can’t say anything that adds to Trump’s actions. I am sitting back watching with smug satisfaction. AHHHHHH.

  5. This is an initial negotiating stance. President Trump has been very clear that his first proposal on ANYTHING is exactly that—an initial proposal aimed at launching negotiations.

    That said, the spend on climate change research (or activism, or whatever it actually is) will likely be cut substantially in the final budget, because at the end of the day folks are more likely to care more about other programs and fight harder for them.

  6. I would be sorry to see NASA’s Earth monitoring program go. Yes, NASA should not be analyzing the data, but collecting it is still important.


    • I don’t think they’ll terminate the satellites. Other agencies (NOAA and the USGS), academia and the private sector should be doing the Earth Science.

    • NOAA already operates a fleet of satellites trained on earth. They should control all of them. Let NASA concern itself with space. There is mission overlap in low earth orbit, but looking outward beyond geostationary should be the space agency’s focus.

      • I think you’ve said that in an earlier post. Regardless, you’re right. Too much overlap, which Trump has promised to reduce in many agencies. More power to him!

    • I hate to see the R&D $$ for future energy tech go. Eventually we will need replacement tech for our currently unbeatable fossil energy sources and I would hate to get caught with our pants down and require 30 years worth of refinement at the (future) time when we have 20 years worth of fuel sources left.

      • Not sure that we need the government to find alternative energy sources. They did help start fission nuclear, but IMO private enterprise will come up with solutions when the economics of energy make them feasible. So far most government energy research funding has been wasted, IMO. See fusion and subsidies for wind and solar.

      • Solutions that are non physical, which a bunch of the DOE efforts are, can be cut with no negative impacts. The climate kooks have screwed up nearly everything they have touched.

      • Bryan, there is no need for anyone to worry. The engineering marvels that keep the lights on and do everything else in this modern world are brought to you automatically in a free enterprise system. Your worry should be that government is going to bu99er up this magical provident system. You know, like the renewables scam you foster a new world order run by elites. We came close! I hope we have learned a lesson.

  7. the president can to a degree, not spend (some, all?) money authorized to a particular program. I will patiently for the moment we can say “Now, his (O) failure is complete”

    • Nixon used to do that. So Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Then they overrode Nixon’s veto. This Act set up the modern budget process and…

      Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request, and has ignored most Presidential requests.[4] In response, some have called for a line item veto to strengthen the rescission power and force Congress to vote on the disputed funds.

      The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment.

    • “Peace through strength”…

      President Donald Trump’s first budget proposal is a stark reflection of the hypermasculine, nationalist and law-and-order candidacy he theatrically championed on the campaign trail.

      It values a hulking military, bolstered borders and a commitment to law enforcement. It depreciates aid to other countries, and takes aim at a stream of regulations and domestic programs that the president sees as futile or hampering economic growth.

      “This is a hard power budget,” White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said during a preview of the administration’s 2018 fiscal year outline on Wednesday. “That was done intentionally. The president very clearly wants to send a message to our allies and our adversaries that this is a hard power administration.”

      Trump, who regularly talks about the need for a stronger military he’d prefer not to use, is set to reward the Pentagon with a $54 billion increase that even top Democrats have been reluctant to criticize.


    • I agree with David. People were worried that RR was going to get us into WW3. That means the Soviets took him seriously. Nobody took Carter seriously.

      China is starting to flex its muscles in the South China Sea. link I think I’ll stock up on popcorn for the bomb shelter.

      • Trump is not stupid. Far from it. He has true intelligence, tested where and when it counts, unlike his pseud-intellectual “resisters”.

      • KC, you’re so smart – why ain’t you (as) rich? Why didn’t you run for president? Methinks you’re not so dumb as to think you’re in his league. That’s a plus. Keep working on it.
        Yes, this is a personal attack. Much like your two posts above.

      • CommieBob:

        I know for a fact that most of the upper ranks of the State Department
        including nearly all of the diplomatic corps took James Earl Carter VERY

        When he stated that “human rights” would be a litmus test for U.S. support
        of foreign governments he MEANT it and tried to put it into practice. He
        ended up hamstrung by the old boy State Department network.

        He got submarined.

      • R.S. Brown March 16, 2017 at 4:11 pm

        He got submarined.

        I am certain that lots of senior civil servants hate Donald Trump’s guts. Will they try to sabotage him or do they fear him enough that they will behave?

      • R.S. Brown
        March 16, 2017 at 4:11 pm

        Carter’s lamebrained “human rights” policy gave us the anti-human rights regime in Iran. And the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Cuban intervention in Africa and a host of other tragedies and catastrophes remedied by Ronald the Great.

      • Yeah Kit C. Let’s unleash a covey Ivy league philosophers on ISIS and think them into submission.

    • Obama destabilized more countries, fomented more rebellions, created more refugees and brought the world closer to general war than anyone since WW2. And ignorant fools claim Trump is a war monger.

      • With Hillary Clinton’s invaluable assistance!

