An Extremist Holding the Purse Strings
President Trump will hardly be short
of far-right cabinet members, including an education secretary who has called
public schools a “dead end,” a labor secretary who has been cited for
employment law violations and an Environmental Protection Agency administrator
who has sued his own department.
But within the Trump team, the views
of Representative Mick Mulvaney, Republican of South Carolina, his little-known
choice to lead the important Office of Management and Budget, rank as among the
most reactionary.
...Mr. Mulvaney — a founding
member of the Freedom Caucus with an almost perfect conservative voting record
— spent his six-year congressional career leading the charge against federal
spending and borrowing, voting against everything from Hurricane Sandy relief
to reopening the government after the 2013 shutdown.
His intransigence placed him well to
the right of Republican leadership, including former Speaker John Boehner, whom
he repeatedly opposed for — get this — being excessively soft on curbing
disbursements from the federal purse.
Not surprisingly, cutting deeply
into core retirement and health care programs is at the top of his to-do list.
“We have to end Medicare as we know it,” he said on Fox Business Network, soon
after entering Congress in 2011. (Medicare enjoys support from 77 percent of
Americans, according to a 2015 Kaiser Foundation poll.)
While Mr. Mulvaney is not alone in
his terrifying views, the difference between him and other members of his
deeply conservative brigade is that he will likely soon have an unusual
opportunity to cement them into place; O.M.B. (as it is universally known) is
the control center for the administration’s fiscal policy.
Each year, the budget office
oversees the federal government’s budgeting process, receiving requests from
individual agencies, analyzing them and making recommendations to the president
as to what spending should be requested from Congress and what the deficit
should be.
From that perch, Mr. Mulvaney will
be well positioned to help excise funding for the Affordable Care Act, defund
Planned Parenthood, abolish the Export-Import Bank, eliminate
government-financed research, raise the retirement age for Social Security to
70 and even clamp down on off-budget military spending, to name just a few of
his targets.
We may already be starting to see
the shadowy outlines of this kind of agenda; the new administration is
reportedly considering proposals to cut $10.5 trillion of spending over the
next decade, more than 40 percent of many important programs.
Mr. Mulvaney shares many extreme economic
views with his first choice for the Republican nomination, the
libertarian-leaning senator Rand Paul, particularly his belief that the
mounting national debt is an existential crisis that must be addressed
regardless of the consequences.
In that quest, the 49-year-old South
Carolinian has argued for a balanced-budget amendment, a truly terrible idea
that would eliminate the federal government’s ability to use deficit spending
in times of economic weakness.
Similarly, he has repeatedly voted against
legislation to raise the debt ceiling, without which the federal government
would shut down and possibly even default on its obligations, neither of which
seemed to bother the congressman.
And like his new boss, Mr. Mulvaney
has suggested that if the nation’s debt continued to mount, one way to address
that problem would be to push creditors to accept less than full payment.
The consequences of that, said Janet
Yellen, the Federal Reserve chairwoman, with classic Fed understatement, would
be “very severe,” at a minimum resulting “in much higher borrowing costs for
American households and businesses.”
The feelings are mutual. Mr.
Mulvaney has repeatedly blasted the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate
policies, including at a dinner held by the John Birch Society, an
ultraconservative organization founded in 1958 that today could be branded
alt-right.
His antipathy toward the Fed has led
him to support legislation that would severely compromise the central bank’s
independence. That’s among Mr. Mulvaney’s most misguided notions; the Fed’s
strong response to the financial crisis played a key role in the economic
recovery of the last eight years.
And then there’s the budget office’s
responsibility for reviewing every major proposed regulation — as well as
existing ones — ... will allow him to continue his war against government
rules of almost every flavor.
I’ll be curious to see how Mr.
Mulvaney meshes with his new colleagues. As he acknowledged Tuesday, his
unabashed advocacy of cutting Social Security and Medicare puts him at odds
with his new boss.
The new president has also said that
no one should lose their health care when Obamacare is replaced, while the
alternatives that Mr. Mulvaney has supported would inevitably result in many
losing their insurance.
