I disagree. In the private sector, the onus is placed on the person requesting increased funding to justify the need for the increase. It's not up to others to root around in the numbers, searching for areas of waste or padding.

 

Other administrations have controlled the growth of federal spending far more effectively. In my opinion, the root cause of the increase was that the President failed to set an appropriate and consistent tone early with Congress that spending discipline was expected and would be required to pass legislation. Even though federal budgets ballooned from $2 trillion to nearly $2.8 trillion during the period of Republican control of Congress, I don't recall much emphasis on spending discipline by the White House until the Democrats took control of Congress. Bush did not use his veto power until well into his second term, and 9 out of his 10 vetoes have taken place in the last year, in the period since the GOP lost control of Congress. The impression one is left with is that generous federal spending was lavished on the Congress, in an effort to ensure GOP reelection.

 

Good post. Totally agree.

I disagree. In the private sector, the onus is placed on the person requesting increased funding to justify the need for the increase. It's not up to others to root around in the numbers, searching for areas of waste or padding.

 

Other administrations have controlled the growth of federal spending far more effectively. In my opinion, the root cause of the increase was that the President failed to set an appropriate and consistent tone early with Congress that spending discipline was expected and would be required to pass legislation. Even though federal budgets ballooned from $2 trillion to nearly $2.8 trillion during the period of Republican control of Congress, I don't recall much emphasis on spending discipline by the White House until the Democrats took control of Congress. Bush did not use his veto power until well into his second term, and 9 out of his 10 vetoes have taken place in the last year, in the period since the GOP lost control of Congress. The impression one is left with is that generous federal spending was lavished on the Congress, in an effort to ensure GOP reelection.

 

First of all, it is rather naive, is it not, to equate the federal govt with the private sector. If you honestly think that the federal govt can be ran like a private business there is no reason to debate this issue. Unlike private businesses, there are a lot of very powerful players in the federal govt that have the ability to stop the funding process of specific necessary projects if you don't take care of their "pet" projects. It would be like a CEO not getting to set the budget unless the VPs of finance, IT, HR, Marketing, Production, Operations, Distribution all approved of the budget. it doesn't work that way. But if it was to happen that way, each of those VPs could have the ability to stop the budget unless that VP got what he wanted for his/her department. And trust me, that is not found in the private sector. But it is what we have with the federal govt budget process. And unfortunately and sadly, the approval of those key power brokers in Congress often times have to be bought by agreeing to fund their pet projects.

 

Second, if you are going to criticize the elected officials for their spending habits, then you should be able to point to specifics which you have failed to do. Back up your criticisms with specifics which was the original point of this thread. Amazingly, not one person critical of the federal govt spending has done so yet. Maybe you are right in your criticisms. But just saying that they have wastefully ballooned the budget isn't very convincing. Back up your claims with specifics. Heck, you may be right, but convince me with facts. That's all I'm asking.

 

As for other administrations controlling spending, I know of none other in recent times facing the issues this administration has faced since 9/11. Homeland Defense and the Iraq War has been a HUGE cost (with the Iraqi war itself exceeding 600 billion). Is it totally responsible for all the increase in spending? Of course not. But at times, I think Bush has been forced to succumb to the spending requests of various Congressperson (Dems and Reps) in order to get their support for the issues he wanted funded. At first blush, I wish he would have said "baloney, I'm not going to approve the pork". However, that would have been at a huge risk and I think Bush held his nose and let the pork in in order to get his funding needs satisfied. Perhaps he shouldn't have, but given the dollars needed for Homeland Defense and Iraq, I think he almost had to hold his nose. Given a line item veto, I think you'd have seen a much smaller budget right now.

 

But again, show me the specifics as to where the money went; what programs received the increased funding; what projects could have been cut; and perhaps more importantly and being practical, what would the chances have been that the cutting of those programs could have been approved by Congress? Heck, when the military proposes to close bases it no longer needs in order to save money, what happens? Key Congresspersons try to block the closings.

 

Just give me the facts to support the criticism. I'm not even saying you and the other people complaining that the budget is way out of control are even wrong. I'm just a good little lawyer who wants to know the facts behind the argument before I accept the argument. That's all.

Homeland Defense and the Iraq War has been a HUGE cost (with the Iraqi war itself exceeding 600 billion).

I have a question. In the past, wars have increased government costs, but it was usually helpful to the private sector and economy in general. For example, we began to come out of the depression when our factories started gearing up for the lend-lease program before WWII. What's different today?

Homeland Defense and the Iraq War has been a HUGE cost (with the Iraqi war itself exceeding 600 billion).

