it's not popular among progressives, but this is closer to the real graph for spending (0.00 / 0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Social Security, Medicare, and Defense Spending together are about 65% of the budget.  

However, rather than posing it solely this way, I think it makes sense to argue about 1) that there is a revenue side to this to! tax cuts do show up on the budget; 2) arguing against what's just stupid to spend money on to begin with (e.g. war) and use the debt (not deficit) as a secondary item.

The whole point is that you have to spend based on what makes sense, not for arbitrary austerity goals which might come back to shoot you in the face later!

---

by: dr anonymous @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 15:59:03 PM UTC

Social Security is not part of the budget (4.00 / 5)

Except maybe the interest payments on the t-bills that it buys from the government. But the principal is a loan from workers and their employers to the government, to be paid back as needed. It's not discretionary spending. It's not even spending. It's borrowed money that has to be paid back. Period.

Now the defense budget, THAT is discretionary. It would be disruptive to the economy to cut it substantially, which is why if it's done it should be done smartly and gradually. But I'm guessing that if done properly we could cut over 1/3 of it and not be a hair less safe than we are now--and arguably safer.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 16:59:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A 1000 thank yous (0.00 / 0)

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?

---

by: T. Jacobsen @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 17:38:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i'm not saying it's discretionary - i'm saying it's part of government expenditures (0.00 / 0)

i agree with you, it's non negotiable.  The fact that it is non negotiable should be pointed to as a success for progressives.  It is, literally, a pay as you go system.

So the expenditure might be different from 'the budget', but when I think of budgets, i think of total money in and total money out.  And social security and medicare fall in that category for me.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 10:32:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even then, it's not regular "expenditure" (4.00 / 2)

because it's fully paid for through payroll taxes, which don't go directly into general revenue. Any excess goes into the "trust fund", which is not a "worthless IOU" but t-bills backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, and which is therefore loaned to the government. Any deficit (which I believe it's currently running due to the recession and is expected to do so permanently in 5-7 years) is covered by drawing upon the trust fund, which also isn't "expenditure" because it's loan servicing, not spending.

I get your point about money going in and out, but SS is set up to mostly not impact or be a part of the regular budget and spending. It's sort of as if you had your bank use your checking account to make automatic payments of your bill, which it was technically "spending", but with YOUR money that YOU deposited, as opposed to money that it actually spends on its payroll, lease, etc., paid for with revenue generated through fees, capital gains, etc. Cutting SS to lower the deficit is sort of like your bank drastically raising your fees and taking it out of your checking account to pay for its expenses.

Which, come to think of it, is what banks are doing, too. No wonder, as the people recommending that SS be cut to lower the deficit are mostly bankers and people who've worked in finance.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 17:08:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Discretionary (4.00 / 1)

Define discretionary.

Is social security disbursement discretionary? Is it something the participating citizens (and the match from employers) have "earned" that is being paid to the beneficiaries?

Is it at our discretion to fund weapons systems? To provide help for the needy?

Is veteran care discretionary?
Is it at the citizens discretion that we monitor food safety, or water safety?

---

by: wjbill @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 16:25:01 PM UTC

Gates is lying (4.00 / 1)

There's just no other way to see it. He's looking out for the military brass and the defense contractors who depend on their massive orders--and perhaps for himself in his cushy post-government career working for one of them (he's from the Seattle area, so I'm guessing Boeing is where he's headed soon). But we don't need many of those killing toys that DoD keeps buying and charging us for. Anyone says otherwise is a liar.

To ease the pain of cutting the defense budget (lots of people who work for these contractors and the communities that they're located in would suffer from it), it should be done gradually, with much of it transitioned into green economy spending, funded by some sort of public-private partnership. E.g. green energy, high-speed rail, electric cars, etc. And such programs should be spread all over the country, to win over the politicians who'd have to vote for it.

Can Obama manage something this huge? If he can't, he's useless.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 17:07:36 PM UTC

He's right. (0.00 / 0)

When it comes to the deficit, and particularly long-term debt, defense isn't the problem.  Spending on Health Care is.  If we solve that, we solve almost all of our debt issues.

Defense spending is A problem, but it's not THE problem.  Was he nick-picking?  Maybe, but I'd argue it's less misleading than you conflating "the deficit" with discretionary spending.  Discretionary spending isn't the main source of the deficit.

---

by: ccarollo @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 17:58:57 PM UTC

re: gates (0.00 / 0)

"When it comes to the deficit, the Department of Defense is not the problem," (Secretary of Defense Robert) Gates told attendees at the Wall Street Journal CEO Council here.

yes it is one of the problems. just because it isn't problem #1 that doesn't mean it gets a free pass. all those military installations aren't free mr. gates:

More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d'Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

Map 1. U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World. The Cost of «Permanent War» and Some Comparative Data

Source: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/...

Map 2. The American Military Bases Around the World (2001-2003)

Source : http://www.globalpolicy.org/em...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/i...

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 19:17:25 PM UTC