In the same vein, he will surely
hate Mr. Trump’s plans for enormous unfinanced tax cuts and huge infrastructure
spending, which are projected to increase total deficits by $5.3 trillion over
the next 10 years.
Policy differences aren’t unusual
within the new team. But those who know Mr. Mulvaney say that his absolutism
will make it difficult for him to make the compromises that are inevitably
necessary in the policy-making process.
I’m calling to ask whether the Senator will vote in opposition to the nomination of Mike Mulvaney as head of the Office of Budget and Management. I am concerned that Mulvaney has repeatedly said he is in favor of reducing or even eliminating essential retirement and health care programs, including Medicaid. He has repeatedly voted against raising the U.S. debt ceiling, which could lead to government default on its debt obligations, and has supported legislation to severely compromise the Central Bank's independence. Clearly an absolutist and a radical determined to axe well-regarded features of the U.S. financial system, Mulvaney does not belong IN the OMB, let alone as its director.
CALL SCRIPT - MIKE MULVANEY:
(Ask
Senators Cantwell and Murray to speak out and lobby as well as to vote.)|
Cantwell (D-WA)
|
(206) 220-6400
|
(202) 224-3441
|
|
|
Murray (D-WA)
|
(425) 259-6515
|
(202) 224-2621
|
Caller: Hi there, I’m a constituent of Senator MURRAY/CANTWELL. Can I
please speak with the staffer who would be handling her position on Mike Mulvaney as head of the Office of Budget and Management?
Staffer: I’m happy to take down any comments you may have. Can I ask for your name and address to verify you’re in our district?
Caller: Sure. [Gives name/address]. Can I ask who I’m speaking with?
Staffer: Yes, this is [_____________].
Caller: Thanks, [__________]
Staffer: I’m happy to take down any comments you may have. Can I ask for your name and address to verify you’re in our district?
Caller: Sure. [Gives name/address]. Can I ask who I’m speaking with?
Staffer: Yes, this is [_____________].
Caller: Thanks, [__________]
I
fully support Senator Murray/Cantwell’s vote against the MATTIS waiver as Secretary
of Defense and her expected NO vote against Jeff SESSIONS.
I’m calling to ask whether the Senator will vote in opposition to the nomination of Mike Mulvaney as head of the Office of Budget and Management. I am concerned that Mulvaney has repeatedly said he is in favor of reducing or even eliminating essential retirement and health care programs, including Medicaid. He has repeatedly voted against raising the U.S. debt ceiling, which could lead to government default on its debt obligations, and has supported legislation to severely compromise the Central Bank's independence. Clearly an absolutist and a radical determined to axe well-regarded features of the U.S. financial system, Mulvaney does not belong IN the OMB, let alone as its director.
Can
you tell me the Senator’s position on this? Will she vote against Mike Mulvaney’s
confirmation and lobby Senators on the Right to do the same?
If yes: I am so happy that she opposes the confirmation of Mulvaney. I and my group will be sure to let all our friends and family know
about her position. We cannot express strongly enough how much support she has
in pushing back on these—and any other—of Trump’s appointments that don’t meet
a reasonable standard of competence, moderation, and ethics.
(P.S for Cantwell: While we thank her for
steps she’s taken so far along these lines, in a challenging political
atmosphere,we want her to know that we're watching every vote and every
time she stands up (or doesn’t stand up). There will be consequences for
ignoring the will of Washingtonian to resist the Trump agenda wherever it
threatens Progressive and democratic programs and policy.
If no: I am very disappointed to hear that. We will be sure
to tell as many as possible of her constituents that she supports/does not
oppose Mike Mulvaney.
(P.S. for Cantwell: Thus far, Senator
Cantwell hasn't really won me over for a fourth term in 2018. For example, I'm deeply concerned that she never took a public position against Steve
Bannon, as Sen. Murray did. If Senator Cantwell doesn’t faithfully
represent the will of WA state, we'll primary her and get someone who will.)
If you have time, contact Ron Johnson (R-WI), chair of the Homeland Security & Gov'tal Affairs Committee responsible for the Mulvaney hearing.
If you have time, contact Ron Johnson (R-WI), chair of the Homeland Security & Gov'tal Affairs Committee responsible for the Mulvaney hearing.
