Obama's 2011 budget proposal is certainly a complicated thing. So the people at the New York Times have made as simple a layout as I can see, a visual layout, of the total budget, where it is going and for how much. So I thought I would share it with you all as the information is relevant to our future as a country. Don't forget to click the options at the top of the chart to isolate certain telling figures about what the government spends that is considered "mandatory" and what is not.
Click here for the Obama 2011 Budget Proposal Visualized.
What I want to know is what some of these things actually go for in the real world. Like the tobacco trust fund? PAYGO? Net Interest? Net Interest of and on what? And my favorite is how they call social welfare programs including federal public housing as "Income Security". And why is the federal government spending money "promoting safe and stable families?" .36 billion has been allotted which is apparently down from the previous year. How about put that money into the military which in a way also promotes a safe and stable country? What does the government know about promoting a stable family? Politicians bicker, argue and fight constantly.
I agree with the basic premise that the federal government can and should be more efficient. We disagree on the stimulus spending to revive the economy, and I don't think that is worth hashing out right now.
ReplyDeleteBut I went through the budget graphic, which is really cool, and found that I am now or have in the past taken advantage of the vast majority of those boxes, including every major grouping. And I would wager that everyone on this site and the vast majority of people throughout America have as well.
Sure there are programs in there that we could cut, but most of that stuff is being used by regular, hard-working Americans. I don't think its as simple as just saying that the government is too big (which we agree on), but it comes down to what we are willing to give up, and what we want enough to start paying for instead of borrowing for. If that makes sense.
I think if you are willing to wager you might find that your ability to win or loose that bet is almost difficult to prove or disprove. The fact of the matter is so much of the money that is spent is lost on administrative and discretionary items that it we looked at a detailed list of what was spent, it isn't the category that is important as much as what the money was actually spent on.
ReplyDeleteYou say that these are things that we probably have taken advantage of these things but I say, how so and to what extent? To use the examples in the post, how has the Tobacco trust fund been of any effect in my life? The .36 billion that the government is spending to promote safe and stable families? How have I taken "advantage" of that?
Let's just say that I have taken advantage of one of those things, how much have I paid into that program and how much have I gotten in return? How much of what I paid went to what? The reality is that even if there is a program that someone has taken advantage of, how much of that program was spent towards the citizen and how much of it was spent managing the program itself, how much is lost due to poor government oversight, etc.
So in the end, even if there is a program we have in place and that we use, that doesn't mean that the government should be providing it, nor does it mean that the government is providing it well.