Chart of the Day: Historic Drop in Government Jobs
The chart above displays the annual change in total government employment (data here) and shows that the 589,000 reduction in government jobs between 2009 and 2011 was the largest reduction in government payrolls since the post-WWII period of 1945-1947. Total government employment (federal, state and local) in December 2011 was the lowest government payroll level since June 2006.
As I reported earlier today, the Great Recession has been responsible for downsizing the total government workforce more than any other event since WWII. And the loss of government jobs post-WWII was really just a reversal of the huge buildup in military forces from 1941-1943. If some of those 589,000 government jobs losses are permanent, wouldn't it be ironic if one of the legacies of the Obama administration was a long-term reduction in the size of government through reduced government employment? I don't think that was really the "hope and change" that Obama was planning on.
Update: Most of the government job losses have taken place at the local level (-511,000 jobs since December 2008) and some at the state level (-1114,000), while federal government employment has increased slightly over the last three years by 25,000 jobs.
As I reported earlier today, the Great Recession has been responsible for downsizing the total government workforce more than any other event since WWII. And the loss of government jobs post-WWII was really just a reversal of the huge buildup in military forces from 1941-1943. If some of those 589,000 government jobs losses are permanent, wouldn't it be ironic if one of the legacies of the Obama administration was a long-term reduction in the size of government through reduced government employment? I don't think that was really the "hope and change" that Obama was planning on.
Update: Most of the government job losses have taken place at the local level (-511,000 jobs since December 2008) and some at the state level (-1114,000), while federal government employment has increased slightly over the last three years by 25,000 jobs.
55 Comments:
According to the Economix blog, federal employment is still up under Obama's watch by 1.3%.
I would not call the drop in government employment "huge" -- but yes, the government has shed something like 2% of its workforce according to the data -- please note however that the US is becoming a poor country that cannot support its private sector population with good jobs, so the proper action now would be to assign the same suffering being endured by private sector workers, to the government workforce -- the relative factor and issue is which sector is suffering more today -- the private sector or the private sector -- given that the public sector is about "public service," I think we need to see more sacrafice from that sector -- human suffering must be shared society at large...
YES! Let's hope it continues...
Yes, the problem is that it is local and state government workers getting canned, not the feds.
I actually get some return from my local government employees. The streets are paved, fire and police etc. All too expensive, but at least I get something back.
Here is a chart of federal employment. I get nothing back from these guys. There are parasites.
Obviously, we could cut one million or more right off of the top.
Defense 3,200,000
Veterans Affairs 240,000
Homeland Security 200,000
Treasury 162,119
Justice 124,870
USDA 100,000
DOT 100,000
Health and Human Services 62,999
Interior 57,232
Commerce 41,711
NASA 19,198
EPA 18,879
State 18,000
Labor 16,818
Energy 14,000
GSA 14,000
I expected Obama to downsize govt... including the military industrial complex - as essential to reducing the deficit. I believe he actually promised to do that.. as he promised to pull the troops out of Iraq....
which will...result downsizing as the military starts releasing all those troops that used to be in Iraq.
the states had to downsize once the stimulus money ran out as, unlike the Feds, the states actually have to balance their budgets (in theory).
give Obama credit also for keeping us from getting involved in yet another nation-building, deficit-creating adventure in Libya, Egypt and Iran (so far).
Notice on Benjamins chart the second and third biggest number of employees in the govt - both of them also "National Defense" costs.
Hi Benjamin, here's a link to a photo that actually shows government workers simply standing around on the clock -- more at:
http://wjmc.blogspot.com/2011/08/tsa-thousands-standing-around.html
Anytime I see people standing around on the job, I see opportunities to reduce staff and employees...
I would like to build something. The feds wont stop me but the locals will.
The locals have done far more harm to me than the feds.
Why is Government spending rising so much, despite the loss in government jobs?
Awesome!
Only a few million shadow regulatory agency employees to go...
