Author Topic: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process  (Read 552887 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Global public debt = $100 Trillion
« Reply #1600 on: October 15, 2024, 09:48:30 AM »
Global public debt is set to reach $100 trillion, or 93% of global gross domestic product, by the end of this year, driven by the US and China, according to new analysis by the International Monetary Fund. In its latest Fiscal Monitor — an overview of global public finance developments — the IMF said it expects debt to approach 100% of GDP by 2030, and it warns that governments will need to make tough decisions to stabilize borrowing. Debt is tipped to increase in the US, Brazil, France, Italy, South Africa and UK, according to the IMF report, which urges governments to rein in debt. (Source: bloomberg.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Doug]  One more thing the US has more than its share of...

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3471
    • View Profile
Biden Admin Priorities in Action
« Reply #1601 on: October 17, 2024, 10:03:48 AM »
@amuse

DOGE: NASA originally gave Bechtel a contract for a simple launch tower during Trump's administration. At that time, it was supposed to cost $383 million and be completed by March 2023. When the Biden-Harris regime took over, they demanded new DEI and climate change requirements that set everything back. Now, under the bumbling Biden-Harris regime, the cost has ballooned to $2.7 billion with completion pushed to 2027, maybe even 2029. Nothing as complex as SpaceX's booster-catching tower, which Musk's team erected in a year.

For reference, SpaceX built Mechazilla—a taller and more capable launch tower—in just one year for $200 million. The Burj Khalifa, seven times taller, full of tenants and amenities, took five years and $1.5 billion. But NASA's tower? DEI mandates, climate directives, and a mountain of bureaucratic nonsense have crushed any chance for efficiency or innovation.

It's time to elect Trump, with the help of true innovators like Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and JD Vance, and dismantle the bloated government machine that's holding America back.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: October 18, 2024, 08:13:51 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
$1.833T Deficit, fed govt debt up $2.3T, Interest expense passed $1Trillion!
« Reply #1603 on: October 19, 2024, 04:12:01 PM »
CNBC story today, none of this is news to readers of the forum.

Highest deficit ever - outside of two covid years that involved massive business closures.

We are spending 37.4% more than we take in.  Just wondering, how much is too much for the spenders of the left.

Shouldn't the deficit be shrinking with higher tax rates and an alleged booming economy?  Is someone lying to us about the great economy?  And the fallacy (Big Lie?) that higher tax rates bring in more revenue - because usually they don't.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/18/us-deficit-tops-1point8-trillion-in-2024-as-interest-on-debt-surpasses-trillion-dollar-mark.html

The Biden administration rang up a budget topping $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2024, up more than 8% from the previous year and the third highest on record. Interest expense for the year totaled $1.16 trillion, the first time that figure has topped the trillion-dollar level. The Biden administration rang up a budget deficit topping $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2024, up more than 8% from the previous year ... the shortfall totaled $1.833 trillion, $138 billion higher than a year ago. ... The deficit came despite record receipts of $4.9 trillion, which fell well short of outlays of $6.75 trillion.

Government debt has swelled to $35.7 trillion, an increase of $2.3 trillion from the end of fiscal 2023.

Interest expense for the year totaled $1.16 trillion, the first time that figure has topped the trillion-dollar level
.


[Doug]  It's the spending stupid.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3471
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Government spending, Peak Waste
« Reply #1605 on: October 25, 2024, 06:28:44 AM »
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/10/24/peak_waste_feds_sets_record_for_improper_payments_1067318.html

Again, there isn't any good news coming for this high spending gang that doesn't care where it goes.

The best item in the platform of the Trump second term is the idea that Elon Musk will examine federal programs for efficiency.  What I call zero based budgeting and the end of baseline budgeting.

Everything gets looked at for efficiency and exposed.  The opportunity for a 40% cut is not far fetched.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1606 on: October 28, 2024, 07:21:39 AM »
Elon Musk announced last night that he thinks a Government Efficiency Commission can discover $2 trillion of waste, inefficiency, and fraud in the budget.   - CTUP

(Doug). Coincidentally, $2 trillion out of $7 trillion spending happens to be the Biden Harris deficit.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2024, 07:24:16 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1607 on: October 28, 2024, 07:26:10 AM »
FEMA Is Spending Billions on Welfare for Illegal Migrants

the federal government spent $67 billion last year on migrant services and costs.

(A significant part of that was FEMA.)
« Last Edit: October 28, 2024, 07:28:28 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Misnamed inflation reduction act caused prescription drug prices to spike
« Reply #1608 on: November 01, 2024, 03:43:16 AM »
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_b0b100ea-957c-11ef-ad2c-eba8b2be1119.html

How many times have we heard how these Brave politicians lowered the price for us on certain prescription drugs?

Deceit is a form of dishonesty. Medicare prices for prescription drugs are going up 60% in some states, 31% nationally.

When do people get tired of being lied to?

From the article :
"The Inflation Reduction Act added red tape and government mandates to Medicare Part D, which increased seniors' drug costs, he said.

"Before the IRA overhauled Part D, costs for Medicare drug benefits had stayed flat for the previous 18 years," Merritt said.

"So there's an IRA double whammy; it's that the law's spending contributed to higher general inflation of 7% since 2022," said Merritt, but caused "Medicare inflation" to spike 31% during those same two years."
« Last Edit: November 01, 2024, 03:48:31 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1609 on: November 01, 2024, 05:56:19 AM »
"The Inflation Reduction Act added red tape and government mandates to Medicare Part D, which increased seniors' drug costs, he said."

Their immigration bill was not to control and restrict immigration - it was to process the illegals into the country even faster.


Even the labels they use as names for their bills are lies.

Stuffed with so much BS and often so long no one even knows what is in them.

