Thanks for Jim Harvey of the National Superintendents Roundtable for this breakout of Trump’s budget cuts:
On Thursday, March 16, the Trump administration released a preliminary budget plan for Fiscal 2018 that proposed huge increases in defense-related spending and corresponding cuts in domestic programs, including education. According to stories in The Washington Post, the budgetary impact across government agencies and the U.S. Department of Education includes the following:
Agency
Change from Fiscal 2017
THE LOSERS:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
– 100%
National Endowment for the Arts
– 100%
National Endowment for the Humanities
– 100%
Environmental Protection Agency
– 31%
State Dept. and USAID
– 29%
National Institutes of Health
– 20%
Department of Education
– 13%
Transportation
– 13%
National Science Foundation
– 10%
THE WINNERS:
Department of Defense
+ 10%
Homeland Security
+ 7%
Veterans’ Affairs
+ 6%
With regard to the U.S. Department of Education, proposed cuts amount to $9.2 billion, according to the Post. Significant programs are on the chopping block, while funds are added to promote the administration’s school choice agenda:
Program Change from 2017
Grants to states for teacher training
– $2.4 billion
Grants to colleges for teacher preparation
– $43 million
Impact Aid
– $66 million
Special Education
No Change
College Work-Study
Reduce “significantly”
Upward Bound & Related TRIO Programs
– $200 million
SEOG program for low-income college students
– $732 million
Pell Grants
No Change
Pell Reserves
– $3.9 billion
School Choice, made up of:
+ $1.4 billion
Title I Portability
+ $1 billion
Charter Schools
+ $168 million
Private school choice
+ $250 million
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Exactly what I expected, but did all his supporters realize this?
LikeLike
They don’t think beyond the reach of their ignorance, prejudices and pre-set ideologies. Just wrote a piece on this and will share when posted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a link to the budget summary if you can stomach it: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf
LikeLike
Most vital to our survival is the 31% cut to EPA…gutting our need for fresh air, clean water, and all the elements to keep humans alive.
LikeLike
Also, the gutting of staff at the State Dept. and Tillerson’s stance of not allowing the media to know what he is doing, it a giant step toward a dictatorship.
LikeLike
Did you see Tillerson meeting the press and saying not one word. It was only a photo op and he refused to answer questions.
What a jerk.
LikeLike
Ellen I’m writing on the EPA cuts from a cancer community perspective and will share when done.
LikeLike
Thank you Greg…it is truly terrifying. California is marshaling our forces to fight Trump and keep our air clean and our water drinkable. Most interested in reading your comments.
LikeLike
No. Trump’s supporters don’t see the implications of his radical policies. They voted to demolish the institutions & culture of government. Trump promised them he’d clear the swamp and replace it with a utopia only he can deliver.
LikeLike
Grover Norquist is out partying…his heart’s desire is all coming true…the maniacs have taken over the asylum.
LikeLike
No click for “Like” for this one. Is it possible to donate to the National Endowment for the Arts and PBS?
LikeLike
Public radio and public television asks for donations constantly. Now, they won’t survive without them.
Museums won’t survive unless they charge admissions.
Concerts, forget about it.
LikeLike
I used to work for WKYU-24 a PBS affiliate. PBS will survive, and seek additional support from the viewers/listeners. PBS also gets a substantial amount of funding from corporate underwriters (PBS is forbidden from selling commercials).
If you truly enjoy the programming from PBS, show your support, in your donations.
To be fair, there is no specific constitutional authority for the feds to become involved in broadcasting (See Article I Section 8)
LikeLike
Charles,
Most civilized nations support the arts and humanities. Check out Germany where these activities are generously funded by the government. If they rely on charity, they don’t survive.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t expect any specific constitutional authority for broadcasting to be in Article I Section 8 since electricity, steam power or radio wave or a whole bunch of other stuff existed in 1789. That’s why the framers were smart enough to create a living document that changed with the times.
LikeLike
Q That’s why the framers were smart enough to create a living document that changed with the times. END Q
Why do you think this? The constitution, written in 1789, has been amended 27 times. Other than that, it has not changed. The constitution of the USA is not a living document.
LikeLike
Charles,
I want to believe you are joking.
The alternative is sad.
LikeLike
Of course, television did not exist in 1789. The point I was trying to make, is that the powers of the US federal government, are specific and enumerated. (Article ! Sec 8). These powers do not include the arts, education, humanities, etc.
LikeLike
Charles,
I could list thousand of things that are constitutional that are not in the document of 1789. For example, we now allow women and blacks to vote. The Founders did not.
LikeLike
I never joke about the constitution. I am a veteran, and I have taken an oath to preserve the constitution.