        Pulling precipitously out of Iraq without a status of forces agreement was a huge mistake. Except for Tunisia, which happened without our help, the whole “Arab Spring” was also a yuge mistake. Overthrowing Qaddafi was a big mistake. Stating that Assad had to go, then not overthrowing him was an even bigger mistake.

        Obama doesn’t even seem to be aware that the Syrian tragedy is as much his fault as anyone’s. Kind of makes one suspect that he wanted millions of Muslim refugees to flood Europe and America.

        Naah! That couldn’t be, could it?

      • I doubt Obama is smart enough to have anticipated the inevitable results of his actions.
        I doubt that he cares. He got to prance about and display his virtue for the world to see. That’s all that matters.

      • MarkW March 17, 2017 at 6:52 am

        I doubt Obama is smart enough to have anticipated the inevitable results of his actions.

        Obama is plenty smart. The trouble is that even really smart people can’t reliably predict anything that involves people. Experts of all sorts should be forced to study Philip Tetlock’s work. A dart-throwing chimp is better at forecasting than most experts. They need to understand that.

  8. We need it all. My local Congressman (she insists on being called that) is the head of the budget committee. She will be hearing from me and others on this.

    My admission: I resisted the charms of D J Trump deep into the election. Glad I finally folded even if it was late. Whatever his stylistic quirks he has proven to be a better POTUS than any since Reagan. He ran on certain policies and he is determined to carry them out. I promise to make up for my recalcitrance by working to retain control of Congress in 2018. He will need that to succeed.

      • Sort of but not exactly. David and Diane built a medical lab business together. Diane is a skeptic keeping her focus on the living standards of her constituents. She holds the seat that Al Gore held for years. Isn’t that sweet.

    • Yup – Trump is doing such a great job that he set the all time record for lowest approval rating ever for any President in his first year in office – he hit 39% percent approval this week.

      • Keep dreaming Duane. We are staging a revolution and therefore breaking a few eggheads. Reagan was down and being counted out by 1982. In 84 he won every state except Minnesota. Better put a book in your baggy pants son. You have another spanking coming.

      • In what poll is that?

        He ranges from 42 to 47% approval in the past ten polls, doing better among registered and likely voters than with low information “all adults”.

        • More importantly, most of the right/wrong track, economic & consumer confidence surveys are all up since the election. Consumer and economic confidence are at their highest levels in more than a decade.

      • Playing it for the best popularity numbers right after the election you won, is wrong. Do the incendiary stuff first, then as the next election (2018) approaches it’s behind you, and you do more of the up-beat stuff. Timing is everything.

        Tear the streets all up to fix the old water-mains … people frown and write letters to the Editor. Come election time … all new asphalt, pedestrian-friendly sideways, clean water in the tap … and yer the toast of the Ballot Box.

      • I might add that Clinton’s low rating was because he ran as a centrist, then ruled as a Leftie for the first two years, leading to the Demo-disaster 1994 midterm election.

        Trump OTOH has governed as he said he would.

      • Consumer confidence has skyrocketed to its highest level since before 9/11…

        U.S. Consumer Confidence Rises to Highest Level Since July 2001

        by Austin Weinstein
        February 28, 2017, 9:04 AM CST February 28, 2017, 9:28 AM CST

        Consumer confidence unexpectedly increased in February to the highest level since July 2001 as Americans grew more upbeat about present and future conditions, according to a report Tuesday from the New York-based Conference Board.

        Key Points

        Confidence index advanced to 114.8 (forecast was 111) from a revised 111.6 in January
        Present conditions gauge increased to 133.4, the highest since July 2007, from 130
        Measure of consumer expectations for the next six months rose to 102.4 from 99.3
        Share of those who said more jobs will be available in the coming months rose to 20.4 percent from 19.7 percent


        Consumer comfort has also skyrocketed…

        U.S. Consumer Comfort Just Reached Its Highest Level in a Decade

        by Austin Weinstein
        March 9, 2017, 8:45 AM CST
        Sentiment about U.S. economy is strongest since August 2001
        Confidence extends beyond Republicans as independents upbeat

        Americans’ confidence continued to mount last week as the Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index reached the highest point in a decade on more-upbeat assessments about the economy and buying climate, figures showed Thursday.

        Key Points
        Consumer comfort index rose to 50.6 in the period ended March 5, the highest since March 2007, from 49.8
        Measure has exceeded 50 just six times since April 2002
        Gauge of economy advanced to 48.2, the highest since August 2001, from 46.8
        Buying-climate measure rose to 44.5, the strongest reading since April 2002, from 43.7
        Index of personal finances was little changed at 58.9 versus 59

        Big Picture

        Stock indexes near record highs and persistent strength in the job market have lifted the consumer comfort gauge in five of the last six weeks since the inauguration of President Donald Trump.


