-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The New York Times has an article today observing that Republicans’ campaign rhetoric about reining in out of control government spending hasn’t been backed up by specific proposals that would accomplish that goal. It’s something that I myself have noted repeatedly (see here here and here).
Republican candidates will discuss the need to cut waste from the budget vaguely while ruling out cuts to entitlements and defense spending. To demonstrate how absurd this is, I put together this pie chart breaking down the components of the 2009 federal budget. All of the parts in blue — or 83 percent — would be off limits for any cuts if you follow what the typical Republican candidates are saying and read the GOP’s “Pledge to America.” That leaves just 17 percent of the budget left to cut. Even if you were to eliminate this entire slice of the budget (meaning you’re willing to gut the Department of Homeland Security and defund all other federal agencies and departments) it wouldn’t even eliminate half of last year’s deficit.
More specifically, the federal budget was $3.5 trillion in 2009. Mandatory spending is primarily comprised of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but also of programs such as veteran’s benefits, unemployment insurance and food stamps. While Republicans have taken some stands on paying for additional extensions of unemployment benefits, they’ve maintained their underlying support for the benefits. So if you eleminate mandatory spending, that takes nearly $2.1 trillion off of the table. That leaves discressionary spending. But if the defense budget is off limits, there’s another $655 billion that’s untouchable. And unless the GOP is for defaulting on the national debt, they’d have to support spending $187 billion on interest payments. That leaves just $582 billion left that’s theoretically touchable. Republicans have pledged to save $100 billion by returning spending to pre-stimulus levels. But even if they were willing to go further, and get rid of the entire $582 billion in discretionary spending, it still wouldn’t even get at half the deficit — which stood at over $1.4 trillion in 2009.
Granted, there are a lot of moving parts in the budget. If the economy should improve, for instance, revenues would go up and spending on such programs as unemployment benefits would naturally increase, helping to narrow the deficit. But over time, the trends are obvious. Without adressing mandatory spending, there’s no hope of bringing down our debt and restraining the growth of government. And Republicans don’t deserve to be seen as the party of smaller government until they begin to acknowledge (and grapple with) this simple fact.
JP| 10.20.10 @ 3:05PM
No one will touch Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Best wait until we are smack-dab in the middle of a fiscal/currency crisis. When a person must withdraw $1000 from his ATM in order to buy milk, we might get some action.
Alan Brooks| 10.20.10 @ 9:34PM
You will have to accept means-testing eventually.
JP| 10.20.10 @ 10:41PM
Yes, means testing. Add to that, a higher retirement age, as well as reduced benefits.
Alan Brooks| 10.21.10 @ 12:32AM
You convinced me, JP:
now convince the slow-as-molasses GOP dinos (not RINOS)
Alan Brooks| 10.21.10 @ 12:34AM
... that is to say, this is a piece about the GOP's fantasyland, is it not?
Rich| 10.21.10 @ 9:36AM
Means testing and retirement age increases exposes Social Security for what it is; a generational Ponzi schemes that steals money from the weakest and youngest (regressive taxes) and redistributes up to the older voters (failed welfare checks)...what a disgrace on both parties...
Chris | 10.20.10 @ 3:11PM
Excellent summary Philip. One would think it would take strong bipartisan action to be able to modify entitlement spending, but the question is do you trust this President and the incoming Congress to make come together to make the difficult choices?
PattyMor| 10.20.10 @ 3:32PM
In theory, I suscribe to detailing spending cuts during the election. However, as a political strategy, it itsn't desirable because you will hit over the head with negative ads during the campaign. A more thoughtfull approach is to implement them after the election. And, most of the big stuff will wait until after the 2012 election.
The Obama Timeline Author | 11.9.10 @ 5:42PM
Wait until after the 2012 election? Sorry, but we will have Ben Bernanke's hyperinflation by the end of 2011. If the GOP can not or will not cut spending soon, the United States will be on the road to Zimbabwe by election day 2012.
Douglas| 10.20.10 @ 3:37PM
Nothing will change until the government runs out of money. When that happens there will be a big fight. In the meantime, as this summary makes clear, it's almost silly to even talk about fixing things.
jrjr| 10.20.10 @ 4:21PM
It is not within the Republican's make-up to do a whole lot about the spending problem, even without obstruction from Obama and bots. There is much talk now and I assume that they will attempt to do some cutting. But it will not last much past the 2012 election even with a Republican Prez. They have many chances and essentially blew it badly and are even afraid to bring it out in the open for the public to discuss it.
Douglas| 10.20.10 @ 4:30PM
Philip, one more thought/question--
Those of us with savings face a choice: 1) Save 5x more than you think you need to save because your savings won't grow in the market and because there will be no Soc. Sec. or Medicare; or 2) Buy tangible things now that have inherent worth because savings will be worthless soon and if those savings are worth something the govt will come after them anyway.