I liked when someone (Kudlow) said they and their press lie by omission

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3471
    • View Profile
Federal Budget Battle Looms; What Will be Trump's Strategy?
« Reply #1610 on: November 08, 2024, 05:46:55 AM »
This will be a telling fight to watch. I hope Trump and Repubs ID sundry budgetary sinkholes (how are NGOs receiving funds that then end up in the pockets of those here illegally, hmm?) excise 'em, and dare Dems to hold up the budget due to it:

Trump wins tip scales for GOP on government funding
100+The Hill News by Aris Folley / Nov 8, 2024 at 6:27 AM//keep unread//hide

Republican electoral wins in both the presidential race and the Senate are changing the game on government funding, as Congress braces for a battle over federal spending when lawmakers return next week.

The increasing likelihood of a trifecta of Republican control in Washington is positioning GOP leaders squarely in the driver's seat in deciding whether to complete their annual funding work this year or punt the current Dec. 20 shutdown deadline into next year, when President-elect Trump is in office.

While a short-term stopgap would allow a potentially GOP-controlled Congress and a Republican president more say over how the government will be funded for much of 2025, it could also leave the party with a hefty to-do list in the first months of Trump presidency, between tying up spending, reckoning with the nation's debt ceiling, and other first 100-day priorities leaders are mulling.

Republicans will most likely control 53 seats in the Senate and Trump won the White House decisively. Control of the House has yet to be called, but Republicans are growing optimistic of maintaining their narrow majority in the lower chamber.

Congress currently has until Dec. 20 to pass legislation to prevent a government shutdown before the holidays. But that means a serious time crunch for both sides to hash out a deal to keep the lights on — even as most lawmakers aren’t saying which plan they would prefer.

A House GOP leadership aide said on Thursday that it’s “likely” lawmakers will try for another stopgap during the lame duck period, along with a disaster aid package that will include dollars for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that he thinks “deciding how to spend the discretionary money that we have” is “important.”

“And I would hope we would put a greater priority than the current Senate has on doing the basic work of government, which is deciding how much to spend and getting it done as close to regular order as possible,” he said.

However, McConnell additionally said that lawmakers will soon “figure out how to finish up the year,” adding, “that always involves a conversation between [Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer and myself as to how we wrap it up – but those conversations haven't started yet.”

One factor in those conversations may be who Republicans choose to replace McConnell as GOP leader after his historic stint in the post. Senate and House Republicans both intend to hold leadership races next week.

Another factor could be the ambitious agenda Republicans are already mapping out for Trump’s first 100 days and whether they, and the president-elect, want to add to it. They need to address the nation’s debt limit when they convene in January and have said they will prioritize extending the Trump tax cuts, which expire at the end of 2025, among other plans.

Trump has not expressed a preference on the timing of a government funding bill.

The question of how long to extend government funding for emerged as a central sticking point in negotiations ahead of the Sept. 30 shutdown deadline. An initial plan called for a keeping the government funded at the previous fiscal year’s levels through early next year, but House Republicans weren’t able to pass the legislation and eventually leaders settled on the Dec. 20 deadline.

Conservatives saw the strategy then as key to avoiding being jammed with an omnibus funding package packed with items and funding levels more favorable to Democrats. They also argued kicking the deadline into next year would allow Trump, if elected, a better chance to have more input over how the government is funded for most of the coming year.

But the six-month strategy drew opposition from multiple corners of the conference. Defense hawks at the time argued freezing funding at fiscal year 2024 levels for half a year would harm the military. Fiscal hawks, some of whom are wholly opposed to the very idea of a stopgap, were also critical of the stopgap for continuing funding at levels they already felt were excessive.

And some appropriators called for finishing the fiscal year 2025 funding work this year.

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said in September he thinks lawmakers should instead focus on getting their funding work finished “and try and do it as expeditiously as possible.”

“I personally think it’s not a good thing to give a new president — and we’re going to have a new president — an immediate fiscal crisis,” Cole said. “But again, that’s probably going to be up to the winner of the election, to be honest. If they want it, then Congress is always happy to pass the ball.”

Those same intraparty rifts could pose similar hurdles in the months ahead as both sides look for a solution to avert a shutdown next month.

Republicans in both chambers have been drawing red lines around the prospect of a Christmastime omnibus funding package, which combines all 12 government funding bills, amid fears from conservatives that’s where Congress was headed after previously setting the Dec. 20 funding deadline.

“We have broken the Christmas omni, and I have no intention of going back to that terrible tradition,” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in September, while also ruling out the chances of any minibus packages, adding: “We’re not going to do any buses.”

Still, though Democrats’ leverage over the funding process significantly diminished with the election results, their votes will likely be required to pass government funding. Democrats currently control the Senate and House Republicans have been unable to pass their own funding bills without Democratic votes.

That could hold true even in January, and Republicans’ Senate majority is not filibuster-proof.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Thursday that the Biden administration will focus its remaining days partly on tying up loose ends on the spending side, including disaster relief.

“I can tell you things that we're going to focus on in the upcoming 74 days. We're going to make sure that we keep the government open,” Jean-Pierre said. “We're going to deliver assistance for communities devastated by hurricanes Helen and Milton and other recent disasters.”

However, she stopped short of providing further details as to how the administration would prevent a shutdown next month as questions remain over how government funding and disaster relief will be tackled before Congress ushers in a new session come January.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that Congress should pass a bill this year that covers most of 2025.

“It does not matter who is in the White House or who controls the House and the Senate. Close margins in the House next year—and the lack of a supermajority for Republicans in the Senate—mean Democrats and Republicans will still need to work together if we want to pass funding bills,” she said. “Whether we do it now or wait until next year, no single chamber or political party can act alone to fund the programs and services hardworking Americans depend on. Leaving all our work for January is a mistake.”

https://thehill.com/business/budget/4979972-gop-control-government-funding/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1611 on: November 14, 2024, 08:28:03 AM »
New fiscal year started October 1, Biden's last budget year. Results for October, spending up 24%, revenues down 19%, compared with October of the previous year.
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/us-deficit-explodes-blowout-october-deficit-means-2nd-worst-start-us-fiscal-year-record

I wonder what people mean when they say the country is headed in the wrong direction...

