MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Is Mad About the $854 Billion Spending Bill, but Not Because of Its Price Tag

The president is angry that Congress funded other wasteful projects instead of his.

|||Polaris/SIPA/NewscomPolaris/SIPA/NewscomPresident Trump tweeted his great displeasure toward Congress following the passage of an $854 billion spending bill. But lest you think he was upset by the price tag, the president was quick to clarify.

The bill, which funds the Defense, Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education departments, includes $606.5 billion for the Pentagon, a $17 billion increase from the previous fiscal year. That is believed to be the largest military budget since the height of the Iraq war. The bill directs $178 billion to the domestic departments, a $1 billion increase from the previous fiscal year.

Trump has yet to tweet about the domestic spending, which is $11 billion more than he requested in his proposed budget. Instead, he wondered why no new money was allocated for border security or his $18 billion wall. He accused Democrats of obstruction and criticized Republicans for being too soft.

Just seven senators opposed the spending bill, including several Republicans who traditionally favor fiscal conservatism. The no votes were cast by Sens. Jeff Flake (R–Ariz.), Mike Lee (R–Utah), Rand Paul (R–Ky.), David Perdue (R–Ga.), Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), and Pat Toomey (R–Pa.).

Photo Credit: Polaris/SIPA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • JWatts||

    Well this is an incredibly stupid post.

    First, none of the No Votes were Democrats. Secondly, the Tea Party's first big protests were against George Bush signing the TARP bailout.

  • ||

    Third, arguably the peak of the Tea Party's influence was the obstructionist congress under Obama. The Tea Party and their platform/principles was only a part of the '16 election inasmuch as Democratic pundits liked to point out how fractionated the party was.

  • Juice||

    Keynesian?

  • BYODB||

    Umm...the Tea Party started when George W. Bush was in office idiot. Unless you're under the impression that Obama was President in 2004.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Socialist?

  • Kenneth Kelly||

    The Tea Party's first protests were in February, 2009, shortly after Santelli's rant on CNBC (I believe it was mostly about Obama's mortgage relief plan, but I imagine TARP was in the mix too). If they were protesting Bush signing TARP, they were about five months late.

  • mchughjj||

    Yes, Trump the ultra-nationalist, protectionist, and otherwise totally fake conservative. But, he knows who's got his back.

  • Idle Hands||

    Trumps not a real conservative. These people are clowns.

  • Jerryskids||

    But Obama! What about Hillary? TDS! Fake News!

  • Jerryskids||

    Probably save a lot of time in the comments just using #BWTF from here on out.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I disagree with him, and I disagree with the spending, but from his point of view his outrage seems reasonable to me.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "but from his point of view his outrage seems reasonable to me."

    For a guy like Trump, who is outraged about something 24/7, the outrage is always reasonable from his point of view.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You got me there.

  • Nardz||

    This is hilarious coming from a (I presume) libertarian.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Anyone who worships or defends any politician or political party is a fool. They are out for themselves, and don't care about the public they are supposed to serve.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Bernie Fucking Sanders? What's he doing in league with these otherwise fine Republican libertarians. Something is up.

  • mchughjj||

    It's the big increase in defense spending, and maybe something that isn't being funded. He's not in league with anyone.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    I should have known. Libertarians like me don't worry about defense spending, abortion, gay rights, nanny states, etc. defense is in the Constitution so it's the only thing that is mandated by the libertarian Constitution of 1789 and thus if it's 29 times what a sensible country would spend on bombers what do I care. It's constitutional and thus libertarian.

  • Just Say'n||

    If you don't care about our overseas military adventurism then you're in the right place. Look forward to another puff piece interview with another unrepentant neocon.

    "George Will is libertarian af"

    "Mitch Daniels is like a hero or something!"

  • Dillinger||

    >>> He accused Democrats of obstruction and criticized Republicans for being too soft.

    so, what is?

  • Echospinner||

    He wants his wall. Meanwhile the prototypes are failing engineering and security tests.

    All walls fail.

    Trump does not care about spending other people's money. Never has.

    Defense will suck up all they can. We could be 100x stronger and we still lost Afghanistan.

  • ||

    All walls fail.

    The only wall that fails perpetually is the wall that never gets built... not that I want the wall built.

  • JWatts||

    "All walls fail."

    LOL, not that's just a ridiculous straw man position. Walls don't provide 100% security. That's trivial knowledge that my 7 year old knows. On the other hand, they do restrict ease of entry.

    A wall that reduced illegal immigrant traffic flow by 50% across a high traffic area would save the Federal government more than it costs to build and upkeep.

    "Trump does not care about spending other people's money. Never has."

    Now that's true.

  • ||

    A wall that reduced illegal immigrant traffic flow by 50% across a high traffic area would save the Federal government more than it costs to build and upkeep.

    Why wouldn't it simply create a new high traffic area for the Feds to police?

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, anyone with a brain should realize the wall would never work. It's absurd at face value.

    It's just easier to talk about a wall than getting rid of onerous labor regulations, minimum wages, and other things that the citizens really love that make open immigration a non-starter. Even though when these types of laws were passed they were expressly aimed to hurt immigrant labor, yet no one wants to connect those dots.

    See, we can have our cake and eat it too say both Democrats and Republicans!

  • some guy||

    A wall that reduced illegal immigrant traffic flow by 50% across a high traffic area would save the Federal government more than it costs to build and upkeep.

    That's assuming they keep fighting immigration rather than embracing it. The people coming across the border are almost exclusively young people who want an opportunity to earn some money (ie. to be productive).

  • Exsqueezeyou||

    "We could be 100x stronger and we still lost Afghanistan."

    Well, what the fuck is to be expected when the mission changes from "Shock and awe" to "Winning the hearts and minds" with absurd rules of engagement.

  • Echospinner||

    Nobody ever wins in Afghanistan unless you define winning as killing everyone which is near impossible.

    History is clear on that.

  • In Time Of War||

    Genghis Khan approves of this message.

  • mchughjj||

    The original mission in Afghanistan was to ensure that Al Qaeda didn't have a ruling government that was a U of Terr training center after 9/11. To that extent, the war was won in six months. As a nation-building exercise, that is and was essentially a lost cause. That said, cutting tail and running isn't a really good option either, which is why Presidents of both parties have chosen to have troops remain there.

  • some guy||

    The establishment GOP used to at least give lip service to spending cuts. At this point they really only differ from establishment Democrats on a couple of culture war items.

  • Juice||

    The bill, which funds the Defense, Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education departments, includes $606.5 billion for the Pentagon, a $17 billion increase from the previous fiscal year.

    Is that on top of the $82 billion extra?

  • Jayburd||

    "Is that on top of the $82 billion extra?"

    That's "off budget", you're not supposed to know about that.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, we can be sure that Sanders didn't oppose this because of the price.


    More interesting is that not a single Democrat voted against it. Curious.

  • Fred G. Sanford||

    I thought he promised to balance the budget. But that's ok, his brainless supporters won't notice.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maga!

  • Jayburd||

    Let's save money and use missile drones on the border.

  • Jayburd||

    Seriously, Trump should tweet criticisms of policies that make Mexico a place people want to leave.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online