GovTrack Data on 2020 Candidates in the Senate

Posted on by

As we go through these primary states, do voters really do the work to determine the backgrounds of the candidates? Likely no, so below is a little cheat sheet that voters must consider for some of these candidates during their time in the Senate. It is voter’s duty to know.

Who are Democrat's top choices for 2020 presidential ...

Last May, we published an article highlighting differences between the 2020 democratic candidates based on their legislative records in 2017 and 2018. We also published several articles highlighting some of the key legislation that candidates have introduced more recently to give an understanding of their current policy concerns. As we finally reach the 2020 democratic primaries, it’s a good time to revisit what GovTrack data can tell us about the remaining viable candidates who are currently serving in or have served in the US Senate.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders has secured his position as the most progressive candidate by championing significant reform for popular issues. He has introduced a bill in this session of Congress for almost all of his major talking points, such as his Medicare for All Act, Raise the Wage Act, and College for All Act. The titles of these bills are more or less self-explanatory, which is fitting of Sanders style. Sanders introduces relatively few bills compared to other Senators, but the ones he does introduce tend to propose sweeping changes.

While Sanders legislative focus tends to be on health and the economy, he’s also touched on other key progressive issues. He introduced two environmental bills: the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act, which would set energy efficiency standards for all public housing among other things, and the Prevent Future American Sickness Act, which in a break from Sanders’ loftier policy goals would designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous substances. He also introduced the No War Against Iran Act in response to increased tensions earlier this year.

Only two of the 27 bills Sanders introduced this session were supported by a Republican, and he’s only signed on to 19 Republican bills.

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren has a clear focus on financial and economic policy. She introduced several bills to regulate large corporations, like her Accountable Capitalism Act, which would set responsibilities for United States corporations and enforce them with a new federal office, or her Ending Too Big to Jail Act intended to crack down on financial crime.

While not all of the bills she introduces are specific to that focus, most of them are presented from a financial perspective. For example, two of the major educational reforms Warren proposes, the Student Loan Debt Relief Act and the Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act, are centered around the affordability of preschool and higher education. Affordability is a key issue to Warren, appearing in the titles of two of her recent bills, the Affordable Safe Drinking Water Act and the Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act, which show off her approach to environmental and health policy respectively.

Warren and Sanders have both built their campaigns on progressive reforms meant to relieve stress for low-income Americans. However, looking at the legislative records we can find some contrast. While Sanders rarely ever trades cosponsorship with Republicans, Warren is much more likely to have a Republican or two sign on to her bills. In the previous session of Congress over half the bills Warren introduced had a Republican cosponsor and in this session almost a third were the same. She also has cosponsored 98 Republican bills this session.

Amy Klobuchar

One legislative issue stands out for Amy Klobuchar more so than for the other candidates: campaigns and elections. She has introduced 15 bills such as her Stopping Harmful Interference for a Lasting Democracy Act, which would require Federal campaigns report any foreign assistance offered or given, her Redistricting Reform Act, intended to combat partisan gerrymandering, and her Same Day Registration Act, which would allow voter registration on the same day of an election.

But with 81 bills introduced this session, Klobuchar has covered a wide range of topics. She has introduced environmental bills such as the Expanding Access to Sustainable Energy Act, which would provide grants and technology assistance to rural electric cooperatives, and finance bills such as the Monopolization Deterrence Act, which would allow monetary penalties against corporations that engage in monopolization offenses.

Klobuchar introduced more bills than the other senators running for President. She tends to focus less on lofty goals like Sanders’ Medicare for All or Warren’s Universal Child Care, opting to legislate for smaller policy adjustments rather than large scale reform. She also is much more likely to get Republican cosponsors. 51 of the 81 bills she introduced this session had at least one Republican cosponsor.