In 1789, only white male, property-owners had the franchise (in most cases). It took the 19th amendment (ratified August 18, 1920) , to extend suffrage to women (although Wyoming permitted women to vote in 1869). It was not until the voting rights act, that suffrage was extended universally. I voted in Kentucky when I turned 18, and this was some years before the national voting age was lowered to 18.
You say you could list a thousand things that are constitutional, but were not in the original document. I am interested! Other than the items mentioned in the constitution, and the amendments, I know of no such things, which are constitutional.
LikeLike
Charles, the word “education” does not appear in the Constitution. But then you would support the elimination of all federal aid to education, whether for poor kids, college students, or kids with handicaps. The founders didn’t think about them.
LikeLike
Charles,
The U.S. Constitution was written to be flexible so it could be amended as time passed, amended to meet a changing world.
Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution says, “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
The Constitution was not set in stone to never be changed.
In fact, you might learn something if you read all the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and take note of the year each one was passed.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h926.html
LikeLike
Charles
I guess giving corporations the free speech rights of individuals was part of the constitution. As the courts did in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).
The Courts have been interpreting the constitution forever !!!! . Ever since Mabury v Madison (1803) established Judicial review. That must have Trump a little upset right now, as the constitutionality of his racist rants translated into executive orders are being reviewed and tied right back to his racist rants.
The commerce clause of the constitution Article 1 section 8 , makes it a living document:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,(!!!!!!!) and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads(!!!!!!!!!!!!);
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts(!!!!!!!!!), by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
The troglodytes may not like it ,but most of those items you rail against have been introduced through the Commerce Clause.
So yes PBS and TV, Radio, the internet ,Rail Roads Commuter rails , Federal Highways, the education department …. .. Are all created through the commerce clause.
LikeLike
Make that created or regulated through
LikeLike
I can’t believe I’m wasting my time on this. OK, just opened up my copy of the Constitution, closing my eyes and letting my finger come down on one at random. Congress have the power to…and the winner is: To provide and maintain a Navy. It doesn’t say HOW to provide or HOW to maintain that Navy. That’s what we call a living document. Future generations have the discretion to decide HOW to carry out that function.
And the final clause is the most important. We insiders call it the necessary and proper clause (sadly there is no sanity clause in the Constitution). It provide Congress the authority “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,” etc. etc. One of the other provisions is “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” through patents and copyrights. By giving the Congress the authority to enforce the necessary and proper clause, the framers also allowed for flexibility to expand other clauses of Art. I, Sec. 8. Therefore, virtually all constitutional scholars will agree that it is very much constitutional to support science through things like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, even though the framers could not conceive of such things. It also provides authority for Congress to found and fund things like the National Endowments for the Humanities and the Arts as well as CPB. On the other hand, as we see now, it also gives them the authority, if they have the votes and an acquiescent president, to limit the same. That’s what’s called a living document.
LikeLike
Q Charles, the word “education” does not appear in the Constitution. But then you would support the elimination of all federal aid to education, whether for poor kids, college students, or kids with handicaps. The founders didn’t think about them. END Q
Agreed, the word “education” does not appear in the Constitution. Publicly-financed education existed in the USA, for many years, before the feds got involved. We can also agree that there is no specific constitutional authority delegated to the feds, to get involved in education.
Do not put words in my mouth. I never said that I would support the elimination of all federal aid to education. I received BEOG’s when I went to college. I have never supported eliminating BEOG’s. I would like to see the feds turn over funding of programs for handicapped, special needs, gifted/talented, etc. directly to the states in the form of block grants. States/municipalities are generally more able to fashion programs and solutions more efficiently than the feds. Example: California has more ELL children (per capita) than North Dakota. A “one size fits all” directive from Washington is less efficient, than having the individual states come up with solutions.
Today, over 90% of the costs of K-12 education is borne by the states. I am also certain that the founders never considered having the federal government get involved in education at all.
The bottom line: The powers of the federal government are few and specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
Suggested Reading: “The Dirty Dozen” by Levy and Mellor. It is a rundown of the 12 worst Supreme Court decisions in our history.
The Supremes ruled in Korematsu v. US, that it was constitutional for the feds to round up US citizens of Japanese ancestry, and relocate them in concentration camps during the second world war. Just because the court ruled something, does not make it right.
LikeLike
Charles,
It doesn’t matter what the Founders thought. They are all dead. They died a long time ago when there was no electric grid, no passenger jets, no atomic bombs, no modern medicine, no telephone, no TV, no internet, no automatic weapons. There were no rockets, no satellites, no international space station.
I suspect not one of the Founders even dreamed the world would change so much since their time and that humans would walk on the moon.
In 1800, the population of the U.S. was about 5-million.
Today that population is almost 320-million.
In 1800, 94-percent of the population lived in rural areas and only 6-percent lived in urban cities. Today, that ratio is almost reversed.
