Deficits and criminal investigations keep growing under President Trump.
This year during President Trump’s tweeted ravings, the national debt topped $21 trillion for first time ever. More than a year ago, President Trump pledged to eliminate the national debt “over a period of eight years.” But for the first time in history, the national debt surpassed $21 trillion, while Trump is facing 17 criminal investigations, another presidential record.
With the Trump deficit growing a bill in the House of Representatives will make it worse. H.R. 6771 would change the disposition of the proceeds from federal oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and other federal lands.
Under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, half of the proceeds from OCS leases issued after 2006 are deposited in the Treasury and the remainder is available for spending without further appropriation, subject to annual caps on spending that expire after 2055. This bill would repeal the annual spending limits and would increase the portion of OCS receipts available for spending to 62.5%. In addition, the bill would increase the share of proceeds paid to states from onshore mineral leases from 49% to 50%.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6771 would increase direct spending by $2.5 billion over the 2019-2028 period, largely as a result of provisions increasing the portion of OCS receipts that could be spent without further appropriation.
CBO also estimates that enacting H.R. 6771 would increase net direct spending and on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in each of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
Because enacting H.R. 6771 would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. The bill would not affect revenues.
H.R. 6771 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would benefit states by increasing the share of proceeds they receive from oil and gas production in the OCS and other federal lands.
Pingback: US Deficit and Government Spending Grow in Q2 | AutoInformed
Paul Krugman of the New York Times: See Hard-Money Men, Suddenly Going Soft
“I have a confession to make: I have been insufficiently cynical about modern conservative economics.
“Longtime readers may find this hard to believe. After all, I declared Paul Ryan a “flimflam man” back when all the cool kids were gushing about his courage and honesty, giving him awards for fiscal responsibility. (Events have settled the issue: Yes, he was and is a flimflam man.) I predicted early and often that Republican cries about the evils of debt would vanish as soon as they held the White House; sure enough, after forcing the U.S. into job-destroying austerity when the economy was weak, once in power they blew up the budget deficit with a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, despite low unemployment.
“But while I yield to nobody in my appreciation of the right’s fiscal fraudulence, I took its monetary hawkishness seriously. I thought that all those dire warnings about the inflationary consequences of the Federal Reserve’s efforts to fight high unemployment, the constant harping on the evils of printing money, were grounded in genuine — stupid, but genuine — concern.
“Silly me.
“It’s no surprise that Individual-1, who lambasted the Fed for keeping interest rates low while Barack Obama was president, is demanding that it keep rates low now that he’s in the White House. After all, nobody has ever accused Donald Trump of having consistent, principled views about monetary policy (or anything else).
“But it is a shock to see so many conservative voices — including, incredibly, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal — echoing Trump’s demands.
“It’s hard to overstate just how consistent and intense The Journal and others of like mind used to be in their attacks on easy money. Many commentators have noted that three years ago The Journal declared that low interest rates are bad for the economy. But that was minor compared with the newspaper’s pronouncements during the financial crisis. For example, it attacked and ridiculed Ben Bernanke for cutting interest rates in December 2008 — that is, at a time when the economy was in free fall, and desperately needed all the support it could get.
“Now, you might say that the explanation for the right’s about-face on monetary policy is the same as the explanation of its about-face on deficits. That is, Republicans want pain and suffering when there’s a Democratic president, but a nonstop party when one of their own sits in the White House. And that is indeed how it looks now. But I used to think there was something more to the story.