Welcome back. If you're trying to get a real
handle on the big news stories without drowning
in articles, you're in the right place. Exactly.
Today we're doing a deep dive into some major
electoral news. We're looking closely at a, well,
pretty significant Republican budget proposal.
Right. And also what some recent economic indicators
are telling us. It's quite a mix. It is. We've
got news reports, some specific electoral vote
info in a PDF, and even a bar graph showing these
proposed budget changes visually. So the mission
today? To pull out the absolute key info from
all this. We want to give you clarity on what
this budget could mean and, you know, the broader
economic picture right now. OK, let's jump in.
First up, this thing being called the Republican
Scorched Earth Budget Plan. Sounds dramatic.
It does. And to be clear, this is a proposal.
It's what would happen starting October 1st if
the new Congress doesn't pass something else.
So current funding kind of continues until then.
Got it. But the proposal itself, it's the scale
of the cuts that's really grabbing headlines,
right? Absolutely. The proposal asks Congress
to cut non -defense spending by, get this, over
$163 billion. Wow. And that visual breakdown
we looked at, the graph, really paints a picture
of some, well, potentially huge shifts in where
the money goes. Huge seems like the right word.
Let's run through some of these proposed numbers
because they are pretty stark. State Department
down 84%. 84, yeah. EPA, the Environmental Protection
Agency down 55%. HUD, Housing and Urban Development
down 44%. It keeps going. Labor down 35%. Interior
31%. HHS, Health and Human Services down 20%.
Even NASA sees a 24 % cut. Treasury down 19%.
USDA Agriculture down 18%. Commerce 17%. Education
gets a 15 % proposed cut, energy 9%, just as
8%. And smaller but still notable cuts for Veterans
Affairs, VA down 4%, and transportation down
5%. So you see this pattern, right? Deep cuts
across a really wide range of departments. But
then... And there are the increases. Exactly.
Defense is proposed to go up by 13%. Okay. And
Homeland Security, which it's important to note,
includes USAI, the foreign aid agency that's
proposed for a massive 65 % increase. 65%. So
that really spells out the shift in priorities,
doesn't it? Less money for diplomacy, environment,
housing, social programs. And a lot more for
defense and border security, essentially. And
the sources we looked at gave some idea of the
intended impacts of these changes. Sometimes
they sound pretty tough. Yeah, let's touch on
a few. For agriculture, the cuts could mean things
like rural development, farm loans, food programs,
potentially going back to levels not seen since,
like the Eisenhower administration. Wow. Okay.
Commerce. Well, commerce supports lots of industries.
Trade. The stated goal of the cuts there, according
to the proposal, is partly about limiting China's
trade leverage. But you have to wonder about
the impact on U .S. businesses involved in trade
too, right? That's the question, yeah. On defense,
well, the aim is clearly just a big boost. Right.
Education. The idea there, despite cuts to many
programs, is supposedly to get money more directly
into schools for kids. How that works in practice.
TBD. Could see rollbacks of some recent funding,
especially things aimed at helping low -income
and minority communities transition to new energy
sources. And the EPA cut, 55%. That sounds like
it would have to affect things like monitoring
pollution, toxic waste cleanup. It seems unavoidable,
yeah. HHS widespread cuts across health initiatives,
homeland securities increase. Specifically linked
to border security and the term used was mass
deportations. Okay. Housing and urban development
cuts could hit rental assistance, programs fighting
housing discrimination. Interior cuts. That's
likely bad news for national parks, fish and
wildlife, conservation efforts. Justice Department
focus seems to be shifting heavily towards tough
on crime, FBI stuff, border enforcement. Labor
Department. more focus on vocational training,
specifically for the 16 to 24 age group. NASA
seems focused on Mars and commercial space. State
department cuts are tied to foreign aid reductions,
ending what the proposal calls radical leftist
priorities. Transportation, less money for transit,
more focus on essential travel. Treasury? Maybe
less tax enforcement, which could affect how
much scrutiny wealthy individuals or corporations
face. And Veterans Affairs, VA, potentially more
privatization of medical care. It's a lot. And
the sources really highlighted the potential
human cost. Things like summer food programs
for kids, help with heating or cooling bills,
title education funding for lower income schools.
