.
.
.
.
.
Unusually, I am not trying to advocate any position in this post, but simply pointing out that few if any of us are willing to make the hard decisions that must be made about our economic future. This is an exercise I would like all of you to try and do. The pie chart above comes the the Congressional Office of Management & Budget – it will always be argued that politics impacts the presentation of statistics, but this pie chart should reflect something pretty close to reality – certainly for the purposes of this exercise.
You have now been appointed the Uber DIrector of All that is Good and Right and now have the duty and the authority to balance our nation’s budget. To be successful, you will have to reduce spending by 30%. Understand that even if you are successful in reaching your goal, you will have merely balanced this year’s budget and will have done nothing to reduce our existing debt which will still continue to incur interest. In addition, the “remainder” section includes our debt payment (6.5%) and also includes infrastructure maintenance on things like water quality, sewer systems and roads, freeways and bridges. If you think that it is all the fault of the “rich” you can tax every dollar of income above $1,000,000, but that will only gain you a .05 reduction on the budget. Good luck and please show your work:
Health Services – Currently 18% – reduction -____
Pensions – Currently 16% – reduction- ______
Defense – Currently 16% – reduction – _________
Education – Currently 14% – reduction – ____________
Welfare – Currently – 11% – reduction – ______________
Remainder – Currently – 25% – reduction – ______________
Total Reduction ____________
Remember, the total reduction has to be at least 30% or we all lose.
First of all I would ask, why does it have to be 30%? Seems like a very lofty goal, but… let’s see how close we can get.
I was going to cut healthcare spending modestly by adding the competitive, “robust” public option to Obamacare like it should have been. But after consideration and remembering that I’m now Uber Director of All that is Good and Right, I will instead quickly move us to a single-payer system like civilized nations have. I know, insurance execs and conservative ideologues will squawk for a while, but after a few years they’ll quiet down, and then after a few more years they’ll be defending it tooth and nail against anyone who wants to mess with it – like British and Canadian conservatives do.
How many percent does that save? I don’t have the figures right now, I’m too busy cutting more, hopefully anonster or someone could help.
Offhand I’d cut defense at least 50%. We don’t need to be the world’s policeman. We don’t need more bombers and nukes. We just had our greatest foreign policy triumph in quite some time, just using smart, well-trained Navy Seals. I imagine we could cut most of our defense budget, we’d still be paying many times more than the next runner-up.
Slash agricultural subsidies, slash subsidies for the oil companies and other corporate welfare. On the other hand, invest in our infrastructure for this century – that’ll be a long-term gain. And yes, we can restore the rates on the rich back to at least what they were under Clinton, that’ll help a lot and it won’t hurt them.
Add in some reasonable pension reform, and my job is done here. *wipes hands, walks away*
“Show your work?” For now, look at “the People’s Budget,” from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it’s close enough to what I proposed. Except mine saves even more with single-payer.
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70§iontree=5,70
Krugman on it http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/the-progressive-budget-alternative/
“I’ve been remiss in not calling attention to the budget proposal from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It’s not going to happen — but then neither is the Ryan plan. And unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense.
“The CPC plan essentially balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall mainly on higher incomes, although not just on the top 2%: super-brackets for very high incomes, elimination of deductions, taxation of capital income as ordinary income, and — the part that would be most controversial — raising the cap on payroll taxes.
“None of this is economically outlandish. Marginal tax rates on high incomes would rise substantially — enough to make even liberal economists slightly uncomfortable — but the historical evidence suggests that the incentive effects wouldn’t be too severe. Overall taxes as a share of GDP aren’t given, but they would clearly remain well below European levels.
“It’s worth pointing out that if you want to balance the budget in 10 years, you pretty much must do it largely by cutting defense and raising taxes; you can’t make huge cuts in the rest of the budget without inflicting extreme pain on millions of Americans. So the CPC plan is actually much more of a real response to the deficit worriers than all the nonsense we’re hearing from the right. What it doesn’t do is address the long-run health cost issue, which is essential looking beyond the next decade. But as a medium-term proposal, it’s quite sensible.
“My guess, in fact, is that in the end we’ll do something along these lines, although probably with more of the tax burden falling on the middle class.
“So why does this plan get no attention, while the cruel fantasies of the right get headlines? I’ll leave that as a question for readers.
“Update: Aha. Although I couldn’t find share of GDP in the working paper, it’s right there on the home page. Revenues are 22.3 percent of GDP in 2021. That’s 3 points higher than what Ryan claims his plan would produce, although he hasn’t explained how he’s going to make up for those $3 trillion in tax cuts for the rich.
“This would be a record level of revenue for the peacetime federal government, but it would still leave the overall tax take, including state and local, far below levels in most other advanced countries. And the point is that this would balance the budget without the savage cuts assumed in the Republican plan, or even the still painful cuts in the Obama plan. We supposedly face a fiscal crisis; why shouldn’t significant tax hikes be part of the response?”
