It's Time to Gut, Not Cut, the Federal Government

by Doug Bandow

This article appeared in Forbes on November 21, 2011.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13880


Washington's vaunted debt reduction supercommittee has failed. The dozen members were unable to agree on a package of deficit reduction measures which would only have slowed the fast rising tide of federal red ink. It will probably take the Second Coming before legislators voluntarily halt the wild taxpayer-paid party on the Potomac.

Committees and commissions aren't necessary to diagnose America's budget problem. Uncle Sam is spending far more than he takes in. Outlays always seem to increase — and always faster than the rate of inflation — no matter who is in power.

Republicans as well as Democrats spend more money on most everything. The only time that isn't the case is when government is divided and different parties run different ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. One party control in Washington tends to open the fiscal spigots to the maximum.

AMEN to that!

Ditto- it's been time to gut for a long time. Consider that under Reagan- the total federal government budget was 1 trillion dollars- a figure that Reagan was quite embarassed and unhappy with. Today the federal government is 3.86 trillion. In 25 years- the government is very nearly 4 times the size.

This is why we have an economy that is stalled and can not prosper anymore! Too much overhead.

It's high time to gut governments- federal, state and local. Infact it's the only hope we have of restoring the American dream.

Vote for those who are for smaller- limited government. Vote against anyone trying to maintain this massive waste of money we call government.

I feel it is time to vote out anyone that has been there more then 3 terms. We need to revamp the way our government does things and that means new faces in there that will turn more and more things back to the states, cut there own benefits and not listen to the lobbyists.

This guy isn't too far off the mark, but I can't imagine there is a politician on either side of the aisle with the intestinal fortitude to do the things that must be done with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Defense budgets. They would be one-term politicians and would likely be recalled early. American's want the budget balanced...but they generally aren't willing to endure the austerity associated with it. Just look at the Greeks, Italians, Spanish or French. Those are a microcosm of what it will be like in America when we finally have to face the music on this debt.

I don't expect there will be much left of the Social Security carcass when I'm eligible to collect it in about 15 years. Even though I've been paying into it for well over three decades...I don't expect to see a penny back.

Medicaid and Medicare. Really? Who the hell will keep picking up that tab?

Even as a career Army officer I agree with his assessment of the Defense budget. It would require a huge modification of our National Security and National Defense Strategies. Defense contractors making big weapon systems would holler like hell...along with the Senators and Congressmen from the states they produce in...but it could be done with a new perspective on where America stands.

In the Army we like to say "it briefs well" when referring to a plan that looks good on paper...but would be very difficult to execute in reality. The same goes for the medicine we need to keep our Nation solvent. It certainly won't happen under the watch of the panty waist in the White House right now...and it's unlikely to happen under any of the viable GOP candidates who will run against him in the next election.

It seems we will have to crash on the shoals before we get serious about the problem. Yet many on the Left in particular simply will not admit we actually have a debt problem. Debt problem? What debt problem? Do you see a debt problem?

BearMtnHIB wrote: Ditto- it's been time to gut for a long time. Consider that under Reagan- the total federal government budget was 1 trillion dollars- a figure that Reagan was quite embarassed and unhappy with. Today the federal government is 3.86 trillion. In 25 years- the government is very nearly 4 times the size.

This is why we have an economy that is stalled and can not prosper anymore! Too much overhead.

It's high time to gut governments- federal, state and local. Infact it's the only hope we have of restoring the American dream.

Vote for those who are for smaller- limited government. Vote against anyone trying to maintain this massive waste of money we call government.

I agree with you but your math is wrong. Given the data you provide. 1 trillion 1985 is over 2 trillion today. So 3.86/2 = not quite 2x the size. And despite agreeing with you, I still think debating the numbers is senseless, we should be talking about why we are so incapable as people and families to demand that our government grow so much, both parties.

I am curious, since you have the data, what if we compare Reagan's 1985 budget of 2+ trillion (2011). Sources I found had the 1985 US expenditures at 1.5 billion which is over 3 billion today so then we are at 3.86/3 = just under a 30% increase.

What would be cool would be to fill out this table:...oh I did.

Year budget in 2011 dollars
1982 2.75 trillion
1983 2.87 trillion
1984 2.90 trillion
1985 3.12 trillion
1986 3.21 trillion
1987 3.29 trillion
1988 3.36 trillion
1989 3.49 trillion

Again, though I agree with your perspective. It appears that if Reagan was in office for just one more year, he would have exceeded "Obama's" budget number you quoted in inflation adjusted dollars, but I think your data is wrong (see below) so this is actually not the case, but boy did Reagan increase the size of govt, especially compared to recent Democrats (Obama and Clinton, again see below). Also interesting that after adjusting for inflation that Reagan increased fed spending by 27% while in office...or if you want to ignore inflation as you did in your initial example, that is an 82% increase in fed spending/size of govt. (but as I said, this makes no sense to quote because there is inflation).

So let's look at BushII -

2002 4.59 trillion (2011) (note that for BushI and Clinton, 12 years, there was the same increase as Reagan did in only 8 years about 30%)
2009 6.19 trillion (2011) (note that for BushII there was a 38% increase when adjusted for inflation.)

Some year averages.