I have a question. In the past, wars have increased government costs, but it was usually helpful to the private sector and economy in general. For example, we began to come out of the depression when our factories started gearing up for the lend-lease program before WWII. What's different today?

 

I was talking about that same topic to a friend last week. Only thing I can think of is that today, the economy is so much more globalized than it was in the 30's. That and the fact that without the war spending, our economy would be suffering more than it is.

I am sure that my answer will seem harsh to you. If a state does not provide adequate services for its citizens, then they can either move, work to improve the system, or do as you have done and find a private alternative. It is much easier for an individual to make a difference at the state and local level than at the federal level. Most of us have no realistic shot at influencing or unseating a US Senator or Representative, but we can make life tough for an incompetent or corrupt school board member.

 

 

But you run into a problem with states like Kentucky where BOE members have little power if the Super. is corrupt and has 3 BOE members in his/her pocket. Those 3 districts get all the upgrades etc. so those BOE members will not be voted out.

 

 

If the state has a strong OEA your idea is great, but if it has one as weak as Kentucky's is now......well

But you run into a problem with states like Kentucky where BOE members have little power if the Super. is corrupt and has 3 BOE members in his/her pocket. Those 3 districts get all the upgrades etc. so those BOE members will not be voted out.

 

 

If the state has a strong OEA your idea is great, but if it has one as weak as Kentucky's is now......well

I think that you missed two of my three options. Or as a former manager of mine liked to say, "You can either get mad and leave or you can get mad and stay." A fish rots from the head and the federal fish has a much bigger head than a local fish. If citizens in a community are ignorant of problems in their own schools or simply apathetic, then there is not much hope of improving the schools. However, most parents and taxpayers care enough about their own children's education to work for change. When rules are pushed down from Washington, it is much more difficult for anybody to affect change.

 

I think the mistake that many liberals who advocate large federal programs make is buying into the proposition that people in Washington, D. C., are smarter and more honest than the people in their own communities. My experience has been that people are pretty much the same everywhere. Federal crooks are just less accountable and less visible than local crooks. If you live in a community where people are less smart than the politicians and bureaucrats in DC, then I suggest moving to a better neighborhood. :lol:

I took a look at the budget numbers, comparing FY2002 (Bush's first budget) to FY2009 (his most recent). The projected deficit for 2009 is $400 billion (projected receipts are $2.7 trillion, budgetted spending is $3.1 trillion). Using the Consumer Price Index to project what the 2002 expenditures would be in 2009, I came up with a rough multiplier of 1.23 (that is, multiply 2002 budget numbers by 1.23 to get the inflation-adjusted equivalent expenditure in 2009 dollars). By my calculations, approximately $141 billion from the 2009 budget is over and above what I consider appropriate inflation-adjusted spending levels. That represents about 35% of the projected FY2009 deficit. Some noteworthy components of that $141 are $70 billion in increased Medicare spending (due to the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit that Bush signed in Dec 2003), $72 billion in interest on the debt that wouldn't be required had the budget been balanced on average from 2002-2008 (remember, Bush inherited a surplus when he came into office), nearly $4 billion in excess Dept of Education spending, $12.5 billion in excess State Dept and International Aid spending, and an estimated $10 billion in wasteful Homeland Security spending. These actually add to more than $141 billion, and that is because there were some corresponding reductions in several areas totaling about $35 billion.

 

That $70 billion cost for the Medicare prescription drug benefit may actually be understated by $30 billion or so as the White House budget office in 2005 estimated the 10-year cost of this entitlement to be $1.2 trillion. However, I did not include that additional amount in my calculations.

 

There was also an unspecified $39 billion in off-budget discretionary spending in the FY2009 budget that I could not find a match for in the 2002 budget. Whatever it is, I also did not include it in my estimated overspending amount.

 

Reviewing the budget numbers made me realize:

 

1. How costly Social Security is ($644 billion in the 2009 budget, up from $452 in 2002)
   
2. How costly other non-discretionary entitlement spending is--Medicaid and SCHIP are $224 billion (up from $142 billion in 2002), Unemployment and Welfare are $360 billion (up from $260 billion in 2002).
   
3. How much the Iraq War is costing in total each year:
   

• The special line item in the 2009 budget calls for $145 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan (Iraq is probably more than 90% of this total).
  
• Defense spending which does not include the above is $515 billion for 2009, which is $134 billion more than the 2002 amount adjusted for inflation (I believe there is plenty of justification to think that since we're not adding carrier battle groups to the Navy or buying a batch of B2's for the Air Force that the majority of this increase goes to pay the costs of our continued occupation in Iraq).
  
• Veterans Affairs spending is $16.5 billion more than the 2002 amount adjusted for inflation (Tens of thousands of combat-injured vets require care).
  