        The Details

        Confidence among Americans with incomes above $100,000 cooled for the first time in six weeks, easing to 76.8 from a 78.7 reading that matched a record reached in 2006
        Republicans’ sentiment exceeded that of Democrats by the most since September 2013
        Sentiment rose in the South and Midwest; fell in the West and Northeast
        Part-time employees were most confident since October 2015
        Comfort among married Americans was highest in a decade

        The constant media beat-down and the fact that at least half of the public simply doesn’t like President Trump are the reason his job approval numbers are low, despite the fact that the public approves of most of his policies…

        The latest poll finds that just 41% of the public approves of the job Trump is doing (down from 42% last month), while 53% disapprove (up from 48%). Half of independents disapprove of Trump’s job performance, up from 47% last month, as do one in 10 Republicans (up from 6%).

        The IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index shows Trump at 44.6, which is down from last month’s 49.2 and below President Obama’s 46.9 average for his second term.

        The poll was largely completed before Trump’s well-received address to Congress last Tuesday. But the speech clearly had a positive impact on the public’s view of the president. Of the 653 surveyed before the speech, just 39.5% approved of the job he is doing. Of the 256 polled after the speech, his approval rating climbed to 46.1% — a 6.6 point bump. His disapproval numbers went from 54.5% before to 47.5% after.

        Despite Trump’s low approval numbers, the public backs most of his policies.

        The poll found that 57% back Trump’s plan to hire 10,000 more immigration agents; 58% support the deportation of illegal immigrants charged with a crime, even if they haven’t been convicted; 53% back Trump’s call to withhold federal aid to “sanctuary cities.”

        On Trump’s Supreme Court pick, far more think Congress should approve Neil Gorsuch to fill Justice Scalia’s seat (48%) than say he should be defeated (31%).

        Last month’s survey found that a majority backed of Trump’s temporary halt on refugees coming into the U.S. suspension of refugees. It also found high levels of confidence that Trump would fulfill his campaign promises to bring manufacturing jobs back, simplifying the tax code, and building a wall and securing the border.

        Meanwhile, 42% say Trump is providing strong leadership for the country, which is higher than the 40% Obama got last October.

        The one area of disagreement is on ObamaCare. Only 38% say they back repealing the law, which is down somewhat from last month’s 42%. More now say it should be expanded (39%), which is up from 34% last month. Other polls have shown a recent increase in approval rates for ObamaCare, although a survey of those actually enrolled found a huge drop in satisfaction with their existing ObamaCare plans.

        And the vast majority of Republicans and a majority of independents are fed up with the fake news…×360.png

      • Yeah the polls! They’ve been suborned by the ‘Swamp’ for decades. Trump’s numbers from the swamp dwellers are low, which is very encouraging – he’s going to save everybody including the designer-brained core educables that will be snapping away at him while he is rebuilding America.

      • No president has ever received the amount of negative press and character assassination Trump has received. That is bound to drive down his polls.

        I saw a poll today that showed Trump at 53 percent approval. So even in all the noise and lies Trump is going to shine through. Give him six months and he’ll be a lot higher.

  9. The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. It is unwise to be spending money trying to solve problems that just cannot be solved. The USA has a huge federal debt, huge annual deficits, and huge annual trade deficits. We just cannot afford to keep throwing our money away. I estimate that the money the federal government is borrowing today will end up costing the tax payers more than 12 tiems the money borrowed to repay over the next 180 years. The greater our debt, the closer we are to financial desaster. There is no evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero.

  10. Trump’s budget proposal was already declared DOA by senior members of his own party. It will never even be debated, let alone voted on, or let alone enacted. A Trump budget is a purely political BS document. Budgets don’t appropriate funds – appropriations bills appropriate funds.

    All appropriations bills are enacted by Congress, and must initiate in the House, and per Senate rules require 60 votes. Trump will never get even 51 votes from his own party members for this budget, or for killing off EPA, for which the GOP would get killed in next year’s mid-term elections just for voting for it despite the fact that it can never pass the Senate.

    I really wish that wattsupwiththat would stop cheeleading for partisan Trumpkinian politics and would get back to science and policy matters.

    And get over this “we must destroy the EPA” childish mindset here. Opinion polling now and for many years and decades has always shown consistently strong public support for environmental protection over the demands of business interests.

    The way forward is to stop playing Don Quixote and get down to the serious business of making sound, science based policy decisions. The EPA has in fact exceeded its statutory authority in several areas of rulemaking which have been overturned by Federal courts. What EPA needs to do is stop being political itself and stick to enforcing Federal statutory law. Refocus EPA, but don’t think for a moment that you can “defeat EPA”. Be very careful what you wish for.

    • That’s not how the budget process works.

      The Congressional budget process
      Titles I through IX of the law are also known as the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Title II created the Congressional Budget Office. Title III governs the procedures by which Congress annually adopts a budget resolution, a concurrent resolution that is not signed by the President, which sets fiscal policy for the Congress. This budget resolution sets limits on revenues and spending that may be enforced in Congress through procedural objections called points of order. The budget resolution can also specify that a budget reconciliation bill be written, which the Congress will then consider under expedited procedures.

      The act has been amended several times, including provisions in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The original 1974 legislation, however, remains the basic blueprint for budget procedures today.