To think that the U.S. should live by the rules of the 18th century is absurd.
LikeLike
Charles says so many bizarre things that I wonder if he is putting us on.
But then I worry that he is serious
LikeLike
Charles is showing the rest of us, the sane and educated America, how supporters of the malignant narcissist (MN) in the White House think. I want more people like Charles showing up in forums like your Blog, so normal, rational people who are sane and think for themselves get scared and show up to vote in the next election and drown the far right with their votes.
90-million registered voters did not vote in the 2016 election. If they had, the polls would have been accurate and the MN would have lost.
LikeLike
GregB
No need to tag me . I think Charles is out cold.
LikeLike
Charles,
One last thing Charles ,Greg and I chose to break the sentence on patent protection where it was convenient for our argument. Interpreting the short document to suit our purpose as to the support of
science and the arts in the constitution . So again this is where the courts come in to interpret the document.
So lets see what the strict constructionists on the court have recently done.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
(break)____________________________________________________
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
LikeLike
Joel, we must have been writing at the same time!
LikeLike
Q It doesn’t matter what the Founders thought. They are all dead. They died a long time ago when there was no electric grid, no passenger jets, no atomic bombs, no modern medicine, no telephone, no TV, no internet, no automatic weapons. There were no rockets, no satellites, no international space station.
I suspect not one of the Founders even dreamed the world would change so much since their time and that humans would walk on the moon.
In 1800, the population of the U.S. was about 5-million.
Today that population is almost 320-million.
In 1800, 94-percent of the population lived in rural areas and only 6-percent lived in urban cities. Today, that ratio is almost reversed.
To think that the U.S. should live by the rules of the 18th century is absurd.
END Q
I do not believe a person could write this post. Of course it matters what the founders thought and wrote. This is called “original intent”. Of course they are all dead, laws do not die with the originators.
Of course modern technology did not exist in 1789,
And of course, the thought of powered flight, and landing on the moon, was not in their minds. Nevertheless, These dead white males all understood the concept of change. Thomas Jefferson was aware of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (535 BC – 475 BC). Heraclitus said, that “we live in a world in which the only constant is change”. The framers understood this, and that is why there is Article V in the Constitution, to facilitate its amendments.
Our constitution, and our constitutional form of government was created in the 18th century. We still live by it, in the 21st century. We are all living by its “rules”. Our precious freedoms, are protected by the constitution, and the bill of rights.
I have lived under Islamic sharia law, where the government can cut off your hand for stealing. I have lived under communism, where you can be publicly spanked in the town square if you charge 5c more for a bottle of beer, than the government mandated price.
I will take our 18th century Constitution (with the amendments) over any other form of government, I have ever lived under.
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
LikeLike
Q So lets see what the strict constructionists on the court have recently done.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
(break)____________________________________________________
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. END Q
The strict constructionists settled this issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. See
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
The case was decided 5-4 with Judge Scalia writing the majority opinion. Game Set Match!
LikeLike
“Game Set Match!”
It’s never over.
Another case will come along that can reverse what Scalia’s vote caused once the pendulum swings away from the extreme right and toward progressive ideas.
It might take decades,but it will happen unless the Republic falls and a malignant narcissist by the name of Trump becomes emperor for life.
LikeLike
Q Charles is showing the rest of us, the sane and educated America, how supporters of the malignant narcissist (MN) in the White House think. I want more people like Charles showing up in forums like your Blog, so normal, rational people who are sane and think for themselves get scared and show up to vote in the next election and drown the far right with their votes.
90-million registered voters did not vote in the 2016 election. If they had, the polls would have been accurate and the MN would have lost.
END Q
I do not necessarily support all of the policies of Pres. Trump. I am a former employee of the US State Department, and his proposed cutbacks at State, are ridiculous.
I also do not support the proposed cutbacks in foreign aid. Foreign aid, is in most cases, a bargain. Properly targeted aid programs can alleviate human suffering, and increase political stability, and decrease chances for armed conflict. And about 75c of each dollar disbursed in foreign aid, comes right back to the USA, creating jobs right here. The Marshall Plan after WW2, cost some money, but it made possible the re-building of Europe, and helped to keep Western Europe from going communist. The modest amount spent in the Marshall Plan, helped to prevent a third world war.
As far as the 90 million, who chose to sit out the past election, I have no pity for them. They chose to be indifferent, and now they must deal with the consequences. “If” is the middle word in “life”.
Trump is not a Hitler. But Hitler and the Nazis never got more than 30% of the vote in Germany. If more Germans had voted against the Nazis, Hitler never would have come to power.
“The opposite of civilization is indifference” Elie Wiesel, holocaust survivor, nobel prize winner.
LikeLike
Charles,
Sadly, I have concluded that Trump is a nut.
