If I were to design the budget of a country I would do it completely differently from how any country in the world does it. I would throw out the opinion polls (which can easily be manipulated) and close the doors to lobbyists and interest groups for the drafting process, in order to prevent corrupting the entire system. A group of economists would then be tasked with estimating the multiplier effects of every government program and modeling how the multipliers decline following the law of diminishing marginal utility as you get more of a good, the amount of added benefit declines. This is how we determine whether the government should spend $1 million or $1 trillion on education, whether we should give a universal basic income of $0, $1000, or $5000 per capita to maximize the well being of our country.
The computer model would then list the multipliers of every government program. This is different based on different government programs, food stamps have a multiplier of 179% while the military has a multiplier of around 50%, every type of spending has this metric which is one way we should guide how we design our budgets. We would start off with estimates of how much the multiplier is for every dollar and then claculate the budget increasing spending until the marginal benefit of the last dollar spent is equal to the marginal cost of the different types of taxes and government borrowing to finance the government spending. The computer would keep increasing spending in one program until the multiplier is equal to the expenditure of the next valuable program and keep increasing spending until the marginal benefit of government spending is equal to the marginal cost of taxes and borrowing. This will help money move to more productive uses and grow our economy as much as possible. Every year we would get a better understanding of how different forms of government spending and taxes behave in the real world and adjust spending accordingly. During a recession we would likely continue to practice counter cyclical fiscal policy to make our economy run smoothly.
Another guiding principle to government spending will also be to reduce risk for the economy as whole so that the decisions people make will take in externalities as much as possible. We will almost certainly have a carbon tax with such a plan, as well as a rule of no bailouts under any circumstance with this guiding principle of people seeing the consequences of their actions.
After the model budget is proposed it would then go to a vote in Congress and be available for public comment, but such a budget would be better for the economy as a whole, and if we have a good Congress working for the benefit of the country would hopefully vote for such a budget. Some programs for public safety might be implemented on top of the budget if they are not covered by the number crunching computer, it is hard to tell without building the model. It is likely the media would manipulate public opinion against such a plan, meaning the enacted budget would probably be worse than our optimum budget. At the end of the day however, it is better to start with the best plan possible to get our most optimal final result.
Showing posts with label fy budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fy budget. Show all posts
Monday, March 20, 2017
Friday, August 1, 2014
Inversion
I don't go to the White House website as often as I probably should, but seeing the front page today (30 July 2014) showed me exactly why I voted for President Obama. The front page talks about eliminating loopholes in our tax code that makes it so large corporations are able to avoid paying taxes. This is one major step to fixing our tax code in the short-run which will help balance the budget (which we will need to do when our economy recovers). This is as the President said, a fairness issue because the loopholes that wealthy corporations use are not available to new businesses who are the major source of new jobs in the economy. NBER This is frequently interpreted as being small companies because when companies start out they are naturally quite small, but new corporations naturally tend to be smaller than established companies because they haven't had the time to grow.
This is, of course, only a first step. Our income tax code has far too many loopholes, the vast majority go to those who already make millions of dollars. They love to claim how the home mortgage interest deduction goes to the middle class while the benefits go to those who are able to buy the biggest houses, as in those who already have a lot, meaning that it is an extremely regressive tax cut. Giving capital gains a flat rate increases taxes on seniors who have invested beyond a specified retirement plan (unless if you withdraw over $230,000 from your stock fund) and decreases taxes owed by those who have millions of dollars in income per year. A flat tax is by definition a regressive tax and since people with lower incomes spend a larger percent of their income they are bad for the economy.
Hopefully with a President pushing for such actions there can be real change which will balance the budget which will increase funding for education and health care without cutting necessary services.
This is, of course, only a first step. Our income tax code has far too many loopholes, the vast majority go to those who already make millions of dollars. They love to claim how the home mortgage interest deduction goes to the middle class while the benefits go to those who are able to buy the biggest houses, as in those who already have a lot, meaning that it is an extremely regressive tax cut. Giving capital gains a flat rate increases taxes on seniors who have invested beyond a specified retirement plan (unless if you withdraw over $230,000 from your stock fund) and decreases taxes owed by those who have millions of dollars in income per year. A flat tax is by definition a regressive tax and since people with lower incomes spend a larger percent of their income they are bad for the economy.
