Here are the changes in spending the Obama administration has proposed from the 2009 budget to the 2010 budget. The amounts are in billions of dollars, the changes are derived from wikipedia, and the discretionary spending is broken down by agency:
Mandatory ($40 billion)
Social Security: $32.5
Medicaid: $31.0
Medicare: $28.0
Interest on debt: $25.0
Potential disasters: $8.1 billion
Other: -$86.8 (mainly unemployment)
Discretionary ($119.685 billion)
State: $15.0
Housing: $7.4
Education: $5.3
Infrastructure bank: $5.0
Veteran's Affairs: $4.9
Commerce: $4.5
Defense + wars: $3.1
EPA: $2.7
Agriculture: $2.3
Transportation: $2.0
Social Security admin: $1.0
NASA: $0.9
Interior: $0.7
Other agencies: $0.7
Labor: $0.6
Treasury: $0.6
Homeland Security: $0.5
Service: $0.25
Science foundation: $0.1
Education: -$0.1
Corps of Engineers: -$0.2
HHS: -$1.3 (not including Medicare and Medicaid)
Justice: -$1.5
There is also an increase of $66 billion in "Other" spending, which likely refers to the new health care investment.
Bailout: (-$700 billion) The TARP program has been budgeted with zero actual dollars for fiscal year 2010, but still has a $250 billion "placeholder." This money is included in the budget in the event that President Obama requests an additional $750 billion in bailout funds, as it is expected that losses on those funds would reach $250 billion. However, it is not the same as actually requesting or appropriating the funds.
In the unlikely event that such a request was made, it is highly unlikely that such a request would ever pass Congress. In the House, the second $350 billion in TARP funds only garnered 155 "yea" votes back in January, 63 short of a majority. Voting for additional bank bailouts is political death for endangered Democratic members of Congress, and would cost President Obama a huge amount of political capital. It isn't going to happen.
****
Commentary on these numbers in the extended entry,
Overall, the non-bailout related spending increases amount to about 1.2% GDP, although that number will probably rise due to overall declines in GDP.
My main reaction to such a change is disappointed surprise. I mean, is that it? Is that the massive ideological argument in this country? A difference over only 1.2% of the economy? Further, 25% of the increases come from mandatory spending programs, and another 40% comes from one program: the new health care investment. The other increases amount to only 0.4% of GDP, which is practically a rounding error.
There is an enormous gap between the tone of the rhetoric surrounding our national political debate, and the reality of that debate. If, after six years of trying to retake the Congress and the White House from Republicans, the changes Democrats institute come out to only 1.2% of GDP, then we all need to calm down quite a bit over politics.
It seems that we are applying the term "sweeping change" in an extremely hyperbolic manner. A change in government management of 1.2% of GDP just isn't sweeping change.
The lack of sweeping change isn't really President Obama's fault. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is only proposing a budget with additional long-term spending that is equal to 1.2% of GDP beyond President Obama's budget, for a total increase of 2.4% of GDP over Bush. The large political blocks in our country are simply not making radically different proposals from each other.
Looking at these numbers, it feels as though, from the Progressive Caucus to the Republican Study Committee, we are all just nibbling around the edges of a broad consensus. Once in a while, big fights will flare up over Iraq or Social Security. However, more often than not, we are deluding ourselves into believing that the political debate in this country is over something grander than it actually is.
STATE BLOGS
