�Թϲ�����

One factor holding back economic growth is that too many working-age Americans have fallen out of the labor force. The administration’s proposed budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 tries to tackle that problem, as well it should. But rather than grapple with some of the challenges underlying the disappearance of millions of Americans from the workforce — in particular, the technological changes and globalization that have caused so many blue-collar and middle-class jobs to evaporate, and the gap between the education and training Americans have received and the skills demanded by today’s employers — the Trump budget seeks to force people back into the workforce by making it harder to obtain or keep food stamps, Medicaid and Social Security disability benefits, while reducing federal support for welfare and children’s health. (5/23)

For months, pundits and political advisers have tried to figure out what “Trumponomics” really stands for. Even President Trump himself struggled to characterize it, saying, “It really has to do with self-respect as a nation.” Now that we have the president’s budget in hand, we have a more definitive answer: Trumponomics — like Ryanonomics — is based on the principle that living in poverty doesn’t suck quite enough. That is, more people would be motivated to become rich if only being poor weren’t so much fun. (Catherine Rampell, 5/23)

Yes, Republicans have a blind spot when it comes to acknowledging that revenues must be a part of the fix. But to their credit, many Republicans — including, notably, Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House — have made the case for why we have to reform our largest entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare (though there has recently been a disquieting silence on the topic). And many Republicans are taking the responsible position that tax reform should at least be revenue neutral. Democrats, many of whom too often act as demagogues on entitlement reform, are clear that taxes must increase (though they also must stop pretending it is just millionaires who will be affected). They also have been admirable in their commitment to the pay-as-you-go principle in recent major legislation, which at least keeps us from digging the hole deeper. (Maya MacGuineas, 5/23)

The new White House budget proposal is built on a deep-rooted conservative belief: The government should help those who are willing to work, and cull from benefit rolls those who aren’t. That emphasis on work underlies deep cuts and proposed changes to food stamps, cash assistance and health benefits for the poor in a budget that boosts spending for the military and border security. Expect the poor to work in exchange for aid, the White House argues, and antipoverty programs will work better while costing the government less. (Emily Badger, 5/24)

Since the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993, American parents working for companies with at least 50 employees have had a right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave after the birth or adoption of a child. But many don’t take advantage of that option for the simple reason that they can’t afford to go that long without a paycheck. The Trump administration, at the urging of first daughter Ivanka Trump, has included in its budget released Tuesday a plan for paid medical leave of up to six weeks. (5/23)

President Trump’s budget includes a proposal for six weeks of mandated paid family leave for new parents. Despite its superficial appeal, this idea is likely to harm families more than it helps. The initial Trump proposal, floated in September, would have limited mandated leave to mothers, thereby likely engaging in unconstitutional sex discrimination. Key aspects of the new plan are still unclear. But it avoids legal problems by covering fathers, too. Yet it has serious flaws, nonetheless. (Ilya Somin, 5/23)

It also breaks Trump's campaign commitments to spare Social Security and Medicaid from budget cuts. Budget Director Mick Mulvaney explained this problem away (with Trump in Israel) by asserting in a Monday night briefing that proposals in the plan to cut Social Security disability benefits don't count because they're not retirement payments. (Albert R. Hunt, 5/23)

But tax cuts were only one half of the [Gov. Sam] Brownback experiment. Aided by conservatives in the Legislature, Kansas eviscerated the state’s social safety net: privatizing Medicaid, imposing new restrictions on welfare benefits, insisting on a tough food stamp work requirement. Humiliating the poor seemed to be a particular focus. For a time, the state told welfare recipients they could withdraw only $25 at a time from an automated teller machine, a decision that prompted anger and derision across the nation before it was repealed. (5/23)