Last week, I wrote about the idea of revenue neutrality in tax reform, an idea that starts from an even more basic concept: addition and subtraction.

In order for tax reform to be revenue neutral, any tax cuts must be offset by revenue increases or spending cuts elsewhere.

I couldn’t help thinking about the same principles of addition and subtraction when I watched the president’s address to Congress Tuesday night. Throughout, Donald Trump described big plans to move forward on the policy priorities he repeated during his campaign. With lofty language, he talked about investments in infrastructure and defense, new programs in Homeland Security and tax cuts – big tax cuts. Lots of addition on the spending side of the equation, and a promise of subtraction from the revenue side. The result would be a dramatic increase in both annual deficits and our nearly $20 trillion national debt.

Trump is certainly not the first president to describe a vision of benefits without costs in an address to Congress. These speeches are moments when presidents describe their vision of the country, not the details.

But at the end of the day, the details are what matter and what make policy. And Trump’s vision seems to combine the Keynesian desire to spend and invest with the supply-sider desire to cut taxes. As a country, we can’t afford to do both.

Let’s start with defense. The speech included a few broad outlines on how the president wants to increase spending at the Pentagon. On Monday, the newly-minted director of the Office of Management and Budget revealed that the administration wants Pentagon spending to rise by more than $50 billion in fiscal year 2018. We’ll have to wait until the middle of March to know more about how that money will be used and, even, if it is an increase to the base budget or the war fund. I have no doubt leaders at the Pentagon will find ways to spend another $50 billion, but I maintain my conviction that a new strategy must come first, then the military services should figure out how much it will cost to execute that strategy, a strategy that is not necessarily budget constrained, but grounded in reality and budget informed.

The approach outlined in the president’s speech is backward. I will point to a comment made by former Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale at the Brookings Institution: “This is a time when the services, if you will, want to put their worst foot forward and make clear all the problems that are there. … We’ve heard strong concerns expressed by the service [vice chiefs] on readiness … I think it’s time to be a little skeptical.”

The president also referred to “hundreds of millions” in savings on the F-35 fighter jet. The fact is the reduction to unit costs were already scheduled to occur prior to the president’s actions during the transition. You can find articles discussing these savings before he became the nominee, even before he became a candidate. I’m not complaining about the savings; it’s good to see costs coming down marginally on this monstrously expensive program. But I remain hopeful the fly-off between the carrier-based version and an Advanced Super Hornet will result in the Navy being able to buy more of the less expensive alternative. My organization has been recommending that for years.

There was also passing reference to the wall on the southern border. I’ve written about my skepticism of the ability of a physical barrier to keep us safe. My concerns are heightened by the plan that, once the Request for Proposals is released, contractors will have less than three weeks to submit their bids. It’s hard to believe that rushing the work of the contractors will result in solid bids based in reality. This is a recipe for cost overruns and schedule delays.

The president’s discussion of infrastructure echoed themes we have heard for at least a decade: We need to spend on our crumbling infrastructure – as much as $1 trillion. And that those investments will have the added benefit of boosting employment and the economy. But the benefits don’t erase the costs. We need to know how we’ll pay for it.

Finally, I look forward to reading the details of Trump’s tax reform plan, but since taking office he has talked only of tax cuts. And while it would be possible to offset tax cuts with spending reductions, that is not Trump’s plan – even if he makes deep cuts to domestic discretionary spending, his increases at the Pentagon and infrastructure investments are larger than any cuts he has proposed.

At some point, the numbers need to add up. The devil is always in the details and my organization is anxiously awaiting them. At some point rhetoric has to yield to numbers on page and detailed policy prescriptions.

Share This Story!

Related Posts