Hopefully with a President pushing for such actions there can be real change which will balance the budget which will increase funding for education and health care without cutting necessary services.
Friday, April 18, 2014
The underlying difference between spending in the United States and Germany
I wish to address the idea that Germany is a socialist state and the United States is not.
This is a cross-sectional study comparing the difference in the finances of Germany and the United States today. I look at the list of countries by government expenditure as percent of GDP (which excludes transfer payments, such as social security) and Germany comes in at 19% and the US comes in at 16%. The largest countries in the world by government expenditure as percent of GDP are Lesotho at 38%, the Netherlands and Denmark both come in at 28%, and South Sudan, Sweden and Zimbabwe at 27%.
The gist of the story is, when you exclude transfer payments from government spending from GDP (and you should because including transfer payments makes absolutely no sense when you get down to the nitty gritty parts of what you are actually calculating) you find that the so called "socialist states" of Europe actually don't spend that much more than the United States. We just spend it on our military and things that don't help people. World Bank In terms of actual numbers there is very little difference in terms of actual spending by the government. Simply, if the government gives cash to someone it is a transfer payment, and if it gives a service it is part of GDP. Most of their budget is just moving money from person a to person b, which is a transfer payment, because those are not transfer payments and are calculated as part of GDP.
So, if Germany is a socialist state, so is the United States. The difference is not in the amount of spending, but who gets it, which doesn't matter at all when it comes to what the word socialist actually means. The best part of this is most of the increases in spending are mostly military and belong to the Republican party who have been increasing our military spending whenever they get the chance, or the incredible amount in our spy complex which is mostly privatized, or other programs which do not help most Americans.
Myth busted.
This is a cross-sectional study comparing the difference in the finances of Germany and the United States today. I look at the list of countries by government expenditure as percent of GDP (which excludes transfer payments, such as social security) and Germany comes in at 19% and the US comes in at 16%. The largest countries in the world by government expenditure as percent of GDP are Lesotho at 38%, the Netherlands and Denmark both come in at 28%, and South Sudan, Sweden and Zimbabwe at 27%.
The gist of the story is, when you exclude transfer payments from government spending from GDP (and you should because including transfer payments makes absolutely no sense when you get down to the nitty gritty parts of what you are actually calculating) you find that the so called "socialist states" of Europe actually don't spend that much more than the United States. We just spend it on our military and things that don't help people. World Bank In terms of actual numbers there is very little difference in terms of actual spending by the government. Simply, if the government gives cash to someone it is a transfer payment, and if it gives a service it is part of GDP. Most of their budget is just moving money from person a to person b, which is a transfer payment, because those are not transfer payments and are calculated as part of GDP.
So, if Germany is a socialist state, so is the United States. The difference is not in the amount of spending, but who gets it, which doesn't matter at all when it comes to what the word socialist actually means. The best part of this is most of the increases in spending are mostly military and belong to the Republican party who have been increasing our military spending whenever they get the chance, or the incredible amount in our spy complex which is mostly privatized, or other programs which do not help most Americans.
Myth busted.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Deadweight loss is real, but depends on the situation
One frequent complaint you will hear about taxes (predominately from conservatives/laissez-faire/austerians/Austrian School/whatever-they-call-it-now) is that taxes are bad because they create deadweight loss. They view taxes as if that money is just leaving the economy, so taxes are evil but they stop arguing this when they start talking about the military-industrial complex and bank bailouts.
I would argue it depends on what the money is being used for and how that benefits or harms the economy in whether it is predominately deadweight.