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3471
    • View Profile
Inflation Reduction Act (Which Doesn’t) Contains Drug Savings Element …
« Reply #1612 on: November 16, 2024, 11:45:19 PM »
… that increases costs:

Let The Numbers Speak: Prescription Drug Provisions In The Inflation Reduction Act
Ge Bai
Contributor
Ge Bai is professor of accounting & health policy at Johns Hopkins.

Nov 14, 2024,12:49pm EST
Updated Nov 16, 2024, 03:57pm EST

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 introduced significant changes to the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, affecting tens of millions of seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries. Early evidence has now emerged, offering the public a glimpse into the law’s scorecard.

This law is well-intentioned. As the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stated, it is expected to “expand benefits, lower drug costs, keep prescription drug premiums stable, and improve the strength of the Medicare program.”

The law changed certain benefit designs for Medicare Part D standalone prescription drug plans, including a lower cap on out-of-pocket spending and a new cap on premium growth rates. The redesign was initially estimated to cost taxpayers $30 billion over a decade.

The law also introduced price controls for prescription drugs under Medicare, which were anticipated to save taxpayers $160 billion over 10 years. Congress used the projected $130 billion net savings to fund green energy initiatives.

However, a low out-of-pocket cap increases utilization of expensive drugs and restricts insurance plans’ ability to steer patients toward more cost-effective treatment options, thus inflating premiums. While average basic premiums for Medicare Part D declined by 12% from 2017 to 2020, plan bids for 2025 nearly tripled, partly due to this and other aspects of benefit redesign.

With new evidence available, the Congressional Budget Office recently reported that federal spending on Part D would be $10 to $20 billion higher than previously projected, initially attributing the increase to the benefit redesign. The agency later explained that the increase is largely driven by higher-than-expected drug spending growth in 2023.

The Biden administration also sent taxpayer dollars—unauthorized by Congress—to Medicare Part D plans to offset the 2025 premium increases. This additional spending amounted to $5 billion in 2025 alone, with an extra $2 billion in interest expense over a decade. Therefore, the drug provisions in the law may not generate the savings as initially promised.

The law’s consequences extend beyond its impact on the federal budget. Recent analyses have demonstrated the chilling effect of the law on clinical trials and other R&D activities. This is unsurprising, as the bureaucratic price-setting process imposes regulatory uncertainty on biotech investors and innovators, along with lower expected revenues due to price controls.

Meanwhile, a lower out-of-pocket cap reduces patients’ price sensitivity, increasing revenue for drug manufacturers and discouraging them from lowering prices. In effect, the law has conflicting financial impacts on the biopharma industry and sends two problematic messages: don’t invest in new drugs and don’t lower your prices.

Another negative consequence of the law is a 26% decline in available Medicare Part D plans in 2025, reaching the lowest level since the program’s inception. Consequently, 3.5 million seniors are losing their Part D plans and may opt for Medicare Advantage plans, which cover both prescription drugs and medical benefits and are not directly affected by the law.

However, with increasing regulatory constraints and compliance costs, Medicare Advantage plans face new challenges in insurance carrier participation. In 2025, the plans for 1.5 million seniors will be terminated. As Medicare Advantage plans become an increasingly important option for providing American seniors with access to prescription drugs, policymakers must address these plans' challenges.

Taken together, the prescription drug provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act may not generate savings for taxpayers as initially promised, while destabilizing the Medicare Part D insurer market and creating problematic incentives for the biopharma industry.

If the goal is to improve drug access for low-income Medicare beneficiaries, this law represents a cautionary tale for future policymaking. Rather than detaching patients from their healthcare dollars and imposing price controls, directly subsidizing patients and promoting competition and innovation would produce long-lasting benefits for patients, industries, and taxpayers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gebai/2024/11/14/let-the-numbers-speak-prescription-drug-provisions-in-the-inflation-reduction-act/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3471
    • View Profile
4 X the Bureaucrats Paid w/ the Federal Credit Card
« Reply #1613 on: November 19, 2024, 10:56:14 AM »
Somehow I don't think we are seeing ANY return on this vast increase in the number of paid federal pencil pushers, though we can rest easy knowing they vote reliably for the hand that feeds them, eh?

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/11/19/hooray-you-wont-believe-how-much-more-government-youre-buying-n4934431

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1614 on: November 19, 2024, 01:44:19 PM »
Great chart, and big picture timely with the DOGE Twins coming on stream!

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3471
    • View Profile
The Regulatory Mine Field
« Reply #1615 on: November 20, 2024, 05:14:07 AM »
Dems make it impossible to open new US mines, leaving kids in third world countries to dig the materials we need for our daily lives:

https://pjmedia.com/john-stossel/2024/11/20/destructive-environmentalists-n4934460

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
How I learned to stop worrying about the national debt
« Reply #1616 on: November 25, 2024, 08:30:01 AM »
If memory serves, back when inflation was around 9% I made similar points here about what implied for the national debt.

https://nypost.com/2024/11/25/business/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-about-the-national-debt-even-though-its-35-trillion/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Re: How I learned to stop worrying about the national debt
« Reply #1617 on: November 25, 2024, 02:50:58 PM »
If memory serves, back when inflation was around 9% I made similar points here about what implied for the national debt.

https://nypost.com/2024/11/25/business/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-about-the-national-debt-even-though-its-35-trillion/

There are some good facts and wisdom in here but there are also points that scare me and seem to ignore real danger.

1. In the immediate term we can't do anything about the size of the debt, but we can do something about how much we are adding to it or subtracting from it. As posted ad nauseam, with rounding we are spending 40% more than we take in. That is traitorously criminal.

2. Over the last 4 years the cost of servicing the debt doubled and has surpassed the defense budget.

3. Using his implied logic, we need to lock in current inflation rates forever. Again that is, in my humble opinion traitorously criminal.

4. And back to the immediate term, this is a right direction, wrong direction question. We need to greatly shrink the deficit now and we need to grow the economy like never before. We also need to reduce, not increase inflation. And we need interest rates to fall.  At that point, we are headed in the right direction.  MHO.