      The limitation on debate that prevents a budget reconciliation bill from being filibustered in the Senate (requiring a three-fifths vote to end debate) led to frequent attempts to attach amendments unrelated to the budget to the reconciliation bills. In response, the budget reconciliation acts of 1985, 1986, and 1990 adopted what is known as the Byrd Rule (Section 313 of the Budget Act).[1] The Byrd Rule allows Senators to raise points of order (which can be waived by a three-fifths majority of Senators)[2]) against provisions in the reconciliation bills that are “extraneous.”[3] Provisions are considered extraneous if they:

      do not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
      produce changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
      are outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
      increase outlays or decrease revenue if the provision’s title, as a whole, fails to achieve the Senate reporting committee’s reconciliation instructions;
      increase net outlays or decrease revenue during a fiscal year after the years covered by the reconciliation bill unless the provision’s title, as a whole, remains budget neutral; or
      contain recommendations regarding the OASDI (social security) trust funds

      Since the reconciliation bill may cover as many as ten years, the fifth provision can have the effect of requiring that any tax cut or spending increase be approved by a three-fifths majority, or else the law must return to its previous state after ten years. This is responsible for the use of sunset clauses in several recent budget acts, when proposed tax cuts commanded majority support but not the necessary three-fifths majority to suspend the Byrd Rule. For example, many of the provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 would have expired as soon as fiscal year 2010 if not extended. The provisions that were to expire included the $1000 per child tax credit, the 10% income tax bracket for low-income workers, and the deduction for state and local sales taxes paid. The expiration dates in those Acts were inserted in order to avoid Byrd Rule points of order. Provisions against which a Byrd Rule point of order is sustained are colloquially referred to as “Byrd droppings”.

      It only takes 51 votes in the Senate to pass a budget reconciliation act. It is exempt from the filibuster.

      • You’re describing the budget process. Under the Constitution there is no such thing as a “budget” – there is only appropriations. Many Congresses have failed to even enact a budget, but they always appropriate funds, or that unit of government must by law shut down.

        It doesn’t matter what you do in a “budget reconciliation act” – again there is no such thing in the Constitution, that is merely a Senate rule which can be changed at any time at the whim of the majority. But it still does not appropriate funds.

        Trump will not only not get even 51 votes in the Senate, his budget will never see a hearing, or get a vote at all.

        • Google Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and educate yourself.

          It is a law passed by Congress, vetoed by Nixon, whose veto was overridden by Congress.

          It is the law under which budgets have been done since the mid-1970’s, apart from 2010-2015 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to comply with the law. There’s no penalty for failing to comply with this law; but the only period in which it was flouted was when Obama was President, the Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House.

          The President is required to submit a budget to Congress in February. Congress can vote on it or ignore it and prepare their own budget resolution. This only requires simple majorities and can’t be filibustered. This is not sent to the President. It is the framework for the appropriating committees.

          Once a budget resolution has been approved, the various committees can strike down any appropriations which deviate from the budget resolution on a point of order. This largely binds the appropriating committees to following the budget resolution.

          The committees produce the appropriation bills. These can be sent to the President individually or bundled into a single bill. Under budget reconciliation rules, this process can’t be filibustered. Simple majorities are all that are required.

          If Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan want to Congress to pass a budget resolution and appropriations bills consistent with Trump’s budget, they will easily be able to do so.

          Will it be identical to Trump’s proposals? No. Will it increase defense spending and slash domestic spending? Yes. Will it zero-out junk science spending? Probably not… But it will cut it deeply. Otherwise, Trump will veto the appropriations. I doubt Trump expects to get everything he wants. That’s not how the “art of the deal” works.

          Congress has already started this ball rolling. The recently passed NASA reorganization act doesn’t even mention Earth, environmental or climate science. It directs NASA to refocus it’s efforts on space operations, with a long-term goal of a manned mission to Mars.

      • The one area where the Democrats could filibuster, is in the defense spending increase. It would exceed the sequestration limits imposed in 2011.

    • Ryan has been noncommittal but generally favors cuts. Trump may get more than you suppose. Some of his proposals are negotiating positions, but IMO substantial cuts in non-defense spending will happen. They have to. The federal government can’t keep running trillion dollar deficits every year forever, on a four trillion dollar annual budget.

      • The left wing will respond as always. We can balance the budget by raising the tax rate to 100% for everyone who makes more than I do.

    • Yea your post is a strawman seeing how his budget doesnt get rid of the epa. Where did you get that notion from?

      A 31 pct cut is not getting rid of epa

    • Trump is as good at Don Quixote as he was at Celebrity Apprentice. Being underestimated & misinterpreted (which is easily arranged) is an unfair advantage in TAotD.

      • Trump is just as good as he was at running his casino resort businesses – running them into the ground with six, I repeat six serial bankrupcties.

        And likely just as good as Trump getting his Muslim ban past the Federal courts.

        And just as good as he is at estimating inauguration crowds.

        And just as good as proving that 5 million illegals voted for HRC.

        And just as good as getting the wall built, and getting the Mexicans to pay for it.

        And just as good as making sure everyone in America gets great health insurance, at lower rates, with his Obamacare replacement.

        And just as good as he was at vetting and hiring staff, such as his disgraced, Russian-paid National Security Advisor.