Joe Biden

Although Joe Biden didn’t introduce any bills in this session of Congress, we can look into his record from his last years as a senator. From 2007 to 2009 Biden focused on criminal justice and sentencing reform. He introduced bills such as the Bail Bond Fairness Act which would have required that bail bonds only be forfeited if the defendant fails to appear in court, the Justice Integrity Act, which would have created a program to prevent racial bias in law enforcement and to improve public confidence in the police, and the the Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act, which would have eliminated mandatory minimums for possession of crack or powder cocaine, among other things. He took an interest in preventing drug abuse through bills like the Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act and Dextromethorphan Abuse Reduction Act.

Biden also had bills on clean energy and college affordability. His College Affordability and Creating Chances for Educational Success for Students Act would have assisted college students with tax credits and Pell grants, and his International Clean Development Technology Fund Act would have appropriated $2 billion for developing and implementing technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the globally.

65 of the 89 bills Biden introduced in his last session of Congress had Republican cosponsors. Biden signed on to 71 bills introduced by Republicans.

DOJ to Sanction/Sue Sanctuary Counties/States

Posted on by

State of New Jersey lawsuit

Kings County, Washington lawsuit

FNC: Charging that so-called “sanctuary” cities that protect illegal immigrants are jeopardizing domestic security, Attorney General Bill Barr announced a slew of additional sanctions that he called a “significant escalation” against left-wing local and state governments that obstruct the “lawful functioning of our nation’s immigration system.”

Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, 'significant ... source

Speaking at the National Sheriff’s Association 2020 Winter Legislative and Technology Conference in Washington, D.C., Barr said the Justice Department would immediately file multiple lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions for unconstitutionally interfering with federal immigration enforcement, and implement unprecedented national reviews of left-wing sanctuary governments and prosecutors.

“The department is filing a complaint against the State of New Jersey seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against its laws that forbid state and local law enforcement from sharing vital information about criminal aliens with DHS,” Barr said.

That was a reference to New Jersey Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2018-6, which the DOJ says illegally bars officials from sharing the immigration status and release dates of individuals in custody. It also requires New Jersey law enforcement to “promptly notify a detained individual, in writing and in a language the individual can understand” if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) files an immigration detainer request for the individual.

“We are filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against King County, Washington, for the policy … that forbids DHS from deporting aliens from the United States using King County International Airport,” Barr continued.

That lawsuit targets King County Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO, which the DOJ said has dramatically increased operating costs for ICE as detainees have had to be transported to Yakima, Washington. The executive order unconstitutionally conflicts with the federal Airline Deregulation Act, which “prohibits localities such as King County from enacting or enforcing laws or regulations that relate to prices, routes, or services of air carriers,” the DOJ said.

“Further, we are reviewing the practices, policies, and laws of other jurisdictions across the country.  This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States,” Barr added, noting that the DOJ would support DHS with “federal subpoenas to access information about criminal aliens in the custody of uncooperative jurisdictions.”

And, Barr said, “we are meticulously reviewing the actions of certain district attorneys who have adopted policies of charging foreign nationals with lesser offenses for the express purpose of avoiding the federal immigration consequences of those nationals’ criminal conduct.  In pursuing their personal ambitions and misguided notions of equal justice, these district attorneys are systematically violating the rule of law and may even be unlawfully discriminating against American citizens.”

Prosecutors in New York and California have changed their policies so that prosecutors explicitly consider so-called “collateral consequences,” including deportation, before pursuing certain charges.

Sanctuary cities, Barr said, are defined as those with policies that allow “criminal aliens to escape” federal law enforcement — and some jurisdictions are becoming “more aggressive” in undermining immigration authorities, with some local politicians develop “schemes” to circumvent immigration officials.

In 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on an imminent raid by federal immigration authorities, tweeting out a warning to illegal immigrants in advance and helping them hide.

“The express purpose of these policies is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for crimes,” Barr said, noting that the Constitution empowers the federal government to enforce immigration laws, even as it entrusted the police power to the states. “This is neither lawful nor sensible.”