The Founders must be rolling in their graves.
LikeLike
I agree that the Orange Buffoon is a nut. Hopefully, with a few more incidents people will wise up to the fact that he is totally unfit for the job. How does one get through to his loyal followers who don’t think he tells lies?
Here is an article from The Atlantic.
………
Why Trump Can’t Let Go of His Wiretapping Claim
Why can’t the White House just admit that it doesn’t have any evidence for the allegation that Obama surveilled him?
DAVID A. GRAHAM
…With each day, it seems more likely that the Trump team has no evidence to support the claim of wiretapping outside of what is in the Breitbart story, but is afraid to admit it and let the issue die. Instead, the president is wasting his own time, the press’s time, Spicer’s time, the Justice Department’s time, and Congress’s time. As long as the White House is going to make Senate committees look into vaguely plausible ideas for which it has no evidence, why not investigate something that many Americans believe in, like UFOs?
Read More:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/trumps-refusal-to-ever-back-down-gets-silly/519915/?utm_source=eb
LikeLike
Trump repeated the claim today. He said that he and Merkel have something in common. Hi-go. They were both wiretapped by Obama.
Fox News said so!
He is sick. No dignity! No brains!
LikeLike
I agree about foreign aid and the Marshall plan.
But “Trump is not Hitler” is another matter.
Trump isn’t done yet. He’s just getting started. We will have to wait and see if he turns out like Hitler or is worse. If no one stops him, there is no telling what his insane and deplorable actions will lead to.
In fact, the malignant narcissist in the White House might turn out worse than Hitler.
For instance, what if Trump ends up starting World War Three and billions of people die from that war and the clouds of radiation floating around the earth?
What if his budget cuts to agencies like the CDC leads to no warning system or defense to deal with a super dangerous virus, and as this new disease goes viral, it could easily kill off half of mankind?
That would probably make Bill Gates happy.
Do you think Trump would accept the blame for such a tragic global event due to his budget cuts?
How will our military function if half or more of them are dying and dead? But then the malignant narcissist could automate the military and it wouldn’t’ matter of most of mankind died off, because his automated robot army would be waiting to wage war against another nation’s robot army.
LikeLike
Q Another case will come along that can reverse what Scalia’s vote caused once the pendulum swings away from the extreme right and toward progressive ideas. END Q
One of the “Dirty Dozen” cases was Miller v. US (1939). In this infamous case, the Supremes ruled that a private citizen could not own a sawed-off shotgun, and transport it across state lines, because such a weapon was not for a militia. See
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174
The case of Heller v. District of Columbia, (2012) reversed this dirty decision. With a new Trump appointee on the court, and when liberals Ginsburg,etc retired and off the court, Trump will appoint pro-second amendment judges to the court.
How can you imagine that a case would be brought to the new court, which would reverse Heller, and gut the second amendment?
LikeLike
Won’t it be exciting when we all have our own assault weapons! Thrilling.
LikeLike
Q Won’t it be exciting when we all have our own assault weapons! Thrilling. END Q
I do not get this remark. The 2d amendment does not require the ownership of firearms, it merely prohibits the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller v. District of Columbia (2012).
In Switzerland, gun ownership is required (for members of the Swiss national guard). Individuals keep automatic weapons and bazookas and anti-tank mines in their homes.
Gun-related crime is practically non-existent in Switzerland. Switzerland has not been invaded by a foreign power in centuries, not even Hitler would mess with the Swiss.
Since the 2d amendment disturbs you, are there any other amendments which you take issue with? Freedom of Speech, or maybe the right to counsel?
LikeLike
Charles,
I take exception to the insane belief that every American citizen has the right to an assault weapon, a machine gun, a bazooka. I do not believe the Founders envisioned anything more than a musket.
LikeLike
Another point that gun-rights fanatics miss is that in the 18th century about 95-percent of the U.S. population lived in remote rural areas and having weapons like firearms for hunting and defense against the local natives that were not totally defeated and decimated until after the Civil War in the later half of the 19th century required a guarantee in the U.S. Constitution that the government couldn’t take the muzzle loading muskets away from the people and leave them defenseless and/or unable to put wild game, meat, on the table from hunting.
How many in the U.S. live in remote and dangerous rural areas today?
How many American’s rely on hunting wild animals to put meat on the table because there is no supermarket close by?
The only reason to have firearms at home today is to defend against home invasions/burglary, and tyrants like the malignant narcissist in the White House.
A 12-gauge shotgun is all that’s needed to defend against a home invasion/burglary. A high caliber assault weapon or automatic pistol will probably end up killing your neighbors because the rounds will go through not only the burglar but through more than one wall.