Future debt will not be in US dollars if we continue on the path we're on.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2024, 03:54:57 PM by DougMacG »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Far fewer and simpler regulations, see Idaho
« Reply #1619 on: December 10, 2024, 07:00:44 PM »
Steve Hayward, Powerline
I'll try to add the charts in but the words make the point.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/12/the-daily-chart-be-like-idaho.php

One of the top priorities for the next Trump Administration is rolling back regulation. Trump enjoyed some success with this task in his first administration, but the Biden Administration has been the most regulation-happy administration in the last 50 years:

And here’s the growth in the Code of Federal Regulations, highlighting that the total number even increased during the anti-regulation Reagan presidency:

One model for how much de-regulation is possible in modern America comes from Idaho, as explained recently in the Wall Street Journal by James Broughel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

Idaho has proved deregulation is possible. The state repealed and revised its administrative rules code through a sunset review process in 2019. The results were dramatic. Since then, 95% of state regulations have been eliminated or simplified. The sky didn’t fall. Most regulations, when subject to genuine scrutiny, fail to justify their existence.

The federal government should learn from Idaho’s success.

Here’s the graphic proof:

Chaser—Trump and Congress should go after the tax code next:
« Last Edit: December 10, 2024, 07:02:39 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
Some Rs want to expand SS for those with Gov pensions
« Reply #1620 on: December 18, 2024, 08:03:49 AM »
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-syndic8-activ8ight&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-activ8ight&hspart=syndic8&p=video+toilet+flushing#id=6&vid=0058b8cd1b41e23ba381be51e93452d0&action=click

While I don't wish to harm anyone's retirement, waying pros and cons, seems to bring one to the conclusion this would be a foolish thing to do - to increase gov. spending even more.

Totally antithetical to the need to cut spending and reducing debt.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
WSJ: GOP headed for fiscal cliff
« Reply #1622 on: December 18, 2024, 10:54:59 AM »


GOP Takes Control, Headed for a Fiscal Cliff
How to avert disaster? First, do no harm. Then take a serious look at costly tax expenditures.
By Jeb Hensarling
Dec. 17, 2024 3:21 pm ET


Republicans’ election celebrations will have to give way next year to dealing with what Washington calls the “fiscal cliff.” Key provisions of the historic 2017 Trump-Pence Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will expire then and the debt ceiling, currently capping a record gross national debt of $36.1 trillion, will be breached. Also next year, the Pay-As-You-Go Act—which prohibits new legislation from increasing projected deficits—will require $190 billion of mandatory spending cuts, and enforceable discretionary spending caps will expire. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Innovation Center, if Congress continues current policies next year, another $5 trillion will be added to the national debt.

Congress should be alarmed. Although the Fed has been cutting rates, bond yields have been rising, and some Treasury auctions this year have been weak. That suggests that bondholders are beginning to question America’s ballooning national debt. They likely have noticed that debt service is the fastest-growing line item in the federal budget, now exceeding that of the Pentagon. Congress should follow the Hippocratic counsel to “do no harm”—it can ill afford to make our unsustainable debt even worse.

Besides giving us a robust economy and higher living standards, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act showed that favorable tax policy also produces more tax revenue. As Congress revisits the TCJA, it can make the tax code even “growthier,” to borrow a word coined by former Trump adviser Larry Kudlow. That doesn’t necessarily mean making the entire TCJA permanent, but it does mean making permanent provisions like the 20% deduction for pass-through income and full and immediate expensing for capital investments. Other growth provisions proposed by Mr. Trump should be considered, such as lowering the corporate tax rate even further.

Unfortunately, even under the most promising growth models, the resulting tax revenue won’t be enough to fill a $5 trillion hole that congressional budget rules require and that bond markets will likely demand. After all other possibilities are explored and exhausted, Congress will need to reduce tax expenditures significantly.

One possible offset that shouldn’t be embraced is Mr. Trump’s universal tariff plan. Yes, if levied at 10%, universal tariffs could theoretically raise $2 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Foundation. But the actual number would be much smaller, since the estimate doesn’t account for retaliatory tariffs, inflationary effects, the harm to gross domestic product, or the inevitable litigation that could prevent Mr. Trump from imposing the tariff in the first place. Given the likely collateral damage, Congress would have to think long and hard before codifying these tariffs.

Other ideas floated during the presidential campaign will cost tax revenue. Should Congress restore full deductibility of state and local taxes, that’s a new $1 trillion revenue hole that will likely make state and local governments grow. Eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits would open a $1.2 trillion revenue gap that, if not coupled with other needed reforms, would hasten the program’s insolvency and statutory benefit cuts. Again, when it comes to the national debt Congress’s priority should be to do no harm.

The real fiscal challenge remains on the spending side of the ledger, and it’s only getting worse. Assuming the TCJA is made permanent, the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next 30 years that revenue as a percentage of GDP will remain essentially flat at the 30-year average of 17.3%, but spending will skyrocket, from 21.8% to 27.3%.

Enter the new Department of Government Efficiency, which holds great promise in reining in the power and abuses of the administrative state. Mr. Trump deserves credit for its creation. But even if Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy prove to be the smartest men on the planet, DOGE holds considerably less promise in reining in spending.

Why? Because federal spending is driven by growing entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, which Mr. Trump pledged not to touch, and ballooning interest payments on the national debt, which must be paid. These constitute 77% of expected spending growth over the next 10 years. Since Congress is unlikely to cut defense spending, DOGE isn’t left with much to work with on the spending front. Proposals like shedding empty office space and reducing the number of remote workers, worthy as they are, aren’t up to the fiscal challenge.

That leads us to the too-often-ignored option of reducing tax expenditures, which consist of various exclusions, deductions, credits and preferences. These are usually referred to as tax loopholes by those who don’t benefit from them or would prefer lower marginal tax rates. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these expenditures annually cost $1.8 trillion in lost revenue and have grown in number from 53 in 1970 to more than 200 today.

Two places to start reducing tax expenditures concern Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act, the latter of which included such expenditures as a $7,500 tax credit for electric-vehicle purchases. According to the CBO, the Inflation Reduction Act’s energy tax provisions alone will cost $622 billion over the next seven years.