“In November, ICE filed a detainer for an alien who was arrested for assaulting his own father,” Barr said. “The local police in New York City that had the alien in custody ignored the detainer.  So the alien was released onto the streets, and last month, he allegedly raped and killed 92-year-old Maria Fuertes, affectionately known as ‘abuelita,’ a fixture of her Queens neighborhood.”

Additionally, In October 2017, DHS “identified a convicted criminal alien with four prior removals at a city jail in Washington State,” Barr continued. “DHS filed a detainer.  Subsequently, the alien fought with jail staff and was taken to a local medical center for treatment.  But after receiving treatment, local officials released the alien in violation of the detainer.  In January 2018, the alien was arrested and booked for murdering and dismembering his cousin.”

READ BARR’S FULL REMARKS HERE

“The Founding Fathers carefully divided responsibility and power between the federal government and the state governments,” Barr said. The ‘Supremacy Clause’ in Article VI of the Constitution provides that the ‘Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land.'”

He added: “This Clause is a vital part of our constitutional order.  Enforcing a country’s immigration laws is an essential function of the national government.  And no national government can enforce those laws properly if state and local governments are getting in the way.  While federal law does not require that ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ actively assist with federal immigration enforcement, it does prohibit them from interfering with our enforcement efforts.”

Barr emphasized that there is no way to determine how many “criminal aliens” are in the U.S., in part because of “local policies,” although recent estimates under the Obama administration put the number as high as 2 million.

“Assuming that estimate was accurate, the numbers are likely even higher today despite the Trump Administration’s consistent and concerted efforts to find and deport this criminal population,” Barr said.

It is the “rule of law that is fundamental to ensuring both freedom and security,” Barr asserted, saying law enforcement officers are increasingly under fire in “heinous” attacks that “come against the backdrop of cynicism and disrespect for law enforcement.”

Barr touted the DOJ’s lawsuit against California and other states over their sanctuary policies. The suit over California involves the law prohibiting the federal government from conducting operations in its own affiliated private immigration facilities and detention centers.

The law, Barr said, was a “blatant attempt by the State to prohibit DHS from detaining aliens, and to interfere with the ability of the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service to manage federal detainees and prisoners.”

“The department sued the State of California to enjoin numerous state laws that attempted to frustrate federal immigration enforcement,” Barr said. “We prevailed on several of our claims in the lower courts, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will grant our request to review the remaining issues and side with us against California’s obstructionist policies.”

He concluded, “Today is a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of ‘sanctuary cities.’  But by no means do the efforts outlined above signify the culmination of our fight to ensure the rule of law, to defend the Constitution, and to keep Americans safe.  We will consider taking action against any jurisdiction that, or any politician who, unlawfully obstructs the federal enforcement of immigration law.”

Barr’s new sanctions come as the Trump administration has already announced other initiatives targeting illegal immigration in the wake of the president’s State of the Union address last week.

Last week, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf exclusively told Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that DHS was immediately suspending enrollment in Global Entry and several other Trusted Traveler Programs (TTP) for all New York state residents — a dramatic move in response to the liberal state’s recently enacted sanctuary “Green Light Law.”

Barr slammed the law in his speech Monday, calling it “unlawful.”

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations Todd Owen later told Fox News that up to 800,000 New Yorkers could be affected by the rule change within the next five years. Owen said people with pending Global Entry applications would be refunded, and that those with active applications would not be affected until their renewal date.

Illegal immigrants rushed to New York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) in large numbers after the “Green Light Law,” which allowed them to obtain driver’s licenses or learner’s permits regardless of their immigration status, took effect last December. The law also permitted applicants to use foreign documents, including passports, to be submitted in order to obtain licenses.

In a letter to top New York state officials obtained exclusively by Fox News, Wolf noted that the New York law prohibited DMV agencies across the state from sharing criminal records with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE.

“In New York alone, last year ICE arrested 149 child predators, identified or rescued 105 victims of exploitation and human trafficking, arrested 230 gang members, and seized 6,487 pounds of illegal narcotics, including fentanyl and opioids,” Wolf wrote to New York officials. “In the vast majority of these cases, ICE relied on New York DMV records to fulfill its mission.”