        Etc. etc etc.

      • And Trump does the perfect political Tom Brady. Every time he goes down by more than 20 points, the opposing team starts to sweat BBs. ‘Oh no!’

        They’ve learned, when it looks like Trump could never recover … it’s a setup!

    • Congress can vote whatever funds they like.
      Whether the president chooses to use all the money, or even has employees to pass it on to is purely up to him.

      Congress only really controls maximum spend. Not minimum

    • Trump also knows that he can count on a handful of Democrat votes.
      Your desire for Trump to fail is causing you to make unwarranted assumptions.

    • “The way forward is to stop playing Don Quixote and get down to the serious business of making sound, science based policy decisions.”

      Oh, absolutely!

      I couldn’t agree more.

      And that – by gutting Obama’s AGW gravy train “climate science” cabal – and replacing them with politically untainted scientific advisors is precisely what President Trump is doing.

      More power to his elbow!

  11. He knows he won’t get all of this. But he will get a lot because people like Pruitt, Tillerson, and Perry will not object. Tillerson in Japan today said he agreed with the proposed State budget cuts. Ebell laid out the EPA plan Pruitt will be implementing. Perry wanted to abolish Energy, not just cut and reform it. I personally have seen how much energy research waste there is in the nariinal labs Energy oversees. To the extent NASA duplicates NOAA, an easy cut. And so on.
    And, this will produce more exploding watermelon heads, which will increasing show the Deplorables how our of touch with reality watermelons are.

    • None of those guys you listed matter a whit.

      Do you even know how our government works? That it is the Congress that enacts laws and appropriates funds, not the President or members of his cabinet?

      Geesh, every 13 year old in middle school knows that.

      • The president is required by law to submit a budget proposal to Congress. It is the starting point of the budget process.

        If Congress passes appropriations bills or an omnibus which is unacceptable to the president he can veto it.

      • Duane, I am a Harvard trained lawyer. You really think I don’t know how appropriation budgets workunder the Constitution? My comment point was quite different. The appropriations process often pits the President versus his agencies. See DoD spending cuts for the all time classic. So, absence of resistance by Trump appointees cuts out a whole layer of political cover from congressional swamp critters. That by itself is a useful gambit. Representatives and Senators go home to an ‘irate’ electorate and say, Tillerson was ok with State cuts, so I am also. After all, he runs State.
        You need to work both on reading comprehension and straw man faux arguments. The tide has turned. You are exposing your under dressed self as the swamp drains.

      • Obama had no budget at all for several years. He just spent what he wanted based on his interpretation of the law. That was cool with the oligarchs. Now suddenly it has to be exact? lol. Kiss off.

      • Hunter,

        Misgovernment by continuing resolution, without any budgeting discipline, required the connivance of both parties to ignore the Constitution and all principles of good government, but wouldn’t have been possible without a lawless president.

      • “Misgovernment by continuing resolution,”

        Yes, it is. The Republican Congress has been pathetic. Obama could not have doubled the national debt without the Republicans in Congress going along with him.

        I know the Republicans were deathly afraid of being called racists, if they resisted Obama’s spending, but that is not a good enough excuse for me. They should have done their job and held Obama to account.

        Now, after Trump is elected, they are going to do their job. We haven’t heard a thing about deficits for eight years, and now that’s all we hear about. Which is good that we are talking about it again, but it is so hypocritical on both the congressional Republicans and Democrat’s part, who haven’t had a care for the debt for the last eight years. NOW they are concerned.

  12. I am pleasantly pleased thus far with Trump, and more than a bit suprised. BTW Chimp, it was Lopez de Santa Ana in the Texas revolution and the Mexican War, properly shortened to Lopez in English form. Calling him Santa Ana was an example that then current American writers did not understand Spanish naming conventions, as in Pena Nieto, the current Mexican President.

    • Tom,

      Living in Chile, married to a non-English speaking Chilean, speaking Spanish for 50 years and conducting business in it daily means that I’m familiar with Castilian naming conventions. I have both my dad’s and mom’s name on my RUT de impuestos.

      The names Santana and Santa Anna are the same. The former just spells the name the way it’s pronounced. I know that his dad’s apellidos were Lopez de Santa Anna. But in Mexico and Texas, he’s referred to as Santana or Santa Anna, not Lopez.

      San Diego and Santiago are similarly the same. They’re both versions of the name of the same saint.

      • San Diego and Santiago are similarly the same. They’re both versions of the name of the same saint.

        Just a little nitpick. Diego is a variant of Santiago, but San Diego and Santiago are not the name of the same saint.

        From wiki:

        Santiago, (also San Iago, San Tiago, Santyago, Sant-Yago, San Thiago) is a Spanish name that derives from the Hebrew name Jacob (Ya’akov) via “Sant Iago”, “Sant Yago”, “Santo Iago”, or “Santo Yago”, first used to denote Saint James the Great, the brother of John the Apostle. It was also the tradition that Saint James (Santiago) had traveled to the Iberian Peninsula during his life and was buried there. The name is also complicated in Spanish in that Jaime and Jacobo are modern versions of James.

