Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on October 30, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics

This is the cry of most Republicans and some Democrats. It is time to stop making this generalized statement and take an HONEST look at the Federal Budget. To help with that please take a look at the following Web Site: www.thebudgetgraph.com . It will give you a very clear picture of just where the Federal Government is spending YOUR tax dollars.

I have looked at this issue as well at the major issues that face our country and will impact spending for the foreseeable future. The objective was to see just where the spending cuts can be made to solve the nation’s fiscal problems.

First we need to understand ALL Federal spending falls into one of two types. One is “mandatory spending” and the other is termed “discretionary spending”. Both types have been increasing at a fast pace. When we talk about cutting the budget we must understand the items which are mandatory are NOT subject to cutting without violating promises that have been made by the Government of the United States. The three biggest elements in this category are Interest on the National Debt, Medicare and Social Security. In round numbers that mandatory spending is about $2 Trillion Dollars per year.

The other category is discretionary spending and is made up of elements that CAN be cut without violating the promises made by our country. The amount of that type of spending is about $800 Billion per year. If you fail to look at what is included in that $800 Billion one can come to the conclusion we can solve our fiscal problems by simply cutting this discretionary spending. Now it is time to take a look at the budget graph I referenced.

You will see the largest element in that category which comprises more then half of discretionary spending is National Defense. Another large component is Homeland Security. Help for the poor for Food Stamps and Medicaid rounds out the major items. These three make up MOST of the discretionary spending.

Let’s take a look at the largest spending items within the budget and the prospect for cutting them in the future.

Mandatory Items:

Social Security- this will increase at a growing rate as the Baby Boomers retire which will start in February 2008.

Medicare – This will increase for the same reason as Social Security plus the addition of the Prescription Drug Program and the increasing cost of health care. This will increase far more then Social Security.

Interest – This will continue to increase so long as we add to the National Debt. The national debt on Sept 30, 2006 was $8.5 Trillion. The National Debt on September 30, 2007 was $9 Trillion. Despite the lie Bush told that the annual deficit was $168 Billion that actual amount we added to the total debt was $500 Billion in FY 2007. Go to the U.S. Treasury web site for the actual amounts to the penny.

Discretionary Items:

National Defense – That will increase substantially because of the increase in the Active Duty strength, pay increases and because of the replacement of most of the equipment for the ground forces.

VA- This will expand in a major way to pay for the injured veterans from the Iraq war.

Homeland Security - That will need to increase as we build the border fence and add the needed border guards. The new equipment and new ID cards and systems will also require added spending. The Coast Guard will see an increase in spending as will federal law enforcement and intelligence services.

Medicaid - As more and more people are becoming eligible and medical cost increase, the cost of this program will increase.

Pell Grants – The lower interest rates for student loans will increase the overall cost of this program.

Federal Road and Bridge maintenance – This will increase given the condition of the ageing roads and bridges.

The above are the areas that surely will require added spending. These items make up the BULK of the overall spending. When you look at the magnitude of these items it will not be a surprise that spending will continue to increase. I would like to have ANYONE provide specifics as to where and by how much the so called “spending cuts” can take place that will both balance the budget and then provide a REAL Surplus to be used to pay down the over $9 Trillion dollar national debt.


The time has passed for statements like - “the problem is our Spending”. We need to provide specifics areas and amounts where spending can be CUT to come up with the money needed to balance the budget and begin paying down the debt! I believe the chance of spending cuts solving our fiscal problems to be about the same as winning the Power Ball Lottery! Remember, mandatory spending is just that!

Comments (Page 7)
11 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last
on Nov 02, 2007
We provide real life examples that we have lived of being able to make it on low incomes, and you say the average family can't make it on that amount. Gid's family should have a lot MORE expenses than the AVERAGE family, Gene. He DOES not. So, why do you CONTINUE to INSIST that an average family, with 4.5 less kids in it has MORE expenses than him?

I think this average family you're talking about has a lot more debt than the average family can afford, and that's why they're not making it.