Other large tax expenditures include employer-provided health insurance, weighing in at $3.4 trillion over 10 years. The partial exclusion of capital gains on home sales and tax exemptions on municipal bonds also cost billions. Throw in the advanced semiconductor manufacturing credit, the deductibility of student loan interest, and the low-income housing tax credit, and you begin to unearth a target-rich environment for curbing tax expenditures.

Life is full of lousy options and tough decisions. To keep and improve a tax code built for economic growth, Congress will not only have to cut the federal budget but also meaningfully reduce tax expenditures. Adding to the national debt, historically the path of least resistance, is becoming less viable by the day.

Mr. Hensarling, a former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (2013-19), is an advisory council member to Americans for Prosperity and an economics fellow at the Cato Institute.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
WSJ: GOP gift for Randi Weingarten
« Reply #1623 on: December 18, 2024, 10:57:25 AM »
second

A GOP Gift for Randi Weingarten
The Senate is poised to rob $196 billion from Social Security for public union workers.
By The Editorial Board
Dec. 16, 2024 5:35 pm ET

Republicans claim to want to reduce the budget deficit, but then why are they joining Democrats in raiding Social Security for nearly $200 billion in extra benefits for government workers?

The House last month passed the misnamed Social Security Fairness Act, 327-75. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed at a rally with union leaders last week to hold a vote on the bill this week. “What’s happening to you is unfair, un-American,” Mr. Schumer declared to cheers from teachers union chief Randi Weingarten.

What’s unfair is rewarding high-paid government workers with larger Social Security benefits than they earned. That’s essentially what the bill would do.

Social Security payments are based on worker contributions and average monthly earnings over the highest 35 years of compensation. They are also progressively indexed so higher-paid workers receive a benefit that replaces a smaller share of their earnings. Ergo, an investment banker receives a smaller wage replacement rate than a retail clerk.

But what about teachers and firefighters? Many state and local government employees who receive pensions don’t pay into Social Security. Instead they earn pensions that are far more generous than the average Social Security benefit. Many can also retire as early as 50 and then work in private industry while receiving their government pension.

Here’s the rub: Government workers who spend some of their career in private industry are entitled to Social Security benefits. However, the standard Social Security formula treats years employed in government as if workers have zero earnings. This reduces their average earnings in the equation and thus increases their wage replacement rate.

As a result of this formula quirk, government workers who spend some years with private employers would get a relatively larger benefit than similar-earning workers who spend their entire careers in private industry. Congress in 1983 sought to fix this injustice with the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), which reduced benefits for such government workers.

Government unions have long pushed to repeal this provision as well as a 1977 law that ensures government workers don’t receive outsize spousal benefits under the Social Security formula. Ms. Weingarten’s ship has finally come in as some Republicans cozy up to unions.

Never mind that repealing these two Social Security adjustments would benefit workers in government unions who paid less in payroll taxes. High-earning government workers would also benefit more than lower earners.

House Republicans passed the bill after the election, perhaps as a payoff to the International Association of Fire Fighters, which declined to endorse Kamala Harris and has led the lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill. Many firefighters retire in their early 50s and then work for private employers.

Thirteen GOP Senators have co-sponsored a companion bill, including Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, Markwayne Mullin, John Kennedy, Mike Braun, JD Vance, Deb Fischer, Jerry Moran, Pete Ricketts, Marsha Blackburn, Rick Scott and John Boozman.

Social Security is headed for insolvency, but these Republicans don’t seem to care. The Weingarten gift would cost $196 billion over 10 years. That’s more than double the savings from raising the retirement age to 70, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

We know Republicans are phonies on spending restraint, but handing a huge victory to unions like the teachers and Afscme that back Democrats takes a special kind of political masochism. Please spare us any future whining about debt and deficits.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1624 on: December 18, 2024, 12:23:09 PM »
" House Republicans passed the bill after the election, perhaps as a payoff to the International Association of Fire Fighters, which declined to endorse Kamala Harris and has led the lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill. Many firefighters retire in their early 50s and then work for private employers. "

what is this?   seems like everyone who supported Trump is getting some sort of payoff.
this IS NOT what we voted for!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Re: pork barrel bill again
« Reply #1625 on: December 18, 2024, 12:28:58 PM »
My thought on spending cuts is treat it like the deportations, we will deport the worst criminals first. Gender studies in the Congo for example, find every program that makes no sense, no matter how big or small, and end it. Meanwhile, end Baseline budgeting. Replace it with zero-based budgeting. Every expenditure is fully justified and necessary, nothing to do with last year's budget. It's not a cut, it's funding a program. Get all the bad stuff out, then we talk about cutting things that hurt.

Two points on the tax revenue side, do no harm to the growth in the economy, and raise revenues the best you can.

If we close the deficit from 2 trillion to 1 trillion, how can anyone argue that's too small of a deficit.

In 2 years we can say we cut the deficit in half, or we can say the uni-party rules, elections don't matter.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1627 on: December 18, 2024, 02:38:01 PM »
8 Billion $ for a bridge?

you can almost buy an aircraft carrier for that much.

Can't we get construction that doesn't run up the cost of everything?

Can't we even build a bridge for less than a billion?



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
Tom Cole, House Appropriations Committee
« Reply #1629 on: December 20, 2024, 04:07:15 AM »
IMHO this is quite true and, in a certain sense, rather cowardly in that it fails to note that Trump has dug his heels in on this.

How to Avoid the Coming Federal Debt Avalanche
The nation will be snowed under unless we tackle the main cause of the problem, mandatory spending.
By Tom Cole
Dec. 19, 2024 1:51 pm

Raise taxes. Cut the Pentagon’s budget. Shut down the government. Eliminate federal agencies. We often hear these rallying cries when Congress considers the national debt. Yet our attention to the issue invariably wanes, as the nation seemingly becomes numb to it until the next spending deadline. Then, like clockwork, the battle of budget priorities begins.