Government jobs are merely a political mechanism via which to give paychecks to preferred groups, in return for doing nothing of value (sometimes even tasks harmful to society).
Black women (the two-fer group) are often paid $150,000 in government jobs for doing nothing except force corporations to hire more black women as 'diversity Directors' in corporations.
Why is Government spending rising so much, despite the loss in government jobs?
This comment has been removed by the author.
What is important is not the size of the government work force, but the scope and reach of government.
One can get an inkling of that--but only an inkling--by looking at the percent of GDP spent by government on the nation's behalf. That, of course, would not include the costs of regulation/compliance/avoidance, etc. I suspect that all that has gone up. And that will be the true legacy of this Administration.
You are taking comfort by looking at the wrong metric!
kmg says: "Why is Government spending rising so much, despite the loss in government jobs?"
That's what government does. Spend more for less.
kmg said, "Black women (the two-fer group) are often paid $150,000 in government jobs for doing nothing except force corporations to hire more black women as 'diversity Directors' in corporations."
$150K is pikers money if you're the wife of a US state senator from Chicago;
"The University of Chicago Hospitals, paid her $121,910, a reasonable sum for the skill level evident in her thesis, but raised this to $316,952 shortly after her husband was elected US senator..."
What's just as interesting is that a job deemed so important that its salary reached $317K was never filled after Michelle left for the tony digs of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington and the entire US have become Chicago.
Link: 'Sing o muse, the wrath of Michelle' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC04Aa01.html
Obuma hasn't done squat to reduce government employment, as Colin said, ALL of the reduction is in city, county and state employment, FEDERAL government employment went UP.
Obuma hasn't done squat to reduce government employment, as Colin said, ALL of the reduction is in city, county and state employment, FEDERAL government employment went UP.
I would agree but unlike his predecessor he has not doubled the size of DOD which is by far the largest number of govt jobs by a long shot when you include DOD, the VA and Homeland Security.
Defense 3,200,000
Veterans Affairs 240,000
Homeland Security 200,000
these 3 since 2000 have been at the root of the 1.5 trillion annual deficit that has led to a 15 trillion debt.
It was 5 trillion under Clinton and doubled to 10 trillion under Bush and because the 1.5 trillion is an annual deficit - another 4.5 trillion added under Obama PLUs what Obama did with stimulus (which is one shot - not structural).
Fair is fair. He did not reduce the size of govt but he did not double DOD and as a result cause the 1.5 annual deficit.
"...was really the "hope and change" that Obama was planning on."
Obama must be very surprised about all the undesirable negative effects of his economic policies.
However, that's what happens when you're an economic illiterate.
" Obama must be very surprised about all the undesirable negative effects of his economic policies"
I think the 2 "hits" that can be fairly attributed to him are:
1. stimulus
2. he did not do a good "enough" job to bring us out of the worst recession since the depression.
both of these are argued pro and con by most mainstream economists.
he has not increased the structural deficit and has not increased the size of govt - save for immigration, border patrol and TSA which have been offset by decreases in other agencies.
the main hit seems to be that he "could have done better" but my question is better than who? Bush?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Here's what I wrote on Feb 2nd, 2009 on how to prevent a contraction in 2009, and achieve a V-shaped economic recovery (a $5,000 tax cut, or $750 billion for the 150 million workers at the time, would've been better):
How to prevent an economic contraction in 2009 (currently, roughly a 2% contraction is projected in 2009):
1. Obama should change his stimulus plan to a $2,000 tax cut per worker (e.g. a tax holiday), along with increasing unemployment benefits by a similar amount. This will help households strengthen their balance sheets, i.e. catch-up on bills, pay-down debt, increase saving, spur consumption of assets and goods, etc. This plan will have an immediate and powerful effect to stimulate the economy. When excess assets and goods clear the market, production will increase.