        Variants of Santiago include Iago (a common Galician language name), and Thiago or Tiago (a common Portuguese language name). The common name James has many forms in Iberia, including Xacobo or Xacobe (in Galician), Jaume, Xaume, Jaime, Jacobo, and Diego (in Spanish). Despite being a cognate, San Diego does not refer to Saint Jacob but to Saint Didacus of Alcalá.

        Santiago is also the patron saint of Spain, after whom many cities have been named in Spain itself and throughout its former empire,

      • Thanks for picking that nit.

        I didn’t know that Diego was a different saint from Iago. I thought the patron saint of Spain was known as Diego, while Iago was an Italian version.

        I stand corrected.

  13. To Duane: Speaking for myself, and (I’m sure) the scores of millions who voted like me, I have been very careful what I wish for in respect to the federal government. I have had over two decades to ponder the ruin brought about by Democrats and pusillanimous Republicans too weak to resist the “progressive” mindset. I have watched with horror the evils of the Obama administration, not least of all from O himself; and I have hoped for a Republican to assume true leadership and to set out in the right direction with the resolution and bravery to persevere in the face of the inevitable Democrat/Progressive onslaught. From what we have seen so far, Trump is the leader I’ve been waiting for. He has already made changes, and set others in motion, that will help to repair the damage that I have witnessed. As for specifics: He has promised to return the EPA to its original purpose and pare away its inexcusable over-reaching regulations and decisions; I hope he soon does something that leads to the removal of the idiotic “endangerment” finding about CO2. As for “partisan Trumpkinian politics,” it is less partisan than Obama’s politics in being more patriotic, more truly dedicated to the best interests of the country Trump has sworn to serve. I am happy to see it.

  14. Duane says:

    “votes from his own party members for this budget, or for killing off EPA, for which the GOP would get killed in next year’s mid-term elections just for voting”

    Duane how is a 31 pct budget cut to the epa the same as killing it off per your claim?

    Strawman perhaps?

    • Every good leftist knows that any increase that is less then the agency asked for is a cut, and an actual cut will destroy the agency.

  15. Let’s hope that Trump really does get his views implemented. They will help both the USA in the short term and the world in the longer term.

  16. “The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation took formal action Wednesday to reverse an Obama-era decision to move forward with some of the strictest regulations for cutting emissions and improving fuel efficiency in cars and light trucks.”

    That would require an average fleet efficiency of 49.6 mpg in 2025. This would completely change the safety, comfort, affordability, attractiveness and usefulness of cars and trucks.

    No doubt an attempt to so hobble the American internal combustion engine cars that people would be forced into worthless little EVs from Germany.

    • These CAFE standards already add to the price of a new vehicle. But what could also really contribute to rising car prices is the fact that multi-billion dollar settlements have already been imposed over emissions measurements. You have got to be kidding me. These are astronomical fines on car makers over fairy dust measurements.

      This will put all car buyers on the hook for massive molecule-counting fines that make no sense at all.

      And part of the settlement with German car maker VW is that it is required to invest 2 billion in Electric Vehicles and EV infrastructure in California.

      • How about if AG Jeff Sessions has a look at this:

        ( – Following the revelation early this year that Volkswagen had failed to accurately report its emissions test results for its diesel vehicles, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reached a $14.7 billion settlement with the German automaker that included $2.7 billion to promote education and infrastructure for electric vehicles across the United States.

  17. I think it is very important to pursue legally, the fraud which climate scientists carried out at NOAA and NASA and elsewhere ect, to adjust surface worlwide thermometer temperatures to show warming, Only this would actually convince vast numbers of AGW believers worlwide, how they were had for years.

    • Eliza, right on! I’m concerned that relief over the rebuilding of the economy, slashing of regulations, stripping off waste, defunding scams…. we will be too magnanimous with the ugly characters that have cost the whole world so much and taken us to the brink of dark ages. A reckoning for this monstrous malfeasance is necessary to make would be future scoundrels think twice.

  18. A good start; 7-others (7-years) needed.

    And there is Congress; 2-vote majority is not a winner. By October 1 we may have government again by Continuing Resolution.

    On a very bright note I check a few Fed web sites. Yep! John Holdren vacated his seat at NSF a few days before 20 January. Now he is free to join the 22 April protests and show his butt for the March for Aryan Science and the Homocentric Universe Dogma (i.e. Anthropogenic Global Warming [“Climate Change”]).

    Some questions about where are the NSF cuts. Maybe Trump will not appoint a NSF Director, allow the staff to wriggle and resign (also without replacement) along with those of the National Science Board, and just no money from OMB.

    A slow process of marginalization and down-sizing without drawing attention from Communists (er Democrats) in Congress.

    Ha ha

  19. It will be interesting to see how many real conviction alarmists there are who when the money dries up will devote their own time and money for the cause. This is what skeptics have done for years. In Australia the Climate Authority showed minimal conviction when donations dried up. Let’s close. What’s the next scare we can invent to fleece the gullible. Without the money things may implode quicker than one thinks, especially with the South Australian canary in the coal mine showing the rest of the world how a renewable energy economy really looks.