The only situation I really feel bad about is a change in situation family, where someone lost a job or got an unexpected pay or benefits cut. I would support a charity that helps them, until they are able to readjust their standard of living to fit their new income level. Not until they can afford the same standard of living again.

The problem in America, though, is that a low standard of living is becoming outlawed.
on Nov 02, 2007
But this was not due to help from the Federal Gov't, this was from hard work and learning responsibility.


Best quote in this whole thread.


on Nov 02, 2007
Island Dog, if I may respond to the following;

I don't believe America wants to head more into a socialist nanny state where we take income away from Americans to give to others. That is ridiculous to even suggest it.


What has been happening in the last few years has been that public money, your tax dollars, have been leaving public institutions and going into private hands far more than previous. This is money that needs to be spent on essential services regardless, but instead of being spent in a transparent manner a lot of it is now going to private companies on no-bid contracts, quite often on cost plus arrangements, meaning that the government has to pay more for the same service. What cost-plus means is that the contractor is guaranteed a certain percentage of profit, if he exceeds the agreed upon contract then the government will eat the costs with public tax dollars to ensure the contractor gets his 20% profit.

This is not because private industry is providing a wonderful service that the gov. is incapable of.... it's because for the private companies this is a wonderful opportunity to make a massive amount of profit, all being paid for by your taxes, and it is being implemented because it marches in lockstep with the ideology that all government functions should be performed by the private sector (but, of course still paid for with public money, right?)

A prime example is Blackwater security. They only have approximately 1000 plus combat arms folks in Iraq but if you look at the costs per contractor the U.S government is paying through the nose for each and every one several times the amount of money it takes to keep one uniformed service member in the field... where is the logic in that?

Also, the massive amount of support services that have been contracted out under Rummy when he was SECDEF is astounding. KBR has always been a support contractor for the U.S military but nothing like what's recently happened. In the last few years just about every and any non-combat role that can be imagined has been largely outsourced which is part of the reason why you now have Burger King running outlets on U.S bases in Iraq. You might think that's a great thing but keep in mind that it is costing way more than the services previously provided "in house" and it's all being paid for with public money!
on Nov 02, 2007
Gene, I have a question about the Death and Taxes Graph. For each department it gives an amount budgeted, then it gives a detailed list of amounts budgeted for the offices and agencies within the department. The problem is, the total of the budgets for the agencies are far greater that the budget for the department.

(for example, the Department of Agriculture has a budget of $20,226 billion. But the total sum of all the agencies in the department is $35.3325 billion.)

The question is, why is there a discrepency?
on Nov 02, 2007
Gene is intellectually dishonest. It has already been shown to him how the budget could be balanced in any number of ways without even cutting programs or raising taxes (simply slow the rate in which spending increases and the problem goes away).

I have shown that without violating the promises made by the Government, cuts alone will not balance the budget. I have also shown WHY to keep those promises the idea of “slowing the rate at which spending increases” is not possible. Given the Baby Boomers and the ever increasing Debt, MOST of the mandatory spending will need to increase substantially and thus “slowing spending” for those items (Interest, Social Security and Medicare) is not possible UNLESS the Government fails to keep the promises made to the retired and the people who have purchased the Debt of this country. The portion of the Budget that is not the result of promises is about $800 Billion and the vast majority of that $800 Billion is being spent on Defense and Homeland Security which can not be cut without jeopardizing our security. In fact unless the Iraq War Ends NOW we will be spending more on Defense and we will be spending more on Homeland Security.

