Spending, not entitlements, created huge deficit

[Geee]

Washington Examiner:



Then-Congessional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2004 in Washington. "Obama's massive $814 billion stimulus increased spending 'is spread all through the budget,' says Holtz-Eakin. Green jobs, infrastructure, health information technology, aid to states -- it's all in there, billions in increased spending," writes Examiner columnist Byron York. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
It's conventional wisdom in Washington to blame the federal government's dire financial outlook on runaway entitlement spending. Unless we rein in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the conventional wisdom goes, the federal government is headed for disaster.
That's true in the long run. But what is causing massive deficits now? Is it the same entitlements that threaten the future?

Yes, say some conservatives who favor making entitlement reform a key issue in the 2012 campaign. "We're $1.5 trillion in debt," Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol said Sunday, referring to this year's projected deficit. "Where's the debt coming from? It's coming from entitlements."

There's no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007, the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion.

That's an increase of $901 billion in spending and a decrease of $338 billion in revenue in a very short time. Put them together, and that's how you go from a $160 billion deficit to a $1.399 trillion deficit.

But how, precisely, did that happen? Was there a steep rise in entitlement spending? Did everyone suddenly turn 65 and begin collecting Social Security and using Medicare? No: The deficits are largely the result not of entitlements but of an explosion in spending related to the economic downturn and the rise of Democrats to power in Washington. While entitlements must be controlled in the long run, Washington's current spending problem lies elsewhere.

A lot of the higher spending has stemmed directly from the downturn. There is, for example, spending on what is called "income security" -- that is, for unemployment compensation, food stamps and related programs. In 2007, the government spent $365 billion on income security. In 2011, it's estimated to spend $622 billion. That's an increase of $257 billion.

Then there is Medicaid, the health care program for lower-income Americans. A lot of people had lower incomes due to the economic downturn, and federal expenditures on Medicaid -- its costs are shared with the states -- went from $190 billion in 2007 to an estimated $276 billion in 2011, an increase of $86 billion. Put that together with the $257 billion increase in income security spending, and you have $343 billion.

Add to that the $338 billion in decreased revenues, and you get $681 billion -- which means nearly half of the current deficit can be clearly attributed to the downturn.

[clearvision]

Hmmmm... Everyone is starting to stake out the cut somewhere else stance. At least that means it is becoming clear cuts are coming.

[Evad]

 

Well, there's little doubt that Soc Sec and Medicare/Medicaid are the greatest portion of the budget

[Al_Simmons]

There is a simple way to implement the cuts. Just cut the ENTIRE federal budget (NO EXCEPTIONS AND I MEAN NONE!) by, say 10% (or whatever figure will work to stop the bleeding.)

 

Yes, INCLUDE Social Security, Medicare/Aid (I said NO EXCEPTIONS and I meant it.) REDUCE the federal employee payroll by a like percentage as well.

 

But this is too simple for the political prevaricators.

[Evad]

There is a simple way to implement the cuts. Just cut the ENTIRE federal budget (NO EXCEPTIONS AND I MEAN NONE!) by, say 10% (or whatever figure will work to stop the bleeding.)

 

Yes, INCLUDE Social Security, Medicare/Aid (I said NO EXCEPTIONS and I meant it.) REDUCE the federal employee payroll by a like percentage as well.

 

But this is too simple for the political prevaricators.

Amen Al.

That's the answer, except, make it 15%.

[Geee]

Well geesh Evad - I guess they don't count $1435.2 billion as spending-duh

 

That is what I didn't get about the title in the first place!

[Pepper]

Well geesh Evad - I guess they don't count $1435.2 billion as spending-duh

 

That is what I didn't get about the title in the first place!

 

 

Good catch, Geee!

 

Al_Simmons! Evad!

 

Such a drastic and flat percentage cut would hurt women, children, minorities, illegals, and elderly first. How callous of you !

 

:lmfao:

[Evad]

Well geesh Evad - I guess they don't count $1435.2 billion as spending-duh

 

That is what I didn't get about the title in the first place!

oh my, how could I forget that. The spending cut that leaves us with 8 TRILLION more debt.

 

Excellent call.

[Argyle58]

And, of course, we are too stupid to figure out that a decrease in the amount you RAISE spending is not a spending cut.