2. Shift "toxic" assets into a "bad bank." The government should pay premiums for toxic assets to recapitalize the banking industry and eliminate the systemic problem caused by global imbalances. The Fed has the power to create money out of thin air, to generate nominal growth, boost "animal spirits," and inflate toxic assets.
3. Government expenditures should play a small role in the economic recovery. For example, instead of loans for the auto industry, the government should buy autos and give them away to government employees (e.g. a fringe benefit). So, automakers can continue to produce, instead of shutting down their plants for a month. Auto producers should take advantage of lower costs for raw materials and energy, and generate a multiplier effect in related industries.
This chart shows how quickly a recovery can take place with 6% real growth (compared to 3% and 2% real growth rates), similar to the recovery of 1982-83 (the chart shows a 6% V-shaped recovery beginning in mid-2010, but it could've started in mid-2009, or earlier, at the recession trough, or the downturn in 2009 could've been milder).
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/ouyputhap2.jpg
Also, note, a large tax cut would not only strengthen household balance sheets, it would strengthen the banking system.
Large tax cuts worked under Kennedy in '61, Reagan in '81, and Bush in '01.
The private sector, instead of the government or public sector, needed the stimulus.
And when a strong recovery is underway (that's generating a virtuous cycle of consumption-employment), then taxes can be raised to slow the expansion and maintain sustainable growth (or a "Goldilocks economy").
Interestingly it 'seems' to me that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management has a somewhat different view...
I wonder if there is a time lag between their numbers and BLS numbers?
Historical Federal Workforce Tables
Executive Branch Civilian Employment Since 1940
re: " Obama created a recovery similar to 1933-37 rather than a recovery similar to 1982-90 with a much bigger mountain of federal debt."
true but look at specifics:
1. - the DEPTH and width of the recession is unprecedented save for the great depression.
2. - debt normally increases during recessions because of lower revenues and safety-net unemployment benefits.
3. - the structural annual deficit did not increase under Obama
4. - federal employment did not increase under Obama much less double DOD as prior years.
5. - He DID do the stimulus which did not work as advertised because his advisers seriously underestimated the scope and scale of the damage to the economy.
Basically..he's treading water..more or less... has not really made things worse nor better.
but he has a bunch of people who never wanted him to be Prez to start with and they're not holding back in an effort to get rid of him.
From the U.S. Office of Personnel Management that Juandos has referenced above:
The profile of Federal Civilian Non-Postal Employees lists a 2010 average Annual Base Salary of $76,231, for 2,061,569 workers.
Larry, strong recoveries normally follow severe recessions.
The economy can't be jolted into a strong recovery when one foot is on the accelerator and the other foot is on the brake.
It's been an expensive and slow recovery, which we couldn't afford, because of the enormous debt.
"I would agree but unlike his predecessor he has not doubled the size of DOD which is by far the largest number of govt jobs by a long shot when you include DOD, the VA and Homeland Security"...
This statement deserves the BS flag of course...
The DOD has seen a steady decline since '92...
ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL SEPTEMBER 30, 2011: 1,425,113
ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL December 31, 1999: 1,367,838
The numbers listed for active duty military came from here: Military Personnel Statistics
direct employment in DOD has reduced but the DOD budget did about double and probably through contractor hiring.
but the data you provided does appear to show a slight increase in total numbers and executive agency numbers... I agree.
Obama's first tax cut amounted to about $15 a week (all his tax cuts were too small and too slow).
Then we got massive new regulations and massive new spending programs.
Then states had to raise taxes, fees, fines, fares, tolls, etc., because of the slow recovery.
The train wreck continues...
"the structural annual deficit did not increase under Obama"...
Are you sure?
" Then we got massive new regulations and massive new spending programs"
okay.. so let's name the new spending programs and impacts on the budget...
and ditto with the regs..
that's the claim.. I've yet to see substantial data to back it up.
re: deficit and debt...
the debt IS increasing because of the annual structural deficit.
here's the right chart: that shows the annual deficit:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit
the deficits are annual and carry from one year to the next ...