30% reflects cuts that would balance the budget – i.e. would we no longer be spending more that we take in. I don’t think your proposed cuts are anywhere near 30%. By the way, cutting ONLY 30% does nothing to cut the current debt.
“but this pie chart should reflect something pretty close to reality”………. Hmmmm
To me it represents PIZZA and I want to eat it.
The BUMPER:
“By the way, cutting ONLY 30% does nothing to cut the current debt.”
Why do we need to guarantee a 100% payback to the big banks and foreign countries that bought our bonds when they decide to sell or redeem them. Instead, we can use the free market to manage our debts – if someone thinks the USA is a risky investment they can sell and help drive the price of bonds down – then the Feds can buy them back at a big savings.
Heath ……………18% …….. 3%……..15%
Pensions ……….16% …….. 4%……..12%
Defense ………..16% ……..19%……… -3
Education………14% ……….0% …….14%
Welfare …………11% ……….11% ……. 0
Balance ………..25% ……….25% ……. 0
Debt reduction….0 …………..1% ……..-1
Total ……………100 …………63 ……… 37
The left over 7 percent can be returned in lower taxes
The local unions say the cost of the health and pension are only 3 and 4 percent, so lets go with the union numbers.
Defense needs a raise
Education is a local and state job only
Welfare ?
Balance ?
Need debt reduction
Not to forget the taxpayers, a 7 percent return.
And for all of those who think the cuts are too much to bare, they are free to donate their 7 percent and match with more out of their own pockets.
First off, this chart is not a Federal spending chart (note to cook, the Fed education budget is 3%) but some sort of fed,state,city compilation, which makes this whole exercise meaningless as the state and local governments have different obligations than the federal govt.
Secondly,he posits this ALL as a spending problem while I see a lot of it as a revenue problem, much of this debt has been added since Reagan and is due to foolish tax cutting and increased military spending.
Geoff mentions taxing the rich, but doesn’t mention going after corporations to get them to start paying their fair share. Furthermore I question his math;
” If you think that it is all the fault of the “rich” you can tax every dollar of income above $1,000,000, but that will only gain you a .05 reduction on the budget.”
He wants us to show our work, yet doesn’t give any criterion for his. Remember, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy for 2 more years added 700 billion to the national debt.
Depending how serious we are about eliminating the debt raising taxes on the rich could bring in quite alot.
From Robert Reich;
“If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were taxed a half century ago, they’d be paying some $350 billion more this year in federal taxes. That would be trillions of dollars over the next decade — a major contribution to eliminating the deficit.
Meanwhile, capital gains and dividends — a big chunk of their income — were taxed at 35 percent as recently as the late 1980s. Now, they’re taxed at 15 percent. And the estate tax has now vanished for estates under $5 million or $10 million a couple.”
Geoff also doesn’t mention our economy’s potential for growing our way out of debt like we did after WWII.
Fixing our trade policies and investing in infrastructure, new technologies and education could jump start our economy, sometimes you have to spend money to make money.
Exactly as I expected. Not even a single cut from Anonster. And by the way, you forgot to mention that the Bush tax cuts for the not “rich” added up to $3 trillion but I don’t hear liberals complaining about that. And we do have a spending problem. I believe one study shows that for every dollar we take in, we spend $1.17. That means the more we make, the more we spend. That’s what has left us in the mess we’re in now.
First off, this chart is not a Federal spending chart (note to cook, the Fed education budget is 3%) but some sort of fed,state,city compilation…
Ha, no wonder it looked so strange. I wondered why defense looked so small and education looked so big. I suppose I should fact check everything my right wingers put up… if I only had the time. Let me see if there IS a pie chart for Federal spending. I bet my cuts DO get a lot closer to the magical 30% (assuming that were necessary.)
From the same site, if you look hard enough (and this IS a site, usgovernmentspending.com, with an agenda…)
Now THAT’s pretty different! Education ain’t 14%, it’s 3% like anonster said. And DEFENSE is about a quarter of our federal spending according to this chart. (When you factor in expenses for past military adventures, as you’ll see in the chart below from a group with a DIFFERENT agenda, warresisters.org, more than half of our spending is military-related.)
In any case it looks like my defense slashes and health care reform get us a good deal of the way to 30%.
Don’t forget now as you are cutting pensions and healthcare, those are different names for Social Security and Medicare.
So does Cook really think that these can be cut 70% or more and have that pass?
Everything has to be on the table, Taxes, defense, Social Security( Pensions), Health Care,
Medicare.
You cannot realistically cut defence anywhere near as much as Vern would propose either, but deep cuts will be needed to get anywhere near balance.
I doubt if a deal will happen to get on a track to a balance budget, but as the other option is high inflation resulting in a signifigant drop in the value of the dollar, I would hope all sides would reconsider.