The “Green Light Law,” Wolf went on, “compromises CBP’s ability to confirm whether an individual applying for TTP membership meets program eligibility requirements.”

“This Act and the corresponding lack of security cooperation from the New York DMV requires DHS to take immediate action to ensure DHS’ s efforts to protect the Homeland are not compromised,” he said.

4 Members of the Chinese Military Hacked Equifax

Posted on by

(AP) — Four members of the Chinese military have been charged with breaking into the networks of the Equifax credit reporting agency and stealing the personal information of tens of millions of Americans, the Justice Department said Monday, blaming Beijing for one of the largest hacks in history to target consumer data.

The 2017 breach affected more than 145 million people, with the hackers successfully stealing names, addresses, Social Security and driver’s license numbers and other personal information stored in the company’s databases.

4 Chinese military members charged in Equifax case

The four — members of the People’s Liberation Army, an arm of the Chinese military — are also accused of stealing the company’s trade secrets, including database designs, law enforcement officials said.

The accused hackers exploited a software vulnerability to gain access to Equifax’s computers, obtaining log-in credentials that they used to navigate databases and review records. The indictment also details efforts the hackers took to cover their tracks, including wiping log files on a daily basis and routing traffic through dozens of servers in nearly 20 countries.

  Source

“The scale of the theft was staggering,” Attorney General William Barr said Monday. “This theft not only caused significant financial damage to Equifax, but invaded the privacy of many millions of Americans, and imposed substantial costs and burdens on them as they have had to take measures to protect against identity theft.”

Equifax, headquartered in Atlanta, maintains a massive repository of consumer information that it sells to businesses looking to verify identities or assess creditworthiness. All told, the indictment says, the company holds information on hundreds of millions of Americans in the U.S. and abroad.

The case is the latest Justice Department accusation against Chinese hackers suspected of breaching networks of American corporations. It comes as the Trump administration has warned against what it sees as the growing political and economic influence of China, and efforts by Beijing to collect data on Americans and steal scientific research and innovation.

The administration has also been pressing allies not to allow Chinese tech giant Huawei to be part of their 5G wireless networks due to concerns that the equipment could be used to collect data and for surveillance.

The accused hackers are based in China and none is in custody. But U.S. officials nonetheless view criminal charges like the ones brought in this case as a powerful deterrent to foreign hackers and a warning to other countries that American law enforcement has the capability to pinpoint individual culprits behind hacks.

A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy did not immediately return an email seeking comment Monday.

The case resembles a 2014 indictment from the Obama administration Justice Department that accused five members of the PLA of hacking into major American corporations to steal their trade secrets. U.S. authorities also suspect China in the massive 2015 breach of the Office of Personnel Management and of intrusions into the Marriott hotel chain and Anthem health insurance company.

“This kind of attack on American industry is of a piece with other Chinese illegal acquisitions of sensitive personal data,” Barr said of Monday’s announcement, adding that “for years we have witnessed China’s voracious appetite for the personal data of Americans.”

The criminal charges — which include conspiracy to commit computer fraud and conspiracy to commit economic espionage — were filed in federal court in Atlanta.

Equifax last year reached a $700 million settlement over the data breach, with the bulk of the funds intended for consumers affected by it.

Equifax didn’t notice the intruders targeting its databases for more than six weeks. Hackers exploited a known security vulnerability that Equifax hadn’t fixed.

Once inside the network, officials said, the hackers spent weeks conducting reconnaissance. They stole login credentials and ultimately downloaded and extractedate data from Equifax to computers outside the United States.

The indictment says the hackers obtained names, birth dates, and Social Security numbers for about 145 million American victims, along with credit card numbers and other personal information for about 200,000.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, a server hosting Equifax’s online dispute portal was running software with a known weak spot. The hackers jumped through the opening to reach databases containing consumers’ personal information.