These are specifically mentioned as potentially
being hit hard. Seems like it could really change
the social safety net. That's the concern, yeah.
Did we get any political reaction in the sources?
We did. Senator Susan Collins, for example, was
quoted saying something like, this is pretty
unlikely to actually pass the Senate. Why is
that? Well, she pointed out it hits a lot of
programs that are popular, even in blue states,
things people rely on. Makes sense. Anyone arguing
for it. Representative Mike Conaway from Texas
framed it as reflecting Republican priorities,
strong defense, supporting the military. And
the House Appropriations Chair, Tom Cole. He
basically acknowledged it's a really tough budget
environment and working with that slim House
majority makes things difficult. There's also
mention of the salt cap, the state and local
tax deduction. Right. That complicates things
in the Senate, too. To get some votes, especially
maybe from Republicans in high tax states, there
might be pressure to raise that cap. But that
could alienate other Republicans. Exactly. So
politically, it's a it's a tricky path forward
for this proposal, to say the least. OK, let's
shift gears a bit, but stay on the economy. We
also saw some really interesting polling data.
Yeah, this is from an ABC News Ipsos poll, and
the numbers were quite striking, especially visually.
What stood out? Well, first, disapproval of Donald
Trump's handling of the economy when he was president
sits at 55 percent versus 39 percent approval.
OK, so more disapproval than approval. Right.
And looking forward, only 21 % think the economy
is actually getting better right now. 53%, a
majority, think it's getting worse. And people
are feeling price increases. Oh, yeah. 25 % said
prices for necessities went up a lot. Another
62 % said a little. So almost everyone is feeling
it. But here's the kicker, right? The question
about blame if a recession hits. This was fascinating.
The poll asked if the economy does fall into
recession, whose policies would be mainly to
blame? A huge majority. 72 percent said Trump's
policies. 72 percent. Wow. Compared to only 28
percent who think his policies wouldn't be a
factor. Exactly. That's a really big gap. It
suggests that even people who might have approved
of his economic handling before could still blame
his policies if things go south now. So that
could be a major challenge for him politically
if there's a downturn say before July or leading
into an election. You'd have to think so. That's
a significant number pointing potential blame
his way. The source also briefly mentioned potential
shortages and supply chain issues, especially
with China, but didn't really elaborate much.
OK. Now, speaking of the former president, he's
been out there talking to our sources mentioned
a big interview. Yeah, he sat down with Kristen
Welker on Meet the Press for like 74 minutes,
covered a lot of ground, apparently, though our
specific source didn't detail the whole thing.
But we do have notes on his take on recession
fears generally. Right. He seems to be downplaying
them, saying the US would be OK, basically. Yeah.
Not a major concern from his perspective. Had
he mentioned businesses? Yeah. Claimed many are
being helped. And interestingly, said small businesses
wouldn't need to deport workers without proper
papers during an emergency. Kind of a specific
point. And tariffs on China. Still pushing those.
Definitely. Same argument. Unfair trade. China
defrauding the U .S. for decades. He also pushed
back on the idea that Chinese goods are better,
even if cheaper. Any reflections on some of his
more unusual past ideas, like buying Greenland?
He mentioned that. Said he didn't pursue Greenland
or a big military parade because of the cost.
And the wall. Still planning on it if re -elected,
he said, and still maintains Mexico will pay
indirectly through trade deals. What about Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid? Always a hot topic.