Much better pie charts, Vern.
The military portion is quite large because of the world wide operations.
Cutting spending to get a 30 percent saving is the same as freezing spending and increasing income by 30 percent.
Since more than 50 percent is spent on world wide police force, a new source of income should be enacted. The world wide police force tax collected from the United Nations and payable to the US Treasury.
US spending…………..3,819 billion (2011)
US income …………….2,174 billion (2011)
Shortfall ………………1,645 43% 43 percent is not 30 percent
Defense spending at 54% 2,062 billion (from the colorfull chart above)
Collect from UN 2,062 billion
Less shortfall -1,645 billion
Debt reduction 417 billion
National debt 10,,856 billion
26 year payoff @417 per year
You have your spending, deficit elimination, and debt reduction all in one.
Vern, it looks like you have uncovered a fraudulent post in that the breakdown of the federal budget given in the original post is erroneous according to the data you posted in response. Suggest you investigate whether this was just an honest mistake, or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent and whip up sentiment about the posters’ pet peeves (such as health care, pensions and welfare). If the later, a trip to the woodshed would seem to be in order.
Credit where it’s due, to the indefatigable anonster. Although I also had an old Mater Dei High School friend call me up yesterday saying “Vern, that chart looks weird, and I think it’s from a teabagger site.” And I was all, “Dude, get on – anonymously if you want – and state your case! I’m on the bus right now.” So if you’re reading this, “Son of Liberty,” you should be commenting here.
Vern. Was that OLD Mater Dei friend Matt C?
I always knew you had similar roots
Dude, #1 matt C went to Servite, MD’s rival.
#2 Why would Matt C (if he’s still involved in politics at all after all his face-plants) want to cue me off to a pie-chart skewed toward pension-slashing warmongers?
#3 You are so far off.
Comrade Vern,
Have you ever been sexually abused by priests in thr Mater Dei?
Do you want to share with us your pain?
Neither Chart look entirely accurate, I beleive ABC has one on thier site that is correct. it was put up sometime a couple of months ago.
Here is a link to real data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
Further information: Government spending
The President’s budget request for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:[8]
Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
US receipt and expenditure estimates for fiscal year 2010.Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%-NA) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%-NA) – Potential disaster costs
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other
My point of this exercise has actually been made well through this dialogue. The left will immediately argue about the validity of the numbers, the dominance of defense and a whole myriad of other issues without showing ANY willingness to CUT anything except defense. In fact, many of the posters go one step farther and argue that we should increase spending. This is the problem with the debate – the left is more than willing to spend other people’s money.
Really. That is your answer.
I was led to believe (more fool me) that these were the federal numbers. Especially when you started with something like (I’m not looking) “unusually I’m not making a particular case here….”
I guess we are not speaking to each other on the same level.
Not only that, I offered a lot of savings beside defense cuts. And … do I have this right – you intended this all as a big prank?
Hmmmm, my comment was up and then it dissappeared.
Am I being “wished” out into the cornfield?
“Am I being ‘wished’ out into the cornfield?”………. Hmmmm
How about purgatory?…. Huh?
didn’t see it, can you put it up again
Grr…grumble..censors..grumble…..grumble..stay-outa-the-kitchen…grumble..grumble..grumble
My “missing” post merely pointed out how Geoff’s “exercise” said far more about his character than anything else, he either knowingly or unknowingly posted false and misleading information, yet he seems proud and unrepentant.
I’ve always known that a certain element among conservatives don’t care much for facts and figures (Fox News) that they deliberately lie, misinform and muddy-the-waters in order to persuade their audience, but I thought the OJ had higher standards.
Oh and Geoff,
“The left will immediately argue about the validity of the numbers”
You bet we will, especially when they’re MISLEADING and WRONG.
I made no comment on the changes to the budget in my post, I just was showing the breakdown of the current 2010 budget compared to the 2009 budget the % changes are actual changes already in place.. The link I provided lets one go back further and compare past years if you want.
The only proposed increases I read above are the single payer proposal, which will greatly decrease health costs for the country as a whole, but will increase the federal role in providing care.
And Cooks proposal to increase defense spending.
other than that did not see any increases.
I am for cutting spending in all areas in a balanced and reasonable fashion.
I also think that the Bush tax cuts for the top income levels should end and we need some serious tax reform to get rid of the mulitple levels of deductions so that everyone rate can be lower in the future after we balance the budget and pay down some of the debt.
Again, you are all have it wrong and that is why we have perpetuating crises.
Firstly, you must determine what size of the Pizza you want: small, medium or large;
Secondly, you put money together and pay for the whole Pizza, and;
Then and only then you start to divide the Pizza into slices.
When did you ever start dividing a Pizza which was not payed for and you had no money to pay for it?……… Huh?
You are all pathetic.