My question: What political assumptions should we make in answering this question?
fred| 10.20.10 @ 4:47PM
Medicare expenditures would be cut substantially by reforms that made it look more like a consumer directed health plan and by significant deregulation of health care that allowed more competition between hospitals, surgical centers, and the like. Basically the payments system needs to be done away with. Social Security could be held in place by getting rid of the COLA and making Congress vote on increases. The disability program needs to be looked at for fraud. Medicaid needs huge reform, it is almost as big as Medicare and is designed to spend money. Start by getting rid of SCHIP, in which 6 of 10 kids dropped private insurance to go on the taxpayer dole. Then do something easy--just adjust Medicaid copays for inflation (they'd be about $35), pay federally qualified health centers the same as you pay everyone else, and move moms and kids into consumer directed plans there, too.
Texas Mom 2012| 10.20.10 @ 5:31PM
The new insurance bill needs to be tanked. The solution to the health insurance problem is a low cost high deductible plan coupled with Health Care Savings accounts. They should run like a 401k in that any funds not spent roll over from year to year. Funds can only be spent towards the deductible. For younger workers this could be a replacement for Medicare. People will be cautious when they are using their own funds saving medical dollars and capacity in our medical system. There, 1.2 trillion saved!
Scale all federal total compensation packages back to at a minimum congruent with private sector non-union jobs and repeal the executive orders that allowed government employees to unionize.
Force all federal workers including staffers to become current on their federal tax liability or begin immediate wage garnishment.
Permanently ban all earmarks that are not given an up or down vote on the house floor. No more studies funded by federal dollars that are not vote on in the house. This would stop stupid waste of tax payer dollars on idiot studies like African penis washing funds, effects of cocaine on various animals
and studies of Chinese prostitutes.
Put the administration on a budget, defund all the czars... No czars that have bypassed the Senate nomination process.
No more bonuses for Federal employees.
Cut Congressional staff... So that Congress writes and reads all bills, saving money.
Shrink the bureaucracy with a hiring freeze.
Then tackle social security reform.
I could go on forever...
Jeff Weimer| 10.20.10 @ 6:40PM
I would add to that taking the per-child tax credit and depositing that into individual HSAs for children, that also rolls over and becomes their own HSA upon majority. It would drastically reduce SCHIP to only the most needy and give them a large medical nest egg for adulthood.
Bill Mitchell| 10.20.10 @ 6:18PM
If the Democrat Agenda has worked, what would failure look like? If 10% unemployment is winning, what does losing look like? The democrats have been in charge for 4 years. What did the economy look like 4 years ago? How does it look now?
Just give us more time they say. I think 4 years is enough. The Democrats claim they are trying to get the car out of the ditch, but actually they are just spinning their wheels and digging us in deeper.
Buzz| 10.20.10 @ 6:24PM
My plan - cut what you can get away with cutting, politically. It won't be much but it'll be a lot more than it was a few years ago. Slow the growth of the other stuff. And most of all follow pro-growth policies that'll lead to increased revenue. Your plan - tell people we're going to cut stuff that we'd never be able to cut, even if we did win the elections, which we won't thanks to your stupid plan.
Kate Stonehedge| 10.20.10 @ 6:29PM
70% or more of those "expenditures" fund bureaucracy. One might think that "shrinking the bureaucracy" would could save a lot of money. Fewer bureaucrats means fewer regulations, less interference with people's lives, more profits for companies and generally a better life for Americans. The small number of really important things, could be handled by some strategy other than hiring armies of the unemployable at exorbitant salaries with ridiculous benefits.
DanMan| 10.20.10 @ 6:31PM
Man where was this curiousity about budgets two years ago? Matter of fact since we're three weeks into the FY2011 spending with not one single budgetary appropriation settled from any department (ahem, we are spending on autopilot) I'd like to know why there is no curiousity about the budget NOW!
Anything is better than this except more of it.
TallDave | 10.20.10 @ 6:33PM
45% of GDP is too much. Government is way too big.
Here's some good places to start cutting:
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/
jarjar| 11.4.10 @ 7:31PM
Most of their suggestions are parochial, distant and unrealistic. You can't approach a local problem with a hammer, you have to use a scalpel.