Equifax officials told GAO the company made many mistakes, including having an outdated list of computer systems administrators. When the company circulated a notice to install a patch for the software vulnerability, the employees responsible for installing the patch never got it.

Equifax’s $700 million settlement with the U.S. government gives affected consumers free credit-monitoring and identity-restoration services, plus money for their time or reimbursement for certain services. However, because so many people made claims, officials said some consumers would get far less than the eligible amounts because of caps in the settlement pool.

The Pro Act, Really Nancy?

Posted on by

BIG LABOR PAYOFF? For sure….protect, organize and negotiate…blah blah blah

  UAW’s website/Steeleworkers/AFLCIO and more promoting the passage and it did in the House….

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at it again and Democratic presidential hopefuls former Vice President Joe Biden, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren are all with her.

Last week, the Democrat-led House of Representatives passed a bill designed solely to empower the Democrats’ Big Labor allies. While the bill has little chance of becoming law with Republicans in control of the Senate, the deceptively named Protecting the Right to Organize Act (“PRO Act”) is a dire warning of what Democrats would do should they ever return to power.

Voters should pay close attention to its provisions. Despite severely negative economic consequences, Democrats would eviscerate both the rights of employers to oppose unionization and of workers to decline union membership through the PRO Act – effectively turning the right to unionize into compulsory unionization.
There is no doubt that the PRO Act represents Democratic Party orthodoxy. It passed the House in a 224-194 vote (mostly along party lines). The Bill’s Senate version has 40 co-sponsors, none of whom are Republicans.

Presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar co-sponsored the Senate version of the bill. Joe Biden’s website states that, as president, he would “sign the PRO Act into law.” Pete Buttigieg’s website states that he “strongly supports” the PRO Act.

While couched as workers’ rights legislation, the PRO Act is a tacit acknowledgment that the Democrats’ Big Labor allies have a serious problem: workers just aren’t very interested in what the unions have to offer. When the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) began reporting the data in 1983, union membership stood at 20.1 percent of US employees. That percentage has steadily declined ever since and, in 2019, dropped to 10.3 percent.

Dwindling union membership means declining revenue and political influence. So, the Democrats, who depend on union endorsements and union dues to support their political campaigns, are advocating policies that essentially eliminate the option of going non-union.

Perhaps most tellingly, the PRO Act would eliminate Right-to-Work laws nationwide, an important means for workers to hold their unions accountable and a critical protection for workers who do not want to financially support a political organization with which they disagree. As a result, the PRO Act would force workers in the 27 states that currently have right to work laws into unions, compelling them to pay union dues, despite their desire to remain independent.
The bill would also eliminate the right to a secret ballot in union elections, forcing workers to vote in front of union organizers and colleagues via “card check,” a system that both sides of the aisle have condemned. It would also infringe on workers’ rights to privacy, requiring employers to hand over employees’ personal information, including home addresses, emails, phone numbers, and work shifts, to union organizers, needlessly exposing those employees to harassment and intimidation.
One of the bill’s worst provisions would broaden the “joint employer” standard to include potentially any business that contracts with another, including franchisees, suppliers, vendors, or subcontractors. Joint employers are equally liable for each other’s employment violations, and this increased risk will force big companies to stop franchising or contracting with smaller companies to avoid expanded liability.

The Obama administration tried to force through the same standard, but its efforts met bipartisan opposition in Congress, and the Trump administration rightfully abandoned the effort.

Nonetheless, unions and their paid-for politicians are trying to force through the standard to give unions access to larger and supposedly “joint” workforces rather than requiring them to organize these smaller independent businesses one by one.

Similar to California’s AB5 legislation, which is set to wreak economic havoc in California’s economy, the PRO Act would steal American’s right to work independently by making it nearly impossible for workers to qualify as independent contractors – workers without a traditional employer. These workers are critical for the “sharing economy,” an industry composed of app-based technology companies like Uber and Lyft that connect independent workers with consumers.