He claimed he won't make cuts, but acknowledged
other Republicans might want to. That's a line
he's drawn before. Interesting. He also weighed
in on that Harvard student situation, the ones
who lost job offers. Yes, he sided with the employers,
saying they were right to pull the offers because
of the students' pro -Palestine stance. And his
reaction to the Letitia James investigation in
New York? Called it a shame. Pretty standard
reaction from him on that. Foreign policy, Ukraine
and Russia. Expressed confidence he could settle
the war quickly. Even floated the idea that Ukraine
might have to give up some territory. NATO. Same
message. Other members need to pay more. And
he mentioned Mark Walker, the potential Senate
candidate. She said Walker should make up his
mind soon about running. So yeah, hitting a lot
of his familiar themes, keeping himself in the
conversation. Absolutely. And he's not the only
prominent Republican voice weighing in. Marjorie
Taylor Greene has been outspoken too, hasn't
she? Very much so, especially on Ukraine. She's
strongly against more funding. Her argument is
that it's just provoking Russia and dragging
out the war. What's her alternative? Focus on
U .S. border security instead. That's her main
point. And Iran. She expressed real concern there,
worried about the potential for war. She also
raised issues about accountability. Right. Yeah.
Questioning why no one's been held responsible
for the Afghanistan withdrawal chaos or. The
origins of COVID -19. On this weaponization of
government theme. Big concern for her. Feels
conservatives are being targeted unfairly. She
urged Republicans to be more aggressive in protecting
their voters. She had a specific claim about
Ukraine too, didn't she? Something about resources.
Right. Suggested the conflict is partly about
access to Ukraine's mineral wealth and that Russia
could end up benefiting from that. So her overall
view is more inward looking. Less intervention.
Seems that way. Worry about getting dragged into
bigger global conflicts. Focus on domestic issues.
OK, one last piece from our deep dive today.
This involves potential confirmations in the
Senate. Yeah, this was interesting. Representative
Mark Walker is predicting a tough time for Representative
Mike Waltz's confirmation hearing. Waltz is up
for a UN ambassador role or something similar.
The source mentioned UN ambassador nominees generally
and Waltz specifically. The issue is Senator
Tom Tillis. What's he doing? He's put a hold
on all these nominees until he gets more information
from the Department of Defense about protocols
protecting service members. Ah, so it's not about
Waltz specifically, but Tillis's hold affects
him. Exactly. Walker's take is that this hold
puts Waltz in a really difficult position for
his hearing. He'll have to address Tillis's concerns.
And Walker thinks it'll be tough. He called it
a potential brutal hearing and basically said
it's unclear how Waltz navigates it. It just
shows how these internal Senate procedures and
holds can really complicate things. Right. Okay,
that was a lot to cover. Let's try and pull the
threads together. So we've got this proposed
Republican budget with really drastic shifts,
big cuts to domestic programs, big boosts for
defense and homeland security. Then we have the
economic side polls showing public worry about
recession and significantly a strong tendency
to blame past Trump policies if one hits. We
heard directly from Trump downplaying those recession
fears, sticking to his positions on trade entitlements
foreign policy. And we heard from figures like
Marjorie Taylor Greene pushing back against foreign
intervention, focusing on domestic issues and
accountability. Plus that inside look at how
Senate politics like Tellus's hole can impact
confirmations like Walters. For me, the real
aha moments were first just the raw numbers in
that budget proposal, an 84 percent cut to the
State Department, 55 percent to EPA. It really
forces you to think about what government priorities
would look like under that plan. I agree. And
that polling number, 72 percent, potentially
blaming Trump for a future recession. That feels
like a really significant data point in the current
political landscape. Absolutely. And for you
listening, this is an abstract stuff, is it?
Not at all. Potential changes to heating assistance,
food programs, environmental rules, education
funding, tax enforcement. These are things can
directly impact your community, your family,
your wallet. It really connects the policy debates
to everyday life. Which leads us to maybe a final
thought to leave you with. We've talked about
these huge proposed budget shifts, this economic
anxiety, these differing political visions. The
question is, what are the potential long term
consequences of all this? Regardless of who wins
elections or which specific policies get enacted,
if you have these deep divisions on spending
priorities and this underlying economic worry,
what does that mean for the country's social
cohesion, its ability to tackle big problems,
and its role in the world down the road? Thinking
about the assumptions behind these plans and
what unintended consequences might ripple out?
Exactly. Something to chew on.