Advanced Search
April 19, 2017
In reviewing the documents released as the Trump Administration’s ‘skinny budget,’ one cannot help but feel that many of the cuts and proposed program eliminations have been made without regard to the depth of the bipartisan support behind them. Indeed, many in Congress, both Republican and Democratic, have said that the proposed cuts will not stand. Regardless, it is important to know what has been put forward by the Administration, because it will have an impact. In numerous agencies, large cuts have been proposed but without providing specifics; in other cases, there are stark eliminations proposed. More information will be forthcoming in the fuller, more fleshed-out version of the budget to be submitted to Congress, presumably sometime in May.
But, it is striking that there are many highly specific proposed cuts that would eliminate programs that have enjoyed strong bipartisan support and that have been integral to providing assistance to low-income households and to rural areas. Just a few of the examples are the proposed eliminations of the Low-Income House Energy Assistance Program, the Weatherization Assistance Program, the State Energy Program (which leverages so many initiatives by every state energy office), the Appalachian Regional Council, the Economic Development Administration, the Power Africa Initiative (to double access to energy in sub-Saharan Africa), and the Community Development Block Grant. Clean up and restoration funding for the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes would also be eliminated.
Despite the talk about the need to address infrastructure across the country—which is critical to every sector of the economy—significant cuts are proposed in transportation. Surprisingly, these include specific proposals to eliminate the Essential Air Service Program (critical for 169 rural communities across 35 states) as well as all of Amtrak’s 15 long-distance train routes, which serve 390 communities across 40 states; many of these are rural communities without other transportation choices.
The State Department, Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture received the largest percentage of proposed cuts, axing a number of development assistance programs—including the Climate Investment Funds launched under George W. Bush with bipartisan support—which help build greater resilience to weather-inflicted catastrophes in developing countries and thus help improve their stability. EPA’s budget would be cut 31 percent, steeply reducing enforcement and clean-up programs, and targeting any climate-related programs. The extremely popular, effective, and voluntary Energy Star program would be eliminated. NASA and NOAA would also see significant cuts to their science programs.
Below is a summary of the ‘skinny budget’ proposals across several of the federal agencies, with an emphasis on sustainable energy, building, transportation, and climate programs. While not comprehensive, the summary does provide a valuable overview of proposed cuts and some perspective. EESI intends to do a fuller budget analysis when the complete budget is issued later this spring.
It is still unclear how the Administration would put together enough cuts to total $4.7 billion; the provided lists of known cuts are several billion short. However, it is clear that research, rural programs, conservation and other extension programs will be the hardest hit.
Surprisingly, the cuts to NOAA affect programs that the budget clearly seeks to defend. The future maintenance, uninterrupted collection, and public availability of NOAA's polar, atmospheric, ocean, and climate data would have broad implications for a range of scientific disciplines and government programs.
Despite assurances from Energy Secretary Rick Perry that he would defend DOE's research capabilities, the White House is proposing steep cuts to the agency's advanced R&D and basic science programs. It is unclear how the Office of Science may be impacted, but the Administration's priorities will likely hew towards fossil fuel technologies. The nearly $2 billion cut across the EERE, Nuclear, Fossil, and Electricity offices would essentially slash the FY16 enacted budgets for those programs by half.
The Department of Homeland Security's proposed budget has a greater focus on border and physical security, rather than safeguarding communities through emergency preparedness and resilience. It remains unclear how attuned the Administration may be to the value of defending against projected severe weather and flooding.
The status of funding for energy efficiency and green building programs was conspicuously absent from the budget outline; EESI will be monitoring it going forward. Additional programs may also see changes in the full budget, including impacts on HUD block grants.
Given the budget's theme of "America First," the State Department's mission and foreign aid can be expected to have a diminished role in the new Administration. Funding for a wide range of climate, environment, and development programs are in danger of being lost, which could be devastating for internationally-based programs and the nations that rely on them, as well as the United States and other developed countries, which may be called on to deal with the consequences of lack of investment in climate-smart and resilient development.
Climate aid is part of the overall foreign aid program, which currently makes up about one percent of the U.S. budget, but is consistently thought to be a much larger percentage of the budget by most Americans.
Unorthodox allies for diplomacy and aid programs may be found in the national security community. Current Defense Secretary James Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2013, "If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately. So I think it’s a cost benefit ratio. The more that we put into the State Department’s diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene."
The transportation system is an interconnected, interdependent network of modal systems. Intercity rail service releases pressure on air and road service. Transit service is the most efficient “road” in areas of densely used space: its degradation or elimination would reduce access, cause road congestion and failure, and increase the cost of moving goods—ultimately resulting in the loss of jobs and economic growth. Reducing transit would also increase gasoline consumption. The elimination of rail and air service would further exacerbate rural communities’ economic hardship.
Dismantling and shrinking EPA remains a clear priority for the Administration and is likely to gain significant traction with the Republicans' conservative base. While slashing geographically diverse and bipartisan programs like Superfund and the Restoration Initiatives may prove a non-starter with some Congressional blocs, EPA's climate and enforcement programs are in real danger of elimination. The core justifications put forth by the Administration will be around economic gains for American businesses, streamlining "redundant" government programs, and returning environmental regulatory authority to the states (despite pollution being transboundary in nature).
NASA's cuts are arranged to make them an easier sell to the general public. Space exploration and other "charismatic" efforts continue to get support and positive press from the Administration. This overshadows the fact that while the overall budget decrease may appear small at first glance, there is a significant realignment of funds occurring under the surface. Funding would shift away from critical Earth science, observation, modeling, and climate science toward expensive programs for space exploration and hardware engineering.
Authors: Carol Werner, Brian La Shier, Ellen Vaughan, Jessie Stolark, Paul Haven, and Susan Williams
Editors: Carol Werner and Amaury Laporte.
Advancing science-based climate solutions
Top-Rated Climate Nonprofit – 4-Star Charity