This new economy is flourishing because it fills a gap in currently available services. Rather than supporting this new industry that provides additional income and flexibility to workers who choose to participate, Democrats want to stop it in its tracks. Why? Because – and only because — unions can’t organize independent workers.

The center-right American Action Forum’s economic analysis of the PRO Act’s potential impact on the economy is reason alone to abandon it. AAF found that the PRO Act’s joint employer provision could annually lead to $33.3 billion in lost output for the franchise business sector alone. The bill’s independent contractor provision is expected to add up to $12.1 billion in annual costs for employers and implicate 8.5 percent of GDP. And these are the costs of only two of the bill’s dozen provisions.

Despite the negative economic consequences, should Democrats return to power in the upcoming election, their socialist goal of compulsory unionization would soon supplant the rights of employers to oppose unions and of workers to reject them.

As the PRO Act demonstrates, Democrats will readily eviscerate those rights and slow our economy if doing so can but grow Big Labor’s coffers and political influence.

The upcoming election is increasingly a choice between economic freedom and prosperity or government compulsion and stagnation.

Trump Submitted his Budget

Posted on by

The President officially submitted his budget proposal to Congress today, with a first-ever section on curbing waste, fraud, duplication, and abuse in the federal government.

Trump To Again Propose Slashing Foreign Aid In Budget | 88 ... Senator Schumer is already whining.

The budget calls for eliminating the following programs entirely:

  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s Education and Research Centers
  • Department of the Interior’s Highlands Conservation Act Grants
  • National Park Service’s Save America’s Treasures Grants
  • National Endowment for the Arts Endowment for the Humanities
  • Corporation for National and Community Service (including AmeriCorps)

The administration also identified several categories of government spending in desperate need of additional government oversight, including travel, employee conferences or workshops, subscriptions, marketing, entertainment, office refreshments and end-of-year “Use It or Lose It” spending. The chapter cites expenditures by 67 federal agencies from December 30-31, 2018 which totaled $97 billion and included more than $15 million worth of fine china, lobster, alcohol, recreational, musical, and workout equipment.

Yes, it’s budget day on Capitol Hill as we all return to semi-normalcy after spending the last four months consumed with impeachment. Both the House and Senate have hearings this week to discuss the president’s budget.

President Trump is proposing to balance the federal budget within 15 years, “shrink” the federal government and extend food stamp work requirements to Medicaid and housing programs in a $4.8 trillion spending plan being released Monday.

The plan would reduce spending by $4.4 trillion equally from discretionary and mandatory programs such as Medicare over the next decade.

The plan also includes $2 billion for the border wall, with officials saying the administration is approaching 80% of the money needed to finish the wall.

The president’s budget for fiscal 2021 would cut foreign aid by 21% and reduce the Environmental Protection Agency’s funding by 26% while targeting the Education Department for smaller cuts.

Among the agencies receiving spending increases would be the Department of Homeland Security (up 3%), the Defense Department (up 0.3% to $740.5 billion), NASA (up 12%) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (up 13%).

The Commerce Department budget would be cut by 37%. Officials largely attribute that reduction to completion of the census. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is slated for a cut of 15% in a proposal that includes $2.8 billion for homelessness assistance grants.

Spending for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be cut 9%, and $4.3 billion would be targeted for battling infectious diseases.

Overall, nondefense spending would be cut 5% to $590 billion, below the level the White House and congressional Democrats agreed to in the current two-year budget deal.

Mr. Trump also proposes to make permanent the tax cuts of 2017. Senior administration officials who gave a preview to The Washington Times and other news outlets said the election-year proposal is aimed partly at the perception that Mr. Trump hasn’t tried to curtail federal spending, with annual deficits rising to more than $1 trillion in his first term.

“We’re trying to make the case that the president cares about spending and has cared about spending,” a senior administration official said. “He’s been doing this since his very first budget. This is now the fourth budget. Many of these [spending] reforms have been in each and every one of them. We do need Congress. Congress has not been there.”