Bush Deficits
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2008: $248 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
Obama deficits:
FY 2012: $1,101 billion
FY 2011: $1,299 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion
Thanks to Drudge Report for this link for USAJobs: Job Title:Invitations Coordinator
Agency:Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Sub Agency:CFPB - Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
SALARY RANGE: $53,500.00 to $102,900.00 / Per Year
"the debt IS increasing because of the annual structural deficit"...
First of all that's the not the right chart you're indicating but its instructive never the less...
Second of all its not the Bush deficits or the Obama deficits, its the Congressional deficits...
I know Bush had an overactive allergy to the veto pen but I'm pretty sure the same said pen was thrown out on the first day of the Obama administration...
Larry, Obama was president over most of FY 2009.
Obama and Congress went on a huge spending spree in 2009 and 2010 (many were complaining about "spending fatigue").
And most of Bush's TARP was paid back.
re: " Second of all its not the Bush deficits or the Obama deficits, its the Congressional deficits."
it's how that site labels... but I agree... congress appropriates.
re: " Obama and Congress went on a huge spending spree in 2009 and 2010 (many were complaining about "spending fatigue")."
as Juandos says.. Congress sends the spending bill to the Prez.
but can you show the SPECIFIC new spending that Obama has actually requested and it's affect on the budget?
I know he did the stimulus... but what else are the things that he alone specifically added to the spending?
here's the DOD spending from 2000 til now:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2015USb_13s1li111lcn_30f_Recent_Defense_Spending
or http://goo.gl/ihf5u
re: Peak's suggestions for a better recovery..
I like many of them but hate to tell you that the majority of them would be opposed by you know who.....
People forget that Obama did give a $400 per taxpayer credit (make work pay) for 2 years as well as the 2% FICA reduction that amounted to about 2K or better for the average 2 worker household.
It's been reported that the deal that was struck to extend the 2% FICA Tax reduction in 2012 was a trade to get rid of the $400 make-work-pay credit.
http://goo.gl/ZawVY
in the end, the Republicans were opposed to both the credit and the reduction in FICA.
the problem, at least in part, is not things not done that should have been done - but an agreement between the President and the opposition.
He did propose both make-work-pay and FICA tax reductions and in the end the other side said they'd trade FICA for the make-work-pay and then after the make-work-pay was taken off the table, they opposed the FICA reduction.
"here's the DOD spending from 2000 til now"...
Which is absolutely minscule relative to pandering to parasites spending...
"Bush Deficits
FY 2009: $1,413 billion"
Bush is essentially off-the-hook for 2009 spending. For that year, Pelosi and Reid funded the government mostly through continuous resolutions, and Obama signed that giant, pork lathered FY2009 omnibus $410 billion spending bill over GOP objections. And then, of course, came the stimulus.
So much for Larry's repeated "structural deficit" garbage.
"in the end, the Republicans were opposed to both the credit and the reduction in FICA."
And good for the GOP. Both of those tax cuts are really just gimmicks that will do squat for economic recovery. I also find it amusing Larry is now apparently in favor of not funding his Social Security checks.
4. - federal employment did not increase under Obama..."
bullshit.
here's some to take a link at:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34685_20110419.pdf
Federal employment went up under Obama in a small way I acknowledge that.
re: make-work-pay and FICA reduction.
I do not support the FICA reduction but I pointed out that Obama did support tax reductions and that the Republicans opposed the 400 make-work-pay and made a deal to trade it for a FICA reduction then reneged on the FICA reduction after the 400 credit was abandoned.
the point here is that Obama did support tax reductions.
re: structural deficits
the deficit is the amount of spending over revenues.
Once spending is approved and their are no revenues for it - it constitutes an annual structural deficit that continues year after year unless it is rolled back.
re: DOD spending.
It DID Double guys.
and if you take SS out of the entitlement spending because it is funded with payroll taxes and not annual subsidies appropriations - because it's not causing the deficit.
the deficit is caused by ANNUAL appropriations.