• Summing my numbers above up, I estimate the on budget, reasonably attributable cost of the Iraq war (assumption being 90% of incremental spending over 2002 is due to Iraq, not Afghanistan) is a whopping $266 billion per year.
  

 

 

Add the $266 billion for Iraq to the $141 I came up with above and, voila, the $407 billion in savings erases the FY 2009 budget deficit, in spite of substantially higher mandatory entitlement spending.

Edited May 31, 200818 yr by H

I took a look at the budget numbers, comparing FY2002 (Bush's first budget) to FY2009 (his most recent). The projected deficit for 2009 is $400 billion (projected receipts are $2.7 trillion, budgetted spending is $3.1 trillion). Using the Consumer Price Index to project what the 2002 expenditures would be in 2009, I came up with a rough multiplier of 1.23 (that is, multiply 2002 budget numbers by 1.23 to get the inflation-adjusted equivalent expenditure in 2009 dollars). By my calculations, approximately $141 billion from the 2009 budget is over and above what I consider appropriate inflation-adjusted spending levels. That represents about 35% of the projected FY2009 deficit. Some noteworthy components of that $141 are $70 billion in increased Medicare spending (due to the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit that Bush signed in Dec 2003), $72 billion in interest on the debt that wouldn't be required had the budget been balanced on average from 2002-2008 (remember, Bush inherited a surplus when he came into office), nearly $4 billion in excess Dept of Education spending, $12.5 billion in excess State Dept and International Aid spending, and an estimated $10 billion in wasteful Homeland Security spending. These actually add to more than $141 billion, and that is because there were some corresponding reductions in several areas totaling about $35 billion.

 

That $70 billion cost for the Medicare prescription drug benefit may actually be understated by $30 billion or so as the White House budget office in 2005 estimated the 10-year cost of this entitlement to be $1.2 trillion. However, I did not include that additional amount in my calculations.

 

There was also an unspecified $39 billion in off-budget discretionary spending in the FY2009 budget that I could not find a match for in the 2002 budget. Whatever it is, I also did not include it in my estimated overspending amount.

 

Reviewing the budget numbers made me realize:

 

1. How costly Social Security is ($644 billion in the 2009 budget, up from $452 in 2002)
   
2. How costly other non-discretionary entitlement spending is--Medicaid and SCHIP are $224 billion (up from $142 billion in 2002), Unemployment and Welfare are $360 billion (up from $260 billion in 2002).
   
3. How much the Iraq War is costing in total each year:
   

• The special line item in the 2009 budget calls for $145 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan (Iraq is probably more than 90% of this total).
  
• Defense spending which does not include the above is $515 billion for 2009, which is $134 billion more than the 2002 amount adjusted for inflation (I believe there is plenty of justification to think that since we're not adding carrier battle groups to the Navy or buying a batch of B2's for the Air Force that the majority of this increase goes to pay the costs of our continued occupation in Iraq).
  
• Veterans Affairs spending is $16.5 billion more than the 2002 amount adjusted for inflation (Tens of thousands of combat-injured vets require care).
  
• Summing my numbers above up, I estimate the on budget, reasonably attributable cost of the Iraq war (assumption being 90% of incremental spending over 2002 is due to Iraq, not Afghanistan) is a whopping $266 billion per year.
  

 

 

Add the $266 billion for Iraq to the $141 I came up with above and, voila, the $407 billion in savings erases the FY 2009 budget deficit, in spite of substantially higher mandatory entitlement spending.

 

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

You mention 10B in wasteful Homeland Defense spending. Why do you consider that 10B wasteful?

A few things to consider:

 

1) There are some economists that believe it is actually better to operate at a budget deficit. I will look for an article (because I found it in an economics textbook that is not with me), or I will try and remember the reasons.

 

2) One thing to consider is, like most economic indicators, looking at the budget deficit as a number is kind of irrelevant. You need to look at it as a percentage of GDP. And in this case, according to the Budget Report of the United States government, the federal budget deficit in FY2005 was 2.6% of gross domestic product (GDP). In 1985, it was 5.1%, and in 1943, for example, it was 30.3%.

 

(Info is from PDF page 28, which is report page 23, and is Table 1.2, 1.2—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–) AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP: 1930–2011)

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

You mention 10B in wasteful Homeland Defense spending. Why do you consider that 10B wasteful?

