(no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Downsizing the Federal Government

This website is designed to help policymakers and the public understand where federal funds are being spent and how to reform each government department. It describes the failings of federal agencies and identifies specific programs to cut. It also discusses the systematic reasons why government programs are often obsolete, mismanaged, or otherwise dysfunctional.

This is a comprehensive website from the Cato Institute detailing some suggestions for reducing the spending of the Federal government. They also have a blog that you can sort by topic or by gov't department. I haven't checked out all the suggestions they have yet (and it's only just started, there's a lot more departments that they haven't gotten to yet) but I'm sure I'll be in agreement with most of the suggestions.

People need to be informed about what our money is being spent on, whether you agree or disagree with the suggestions.

Comments

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

My favorite piece of information on that page is this one...

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/images/charts/blocks/dfg-fed_spending_gdp-sm.png


It clearly shows the lie to the arguments that "Republicrats starved the government of funds to prove that it couldn't work since Reagan", that "Defense spending is a significant driver of the Federal Deficit", and that Republicrats spend any differently than Democans.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

We spend almost as much on Federal prisons as we do on the NSA.

Awesome.
Wait no. What's the opposite of that?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

unamazing.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

!Awesome?

=/=Awesome?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

As expected, all of the charts are biased.

Total federal spending - There is no indication that the chart is adjusted for inflation. 2010 would be at 2.89 not 3.72 using inflation adjusted dollars.

Shares of total federal spending - You cannot cut mandatory expenditures.
Chart should leave out mandatory programs like medicare, social security and interest and split out 'other' thus showing that defense comprises the largest piece of discretionary spending.

Spending per gross domestic product - Shows that non-defense spending has remained fairly stable since instituting the 'great society' programs of Johnson, except for 2008-09 where there is a spike. I presume this is an indication of the TARP instituted by Bush and other stimulus programs instituted by Obama.

Government funding per share of GDP - One cannot compare 1900 to the other dates because in 1900 the US was a third-world nation. In addition the date ranges are not linear, comparing, hopefully, the averages of 50 year periods vs the last 10 year period is bias. If each bar is a particular year, then the graph is completely meaningless.

Federal spending under current projection - Chart is meaningless as it is a projection based on current policies which are stimulative, not normative.

Number of federal subsidy programs - Chart provides no useful data.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Total federal spending - There is no indication that the chart is adjusted for inflation. 2010 would be at 2.89 not 3.72 using inflation adjusted dollars."

And your point would be?


Would you like that graph instead?

How about here...

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-spending-inflation

That leaves off the actual dollars entirely and looks purely at the percentage change in spending and rate of inflation.

Federal Spending has increased by more than the rate of inflation every year but 1 since 1992 (93) and the average over that period is federal spending increasing by more than twice the rate of inflation

Then there is this...

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/total-government-spending

This includes both Inflation and population growth (a commonly overlooked fact, controlling for population growth is as important as inflation for a true picture)

This clearly shows that Government (Both Federal and State/Local) has grown faster than Inflation on a per capita basis fairly consistently since 1965. It never falls and the only instance of non growth was from 1990 - 2000 for Federal Spending only (State and Local spending per household both grew during that period in inflation adjusted dollars)

This would only be Biased if the inflation adjusted graph showed something other than constant growth but since it doesn't there is no bias.

"Shares of total federal spending - You cannot cut mandatory expenditures.
Chart should leave out mandatory programs like medicare, social security and interest and split out 'other' thus showing that defense comprises the largest piece of discretionary spending."

you can't? Why not? Is it a violation of physical law to do so? If not then altering "Mandatory" spending is as simple as passing a law. In fact President Obama has even claimed to do so with the Health Care bill.

Further given that said mandatory programs will within the next 20 years (and that is the optimistic projection)and that they account for more than half the annual growth in federal spending there is no Bias in including them because the point is to show TOTAL federal spending, not discretionary spending.

"Spending per gross domestic product - Shows that non-defense spending has remained fairly stable since instituting the 'great society' programs of Johnson, except for 2008-09 where there is a spike. I presume this is an indication of the TARP instituted by Bush and other stimulus programs instituted by Obama."

Yes, that plus the fact that GDP actually declined that year yet there were automatic year over year increases in most programs that were not tied to the inflation rate.

And yes, non defense spending as a percentage of GDP has been essentially a constant since roughly 1970. What this graph does not show is that it has been a constant at an unsustainable level, further it does not show the impact of impending demographic changes as the boomers retire over the next 15 years, that even under the best of assumptions would cause a spike larger than TARP/Stimulus in non defense spending.

The final thing it doesn't account for is the only reason Net Interest Payments has been trending downward is we have had a decade long period of historically low Interest Rates. Eventually they have to rise, even under the most optimistic scenarios and when they do the Debt has grown so large that you will see an immediate spike of 3 - 5% of GDP in that line.

"Government funding per share of GDP - One cannot compare 1900 to the other dates because in 1900 the US was a third-world nation. In addition the date ranges are not linear, comparing, hopefully, the averages of 50 year periods vs the last 10 year period is bias. If each bar is a particular year, then the graph is completely meaningless."

No it was not. The US had ceased to be a 3rd world nation by 1885. In fact it was one of the top 5 industrial powerhouses in the world in 1900.

Further the graph is perfectly valid. The first 3 lines are the data, the last for the 2000 - 2010 gap is added for reference to show how the last 10 years have compared to the previous 100 year trend. It is really quite obvious that the 2010 line is not intended as an extension of the previous trend but a comparison of it.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"
Federal spending under current projection - Chart is meaningless as it is a projection based on current policies which are stimulative, not normative."

No they are not. TARP and the Stimulus did not include any significant provisions for continuing ongoing spending at the Federal level so by 2010 or 2011 at the latest their spending impact is gone. Further, even if they were the money being spent on so called Stimulus is a tiny fraction of that being spent on the 3 budgetary line items that will drive 100% of that increase.

See that brown section there in the middle. That contains 100% of the stimulus spending as well as all defense, foreign policy, welfare, research, and so on. It is all spending on everything that isn't Interest, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Now what happens to that brown section in each of the 2 15 year future periods. It SHRINKS. This clearly proves it is not Stimulus but Debt and Entitlements (that so called Mandatory spending) that will drive the growth in Federal Spending as a fraction of GDP.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Shares of total federal spending - You cannot cut mandatory expenditures.

Sure you can, it's just harder.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

They never re-structure or downsize, its undeniable they have a good deal of bloat and in-efficiency in their hierarchy.

The problem -- no one in a position to make a difference, including Obama, is willing to admit it.