If you zero funded both Medicare and MedicAid - you'd STILL be a trillion in the hole because of DOD and National Defense spending that DID double from 2000.
the point here is to recognize what is causing the deficit rather than pretend something else.
I acknowledge that the appropriated entitlements - taxpayer-subsidized are involved but I also say that DOD is involved and I've yet to see any budget proposal that gets rid of the deficit with cuts only to entitlements.
In fact, you can't get there even if you cut entitlements AND DOD unless you zero fund Medicare/MedicAId and cut DOD in half.
I also point out that Obama did not increase any of these.
and I'm asking for folks to provide the things that Obama did increase.
lets see them.
for entitlements - think about Medicare and MedicAid which are appropriated general revenue subsidies in every year's budget.
If the subsidies go up.. then they contribute to an increasing deficit but the basic programs that the entitlements have - have not changed...there's just more people getting the entitlements - more retired and in a recession more poor.
the only way these appropriated subsidies change is in Congress changes their structure and payments .....
if they don't - these entitlements continue to use revenues.
Social Security does not do this.
SS does get not get much of it's funds from the general funds (except for the 2% reduction) so the majority of SS is funded from FICA which is OFF budget in terms of it's impact on the deficit.
In fact, unlike Medicare and MedicAid - SS by law must automatically reduce scheduled benefits if FICA revenues fail to generate enough taxes to pay for all scheduled benefits.
It's the only Federal program that actually has this automatic benefits reduction process.
If Medicare and MedicAid were set up the same way - they would essentially operate at a fixed revenue stream or one that is at a fixed percentage of overall revenues.
That's basically what Republicans are proposing - to "freeze" Medicare and MedicAid ...the much the same way that FICA/SS already works.
remember also... Medicare requires about a 200 billion subsidy and MedicAid requires about 400 billion.
together they constitute about 600 billion.
You have to also throw in Part C&D, food stamps, and unemployment.
I do not have a solid number for the rest of these entitlements. If someone else does.. throw them in the pot.
Let's see if we can agree on a GOOD number for entitlements that do not include FICA/SS.
I say it's not more than a trillion in total.
I say DOD by itself is about 700 billion and if you then throw in the VA and Homeland Security and other monies for "NationalDefense" that that amount is more than a trillion.
that's about 2 trillion.
then we spend another trillion on other govt...
that's 3.x trillion.
We take in about 2.x trillion.
ergo a 1.x trillion ANNUAL deficit.
you could cut entitlements in half and DOD in half and you'd still not reach a balanced budget.
larry g says: "SS does get not get much of it's funds from the general funds (except for the 2% reduction) so the majority of SS is funded from FICA which is OFF budget in terms of it's impact on the deficit"...
Well maybe and it even might look good on paper but what's the reality?
"Federal employment went up under Obama in a small way I acknowledge that."
Oh, you do now that somebody called you on it. 160,000 or so more useless federal employees, by my count.
"the point here is that Obama did support tax reductions."
He supported temporary gimmicks, much of the "cuts" went to people who don't pay any income tax already. No supply-sider worth this salt supported this nonsense.
"Once spending is approved and their are no revenues for it.it constitutes an annual structural deficit that continues year after year unless it is rolled back."
The deficit was around $170 billion, the last yr of unified GOP rule. There were enough revenues then to cover most of the budget. There's your "structural" deficit. The trillion dollar deficits started in 2009, a fiscal year that Bush had little to no influence when it comes to spending. Obama had two years of massive majorities to fix the situation. What did he do? He concentrated on creating yet another massive, unaffordable entitlement while blowing off the multiple deficit commissions he appointed to make it look like he was serious about fixing Washington's profligate ways, as he repeatedly promised to do during the campaign of '08. This past year, he fairly successfully fought off every GOP attempt to roll back government.
"It DID Double guys."
And there were wars to fight. That's a constitutional function of government. Much different from Obama feeding his parasite constituency.