Kman| 10.20.10 @ 6:35PM
Don't get it do you Phil. People out here would actually consider letting the government raise taxes it the government got SERIOUS about using it to directly pay down the debt and if the government shows that it is serious in shifting the momentum BIG TIME in cutting down spending EVERYWHERE. They want to see a the political will being shown for enacting comprehensive across-the-board plan for bringing down the Federal Budget Deficit. They don't want to see more programs and more spending. They want to see the political will being shown for creating a much more efficient government (why is NOBODY talking about cutting the waste in gvmnt agencies and making them more efficient or cutting agencies altogether that really don't help the American people in any way). We also need to be vigorously promoting a fair trade (vs. purely free trade) with nations -- no more other Nations freeloading off of us. We need to be vigorously defending our intellectual property rights (e.g. there is MASSIVE stealing of our US product bases by other Nations that costs us hundreds of BILLIONS a year). We need to encourage much more R and D growth in this country and GREATLY encourage much more Science, Math and Technology education and development in the US (this is where the future money growth is)
robtr| 10.20.10 @ 6:36PM
Here is what will happen right after the election.
1.Defund Obamacare=$1 Trillion Savings over 10 years.
2. Freeze public employee benefits and salaries=$380 Billion over ten years.
3. reduce public employee hiring through attrician=$340 Billion 10 year savings.
4. return balance of failed stimulus to the treasure=$350 Billion first year savings.
5. Repeal Obama's job killing policies and give businesses a sense of security instead of constant attacks by Obama resulting in 5% unemployment=increased revenues of $650 Billion per year.
That's just the start but it cancels out the monstorous deficit created by democrats.
Michael Campbell| 10.20.10 @ 8:54PM
How do those things cancel 1.4 trill per YEAR? its like 2.8 trillion over 2 years so it removes 280b off of 1.4t each year.
Sandy Salt | 10.20.10 @ 7:23PM
I am fine with freezing ALL spending at the 2008 level and then an across the board pay cut for all federal empolyees of 10%. I would exempt the military from the paycut, but they have to reduce the number of flag officers by 1/3 and reduce the flag staffs by 1/2. This would have an immediate effect on our expenditures and show we are serious. Then we could go department by department and weed out those that don't achieve their intended goals and reduce their staff salaries to be in-line with their civilian counterparts. You put Washington on a diet and do lypo to suck the fat out. Once you prove you are serious about reducing spending and balancing the budget, you enact a 2% national sales tax that is solely for paying off the national debt and sunsets when that happens. You wrap this in a nice amendment bow and shove it down Washington's throat.
CalMark| 10.20.10 @ 10:16PM
In just one year, Obama and his Congressional co-conspirators increased Federal spending by about $1 trillion (mind boggling!) over Bush's biggest Dem-Congress budget, which was $300 billion more than the Bush-GOP's biggest-ever. If we go back to 2006 levels, that's $1.3 trillion.
Second, eliminate duplicate and overlapping executive branch programs. Consolidate Constitutionally-justifiable programs, and start defunding Unconstitutional ones, then fire the bureaucrats left with nothing to do and sell or raze the buildings they used to work in. That's probably good for close to another trillion.
See? That's $2 trillion+. Just like golf: simple to understand, hard to execute. Politically, it just takes guts. Too bad Mitch McConnell & John Boehner have none.
cobra327| 10.21.10 @ 7:01AM
Agree that McConnell & Boehner lack the guts to execute any change.
They are like a mythical airline crew that flies the plane into a mountain and kills everyone aboard but themselves. The next day the airline (the voters) gives them another plane full of people.
What makes anyone think that the people who got us here are going to change when they are a majority (new plane)?
jelly | 10.21.10 @ 4:27AM
Hi ,I can not agree with what you have mentioned any more ,that is :there are a lot of moving parts in the budget. If the economy should improve, for instance, revenues would go up and spending on such programs as unemployment benefits would naturally increase, helping to narrow the deficit. But over time, the trends are obvious!
gearjammer| 10.21.10 @ 6:41AM
Make the pie bigger and the slice of pie the government takes smaller. Sooner or later a big fight with unions will be essential. we must bar public employees from being unionized or at least offer right to work to those so inclined. This is headed in an ugly direction. There will be blood and I wonder if pantywaist conservatives and turn the other cheek Christians are up for the rumble. So of you would rather not interrupt your golf game. No, in the end the democrats will win they'll go to the mattress and cut throats , if need be. The only bloodless way is an economic boycott but these will lead to severe economic problems and falling portfolios and other economic havoc. No the republicans and most of the tea party imps will fold once the democrats and the wild and crazy left and activists get hot and angry. The best hope for the future is a Balkanized USA and a sane but strong 30 per cent or so will manage to live the American way. We need to start carving out our territory and boundaries now. We will need a powerful military. Recruit warriors ASAP. We only have 10 years.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.21.10 @ 8:30AM
This article by Philip Klein is utterly ridiculous. It seems that it is Mr Klein who lives in a fantasyland.