And it is arguable that you don’t even need the shotgun if you keep a canister a pepper spray designed to take out a grizzly bear. You can buy one on Amazon that shoots the pepper spray 30 feet, and it is a lot cheaper than a shotgun.
As for a defense against a tyrant like Trump. If you have to have those heavy caliber assault weapons, keep then and the ammo locked up in a weapon’s safe. Even COSTCO sells them. And go through training at a local firing range so you know what you are doing.
According to Statistics U.S.A., there was an average of 3,600,000 home invasions annually between 1994 and 2000.
Click to access LockBumpingFactSheet.pdf
In the U.S. there are almost 44-million renter-occupied households and 75-million owner-occupied homes.
http://www.nmhc.org/Content.aspx?id=4708
What are the odds that you will need that shotgun and/or pepper spray to defend your home against an intruder?
LikeLike
From Quora about why Hitler left Switzerland alone.
“It wasn’t worth having for its own sake; it didn’t lead to anywhere they couldn’t get to by easier routes; and it would have been a big job. The Swiss mountains are honeycombed with bunkers and crammed with weapons.
“Switzerland was more useful in the role that it actually performed for them: as an ostensibly neutral (and therefore unassailable) place to hide their stolen loot.
“Part of the reason it took so long to repatriate art treasures and money stolen by the Nazis was that it was kept in Switzerland, whose banking secrecy was famous until quite recently.”
And: “Andrew Warinner has written an excellent answer here, except that the Axis really DID need the Swiss passes and by that I mean with working tunnels, not blown-up ones. Regarding transshipment, the Swiss HAD to cooperate somewhat with the Germans to keep the cost-benefit ratio on the side of not being invaded. This lead to some very tragic circumstances, with trains of deportees traveling from Italy through Switzerland in the middle of the night, and on to Germany.”
And: “Hitler ordered OKH to plan the invasion of Switzerland in late June 1940 immediately after the surrender of France. Planning continued until October and foresaw an invasion by 11 German divisions, plus 15 Italian divisions from the south. German plans initially foresaw 21 German divisions being used.
“At the same time, Hitler was planning and preparing the invasion of Britain (Operation Sea Lion) and attempting to win air supremacy over the Channel and Britain – the Battle of Britain. Unable to beat down the RAF, Hitler canceled Sea Lion on September 17.
“So in September – October 1940, Hitler faced the question of how to employ the Wehrmacht. Given Hitler’s long held ideas of “Lebensraum” in the east, he opted for war with the USSR and by December 1940 had plans for invasion in hand. ”
There’s a lot more in this Quora threat to defeat your everyone had weapons at home theory.
https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Hitler-invade-Switzerland
LikeLike
Q Charles,
I take exception to the insane belief that every American citizen has the right to an assault weapon, a machine gun, a bazooka. I do not believe the Founders envisioned anything more than a musket.
END Q
The Second amendment, is very unspecific, on the types of “arms”, that the government cannot infringe on.
The government has restricted the private ownership of some types of weapons (ex: fully automatic machine guns), and these restrictions has stood constitutional muster.
As to what types of weapons the Founders “envisioned”, I have no clue. It is reasonable to conclude, that since private citizens owned state-of-the-art weapons in 1789, that the right of individuals to keep and bear modern weapons, is within the scope of the amendment.
Although citizens need not keep and bear arms, to stand off attacks by native populations, and most citizens no longer hunt deer for the supper table, the right to keep and bear arms is still vital, notwithstanding.
Individuals keep and bear arms, for sport shooting, target shooting, and self-defense. In fact, the principal justification for Heller v. United States (2012), was an individual right to self-defense.
(BTW- I personally do not own firearms, by choice)
LikeLike
Charles,
Do you think a citizen should be allowed to buy an automatic AR-15 assault weapon, which is used in combat?
Should a citizen be able to buy a machine gun?
Should a citizen be able to buy a tank?
A bazooka?
A hand-held anti-missile weapon ?
Are there any limits to the weapons that a citizen can buy in your view?
May each of us have our own arsenal? Our own army?
LikeLike
Q Charles,
Do you think a citizen should be allowed to buy an automatic AR-15 assault weapon, which is used in combat?
Should a citizen be able to buy a machine gun?
Should a citizen be able to buy a tank?
A bazooka?
A hand-held anti-missile weapon ?
Are there any limits to the weapons that a citizen can buy in your view?
May each of us have our own arsenal? Our own army?
END Q
I support the second amendment (and the entire constitution and bill of rights, in their entirety). I also support the Supreme Court decision in Heller v. District of Columbia (2012).
I do NOT think that private citizens should be allowed to keep/bear automatic weapons. The government has imposed restrictions on these types of weapons, and I support these restrictions.
I do NOT believe that private citizens should be permitted to own assault vehicles like tanks and armored Humvees.
I do NOT believe that private citizens should be permitted to own bazookas and anti-missile weapons.