"if you take SS out of the entitlement spending because it is funded with payroll taxes...- because it's not causing the deficit."
Nonsense. The taxes I pay for your social security are taxes I cannot pay for other government. All taxes come from the same place and end up at the same destination. FICA is just an accounting fiction designed so people like you can argue for raising my taxes while screaming nobody better cut the size of your government checks.
"the point here is to recognize what is causing the deficit rather than pretend something else."
Your point is to absolve Obama of the consequences of his ruinous spending. You're not fooling anybody.
"and I'm asking for folks to provide the things that Obama did increase.."
Do your own research. It's just laughable you would actually pretend Obama hasn't been on a 3 yr spending spree. His 2012 budget proposal included an 11 percent spending increase for the Department of Education and a 9.5 percent increase for the Department of Energy. He asked for a jaw dropping 62% increase in Transportation spending, much of it no doubt for his stupid choo-choo train initiatives.
And one thing that doesn't get pointed out enough is that Obama is creating mayhem on both of the ledger. The most anti-business President since Franklin Roosevelt depresses revenues with his socialist, environmentally extremist agenda.
"Oh, you do now that somebody called you on it. 160,000 or so more useless federal employees, by my count."
too many, I agree
"He supported temporary gimmicks, much of the "cuts" went to people who don't pay any income tax already. No supply-sider worth this salt supported this nonsense."
it's true it went to people who do not pay Fed Tax. The point was to have them spend the money and increase aggregate demand.. stimulus....
"The deficit was around $170 billion, the last yr of unified GOP rule. There were enough revenues then to cover most of the budget."
you have to cut the following year because they did that budget.
"There's your "structural" deficit. The trillion dollar deficits started in 2009, a fiscal year that Bush had little to no influence when it comes to spending."
not true. the 2009 budget was generated by the 2008 Congress and signed by Bush, right?
what was in that Budget that Obama had anything to do with?
"Obama had two years of massive majorities to fix the situation. What did he do?"
why was it up to Obama to fix it when Bush had 8 years and did not?
"He concentrated on creating yet another massive, unaffordable entitlement"
what entitlement and what effect did it have on the CURRENT budget and deficit?
"while blowing off the multiple deficit commissions he appointed to make it look like he was serious about fixing Washington's profligate ways,"
agree..where were the Republicans on the deficit commissions? Why did they not embrace them and put it in Obama's face?
" as he repeatedly promised to do during the campaign of '08. This past year, he fairly successfully fought off every GOP attempt to roll back government."
I do not remember the GOP embracing the deficit commission much less presenting their own cuts-only budget to challenge Obama on actually producing something more than the symbolic stuff the Republicans were doing that I remind you they had 8 years before Obama to do.
"It DID Double guys."
And there were wars to fight. That's a constitutional function of government. Much different from Obama feeding his parasite constituency."
two wars to fight - no excuses on the fact they needed to be paid for and were not.
..cont
...cont
"if you take SS out of the entitlement spending because it is funded with payroll taxes...- because it's not causing the deficit."
Nonsense. The taxes I pay for your social security are taxes I cannot pay for other government."
not my SS guy.. I do not get it.
Obama had nothing to do with FICA payroll.. in fact Ronald Reagan himself raised FICA taxes.
"All taxes come from the same place and end up at the same destination. FICA is just an accounting fiction designed so people like you can argue for raising my taxes while screaming nobody better cut the size of your government checks."
you got your opinion but FICA has been around a long time and is supported by a large majority of Americans.
"Your point is to absolve Obama of the consequences of his ruinous spending. You're not fooling anybody."
nope. I just want accuracy. He's certainly not the greatest thing since sliced bread by any stretch of the imagination but he has NOT increased the structural deficit so you have to be content with blaming him for the one-shot stimulus and I ask you - what else has he specifically done besides that - that has increased the deficit?
"and I'm asking for folks to provide the things that Obama did increase.."