Reagan averaged an increase of about 3.75% inflation adjusted increase in spending per year.
Bush1 and Clinton average about 2.5% a year increase (adjusted etc.)
Bush II averaged about 4.75% a year increase (adjusted etc.)

Now for Obama, you likely already know this but his first budget was the first to reduce spending in real and inflation adjusted dollars.
In his first budget, there was a 4% decrease!
2010 5.96 trillion (2011)
2011 6.02 trillion (this is lower than 2009, so still a net decrease to date??????)

no opinions here (in the analysis anyway), just data and inflation adjustments. Does it strike anyone as odd that Obama is the first president in a while to oversee a shrinking in govt spending, despite increased regs, don't conservatives like decreases in govt spending? Is anyone surprised that Reagan oversaw a huge expansion in govt, more than Bush1 and Clinton combined, but not quite as large as BushII.

Did you know that Clinton only increased the size of govt by 28%. Still a lot, but less than Reagan.

So in ranking

Obama has done the most per year and overall to shrink govt. spending while in office.
Next is Clinton who grew the govt a little (to much).
Then Bush I who grew it more than Clinton per year.
Then is Reagan, who grew it more than BushI, Clinton and Obama (obviously, because he shrunk the spending???)...
Then there is BushII, who grew it more than anyone in the group. I know, I know, false intelligence is to blame, not his fault.

Did people expect this or already know it? Why don't people that want smaller govt spending like Obama, he has ruled over what not of the previous preses. have done? Or is there another reason that people are not comfortable stating so they use this as a cover. I don't like him as pres, but the numbers seem to say the admin is good with $ overall relative to others (not our ideals), despite the details. Why does anyone talk about the Republicans as the party that spends less? The numbers say just the opposite. So that is the nation, then look locally in Park, we spend like crazy, come up with new laws daily and there is not a democrat in the bunch? Are you going to go on pretending the Republicans spend less? They are all crooks, why put R's up on a platform they should literally be under.

I did notice by the time I was done that your 3.86 number was wrong, or if I am can you show me where.

Some of my sources if you want to repeat or dig deeper.
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spe ... 111mcn_F0t

Right now Paul has my vote.

lionshead2010 wrote:
I don't expect there will be much left of the Social Security carcass when I'm eligible to collect it in about 15 years. Even though I've been paying into it for well over three decades...I don't expect to see a penny back.

15 years is close. Chances are you will still get something unless the sh** really hits the fan. My gut tells me they will pick a 20 year or so window for complete cutoff, I expect you to be in the reduced payment category, if you in fact need it and collect. I personally hope that given your 30 years of work and 15-30 more that you will be able to earn enough to not need such welfare. If you do need it, you can hope and likely expect floundering for a few more years and then quickly you are only 10 and then 5 years out and it gets tougher to take it away...though better not to depend on it and leave it for those that are really disabled and desperate.

The question then is, if I don't think I need Social Security or don't want it...can I opt out? Also, can I get the money back that I've already put into it and invest it elsewhere?

Don't bother answering that. I already know the answer. Just makes me wonder why I have to pay for a service that I know I won't get to use. I could use that money elsewhere...and over a 37 year period of continuous employment we aren't talking chump change here.

I see it as BS.

Though I don't like paying either....that is what a tax is and why there were signs when the program started in workplaces telling people they wont necc. get a payout.

LH2010, can you tell me why I have to pay for local kids to go to school when I don't have any....this is the same thing, you are paying taxes to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves. Parents could not afford $10k/year/kid so we bail them out, We bail out the disabled and elderly via SS when they cannot make it on their own.

I will say it anyway, even though you said not to...if you don't sign your name on that check and don't bring it to the bank, the money stays in the SS fund and does not get transferred to your possession, that is the opt out procedure. If you get all your money back to invest alternatively, that would imply that SS is an investment program, it is not it is a welfare program that everyone tries to take advantage of, despite need. This is just like a parent of means still taking the assistance from their neighbors, they can easily ask the school the average cost of a student, subtract the portion of their property taxes that goes to schools and pay the rest, but most don't. LH2010, if you have had kids, sent them to public ed and did not pay fully, I guess you get some of your SS back that way, perhaps all of it or more. If you did not send your kids to pub school, then you are like me and we will both pay far more taxes than we will ever use, and thus we are helping others, like it or not.

one kid 13 year is about $130,000 cost to the community. You would have to earn over $2,000,000 to pay that much in SS tax, and you would have to earn it all below the annual threshold, because as we all know SS is regressive tax (it stops after a certain income annually). At 30 years of work, that would be an average of $70,000 a year (even back in 81). So if you have had one kid, sent him through pub ed and did not pay personally, You would have to have made over 70,000 every year to loose out tax wise just considering these two taxes (and they are two of the biggest that individuals pay). All not accounting for inflation, but would not change that much in this case.

Would you answer - did you send kids through the public school system, did you pay, if so how much and how many kids?

Is a non parent floating other's kid's educations any more BS than you floating other people's "security" in old age?

I guess the debate we should be having is should we help our fellow citizens with these safety nets or not, or the concept of taxation in general.

If a bunch of mindless leaders that I did not vote for start a war that ruins our economy and threatens or safety...should I have to pay to keep us safe or should just the folks that wanted war? You don't have to answer that one, but you can.

P.S. this is a devil's advocate post...sort of.