As an appropriator, I have witnessed this cycle for years. Thanks to such creative thinkers as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, however, we are poised to approach the next round of deliberations with new energy and perspective. Their proposals for government reform through the Department of Government Efficiency—challenging our entrenched bureaucracy—align with conservative principles of efficiency and accountability. They are forcing a new conversation, geared toward delivering for the American people, and convening Republicans and Democrats to challenge stasis in Washington.

As House Appropriations Committee chairman, I’m proud of the work we have done to get spending under control. The past two years have shown that House Republicans are willing to make difficult decisions, including the initiation of double-digit reductions to various subcommittee bills and their well-meaning programs. We’ve cut spending to bloated programs, rooted out abuse, and directed resources away from diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The synergy between our committee’s work and DOGE is clear: We are unified in acting to put America on a fiscally responsible path.

Achieving this aim first requires us to recognize the differences in how government doles out its resources. There are two types of spending: discretionary and mandatory.

Discretionary spending is decided by lawmakers through the annual appropriations process. This concerns resources for executive agencies—the expenditures affected by spending fights often seen in headlines and linked to shutdowns. Mandatory spending, by contrast, runs on autopilot. It isn’t decided through the appropriations process and receives little congressional oversight. These expenditures are initiated through authorizing bills, which allow the government to cover all costs associated with such programs as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The difference is stark. Mandatory spending, plus interest payments on the debt, accounts for 72% of the federal budget. Discretionary priorities take up the remaining 28%. The latter’s share has been declining for decades—from 45% in 1981, when Rep. Hal Rogers, dean of the House, began serving—and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will fall to about 20% by 2034. This situation is similar to discovering a forgotten subscription that has quietly ballooned over time, now consuming nearly three-quarters of your budget. Meanwhile, our debt is estimated to exceed $50 trillion by 2034.

That’s unsustainable, but none of the aforementioned solutions suffice. The nation recently boasted historic revenue receipts, yet our debt hasn’t budged downward. We can’t tax our way out of the problem. Nor can we afford to cut the Pentagon’s budget. We face an increasingly dangerous world, with adversaries plotting our downfall. Lawmakers can and should reject the false choice between protecting our nation and achieving fiscal stability.

Shutting down the government, as some have recommended, isn’t economical. These episodes are more costly than the status quo, thanks to obligations to furloughed government workers, increased costs from delayed starts—which prevent new and planned projects from commencing—and constrained economic growth. Eliminating federal agencies wouldn’t fix the underlying problem either. We could end discretionary spending and the nation would continue to be in a hole.

The inescapable conclusion is that we can’t change our fiscal trajectory without addressing mandatory spending. That doesn’t mean eliminating the entitlement programs that enrich Americans’ lives. On the contrary, our efforts are geared toward saving them for future generations. Without action, the combined Social Security trust funds will go insolvent by 2035 and Medicare payments will be cut as soon as 2036. The longer we wait, the harder and more austere the choices become.

President-elect Trump recognizes that we have an opportunity to achieve responsible governance. Such initiatives as DOGE will provide the president with useful guidance on where to trim fat. At the same time, Congress will have the opportunity to use budget reconciliation to protect the crucial programs hardworking Americans have paid into their entire lives. I encourage my colleagues on the authorizing committees to take a long, hard look at the 800-pound gorilla in the room. I am more than willing to work with them on wrangling mandatory spending, the greatest threat to the success of our nation.

As we do so, we might consider consulting our most important resource: the American people. Lawmakers have advanced various proposals to address mandatory spending in recent years, but most have been deeply unpopular. Our government is supposed to be of, by and for the people. We ought to engage with our constituents and learn from their own expertise. Together, I’m confident we can develop creative solutions to reduce expenditures while preserving programs that exemplify the values that define our nation.

Mr. Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
Q: Did the spending create an asset or not?
« Reply #1632 on: December 28, 2024, 04:07:01 PM »
How to Think About the U.S. National Debt
Does the government create assets when spending and borrowing—or not?
Dec. 26, 2024 3:32 pm ET




4

Gift unlocked article

Listen

(3 min)


image
The dome of the U.S. Capitol, Dec. 20. Photo: Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
Regarding David Malpass’s op-ed “Trump and the Fake Debt Limit” (op-ed, Dec. 23): Why should debt be assessed relative to gross domestic product? If—and it’s a big “if”—government spending reflects, in part, investments, what matters is whether the return on these assets over a certain time horizon exceeds the interest payment on the debt.

If it does, it means the U.S. creates more collateral, and it can borrow more (all in a stable dollar). If, however, the spending doesn’t create assets, but digs deeper holes, assets are being destroyed rather than created, and there are no returns. This is true even if bureaucrats define the spending as “investment”; see the so-called “educational institutions” for decades. Debt incurred assuming the creation of assets, while assets are actually being destroyed, is the problem.

Debt limits and balanced budgets are political gimmicks, misleading jargons. The issue is whether the government creates assets when spending and borrowing—implying matching brains with capital and holding all sides accountable—or not.

Does more and more spent on education and defense bring about better educated citizens and better defense? Or are U.S. citizens paying more in taxes and getting less returns from these presumed government-defined “investments”?

Prof. Reuven Brenner

McGill University

Montreal

Mr. Malpass argues that the debt limit is antiquated, ineffective and costly. He says it should be replaced. While he may be correct on the first three counts, periodic debt-limit crises provide economists the opportunity to remind voters of the dangers associated with our increasing debt.

That financial obligation now stands at $36 trillion, or 123% of GDP and 13% of the national budget. Those latter payments limit the nation’s ability to allocate funds for defense and provide other basic services. Yet politicians benefit from a rising debt. They get to provide generous government services and low taxes.

To control the rising debt, it is necessary to make politicians responsible for it. A simple way to do this is to follow Mr. Malpass’s advice, abandon the debt limit, but place accountability for government spending on politicians by replacing the limit with a bill that would raise taxes when the debt rises above 125% of GDP.

Richard Morris

Williamsport, Pa.