  20. Great news! The EPA & the rest of the “climate” programs have gotten out of hand and needed to be reined in. Thank you President Trump!

  21. “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Sea Grant program provides grants for research efforts intended to help coastal communities deal with a wide variety of challenges. Lately, that has included climate change.”

    I am interested how you view the fact that Trump company cited rising sea levels cause by AGW as a reason to install coastal defenses for his golf course in Ireland.

    Is this simply standard business practice? You say whatever you need to to get what you want? if that is the case, why does he want sea defenses anyway? Or is it secret acknowledgement that he believes in AGW and sea level rise?

    Is there any good way to spin this?

      • JPeden. I assure you this is not fake news. It is not sensible to dismiss everything you don’t like as fake. Trump was denied permission to build a sea wall to protect his golf course. He appealed, and that submission contained the following:

        ““If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland. In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. … As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase.”

        What does everyone think? Just smart business?

      • MarkW. I said a reason, not the reason. I take care with my writing, please try to take care with your reading.

      • seaice1 March 17, 2017 at 1:46 am

        JPeden. I assure you this is not fake news. It is not sensible to dismiss everything you don’t like as fake.

        You still haven’t sourced your claim.

    • seaice1 March 16, 2017 at 5:06 pm

      Is this simply standard business practice?

      You still haven’t sourced your claim. But let’s say it’s true. The question then becomes not “Why did Trump’s Lawyers, or Trump appear to believe in CO2-Climate Change at that time” but “Why do you still Believe In CO2-Climate Change?”

    • Disingenuous – mendacious even, even by your standards.

      Much of the East Coast of Great Britain – including Scotland – is subject to severe erosion entirely unconnected with sea level rise.

      2. Coastal erosion

      2.1 Coastal erosion affects most coastlines in Scotland at rates ranging from <1mm per year on hard igneous cliffs to 4m per year or more on certain dune coastlines. In Scotland it is generally only on non-rocky coastlines, where the coastal edge is formed of mud, sand, shingle or glacial deposits, that erosion progresses sufficiently rapidly to be of concern to landowners and managers.

      From the Trump Golf Course information site:

      Welcome to Trump International Golf Links, Scotland! Set amidst The Great Dunes of Scotland, Trump International embraces mile after mile of spectacular Aberdeenshire coastline and guarantees the experience of a lifetime.

      Moreover, sea level around Scotland is currently becoming lower due to isostatic readjustment and has been doing so since the retreat of the glaciers.

      The reason for the installation and maintenance of coastal defences in Scotland has nothing to do with fear of imaginary sea level rise.

      You really don’t know what you’re wittering about, do you?

  22. Let’s remember changes need to be made in the grant funding decision making bodies as well. All of these are captured by climate alarmists now, so almost everyone one of them that doles out money related to any research field at all, needs a wholesale change of all members.

    Most of these are specifically allocated to various scientific organizations so these changes will be difficult to roll out.

  23. As part of the Paris climate deal in 2015, the United States pledged not just to cut emissions, but also to offer $3 billion in aid to poorer countries to help them adapt to climate change and build clean energy. So far, the Obama administration has chipped in $1 billion. This was seen as crucial for bringing these countries into the deal.

    The best way for those nations to show their displeasure and solidarity is for them to throw that first billion dollars back in our face saying “No thanks!”

    Should I hold my breath?

  24. How many signatories to the letter from Climate Scientists promising not to accept one thin dime from the Trump administration? Is there a running total someplace? Asking for a friend.

  25. Okay. Maybe i spoke too soon. Since the Obama administration shuffled a half billion USD to the UN good works the global temperature has indeed come down. I proposed that based upon this amazing result that the US contribute an equal amount for equal reductions and since funding = temperature that the US be paid in kind for any failure to control global temps.

  26. Should I hold my breath?

    While not necessary it is not recommended. There is a vast chasm twixt environmental law and science. Golf courses are subject to law. There is nothing in law that demands science. Scopes lost. People forget that.

    • Subsequent federal court cases have however supported science. It’s unconstitutional, ie illegal, now to teach creationism as science, as it should be. Ditto so-called “intelligent design”, which was shown in court to be old creationist vinegar in a new bottle. Hilariously so, since the ID garbage was easily shown to be copied from creationist claptrap. The latter 2005 proceeding, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., has been called the Dover Panda Trial, in honor of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

  27. The only ‘greenhouse gas’ that has any significant effect on climate is water vapor. Water vapor has been and still is increasing, which is countering the downtrend in average global temperature that would otherwise be occurring, The cause of the water vapor increase, which is greater than expected for the temperature increase, is being essentially ignored.

  28. Re the graphic, it’s a lot more fun to shoot watermelons with belt-fed machine guns. The gourd variety, that is, not the human.

  29. The most important cut is the one sending money to the developing world which is supposedly to use it to help mitigate climate change. The problem is that we never seem to know whether it’s actually being used for that purpose or simply winding up in state coffers for other projects or the personal bank accounts of government officials. The fact that this money is being cut suggests that it’s not going to where it was intended; in fact, wasn’t there a report that one of the recipient nations was using it to build a coal-fired plant for electrical generation?