If you are taking $18 billion and spending that on weapons to send to Egypt and Israel (we arm both sides) to the point where they don't need more weapons, it creates some manufacturing jobs here in the United States, but many of these weapons aren't used. It also means factories here at home are getting government grants to produce weapons. Planet Money Why couldn't we repurpose our military industrial production facilities to produce solar panels, the parts to Geothermal plants to tap into the North American-Pacific plate boundary in the vicinity of the towns of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, California which will help move us towards a sustainable energy future (which is also about the same cost as conventional coal and less expensive than the coal plants that are currently being built.) which will ensure that our economy is stronger. This does create some jobs, but all of the money that goes to the materials that produce the unneeded weapons is deadweight loss because that doesn't support jobs or anything beneficial for Americans, and the benefits are probably small compared to the cost. The difference is by definition undeniably deadweight loss.
On the other hand, other types of government spending can be beneficial. If we make it so that tourists can see more parts of America it could boost the economies of currently unserved inner cities like Nashville, Las Vegas, and Columbus. Expanding AMTRAK is the way to do this, because there is consistent proof that for every dollar spent on AMTRAK we get more than a dollar in economic benefits for the economy. AMTRAK is not an expenditure, it is an investment. We have the railroads and the money to do amazing things, we just don't have the will. Expect more articles on this here on my blog, it is one of the best ways to grow the economy. Well Researched Source 1 and 2
One other type of expenditure these deadweight people love to target is education. We spend a lot on education through the economy, and it drives conservatives crazy. With every expenditure it is critical to see the opportunity cost of not doing something. If we teach a child how to do math, write, read, speak a foreign language, do science, understand the world around them and why it got that way (history) it is very expensive, but it is more expensive if we don't do it. There is very consistent research that people with more education make more money over their lives meaning they are more valuable to the economy and more likely to make world-changing inventions. Some people love to talk about how college-dropout billionaires didn't need that college, but they all had some education, and usually dropped out to form the companies that made them rich. Out of 400 billionaires, 34 of them dropped out from college, or 0.85%. Bill Gates is an anecdote. Most of them are like Warren Buffett and have advanced degrees. Wikipedia When it comes to the economy as a whole, people who graduate from college are less likely to be unemployed and are more likely to make an upper-middle income (with a few exceptions, like teachers). BLS If we didn't have the types of programs that allowed these people become great businessmen we would all be the worse for it.
So, the next time someone complains about taxes and claims with their Bachelors that there is deadweight, ask yourself about the opportunity cost of doing it and you will have a better picture. Perhaps the $6.4 trillion dollars spent on education is actually worth every single penny.
I would argue it depends on what the money is being used for and how that benefits or harms the economy in whether it is predominately deadweight.
If you are taking $18 billion and spending that on weapons to send to Egypt and Israel (we arm both sides) to the point where they don't need more weapons, it creates some manufacturing jobs here in the United States, but many of these weapons aren't used. It also means factories here at home are getting government grants to produce weapons. Planet Money Why couldn't we repurpose our military industrial production facilities to produce solar panels, the parts to Geothermal plants to tap into the North American-Pacific plate boundary in the vicinity of the towns of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, California which will help move us towards a sustainable energy future (which is also about the same cost as conventional coal and less expensive than the coal plants that are currently being built.) which will ensure that our economy is stronger. This does create some jobs, but all of the money that goes to the materials that produce the unneeded weapons is deadweight loss because that doesn't support jobs or anything beneficial for Americans, and the benefits are probably small compared to the cost. The difference is by definition undeniably deadweight loss.
On the other hand, other types of government spending can be beneficial. If we make it so that tourists can see more parts of America it could boost the economies of currently unserved inner cities like Nashville, Las Vegas, and Columbus. Expanding AMTRAK is the way to do this, because there is consistent proof that for every dollar spent on AMTRAK we get more than a dollar in economic benefits for the economy. AMTRAK is not an expenditure, it is an investment. We have the railroads and the money to do amazing things, we just don't have the will. Expect more articles on this here on my blog, it is one of the best ways to grow the economy. Well Researched Source 1 and 2
One other type of expenditure these deadweight people love to target is education. We spend a lot on education through the economy, and it drives conservatives crazy. With every expenditure it is critical to see the opportunity cost of not doing something. If we teach a child how to do math, write, read, speak a foreign language, do science, understand the world around them and why it got that way (history) it is very expensive, but it is more expensive if we don't do it. There is very consistent research that people with more education make more money over their lives meaning they are more valuable to the economy and more likely to make world-changing inventions. Some people love to talk about how college-dropout billionaires didn't need that college, but they all had some education, and usually dropped out to form the companies that made them rich. Out of 400 billionaires, 34 of them dropped out from college, or 0.85%. Bill Gates is an anecdote. Most of them are like Warren Buffett and have advanced degrees. Wikipedia When it comes to the economy as a whole, people who graduate from college are less likely to be unemployed and are more likely to make an upper-middle income (with a few exceptions, like teachers). BLS If we didn't have the types of programs that allowed these people become great businessmen we would all be the worse for it.