In writing about the problem of so-called mandatory spending (“How to Avert the Coming Debt Avalanche,” op-ed, Dec. 20), Rep. Tom Cole concludes with a head-scratching suggestion: “We might consider consulting our most important resource: the American people.” We already do this, in a periodic process known as elections. The American people speak loudly and consistently, endlessly voting themselves money apparently until the end of the republic. The process creates a giant vacuum of leadership in Washington. This is not going to end well.

Jerry Bauck

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Government spending, waste
« Reply #1633 on: December 29, 2024, 07:44:07 PM »
https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2024/12/24/rand-paul-releases-report-detailing-1000000000000-in-govt-waste-here-are-the-worst-offenders/

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul released a report on Monday outlining more than $1 trillion in government waste from the past year.

“This year, I am highlighting a whopping $1,008,313,329,626.12,” Paul wrote in the report. “That’s over $1 trillion in government waste, including things like ice-skating drag queens, a $12 Million Las Vegas pickleball complex, $4,840,082 on Ukrainian influencers, and more! No matter how much money the government has wasted, politicians keep demanding even more.”

The Department of the Interior (DOI) spent $12 million on a Las Vegas Pickleball Complex, according to the report. The DOI also spent $720,479 on wetland conservation projects for ducks in Mexico.

“I have a lot of problems with federal spending, and now it’s time to hear all about them,” Paul wrote in the report.

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) awarded the Bearded Ladies Cabaret a $10,000 grant to support a cabaret show on ice skates focused on climate change, according to the report. The NEA also spent $365,000 to promote circuses in city parks, the report states.

The State Department spent $500,000 to expand the U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia’s #USInvestsInEthiopians social media campaign to a larger national public relations campaign, according to the report. The State Department also sent $253,653 to Bosnia to fight “misinformation,” spent $2.1 million for Paraguayan border security, and spent $3 million for “Girl-Centered Climate Action” in Brazil, according to the report.

The Department of Health and Human Services spent $419,470 to determine if lonely rats seek cocaine more than happy rats, the report states.

The National Science Foundation spent $288,563 to ensure bird watching groups have safe spaces, also known as “Affinity Groups,” according to the report.

President-elect Donald Trump announced on Nov. 12 that he had picked Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk to co-chair a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aimed at cutting down on wasteful government spending.

“As always, taking the path to fiscal responsibility is often a lonely journey, but I’ve been fighting government waste like DOGE before DOGE was cool,” Paul wrote in the report. “And I will continue my fight against government waste this holiday season.”

Many Americans have faced steep costs amid high inflation throughout President Joe Biden’s term, with inflation hitting a peak of 9.1% in June 2022. While inflation rates have eased some since June 2022, prices still remain high, with the consumer price index (CPI), a measure of the price of everyday goods, experiencing a year-over-year increase of 2.7% in November, according to a Dec. 11 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Some experts have attributed massive government spending under the Biden-Harris administration to fueling inflation rates. The national debt was at $36.16 trillion as of Tuesday, according to U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2024, 07:47:25 PM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3471
    • View Profile
$5 Billion Dropped & All we Got was this Bilious Nitwit
« Reply #1634 on: December 31, 2024, 01:03:54 PM »
A "Progressive" tool is handed $5 billion to set up a green bank to fund "nonpartisan" green projects. Guess what? He still have $5 billion on hand, has funded nothing, but sure has emitted copious very partisan swill:

https://x.com/ParkerThayer/status/1874176861451755952

What say we freeze that $5 billion and find it a better use? The defunding sword can swing more than one direction....

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Government spending, rollback
« Reply #1635 on: January 01, 2025, 05:22:39 PM »
I will add a link when I remember who said this.

Roll back spending to pre-covid, 2019 levels when we only had deficits of 1 trillion dollars. Roll revenues forward and balance the budget or at least make substantial progress on that.

Rollback spending to the last booming economy level, on everything that's possible without breaking contracts etc.

Or just call Javier Milei and ask him how he did it.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1637 on: January 02, 2025, 07:48:18 AM »
Can't see article due to requirement for cash up front.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1638 on: January 14, 2025, 05:14:38 PM »
unleashprosperity.com

Source:  Congressional Budget Office, yesterday

For the first three months of fiscal year 2025 that began on October 1st,
the government borrowed $710 billion -
 almost $200 billion more than the same time last year.
Revenues are down 2%
and spending was up a gigantic 11%. 

The red ink is piling up higher not lower.
This is supposed to be a recovery.

If you want a good laugh (not funny):
remember when Biden claimed he "reduced the deficit more than any other president!"



{Doug]  We are spending 60% more than we take in??!!

(1762-1083) / 1083   =   63%

And he's still giving money away like it's candy.
Are these people nuts?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2025, 05:24:07 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1639 on: January 14, 2025, 07:38:09 PM »
and reimburse California 100%

what a big hearted guy  :roll:

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
RBiden funding to two electic car makers
« Reply #1640 on: January 16, 2025, 06:35:39 AM »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
pictures of Emhoff and Harris grocery shopping
« Reply #1642 on: January 26, 2025, 07:09:36 AM »
https://eurweb.com/2025/jesse-watters-mocks-doug-emhoff-for-grocery-shopping-w-kamala/

Here in NJ plastic grocery bags a literally outlawed and we have to use then bag our groceries in reusable bags.   What a nuisance.  Thanks Murphy  :x

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3471
    • View Profile
Budget Fantasy Is Not an Adult Option
« Reply #1643 on: January 30, 2025, 04:07:19 AM »
Piece notes how biases that don’t stand up to the hard light of day impact most American’s understanding of the US budget. Note, ther piece holds a spending table I couldn't reproduce here:

Of Budgets and Biases

The Beacon / by Nikolai Wenzel / Jan 29, 2025 at 8:24 PM

Austrian economist Gene Callahan likes to remind us that fantasy is not an adult policy option.

We are often reminded of his words in national debates and handwringing over potential budget cuts, whether by the Republican-led Congress, or President Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—or attempts to address the $36 trillion debt elephant in the room.

