I don't doubt that he wants cuts in those areas...however, I'd like to see that $1.7 trillion number itemized just a bit before I'd be willing to accept it as gospel truth.
There's no doubt that Trump has expressed cuts in areas that would certainly have a negative impact on society as a whole (his proposed cuts to the medical science and environmental fields come to mind for that...)
Right now, our US federal spending is around $3.9 trillion total.
Of that:
$1.2 Trillion is Medicare/Medicaid
$930 Billion is Social Security
$550 Billion is on defense/military spending
Given that the article is claiming that the top two items listed aren't going to be cut. What exactly would these other entitlements be that would total up to $1.7 trillion?
In an independent report by CATO, there are 126 different entitlement programs at the federal level that total up to around $600 Billion, and only when you include state and local spending (which Trump and his peeps have no control over) does that number number crack the $1 Trillion mark.
And it's important to note that of that entitlement spending at the federal level, just over 1/3 of it ($212 Billion) is spent on cash-in-hand programs that people would tend to think of when they think "welfare".
The other 2/3 include things like education grants, adoption assistance, etc...
I think both sides are kind of taking advantage of word games here in all of the articles. The right-leaning, pro-Trump articles are capitalizing on the fact that the lion's share of the Trump support base assumes "Entitlements = Cash-in-hand Welfare programs"...therefore "the bigger the cut, the better"
The left-leaning articles aren't questioning the $1.7 trillion figure, even though they likely know it's inaccurate simply because to their fan base "cutting entitlements = evil", therefore "the bigger the reported cut proposal, the more of a monster they can paint him to be".
I really wish the media on both sides would try to exercise a little more integrity in reporting these things.