Firstly, defense spending (or even total military spending) does not (and did not as of FY2009) constitute 19% of the federal budget. Not even close. It actually constituted less than 16% in FY2009. In FY2010 it accounted for 14.87% of the total federal budget, and Obama's requested FY2011 federal budget would further reduce defense's share to just 14.31% of the total federal budget.
Even total military spending did not and does not constitute 19% - just 18% as of FY2010, and will constitute less than that in FY2011 if Obama's proposed federal budget becomes law.
Klein was also wrong to claim that defense spending amounts to $655 billion. It does not. Not even close. He has SIGNIFICANTLY exaggerated the size of the defense budget. The FY2009 DOD budget constituted $513 billion; the FY2010 DOD budget, $534 billion. For FY2011, Obama has proposed a $549 billion DOD budget (which means real-terms growth of just 1.8%).
The only people exaggerating the size of the defense budget are 1) those who know nothing about defense spending; and 2) those who are deliberately exaggerating it to make the DOD look bad. Which group does Philip Klein belong to?
Teebee| 10.21.10 @ 12:36PM
Zbigniew, you are dead wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....ted_States
Vann| 10.21.10 @ 1:02PM
Probably an easy mistake to make. That little trick of hiding two wars off the books isn't well publicized. Especially not on conservative radio, I'm sure.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.23.10 @ 5:20AM
Hiding? The DOD is not hiding the cost of those 2 wars. That cost is, and has always been, on the books. Like or dislike the Pentagon, that is a fact. Every year, the DOD publicly requested (for the next fiscal year) $ X as a defense budget and $ Y as a supplemental to finance 2 wars of nationbuilding (one of which ended on August 31st).
For FY2010, the X figure was $534 bn and the Y figure was $130 bn. The source:
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652
But even combining those 2 figures doesn't make the military budget the largest item in the total federal budget, nor does it make the DOD the department with the largest budget. The DHHS is. By its own admission, it had a $859 bn budget in FY2010 and for FY2011, it has requested a budget of ca. $910 bn, most of which will pay for 2 bloated entitlement programs. The third entitlement, the SS program, cost $696 bn in FY2010 and will cost $730 bn during FY2011 if reforms are not enacted immediately.
The only ones hiding are you guys - you and Teebee. You're hiding behind nicknames, because you're too cowardly to debate me under your real names.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 10.23.10 @ 5:14AM
No, it is you who is dead wrong. Wikipedia is a ridiculous pseudosource produced by leftist folks who are biased against the DOD, the US military, and the US as a country. By using it as a source, you have utterly discredited yourself.
The sources I use are official US government websites. According to the official website of the DOD, the DOD's FY2010 budget was $534 billion, and for FY2010, the DOD also requested (and received) a $130 bn supplemental for the Iraqi war and the Afghan war. This combined expenditure of $664 billion is far below the level claimed by Wikipedia, and it constituted a paltry 18% of the federal budget, not the 19% that Philip Klein claimed. It constituted only 4.5% of GDP, far less than the amount Wikipedia claimed. For Wikipedia, the ultimate authority on defense budget issues is the antimilitary MA Congressman Barney Frank, the chief culprit of the current economic crisis.
The defense budget itself (as differentiaed from the GWOT supplemental, whichhas nothing to do with America's defense and is rather used to finance wars of nationbuilding) constituted only $534 bn, which amounted to just 14.87% of the total FY2010 federal budget, and only 3.65% of GDP.
By far the largest item in the federal budget is the total budget of the DHHS, which costinttued over $850 bn in FY2010 and for FY20111, the DHHS has requested $910 bn. The largest single program in the federal budget is the SS program, whose FY2010 cost was $696 bn, more than military spending.
The DOD is being used as a whipping boy by liberal politicians, columnists and posters who are refusing to endorse reductions of the costs of the real culprits of America's fiscal woes - entitlement programs, bloated bureaucracies, and federal subsidy programs (there are over 2,000 such programs).
The only people who are exaggerating the DOD's budget are those who don't know what they're talking about, and those who desire to deliberately exaggerate it to dupe the American public into another round of misguided defense cuts.
The DOD's real budget:
http://www.defense.gov/release.....seid=12652
Bob| 10.22.10 @ 6:24PM
We could start by only spending money on things authorized by the actual text of the constitution. We've been allowing the government to get away with the position that "the constitution says whatever we want it to say". That's gotten us into a mess and we need to put an end to it.
comprises| 11.7.10 @ 11:25AM
Philip Klein - before you next write an article pointing out the flaws in other people's thinking, please learn how to use the word 'comprised.' Hint: NEVER 'comprised of.' Should be basic knowledge for any writer.