Do your own research. It's just laughable you would actually pretend Obama hasn't been on a 3 yr spending spree."
you're making the claim. I'm asking hou to provide some evidence.
" His 2012 budget proposal included an 11 percent spending increase for the Department of Education and a 9.5 percent increase for the Department of Energy. He asked for a jaw dropping 62% increase in Transportation spending, much of it no doubt for his stupid choo-choo train initiatives."
has it been approved and has actually increased the deficit?
did Republicans approve it?
"And one thing that doesn't get pointed out enough is that Obama is creating mayhem on both of the ledger. The most anti-business President since Franklin Roosevelt depresses revenues with his socialist, environmentally extremist agenda."
more propaganda..without evidence...
show me what he has done and how it has translated into dollars.
larry g just can't stop slinging the leftist BS: "If you zero funded both Medicare and MedicAid - you'd STILL be a trillion in the hole because of DOD and National Defense spending that DID double from 2000"...
Now back on planet reality we see that its really quite different...
Look at how your tax dollar is spent...
17% goes to national defense...
16% goes to medicare...
16% goes to unemployment and civil service retirement...
8% goes to medicaid etc...
Gosh larry g those number don't add up quite the way you claim...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
it's a cool chart Juandos...and I especially like the way each pie slice is further broken down.
For instance, under income security.. it ALSO includes the military retirement fund... thats DOD.
and the VA is also not listed under DOD...
but the big problem you got here is that these are relative percentages rather than actual appropriated dollar amounts:
The federal government's expenditures in FY2010 included
Medicare & Medicaid ($793B or 23%),
Social Security ($701B or 20%),
Defense Department ($689B or 20%),
non-defense discretionary ($660B or 19%),
other ($416B or 12%)
and interest ($197B or 6%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
for Medicare - you need to differentiate between Medicare Part A (which is FICA-funded)
and parts B,C and D which are funded from general revenues.
look here:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html
skip down to where it says SMI (Part B of Supplementary Medical Insurance) = 204.6 billion
then check here:
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=23689
skip down to MedicAid Facts:
" WHAT DOES IT COST? In fiscal year 2009, Medicaid spent a total of $366 billion"
so Part B = 200 billion
Part D = ? I think less than 50
Part C = ? not sure
MedicAid = 366 billion
so... again.. see how much you can find if you zero-funded Medicare B,C,D and MedicAid.
I get about 600-700 billion.
(I acknowledge you've also got SNAP, etc... but do not have a dollar number).
DOD is about 700 billion
in order to come up with 1.5T - you'd have to zero fund all (non-FICA) entitlements AND DOD..( or cut other non-DOD agencies).
Ron Paul does it by cutting all 3.
I'd have to go and recheck the two deficit commissions to re-look at their numbers.
but you don't have to worry about DOD - Obama has indicated that his top cut number for DOD is about 50 billion...
DOD is
Larry G: If you zero funded both Medicare and MedicAid - you'd STILL be a trillion in the hole ...
juandos: Now back on planet reality ...
2010, in billions,
Revenues $2165
minus Expenditures $3721
plus Medicare/Medicaid $743
equals deficit $813
Paul: The trillion dollar deficits started in 2009, a fiscal year that Bush had little to no influence when it comes to spending.
Bush requested $3.1 trillion in spending. Revenues were $0.6 trillion less than expected. Spending was $0.4 trillion over his request, with only $0.1 trillion due to the stimulus.
Paul: Obama had two years of massive majorities to fix the situation.
The vast majority of economists would not recommend balancing the budget during such a deep recession.
Paul: It's just laughable you would actually pretend Obama hasn't been on a 3 yr spending spree. His 2012 budget proposal included an 11 percent spending increase for the Department of Education and a 9.5 percent increase for the Department of Energy. He asked for a jaw dropping 62% increase in Transportation spending ...
Can you put some dollar figures on those, including additional funding to pay for the programs, if any?
Post a Comment
<< Home