So, the next time someone complains about taxes and claims with their Bachelors that there is deadweight, ask yourself about the opportunity cost of doing it and you will have a better picture. Perhaps the $6.4 trillion dollars spent on education is actually worth every single penny.
Monday, April 15, 2013
(Yet) another way to cut the deficit
I was reading about Russ Feingold yesterday and saw that he opposed Medicare Part D. I was interested, why would he oppose a social program? As I read the Wikipedia article for how it works, there is a very important difference between how it works and the DVA, and that is they are not allowed to negotiate for lower drug prices. In Joseph E. Stiglitz's book "The Price of Inequality he quotes Dean Baker that we could save over $50 billion dollars a year, potentially as much as $100 billion per year on health care if they were allowed to negotiate with drug companies on prices.
As I ask with many of my posts, who wins when these decisions are made? The average American who pays taxes and lives an ordinary life loses, but the people who win are the drug companies. As I have said in many blog posts here, there is a clear conflict of interest involved from our politicians in how this decision has been made. By keeping the cost of Medicare high by forbidding it to negotiate with the drug companies to get a better deal we are wasting billions of dollars a year, and this must stop.
As I ask with many of my posts, who wins when these decisions are made? The average American who pays taxes and lives an ordinary life loses, but the people who win are the drug companies. As I have said in many blog posts here, there is a clear conflict of interest involved from our politicians in how this decision has been made. By keeping the cost of Medicare high by forbidding it to negotiate with the drug companies to get a better deal we are wasting billions of dollars a year, and this must stop.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Consider the Budget Balanced.
I was just reading a summary of government expenditures and how to balance the budget from the Congressional Budget Office here: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12085/03-10-reducingthedeficit.pdf
Of course, the 2013 Budget is here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2013-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2013-BUD.pdf
So, when I looked at the budget reduction options most of them don't cover the full $901 billion deficit that is anticipated over the next year, and will overwhelmingly hurt middle class, poor, and military families. Even eliminating weapons procurement from the Department of Defense will eliminate only $100 billion from the deficit, keeping it really high at $800 billion. I once thought it was more, but actually no, not this year. Sorry liberals, that won't fix it.
Other options were to hurt college graduates with higher debt rates which will hurt their spending as young adults and hurt the economy. Eliminating home weatherizing was suggested which is a very small amount of the budget, and if expanded and it saves every household only $100 per year to save electricity, assuming 50 million households receive the credit, you would be taking $5 billion out of the economy annually as a recurring cost. Increasing health care costs for veterans just doesn't seem right and won't fill the hole. Eliminating subsidized loans for graduate students with an aging population will create a shortage of medical doctors and researchers, China is doing the opposite and look where they are with GDP growth over 9%. Eliminating intercity rail subsidies will make us even more dependent on our cars and oil. Restricting Pell Grants will take away the best path out of poverty into the middle class we have, hurting Americans, the recipients by condemning them to a live of poverty, and all businesses by limiting their options on highly skilled employees. None of these will fill the hole, or if they were all done they would decimate consumer spending nationwide.
Adding a public plan to health insurance will help all families have extra cash to stimulate the economy, but won't fill $900 billion overnight.
In other words, there is no way to balance the budget by cutting expenditures without hurting the economy.