 

 

There have been many stories about Homeland Security projects in dusty little out of the way towns that quite frankly don't appear to be serious terror targets. The American Enterprise Institute published a paper in 2004-2005 concluding that "a large portion of homeland security-spending decisions are made on a political basis rather than on a sound cost-benefit analysis, leading to the traditional public choice failures that plague government spending more generally". A 2006 article in the Washington Post reported on a bipartisan Congressional report stating that "since the Homeland Security Department's formation in 2003, an explosion of no-bid deals and a critical shortage of trained government contract managers have created a system prone to abuse." Further, "Based on a comprehensive survey of hundreds of government audits, 32 Homeland Security Department contracts worth a total of $34 billion have "experienced significant overcharges, wasteful spending, or mismanagement"". It has also been reported several times over the past few years that audits have shown widespread abuse of government-issued credit cards for inappropriate purchases by Homeland Security employees.

 

I'd say that between spending money to protect targets that are not likely to be attacked (uneccessary pork), distribution of monies based on political and not protection considerations, and wasteful no-bid spending practices, and improper financial controls on government-issued credit cards, there is probably at least $10 billion per year of needless government spending in this area.

Edited May 31, 200818 yr by H

A few things to consider:

 

1) There are some economists that believe it is actually better to operate at a budget deficit. I will look for an article (because I found it in an economics textbook that is not with me), or I will try and remember the reasons.

 

I might be swayed by those arguments if our nation wasn't so deeply in debt. Interest on the debt is currently over 8% of total Federal spending, and will only get larger as we continue to deficit spend. With a national debt approaching $10 trillion (that's a 10 with twelve zeroes behind it), I can't agree that continuing to throw gasoline on this fire is sound fiscal policy. That amounts to $33,333 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. Think about it this way: would any economist or financial advisor recommend that a family of four with $133,333 of credit card debt continue to charge operating expenses and live well beyond their means?

 

 

2) One thing to consider is, like most economic indicators, looking at the budget deficit as a number is kind of irrelevant. You need to look at it as a percentage of GDP. And in this case, according to the Budget Report of the United States government, the federal budget deficit in FY2005 was 2.6% of gross domestic product (GDP). In 1985, it was 5.1%, and in 1943, for example, it was 30.3%.

 

(Info is from PDF page 28, which is report page 23, and is Table 1.2, 1.2—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–) AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP: 1930–2011)

 

 

I only view this type of comparison as relevant if the political will existed to raise taxes to balance the budget. It is basically saying that the money is out there to pay for the deficit, but only if the government decides to raise taxes and take it. Since I don't think the necessary political support exists, the size of GDP is completely irrelevant to the size of the deficit and national debt.

 

I think we will start to see foreign countries refusing to buy U.S. Treasury securities out of concern for our ability to service the debt.

We could cut billions and billions of dollars if we could reliably predict where the next attack on American targets will occur. Unfortunately, that is not how the terrorism game is played.

 

Terrorists attack soft targets. What better way to terrorize all of America than to wipe some Midwestern town off of the face of the planet? Sure terrorists would love to strike another blow at Washington or New York, but if flyover country is ignored and our borders continue to leak like a sieve, our nation's mid-section will eventually suffer the consequences.

It is impossible to protect every conceivable target from attack. There is literally not enough money in the world. If 19 men with box cutters can fell the World Trade Center, spraying money at a random handful of small towns is an exercise in futility. Terrorists can beat us by bleeding us dry, too. There have been far too many reports of wasteful spending and highly questionable projects by the Dept of Homeland Security for me to believe that all of the money is well spent and necessary.

It is impossible to protect every conceivable target from attack. There is literally not enough money in the world. If 19 men with box cutters can fell the World Trade Center, spraying money at a random handful of small towns is an exercise in futility. Terrorists can beat us by bleeding us dry, too. There have been far too many reports of wasteful spending and highly questionable projects by the Dept of Homeland Security for me to believe that all of the money is well spent and necessary.

I will not (futilely) argue that there is not excessive waste, fraud, and abuse in any large government agency. I just believe that US tax revenues should not be concentrated to protect some citizens at the expense of other taxpayers.

 

I like the best defense is a good offense approach myself. I think that taking the fight to the terrorists on foreign soil will be cheaper in the long run than providing a strictly defensive approach to anti-terrorism.

 

We could eliminate most military spending, call the troops home, and adopt a defense-only stance against Muslim terrorists and other world threats and really put a dent in the short-term budget deficit. However, doing so would be foolish and only lead to bigger expenditures down the road.

 

We cannot allow terrorists to train and plan attacks abroad and depend on capturing the conspirators at the border - not unless we want to live in a police state complete with government-issued travel papers.

I might be swayed by those arguments if our nation wasn't so deeply in debt.

 

 

 

I think we will start to see foreign countries refusing to buy U.S. Treasury securities out of concern for our ability to service the debt.

So you are worried about other countries "owning" too much of us, but also worried that other countries will stop buying U.S. Treasury Securities?