Trump’s brutal budget is built on unworkable beliefs

The Trump budget plan fits the president well: brutal, illogical and unrealistic. The initial spending plan may not be the final word, but it should trouble anyone thinking about this country’s financial future.

The document is rightly drawing bipartisan fire for its harsh shredding of safety-net, cultural and scientific research programs ranging from food stamps to disease prevention. This shotgun demolition is built on phony belief that charities, private institutions and state and local government will pick up the slack.

Stranger even are the underlying economics. Along with the spending trims go tax cuts, which will benefit wealthy payers the most. According to the Trump team, this gift will super charge the business world, which will grow and — presto — produce more tax revenue. But this magical thinking hasn’t worked where it’s been tried.

Poured on top of this theory is a projection that the economy will grow at a 3 percent rate, a number well beyond the 1.9 percent figure posted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

For all its doctrinaire boldness, the blueprint ducks the biggest challenges. The main drivers in federal spending are Social Security and Medicare, on which tens of millions of Americans rely. Reforms, cost controls, and future plans are all left out. The Trump team may be leaving room for future negotiations, but for now there’s a dearth of creative thinking and political courage in this spending blueprint.

The sweeping scope of the budget plan also takes on localities that offer varying forms of sanctuary protections for immigrants without legal status. Through a backdoor spending provision, cities such as San Francisco and others in the Bay Area with sanctuary ordinances would be compelled to cooperate more fully with border agents in exchange for Homeland Security and Justice Department money.

The president’s budget plan is landing with a political thud. Republicans are backing away, suggesting the numbers are a starting point or framework for more dickering. Democrats are blunter, noting its punitive effects on the poor and the faulty underlying economics.

The White House has set its course on slimming yearly budget deficits, leading over time to the golden promise of balanced spending. That’s a praiseworthy notion. But this budget plan doesn’t offer evidence that such a rosy hope is achievable.