To get a clear picture, we need to look at he largest parts of the budget. I am going to leave out everything that gets less than 5% of the deficit, so everything that gets less than $45 billion is automatically excluded because the impact would not be enough to truly balance the budget if we took the elimination Tea Party route. Also, I am not including mandatory because by definition, they are mandatory and cannot be cut. Only discretionary is on the table in reality, so discussing mandatory spending is a moot point. So, that leaves the 40% of the $3.8 trillion budget that is possibly up for cutting, or $1.51 trillion. In order:
So, if you can't balance by cutting expenses you need to increase revenues. The second suggestion alone fulfills this by decreasing deductions. The CBO prediction gives predicted revenue gains from 2010-2014 by eliminating several tax breaks and we would need $4 trillion for those four years according to their prediction. I understand that this data is old, but it still demonstrates where the largest tax breaks are and if done today will fulfill balancing the budget.
Of course, the 2013 Budget is here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2013-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2013-BUD.pdf
So, when I looked at the budget reduction options most of them don't cover the full $901 billion deficit that is anticipated over the next year, and will overwhelmingly hurt middle class, poor, and military families. Even eliminating weapons procurement from the Department of Defense will eliminate only $100 billion from the deficit, keeping it really high at $800 billion. I once thought it was more, but actually no, not this year. Sorry liberals, that won't fix it.
Other options were to hurt college graduates with higher debt rates which will hurt their spending as young adults and hurt the economy. Eliminating home weatherizing was suggested which is a very small amount of the budget, and if expanded and it saves every household only $100 per year to save electricity, assuming 50 million households receive the credit, you would be taking $5 billion out of the economy annually as a recurring cost. Increasing health care costs for veterans just doesn't seem right and won't fill the hole. Eliminating subsidized loans for graduate students with an aging population will create a shortage of medical doctors and researchers, China is doing the opposite and look where they are with GDP growth over 9%. Eliminating intercity rail subsidies will make us even more dependent on our cars and oil. Restricting Pell Grants will take away the best path out of poverty into the middle class we have, hurting Americans, the recipients by condemning them to a live of poverty, and all businesses by limiting their options on highly skilled employees. None of these will fill the hole, or if they were all done they would decimate consumer spending nationwide.
Adding a public plan to health insurance will help all families have extra cash to stimulate the economy, but won't fill $900 billion overnight.
In other words, there is no way to balance the budget by cutting expenditures without hurting the economy.
To get a clear picture, we need to look at he largest parts of the budget. I am going to leave out everything that gets less than 5% of the deficit, so everything that gets less than $45 billion is automatically excluded because the impact would not be enough to truly balance the budget if we took the elimination Tea Party route. Also, I am not including mandatory because by definition, they are mandatory and cannot be cut. Only discretionary is on the table in reality, so discussing mandatory spending is a moot point. So, that leaves the 40% of the $3.8 trillion budget that is possibly up for cutting, or $1.51 trillion. In order:
- Department of Defense $666.2 billion, 74% of the deficit, 44% of discretionary spending.
- Net Interest on the debt: $246 billion, 27% of the deficit, 16% of discretionary spending.
- Department of Education: $67 billion, 7% of the deficit, 4.4% of discretionary spending.
- Department of Veteran's Affairs: $60 billion, 6.7% of the deficit, 4.0% of discretionary spending.
- Department of State: $56.1 billion, 6.2% of the deficit, 3.7% of discretionary spending.
- Department of Homeland Security: $54.9 billion, 6.1% of the deficit, 3.6% of discretionary spending.
- Central Intelligence Agency, $52.6 billion, 5.8% of the deficit, 3.5% of discretionary spending.
Everything other category's discretionary spending is less than 5% of the budget. These 7 categories add up to $1.2028 trillion, which is more than enough to cover the debt, and that is also 80% of the discretionary budget. The remaining 20% of discretionary is about $300 billion, so not enough to make a substantial difference in the budget. Let's look at the costs of cutting one of these.
Department of Defense would eliminate a lot of contracts for private companies, and only $100 billion goes to that from the DOD this year anyways, the rest is in operations. There isn't a lot that can be cut at this point in the political climate so discussing is hypothetical.