Thus the “solve the budget problem by slowing the spending is a smoke screen. If it were not for the Boomers and if we had kept the Debt at the $1 Trillion dollar level that is was in 1981, we could balance the budget by “slowing spending” Such is NOT THE CASE and anyone that makes such an argument must be on DRUGS!
on Nov 02, 2007

The OIL Companies overcharge us EVERY DAY and then pay their top executives’ outrageous salaries and their stock holders bigger and bigger profits.



then stop buying their product. there are electric cars and bicycles.
on Nov 02, 2007
If it were not for the Boomers and if we had kept the Debt at the $1 Trillion dollar level that is was in 1981



i don't know if anyone else remembers but i do. that trillion dollar debt in 81 was a smoke screen. the government was printing money to make the debt look smaller than it was.
on Nov 02, 2007
"your evil twin brother Artysim"

Maybe they're fraternal twins?
on Nov 02, 2007
Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007

The OIL Companies overcharge us EVERY DAY and then pay their top executives’ outrageous salaries and their stock holders bigger and bigger profits.



Then stop buying their product. There are electric cars and bicycles.


That is the type of response that proves you and anyone else with s similar position is not interested in a debate. We do not have the option to stop using oil and gasoline. We may become LESS dependent in the future but I will not see the day when we will not NEED oil and this the Oil Companies have a strangle hold on the consumer and that needs to be offset by the Government!
on Nov 02, 2007

Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007
“If it were not for the Boomers and if we had kept the Debt at the $1 Trillion dollar level that is was in 1981



I don't know if anyone else remembers but I do. That trillion dollar debt in 81 was a smoke screen. The government was printing money to make the debt look smaller than it was.”

Again you response has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The statement was made that we can balance the budget by simply “SLOWING the spending”. That is a nice idea and might work but given the 68 Million Boomers and the fact that the debt has gone from $1 Trillion to $9 Trillion and is still GROWING, it simply is not possible to "slow THE RATE OF SPENDING”. IN FACT THE RATE of spending WILL INCREASE AT AN ALARMING RATE.

That is what the Comptroller General has said. It is what the FED CHAIERMAN AND SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY HAVE SAID. I will take their opinion over ANYONE on this Blog site as to the impact of the Boomers on future spending. These three men have also said without either tax increases or cutting promised benefits, we are rapidity come to the point where we will be unable to meet the obligations of this country!

I have said we have an obligation to keep the PROMISES we have made and that means even after we cut where we can from the discretionary spending, we will not be close to solving the fiscal problems of this country. The longer we wait to act the more of an increase in taxes it will require to meet our obligations.
on Nov 02, 2007

The longer we wait to act the more of an increase in taxes it will require to meet our obligations.

Isn't it funny how gene keeps using words like "ours" and "we", but it isn't his taxes he wants raised. 

 

on Nov 02, 2007
Net interest on debt is down a percentage point?
on Nov 02, 2007
Reply By: Jythier Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007
Net interest on debt is down a percentage point?


NET interest does not count the interest we pay on the debt held in Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. You must look at the total interest and that is UP!
on Nov 02, 2007
Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007

The longer we wait to act the more of an increase in taxes it will require to meet our obligations.

Isn't it funny how gene keeps using words like "ours" and "we", but it isn't his taxes he wants raised.

I said we can not balance the budget without increasing taxes and that is a fact. I have also said it will be better for both the economy and for middle income families to rescind the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy because they can pay the higher taxes without cutting their spending and without causing any financial hardship on their families. If we increase taxes on middle income workers it will reduce spending and harm the overall economy. In addition a tax increase on the middle income that DID NOT get the big brakes from the Bush Tax Cuts will cause financial problems for many middle income families! The wealthy can pay the added tax from their sizeable surplus.
on Nov 02, 2007
Here is what American taxpayers spent on the INTEREST in FY 2007:


Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2007
September $ 19,186,822,742.64
August $ 25,688,410,373.20
July $ 22,658,839,309.36
August $ 25,688,410,373.20
July $ 22,658,839,309.36
June $ 104,754,662,521.40
May $ 26,969,267,293.50
April $ 25,656,645,831.49
March $ 21,253,370,063.26
February $ 24,170,447,266.47
January $ 18,132,425,570.82
December $ 95,908,834,357.10
November $ 20,305,104,412.28
October $ 22,293,168,366.68

Fiscal Year Total $429,977,998,108.20
OR $430 Billion Dollars
11 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last