Economist Bryan Caplan has pointed out a number of systematically biased beliefs American voters hold about the economy. Generally, Americans tend to hold four basic biases about the economy: an anti-market bias, leading to favor government intervention; an anti-foreign bias, which leads them to underestimate the contributions of foreigners and the benefits of trade; a make-work bias, which equates prosperity with the number of jobs (regardless of productivity or value added); and a pessimism bias, which leads them to think that economic conditions are far worse than they really are.

Biases and ignorance do not just matter for economic curiosity. Indeed, less-informed voters favor systematically different policies than otherwise identical more-informed voters, and those policies tend to involve an increase in government spending.

In this inauguration month, many are belly-aching that DOGE will cut Social Security or Medicare (even if President Trump has explicitly said he won’t, and Elon Musk has specifically said that entitlements are beyond the DOGE purview). Surveys consistently show that the public thinks the federal government spends about 25% of the federal budget on foreign aid (it’s less than 1%). Other surveys show that the median U.S. respondent grossly underestimates U.S. debt; when presented with facts about the debt’s real magnitude, respondents increasingly favor cutting federal spending. The public prefers “tax expenditures” (credits) over “direct outlays” (a check or cash), even if the magnitude and economic result are identical. About 61% of Americans favor raising taxes on high-income households, and it has now become a cliché of class warfare and political soundbites that “the rich” need to pay “their fair share.” Then again, few respondents know two important facts. First, half of Americans don’t pay any federal income tax. Second, of those who do pay federal income taxes, 50% of taxpayers contribute a whopping 98% of tax revenue, and the top 10% of taxpayers pay 75% of tax revenue. What a “fair share” really constitutes will surely change based on perception versus facts.

A 1953 Soviet propaganda cartoon has recently been circulating on social media. It complains that nothing has changed, as defense (actually 13% of the total budget) is the only recipient of federal largesse, to the neglect of social expenditures (almost 60% of the total budget).

Given these wildly mistaken beliefs, it’s no surprise that Americans—setting aside ideology—are so divided on what government spending should be. Half of surveyed Americans think the federal government should be bigger, and the other half think it should be smaller. Half think the feds are doing too much, and half think they are doing too little to solve national problems. 43% favor increasing aid to the poor, while 26% think the federal government should provide less; 30% are satisfied with the current level (or, at least, the perceived level).

Before we get into practical (or constitutional) debates about budget cuts, it is a useful exercise to pause for a moment and examine real—rather than fantasy—budget spending. Only then can we have an adult conversation about budget cuts, balancing budgets, and addressing the national debt.

First, the total federal budget ($6.2 trillion or 23% of GDP) can be broken down into two categories: mandatory and discretionary (note that I am using numbers for FY23; FY24 ended on September 30, 2024, and the final numbers are still trickling in; while there was a 7% overall increase in spending from FY23 to FY24, the percentages remain similar). Congress has no annual authority over mandatory spending, which is authorized by prior legislation, unless and until Congress repeals past laws. Discretionary spending, on the other hand, must be reauthorized every year by congressional budget action. Mandatory spending constitutes about 70% of the federal budget and consists primarily of welfare entitlements and interest on the federal debt. Discretionary spending constitutes the other 30% of the federal budget and covers defense, as well as the various operations of the federal government, from education and transportation to justice and foreign affairs.

Reality must be the starting point for serious budget discussions. From there, a budget discussion could take several directions. We could advocate the simple path of trimming waste, without attacking the core. We could address runaway entitlements, which constitute the bulk of the budget. We could have a serious adult conversation about what really constitutes market failure, and where the federal government really needs to step in—rather than buying votes legally through redistribution. We could even (gasp!) boldly return to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (as bolstered by the 10th amendment) and figure out how much current federal spending is actually authorized.

My purpose here is not to dig deeply into the details of budget cuts. Both economic theory and political reality will be important parameters. But the first step is to stop making outrageous and uneducated claims, and start instead with reality. Only then can we have a serious, adult conversation about budget reform.

https://blog.independent.org/2025/01/29/of-budgets-and-biases/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=of-budgets-and-biases

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3471
    • View Profile
Your Tax Dollars in Granular Action
« Reply #1644 on: January 30, 2025, 04:50:24 AM »
2nd post.

I’ve bumped into an X account run by a data geek that calls herself Data Republican. She does an amazing job of ferreting out federal spending, to the point she created a search engine that allows us un-anointed taxpayers to see just what our elected officials are throwing our money at:

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1884116319278358742

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1645 on: January 30, 2025, 05:44:23 AM »
Haven't read her yet.   

Is she a candidate for here?

https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=550.msg3521#msg3521

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3471
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1646 on: January 30, 2025, 06:49:45 AM »
Haven't read her yet.   

Is she a candidate for here?

https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=550.msg3521#msg3521

I’ve only encountered 2 or 3 of her posts and so hesitate to go all in on her yet as she seems too good to be true while I haven’t the math skills to keep up with her (kinda hoping someone better versed [cough***Doug***cough] kicks her tires), but at this rate she appears to be a candidate.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1647 on: January 30, 2025, 06:52:16 AM »
Your call, and given your perception so far I lean towards Yes.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1648 on: January 30, 2025, 08:15:19 AM »
Sounds like a great tool!

If we had zero based budgeting, transparency and honest representative government, we wouldn't need to track all these BS NGOs.

In 2019, who knew we were funding a gain of function virus lab in Wuhan!

I'm starting to see a reversal rather than a pause in Leftism.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, Schumer puts it out there
« Reply #1649 on: January 31, 2025, 06:03:36 AM »
Why we need zero-based budget and zero dollars to so many causes.  10th Amendment defines the limits of federal government and these people flaunt their ability to go beyond that. This principle is most certainly not only about money. It's about power, control and dependency - on them.

Congress is supposed to meet in December, if it hasn't met already that year, not pass new laws, new taxes and new spending every day of the year.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/01/schumers-unintended-confession.php

Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer:

Virtually any organization, school, state, police office, county, town or community depends on federal grant money to run its day to day operations, and they’re all now in danger.

This is who they are, what they believe and why they must be defeated.