The interest if we put it off will have to paid later at compound interest, increasing the amount of money that will be paid later through the marvel of compound interest.
Cutting education funding will hurt future economic growth by harming the youth of America, stagnating it.
Cutting the DVA will cut medical services to veterans.
Cutting the Department of State will hurt America's ability to make a difference in global affairs.
Cutting the Department of Homeland Security will hurt the Coast Guard, and eliminate resources for customs and immigration control. Not a possible deduction in this political climate.
Cutting the CIA will hurt the intelligence of our government and ability to make decisions.
With all these extra costs, where is the cutting going to come from without negatively effecting real Americans? Sure, maybe there are some efficiency issues that can be fixed in one department or another, but most of that has already been done.
So, if you can't balance by cutting expenses you need to increase revenues. The second suggestion alone fulfills this by decreasing deductions. The CBO prediction gives predicted revenue gains from 2010-2014 by eliminating several tax breaks and we would need $4 trillion for those four years according to their prediction. I understand that this data is old, but it still demonstrates where the largest tax breaks are and if done today will fulfill balancing the budget.
- If the government handout to the housing mortgage industry in the form of the mortgage tax was eliminated, $500 billion would be raised over 4 years.
- If Capital Gains were taxed as regular income using the changes the CBO puts in place, another $400 billion would be raised over 4 years. Another concern I have is they are only raising them by a little bit which produces this. If they were taxed as regular income (but still calculated by subtracting the purchase price of course) the benefit would be much larger.
- Increasing taxes on the top three brackets by 1% would yield $3 billion the first year which would grow.
- Radically change the tax code. Make the brackets go from 0% on all income up to the cost of living depending on the state the person lives in in 5% intervals up to 50%. Put in tax breaks for things that help the economy, education, health care, voting, local taxes, and money used to start a small business. The amount people pay for each bracket will be set to the cost of living for each state to help poorer states develop and poor people in rich states be able to get to a comfortable life style and be beneficial to the economy and improve their own lives. This is needed to balance the budget. The education discount will include scholarships if they are acquired because when students don't have to pay for school after school they have more money to be financially secure during their 20s and 30s.
- Tax capital gains as regular income because that tax cut makes our tax code in reality quite regressive. Why should capital gains get in effect a 50% tax break, for those people who invest well? Good investors are still going to make far more than everyone else, and in the meantime the federal government is missing a vital piece of revenue. This should cover the deficit.
- Keep Social Security and Medicare. Seniors and their families need to know that they won't be in poverty. To put the burden of taking care of seniors whose investments didn't pan out on their children is not a way to increase opportunity to young people in America. Social Security helps the economy.
- Eliminate the corporate income tax, because it is forwarded on to customers in the form of higher prices. Most economists left or right agree on this.
- Legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana. This will decrease state expenditures on prisons and increase revenues for the government. It will also take away a major cash crop for drug cartels. A win-win.
- taxing inheritance at 50% on all inheritance greater than 50 times the cost of living will discourage wealth concentration which hurts the economy.
It really isn't that difficult. You only need to stand up to the lobbyists.
Updated on October 8th.
Updated on October 8th.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Those overspending corrupt Dems did it again. They balanced the budget
For the past seventy years we have had a national debt. For the past seventy years it has only been balanced once. That was done in 2000 from the by President Clinton. In 2001-2008 the amount added to the debt per year grew substantially on a monthly basis. Taxes were cut, military was over funded, and nothing was done to necessary programs in health care whose costs grew out of control. For 6 years the executive and legislative branches were controlled by believers in laissez-faire economics, an idea condoned by all economists, even the ones calling themselves "Republican."
Yet all we here is how the democrats overspend and it always goes out of control when they are in power? This doesn't follow the facts. Wake up America, look at the numbers and you will see that this is a total lie done by masters of propaganda. These are the same millionaires who support huge tax breaks for the rich that after the deductions makes them spend almost nothing. AND THEN THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE DEFICIT THEIR PUPPETS CREATED!!!!! I hope that the Republicans block this like everything else the President proposes and find some small complaint that has been spun to fatten their supporters pockets and the spin machines with tax breaks. Who's corrupt now?