  30. Trump’s budget director at OMB, Mick Mulvaney on climate change funding at the news conference today about the budget.

    Haven’t tried linking to this website before so I’m not sure what will happen and it does not appear to be linked anywhere else.

    (BUT this is the words we have all been waiting to hear for more than a decade).

    • Awesome! Thanks.

      So much for the making nice jabber about Ivanka and her urban liberal friends changing The Donald’s mind during the transition.

      DJT is sticking with the people who elected him, not the bubble-dwelling coastal elites.

  31. For consideration

    Proposing a budget like this is a dandy start but please realize that the money that floats around concerning CAGW is a highly sophisticated financial scam. Many NGOs and favored operatives have figured out how to commit the USG to forward funding schemes that would curdle your milk. For instance, big money is actually embedded in various DOD contracts and contributes to its wastefulness. The budget money being talked about is tip of the iceberg stuff concerning agencies like EPA.

    What DJT really needs is a TASK FORCE of forensic accountants to unravel USG commitments concerning CAGW. The Senate Minority Report of 2014 is an excellent point of departure document. Here’s a link to JoNovas exec summary.

  32. And lets be fair, Trump is not just hammering environmental issues, he is also hitting education, healthcare , NASA, housing and development and a host of other departments. However the Military, Veterans and homeland security will do well out of the budget. Do such budgets give any indication of how Trump sees the major issues addressing the US, and how he sees the future?

    • Trump is cutting back on departments that don’t work, and aren’t federal responsibilities in the first place.
      Good for him.

      • That is maybe his rationale Mark. Looking at the data published by Bloomberg it seems that substantially more departments will have funding cut than those who have increased funding. It’s possible that a lot more people will be upset at these cuts than are pleased. That could translate into voting intentions.
        Many people voted for Trump as he stated he would ditch the Affordable Care Act. Now that many of them realise they may be the very people affected, how will they react? I believe many Trump voters were those without hope, the poor and disposed as it were who had lost all faith in the US political system. The coal miners in Kentucky, steel workers in the rust belts, poor farmers. Once they understand that it is they who are paying for these cuts, they may be very unhappy.
        Tory party chancellors have learned this lesson the hard way in the UK. They phase in cuts and austerity so that is no sudden shock to the population. I suppose at least he has carried out the unpopular actions early in his Presidency so that in four years people may have forgotten the pain.

      • “Many people voted for Trump as he stated he would ditch the Affordable Care Act. Now that many of them realise they may be the very people affected, how will they react?”

        Nobody knows what exactly is in the health care bill now, or what it will look like when it is finished, other than Trump administrtion people saying Americans will not be worse off after Obamacare is abolished.

        Noone supposedly will be left out in the cold, according to the Trump administration. But one wouldn’t know that by listening to the MSM, who are claiming all sorts of people are going to be losers in this bill.

        I have to laugh when I see polls that claim 50 percent of respondents don’t like the new health care law. As if any of them even know what is in it. How can they judge? How can the MSM judge? The answer is they cannot because noone has presented a coherent picture of the program (it has to be passed in three phases as of now) other than saying people will not be worse off after Obamacare is abolished.

        Trump had a meeting today with a bunch of undecided Republicans and some who were against the current bill structure, and at the end of the meeting today, Trump said eveyone in the room got on board and supported the bill. So things may not be as chaotic as the MSM and others make things out to be.

        You cannot depend on getting the real picture of things from the MSM. They are nearly all looking to fault Trump, and that’s all they are looking to do. Accurate reporting is out the window.

  33. Yes Dean, that was foolish of them to do themselves out of a job by declaring the field of climate science solved.

  34. 1) Many of the EPA’s climate programs would be terminated. Trump is proposing a sweeping 31 percent cut to the EPA’s budget — from $8.2 billion down to $5.7 billion. it should be aA sweeping cut 87.8 percent from billion 8.2 down to to 1.0004 billion.

    2) The Department of Energy’s R&D programs would be reoriented and scaled back.
    Zero out Department of Energy. It was created to help us get to energy independence. We have reached that goal.

    3) State Department funding for climate change is axed. Good is there any way to get the 1 billion back that the Obama administration through away.

    4) NASA’s Earth-monitoring programs are cut. They are paying for cooking the books.

    5) A key NOAA program to help coastal communities adapt to climate change would be gone. A better program do away with taxpayer supported flood insurance. They will quickly adapt.
    Could someone explain to me what Sea Grant, NOAA programs for coastal management has to do with NOAA.

  35. “One reason we know so much about climate change…” Wrong!

    In information theoretical terms the “knowledge” is the mutual information of a specific climate model. It is the information that is available for the purpose of regulating the climate. To create a model for which the mutual information is non-nil takes a statistical population but climatologists have yet to identify one. Thus, though we have spent lots of money on the research we have gained nothing of any value in regulating the climate from this expenditure.

Comments are closed.