The government has passed all types of restrictions on private ownership of firearms, and these restrictions have stood constitutional muster.
Citizens, can “keep and bear arms”. This should include rifles, pistols, handguns, revolvers, antique collectibles, sport weapons for target shooting, shotguns, etc. Most reasonable people have no issue with citizens owning these types of weapons.
As far as owning an “arsenal”, I guess it depends on what you mean by arsenal. The constitution does not set limits on how many weapons a person can own.
As far as our own “army”. The states already have national guards. These “well-regulated militias”, are necessary for a free state.
You need to keep history in mind. The “minutemen” of the colonial militias, kept their military weapons in their homes. The private ownership of firearms, is a deterrent to military attack by a foreign power.
In WW2, Admiral Yamamoto is credited with saying there “would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”, as why Japan could not ever invade the USA. see http://www.skylighters.org/quotations/quots6.html
LikeLike
In the age of nuclear weapons, your rifle won’t change anything. It is not 1770 or 1945.
LikeLike
There is no way these institutions can survive on charity alone.
LikeLike
Outrageous!!!!!
LikeLike
All these cuts are alarming, shortsighted, mean-spirited and ultimately tragic. PBS and NPR air wonderful programs that you find no where else in the commercial media. Cutting the NIH is insane and despicable. The NIH is worth a million times more than some redundant border wall that is not really needed.
LikeLike
To quote Dan Rather, this is not a budget, it is a philosophy.
LikeLike
It’s a pre-WWI Wilhelm II-esque budget/philosophy.
LikeLike
No one seems to point out that the military didn’t ask for these funds, nor do they point to the huge slush fund Congress created to fund the war efforts because they didn’t have the courage to include all of that money in the regular budget. How is that even legal? How do we find out how much was spent from that fund? If we knew we wouldn’t be so quick to pony up more money for the voracious military industrial complex.
LikeLike
Nor does anyone mention the $125 Billion the Pentagon itself admits they wasted. For all other Executive Departments “efficiency” is paramount. For the Pentagon it’s “Here’s some more money. We don’t really care what you do with it.” Kind of like state education dollars for public schools vs. the charter sector.
LikeLike
“Waste makes haste”
Don’t make haste
To judge their taste
One man’s waste
Is another’s waist
LikeLike
Well, I have really been looking forward to living in a Mad Max movie, so this works out well for me….
LikeLike
…Trumpcare has $880 million in cuts to Medicaid alone, and raids $117 billion from Medicare–cutting nearly $1 trillion from both programs that will be used for a massive tax break for the wealthy!
Earlier this week, we highlighted five Republican Senators who had expressed reservations about voting for Trumpcare. That list keeps growing. 13 Republican Senators are now on record with deep reservations about gutting the Affordable Care Act and enacting Trumpcare in its place.
LikeLike
Is there another advanced industrialized country that relies entirely on the private sector to fund the arts? Truly American “exceptionalism.”
LikeLike
The worst part is that some of the people who have the most disposable income to spend on art are little more than arts conosewers.
Gates could afford to support thousands of struggling artists by buying their work, but instead of real paintings, Bill Gates prefers digital displays of paintings on his walls.
Tacky AND cheap.
LikeLike
Maybe if we’re lucky that 13% cut in DOE will include funding for the department’s secretarial position.
With voice to text dictation and telephone answering software, why do they even need a secretary, anyway?
LikeLike
Betsy herself has said she wouldn’t mind being legislated out of a job. When is the last time you said in a job interview “By the way I would like you to know that if you hire me, I wouldn’t mind being fired?”
LikeLike
We are not billionaires,
LikeLike
Diane,
THANKS for this breakdown. You are irreplaceable.
That Dump knows nothing except how to DESTORY anything of value. He is a WANNA BE, and a dirty OLD man psycho man-boy arrested at age 2.
IMPEACH!
Hope you send your postcars to the WH with a message decrying this corrup to the core admnistration. Go to: #IdesOfTrump.
LikeLike
All the pink postcards saying Dump Trump, you’re fired, etc. had to be in the mail yesterday, on the Ides of March. My RESIST group sent over 100. By tomorrow there should be millions of cards in the WH mail box…but doubt this will be picked up by the media. Drumpf will tweet some fake news in the AM to deflect attention from America’s growing rage at him his Trumprofiteers.
LikeLike
Thank you, Ellen. I hope he IMPLODES and has a HUGE TANTRUM on SCREEN for ALL to see.