Where does pizza fit in the “spiral of life?”
They are both circular where Chicago Pizza is Milan Pizza 360 deg. higher in crust.
In addition without Milan Pizza there wouldn’t be Chicago Pizza.
If you have any further question about the the “spiral of life” please do not hesitate to ask.
So where does NY or Boston Pizza fit in this “spiral?”
As you know Fawkes, and respect your native wisdom, your Crow Band is proud of you. The NY or Boston Pizza is on the spiral of life positioned in order first come first serve so look down the spiral for the Buffalo Pita-Bread which is predecessor of the Buffalo Pizza.
Everything is on the spiral just look for it.
Without the following songs there wouldn’t be BEATLES!
The BUMBER
I should add Fawkes, that it is this Crow’s Band war songs which are directly responsible for war in Afghanistan and Iraq because we have not looked at the spiral of life.
If we would we would see that it is cumming.
I should add Fawkes, that same as in the “spiral of life” here too each Pizza slice size influences the following slice and if they do not fit within the 360 deg. of the Pizza size the new circular Pizza is form in spiral motion above the bottom Pizza.
That is why politicians often refer to the budget as spiraling budget.
However Fawkes, if you really want to know how does Pizza fit in the “spiral of life?” please listen carefully to the lyric by Dean Martin above in my BUMPER.
It explains relationship between Pizza, Moon, Love, Sex, Procreation, Wine, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
……. and all that repeats from generation to generation…… hopefully in upward circular motion called “spiral of life”
So the beauty of the “spiral of life” will gave you an answer to your future.
Just look down and find similar situation in which you are in, and you will see what led to it and what will happen next unless you make correction.
For example: You can look way, way down to Greece’s Democracy, and you will find same debate about the budget, from that you can see on spiral of life what did happen to Greece due to their corruption, leftism, socialism, embracing homosexuality which led to it and where they are now, and there is where you will be soon if you will do same as they did except on a higher level.
So, Geoff. Were you really being purposely deceptive, or just sloppy, presenting this as federal spending? I do feel stupid falling for it. I should have known better. Would you say we should always be skeptical of your posts, especially when you start with “Unusually, I am not trying to advocate any position”?
“I do feel stupid falling for it.”……… Hmmmm
Is it your first time comrade Vern?…… or is it chronic?
I frequently feel stupid. Would you rather read a blogger who always thinks he’s smart?
sure!….. how about Dan Chmielewski, Chris Prevatt and our own Winships.
Vern, you are missing the point of the entire exercise. I picked what I thought was a neutral report of spending. The exact breakdown of the percentages of each column should have obviously been viewed as gross approximations given that a 10,000 page budget was broken down into six categories.
The point of the exercise was to point out that no one on either side seems to be willing to face the real problem – that we have to have a smaller government or we are creating a debt problem that will never be resolved.
Instead of focusing on the fact that government has grown too big you try and change the focus and the discussion by attacking me. Nice try.
Well, it was much more than a “gross approximation,” that’s for sure. With defense cut in half, a magically big federal education budget, and Medicare and Social Security disguised as “pensions” and “health care.”
But our dumbfounded reaction to that is “attacking you”? Very victimy.
I’m pretty sure that you didn’t know that this wasn’t a federal pie chart, but rather than admit a mistake you’re going to try and resurrect and stick by this dishonest and partisan piece of crap like it was some sort of honest approximation of federal spending.
“The exact breakdown of the percentages of each column should have obviously been viewed as gross approximations…”
That’s REALLY the story you’re going with?
Is listing education at 14% when it is really 3% EVEN close?
11% for welfare, THE FEDERAL GOVT. DOESN’T EVEN MAKE WELFARE PAYMENTS! That’s some “approximation”!
16% for pensions, really? I’d like to see that backed up with some facts and figures, you know as in SHOWING YOUR WORK!
This kind of chicanery is why morons on the right end up thinking that NPR gets 5% of the budget or that foreign aid is 20 or 25% of our budget rather than the 0.6% we actually spend.
The only thing “obvious” about this post was that it’s based on falsehoods and that Geoff is defending those falsehoods.
So what percentage of a liar does that make you, Geoff?
Stan, can I borrow a slice of pizza from you in case I get hungery later ? I will issue you a personal 30 year bond for it !!!!
All that food talk made me hungry.
I love your posts sometimes, the pizza one you just used is great.
I mostly appreciate his insider tips that, for example, KGB-style waterboarding produces erotic asphyxiation. It is for such privileged knowledge we keep him around.
Please do not try it in the bath top under the faucet
There is special training for which I have KGB certification.
They will tell you everything!
Right before the climax, just before they start screaming O’ my god….. O’ my god…..; then you cut of the water and let them suffer.
Then they talk like canary.
More water,……. More water,……. More water,…….
With your 30 year bond Jim, I can sell you only one olive from the topping.
LOL