The plan also provides a stark contrast with leading Democratic presidential candidates’ campaign priorities, such as “Medicare-for-All” and free college tuition, which would likely require significant tax increases.

“We’re going to have a national election that will hopefully decide that Congress is going to be on the side of the American people along with other taxpayers who balance their family budgets,” the senior official said. “We’re making the argument that deficit reduction is really important.”

The plan to reach a balanced budget relies on an optimistic economic forecast of 3% annual growth, significantly faster than the 2.3% rate in 2019.

Officials said about half of the proposed savings over a decade would come from reforms or from eliminating programs deemed wasteful in entitlements such as Medicaid and Social Security. They said benefits won’t be affected and that the savings would come from cutting waste and from other savings such as lowering prescription drug prices under Medicare ($130 billion).

Savings of $292 billion would come from reforming Medicaid and other safety net programs, for example by eliminating improper payments to people who have died. Spending on Medicare and Medicaid would still increase.

“The president is proposing more mandatory savings and reforms than any other president in history,” an official said. “He does protect Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries in those programs; he totally meets that commitment.”

The president tweeted on Saturday, “We will not be touching your Social Security or Medicare in Fiscal 2021 Budget. Only the Democrats will destroy them by destroying our Country’s greatest ever Economy!”

In the past two years, Congress has provided only $2.65 billion for the border wall out of the $18 billion the administration said it needed. Mr. Trump declared a state of emergency in February 2019 to move money from military construction projects and counternarcotics programs to get more money. The administration has shifted $6.7 billion from those programs and plans to divert another $7.2 billion this year.

“We are in a pretty good place with regard to the main, most critical features of the wall being fully resourced as of right now,” a senior official said. “We will ask for another $2 billion just to keep the work going. We’re approaching 80% of the wall that will eventually be built being fully resourced.”

The proposal would save taxpayers $300 billion over 10 years by expanding the 20-hour-per-week work requirement for food stamp recipients to Medicaid and housing programs, plus expanding it in the food stamp program, officials said.

The administration said in a statement that part of the spending plan involves “shrinking the federal government to its proper size” by calling for overall reductions of about 2%.

Deficits have risen each year under Mr. Trump, who came into office criticizing former President Barack Obama for failing to get government borrowing under control and pledging that he would balance the budget himself in eight years.

When Mr. Obama left office, the annual deficit was down to about $585 billion after three consecutive $1 trillion deficits at the start of his presidency.

After Mr. Trump took office, the deficit rose to $665 billion in fiscal 2017. It climbed to $779 billion in fiscal 2018, which was 3.8% of gross domestic product. In 2019, it rose to $984 billion, or 4.6% of GDP.

The trend continued in the wrong direction in the first three months of fiscal 2020 as the deficit widened to $356.6 billion and was on pace to exceed $1 trillion by the end of the year.

The fiscal 2021 budget proposal would trim the deficit to $966 billion next year and eliminate annual deficits by 2035, a senior administration official said.

Mr. Trump threatened to veto a massive spending bill in March 2018 that he said included unnecessary extras added by Democrats. He said he acquiesced because the measure was vital to rebuilding the military, but he warned that he wouldn’t tolerate such wastefulness going forward.

“I will never sign a bill like this again,” Mr. Trump said.

He fought with Democrats into a government shutdown in late 2018 over funding for the border wall. In August, Mr. Trump struck a sweeping two-year spending deal with Democrats that lifted the nation’s borrowing limit through July 2021, raised spending by more than $320 billion and put off the next potential fight over spending until after the November elections.

That deal is projected to add nearly $2 trillion in debt over the next decade.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat whose troops have teamed up with Mr. Trump to increase deficit levels, said the president has no credibility on fiscal responsibility. They point to the 2017 tax cuts that passed with no Democratic votes.

“During the eight years of President Obama’s presidency, he reduced the deficit by $1 trillion,” Mrs. Pelosi said last week. “Instead, this administration … increased the national debt by $2 trillion.”