LikeLike
The TRIO cuts fly in the face of the fake HBCU “initiative.” The hypocrisy of this document is amazing. I also like (sarcasm alert) how in the first paragraph of the State Dept. summary: “Consistent with the Benghazi Accountability Review Board recommendation…”
Another important thing everyone should be aware of is that the FY 2017 process, with the exception of the Dept. of Defense, is still functioning on a continuing resolution that is set to expire on April 28, 2017. So basically, this administration and Congress will set the final budget for everything but Defense for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1, 2016. Not only did the Republicans steal a SCOTUS seat, they hijacked the appropriations process to retroactively change funding priorities. There is an obscure footnote on page 51 of the summary, which contains a chart comparing 2017 levels to 2018 proposals that “the levels for 2017 may differ in total”, which is another way of saying, “we reserve the right to amend these estimates based on what the final outcome for 2017 will be after April 28, 2017.”
LikeLike
Former President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address speaks about the Military Industrial Complex. Bet that DUMP has NO CLUE about this great President and his most important warnings.
LikeLike
This address gets far too much credit in my opinion. I don’t respect a guy who warns us about something as he’s going out the door, especially when he had power for eight years to speak the truth and do something about it.
LikeLike
And DO READ again the Nuremberg Code.
Click to access nuremberg.pdf
I think all this stuff going on in our schools should be suspect and the Nuremberg Code applies.
LikeLike
The Title IIA program, which Trump proposes to entirely eliminate at $2.4 billion, is described above as “Grants to states for teacher training.” Actually nearly 1/3 of those funds are used to hire or keep teachers on staff – so that class sizes won’t grow even larger. As it is, class sizes have increased sharply since the great recession. While the number of public K-12 teachers and other school staff has fallen by 221,000 since 2008, the number of students increased by 1,120,000. see Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “After Nearly a Decade, School Investments Still Way Down in Some States,” October 20, 2016;
http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/after-nearly-a-decade-school-investments-still-way-down-in-some-states
LikeLike
Did you miss that an additional $1.4 billion has been set aside for charter schools and support of private schools? Charming (/s)
LikeLike
Oh yes! There it is!!! The whole thing is some sort of warped bad dream. All of the things that civilized societies do, we are walking away from. Trump is pure evil.
LikeLike
It is the whole party.
LikeLike
TOW: Just to ruin your day a bit more, here’s the full paragraph from the blueprint: “Increases investments in public and private school choice by $1.4 billion compared to the 2017 annualized CR level, ramping up to an annual total of $20 billion, and an estimated $100 billion including matching State and local funds. This additional investment in 2018 includes a $168 million increase for charter schools, $250 million for a new private school choice program, and a $1 billion increase for Title I, dedicated to encouraging districts to adopt a system of student- based budgeting and open enrollment that enables Federal, State, and local funding to follow the student to the public school of his or her choice.”
LikeLike
I think this is all great , after I finish vomiting, perhaps tomorrow I will go call my Democratic Congressman again and ask him what he means by “working with Republicans ” ., Notice how focused the Republicans are, they don’t care who in their base gets screwed or how absurd and revolting their proposals are . They have had a goal to dismantle government, cripple it, in order to ensure that as much wealth is funneled to the wealthiest in society as possible. Not the top 1% necessarily, but the top 5%-10 % for sure.
But what do Democrats do when they come to office . Pass five major Republican pieces of legislation. in the 90s . Two that blew up the Economy , one that threw 5-15 million people out of work . One that threw a million more mostly minorities in jail . Finally they could not resist punishing the poor for being poor .
They take power again after capitalism nearly bites the dust . Whats the first thing they do?. Appoint a debt commission in the middle of a deep recession , Cut taxes as part of too small a stimulus.
Discard the single payer option to pass a Republican healthcare plan with a give away to
Pharma and Insurance. 58% of Americans want Medicare for all 73% of Democrats and 41% of Republicans according to Gallup. .
Appoint the same people who stood by and watched the crises develop to manage the disaster. Allowing the bankers to get out of jail free while lending them 17 Trillion dollars. Make sure that bonuses were protected while pensioners got screwed. Declare war on one the most loyal Democratic constituencies Americas Teachers.
We can’t say enough about O running around the country promising to ram another trade agreement down the throat of every progressive constituency in the country from labor, to consumer, to environmental groups.
So again I think it’s great really refreshing, that when Republicans take power they try to do exactly what they tell you they will do . While my Democratic congressman who took over the seat of the former DCCC chairman , votes with Republicans to gut Wall Street , Health , Safety, Labor and Environmental regulations .
What would be “bigly” better, would be to have a Democratic party . That represented the working class, the bottom 85% and fought liker it was mixed martial arts .
LikeLike
LikeLike
A report from the Department of Homeland Security estimated that the cost of the wall would be far higher than what Trump had promised on the campaign trail. Trump has said the wall would cost $12 billion, but Homeland Security estimated it would cost $21.6 billion and take three years to construct.