Yet all we here is how the democrats overspend and it always goes out of control when they are in power? This doesn't follow the facts. Wake up America, look at the numbers and you will see that this is a total lie done by masters of propaganda. These are the same millionaires who support huge tax breaks for the rich that after the deductions makes them spend almost nothing. AND THEN THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE DEFICIT THEIR PUPPETS CREATED!!!!! I hope that the Republicans block this like everything else the President proposes and find some small complaint that has been spun to fatten their supporters pockets and the spin machines with tax breaks. Who's corrupt now?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Every American's Power
I am an American, and I love my country just like 300 million other people. I have seen a lot of lies being passed around in the media recently having to do with the past year's deficit. I was bothered by this because they didn't quite sound right, were consistently different, and sounded too high. I was right, they were lying.
If every American went online, at home or at a library, we should all go to one website filled with facts and statistics that give us bundles of information. It is www.usaspending.gov which has every federal report from 1999 to 2007 and the information for the past year's spending by category.
I also must say to people who have been throwing out inaccurate numbers on this past year's spending, you aren't helping your country by starting rumors. It is time to stop playing party politics, and to be one nation indivisible.
Okay, down to facts, the number that usaspending.gov gives for Fiscal Year 2009, adding up every category is $1,000,232,810,837. One trillion dollars!!! This sounds like a lot of money, and it is. However, you have to keep in mind that this country has 307,711,711 people (at 12:01 on October 16, 2009 source: census.gov) so that means, to put it in perspective, the government is spending $3,250.55 per every American, (source wikipedia.org) or about the amount a person would have to pay in tuition to go to a community college for one year. (collegeboard.com)
I could stop here and those facts would be good enough, but a trillion bucks is a lot of money! $3,250.55 is still a fair chunk of change! We need to put in perspective how much that is for our country's budget. Let's put it in perspective.... In 2007, which is the last year I can get an official fiscal report for, the averaged amount for the two approximations for spending on the fiscal report, is $2,556,213,000,000. (page #1 or the 27th page on the pdf) To average that with the population of the United States on July 1, 2007, (source census.gov) which was 301,621,157. The $ per capita is $8,474.91. That is more than twice the amount spent in Fiscal Year 2009.
Take these as you will.
United We Stand, Divided we fall. Out of many, one. Let Freedom Ring.
Originally written on October 16, 2009.
If every American went online, at home or at a library, we should all go to one website filled with facts and statistics that give us bundles of information. It is www.usaspending.gov which has every federal report from 1999 to 2007 and the information for the past year's spending by category.
I also must say to people who have been throwing out inaccurate numbers on this past year's spending, you aren't helping your country by starting rumors. It is time to stop playing party politics, and to be one nation indivisible.
Okay, down to facts, the number that usaspending.gov gives for Fiscal Year 2009, adding up every category is $1,000,232,810,837. One trillion dollars!!! This sounds like a lot of money, and it is. However, you have to keep in mind that this country has 307,711,711 people (at 12:01 on October 16, 2009 source: census.gov) so that means, to put it in perspective, the government is spending $3,250.55 per every American, (source wikipedia.org) or about the amount a person would have to pay in tuition to go to a community college for one year. (collegeboard.com)
I could stop here and those facts would be good enough, but a trillion bucks is a lot of money! $3,250.55 is still a fair chunk of change! We need to put in perspective how much that is for our country's budget. Let's put it in perspective.... In 2007, which is the last year I can get an official fiscal report for, the averaged amount for the two approximations for spending on the fiscal report, is $2,556,213,000,000. (page #1 or the 27th page on the pdf) To average that with the population of the United States on July 1, 2007, (source census.gov) which was 301,621,157. The $ per capita is $8,474.91. That is more than twice the amount spent in Fiscal Year 2009.
Take these as you will.
United We Stand, Divided we fall. Out of many, one. Let Freedom Ring.
Originally written on October 16, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)