Huffington Post
LikeLike
I saw the head of the House Budget Committee interviewed on TV last night about the cuts. He is a Republican from California. When asked whether it was wise to build the wall, he said “absolutely. The president campaigned on that promise. It is vital to our national security.”
LikeLike
An Orgy of Unnecessary Cruelty
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich’s Blog
17 March 17
The theme that unites all of Trump’s initiatives so far is their unnecessary cruelty.
His new budget comes down especially hard on the poor – imposing unprecedented cuts in low-income housing, job training, food assistance, legal services, help to distressed rural communities, nutrition for new mothers and their infants, funds to keep poor families warm, even “meals on wheels.”
These cuts come at a time when more American families are in poverty than ever before, including 1 in 5 children.
Why is Trump doing this? To pay for the biggest hike in military spending since the 1980s. Yet the U.S. already spends more on its military than the next 7 biggest military budgets put together.
His plan to repeal and “replace” the Affordable Care Act will cause 14 million Americans to lose their health insurance next year, and 24 million by 2026.
Why is Trump doing this? To bestow $600 billion in tax breaks over the decade to wealthy Americans. This windfall comes at a time when the rich have accumulated more wealth than at any time in the nation’s history.
The plan reduces the federal budget deficit by only $337 billion over the next ten years – a small fraction of the national debt, in exchange for an enormous amount of human hardship.
His ban on Syrian refugees and reduction by half in the total number of refugees admitted to the United States comes just when the world is experiencing the worst refugee crisis since World War II.
Why is Trump doing this? The ban does little or nothing to protect Americans from terrorism. No terrorist act in the United States has been perpetrated by a Syrian or by anyone from the six nations whose citizens are now banned from traveling to the United States. You have higher odds of being struck by lightening than dying from an immigrant terrorist attack.
His dragnet roundup of undocumented immigrants is helter-skelter – including people who have been productive members of our society for decades, and young people who have been here since they were toddlers.
Why is Trump doing this? He has no compelling justification. Unemployment is down, crime is down, and we have fewer undocumented workers in the U.S. today than we did five years ago.
Trump is embarking on an orgy of cruelty for absolutely no reason. This is morally repugnant. It violates every ideal this nation has ever cherished. We have a moral responsibility to stop it.
LikeLike
Trump gets all puffed up over his worthless travel ban being blocked.
………..
Trump: ‘The Danger Is Clear. The Law Is Clear’
By THE NEW YORK TIMES | Mar. 16, 2017 | 0:57
Hours after a federal judge blocked his revised travel ban, President Trump slammed the ruling at a rally in Nashville.
LikeLike
This comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center
FIGHTING HATE // TEACHING TOLERANCE // SEEKING JUSTICE
Last Sunday, Republican Congressman Steve King tweeted out in part:
We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies…
The rhetoric about “our civilization” being under attack and the threat of “somebody else’s babies” is blatantly white nationalist and, as Congressman John Lewis said, “bigoted and racist.”
That King was not thoroughly rebuked by the Republican Party, and that he stood by his comments and even added to them in followup interviews, shows that this type of political appeal, once relegated to the fringe, is becoming increasingly accepted in the U.S. and Europe.
But it’s also built on myths.
The fear of foreigners, the belief that refugees and immigrants are dangerous, the desire to keep them out — none of these things are new. But as our Teaching Tolerance project wrote this week in an updated post, these fears are often based on misinformation and lies.
It’s a myth, for example, that immigrants don’t want to learn English. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 56% of first-generation immigrants speak English “well” or “very well,” and the demand for English instruction actually far outstrips supply.
It’s a myth that immigrants are violent or criminal. According to a new report by The Sentencing Project, immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. Higher levels of immigration may even have contributed to the historic drop in crime rates, researchers say.
In the run-up to both Muslim bans, perhaps the most widely circulated myth has been that refugees are not screened before entering the country, that banning them will keep the U.S. safe from terror.
But we know that refugees undergo more rigorous screenings than any other individuals the government allows in the U.S., and we know that no deaths in the U.S. have been attributed to people from the countries covered by either executive order in the last 30 years.
All of these myths, however far-fetched, are based on the same dangerous falsehood: that immigrants and refugees are somehow not like us. That they’re not students in search of an education. That they’re not families trying to make ends meet. That as “somebody else’s babies,” they don’t belong here.
The strongest antidote to these myths are sharing facts and stories of immigrants like the above. They’re our neighbors, our friends. They’re Americans.
And they belong here.
As always, thank you for reading.
The Editors
LikeLike
Because of his campaign statements about banning Muslims, his travel ban will not stand up to judicial scrutiny
The only way to save it is to ban people from non-Muslim countries, like Britain (payback for spying on France), Belgium (lots of terrorists there), and Germany (that’s where most of the 9/11 terrorists lived).
LikeLike