dancing, guns and soup don't mix ([info]mizalaina) wrote,
@ 2004-07-19 06:34:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
"I want my two dollars!": The House of Cards
In posting this response to [info]kitiara I was finding links for US DoD spending. I thought you might like to know how the 2005 budget breaks down. BTW, think about these numbers for a moment. These are *billions* of dollars. Try to conceive of a billion dollars. What it means is that every person 15 years and older (and not all of these people are taxpayers) pays their share of $4.30. Or, to look at it another way, a billion dollars costs every human being alive in the US $3.36. Therefore, for a family of four, 2005's discretionary DoD budget is costing your household ($3.36 * $420 * 4) = $5,644.80. Per person that is $1,411.20.

Summary Table is here. Lots of interesting information in that puppy.

Discretionary spending by department:

  • Defense, $401.7 billion (49% of the total discretionary budget)
  • ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS, $416.7 billion (51%) including $28.3 billion for Homeland Security

    • Agriculture, $19.1 billion
    • Commerce, $5.7 billion
    • Education, $57.3 billion
    • Energy, $23.6 billion
    • Health and Human Services, $68.2 billion
    • Homeland Security, $28.3 billion (IMO this belongs with Defense)
    • Housing and Urban Development, $31.3 billion
    • Interior, $10.8 billion
    • Justice, $18.7 billion
    • Labor, $11.9 billion
    • State, $10.3 billion
    • Transportation, $13.3 billion
    • Treasury, $10.8 billion
    • Veterans Affairs, $29.7 billion
    • Corps of Engineers, $4 billion
    • Office of the President, $0.3 billion
    • GSA, $0.2 billion
    • International Assistance, $19.3 billion
    • Judicial Branch, $5.4 billion
    • Legislative Branch, $4 billion
    • NASA, $16.2 billion
    • NSF, $5.7 billion
    • Small Business Administration, $0.7 billion
    • Social Security Administration, $7.6 billion
    • Other agencies, $6.5 billion




Mandatory spending:

  • Social Security, $510 billion (keep in mind that this is essentially supposed to be an investment account for retirees, so the way this should work is that yearly social security income should be more than social security spending)
  • Medicare, $290 billion
  • Medicaid and SCHIP, $188 billion
  • Other, $320 billion


The current budget deficit is $527 billion. For each person in the US that's $1,770 just this year. The government is spending almost $1800 per person that it doesn't have. That means you could cut completely the discretionary spending for DoD and Homeland Security and there would still be a deficit of $97 billion. Or I could eliminate every other US federal department for 2005 and there would still be a deficit of $138.6 billion. If every person in the US, including newborns, chipped in $465.69, and every department besides DoD and Homeland Security was eliminated, that would balance this year's budget. If you completely eliminated Social Security spending in 2005 then there would still be a budget deficit of $17 billion. If you eliminated Medicaid and Medicare then there would still be a deficit of $49 billion. If you left those programs, into which everybody pays and expects to get something out of directly, and eliminated all other mandatory spending, it still leaves a $207 billion deficit, more than the budgets of HUD, HHS, Education, Labour, Veteran's Affairs and the Social Security Administration combined.

So let's think about how much the DoD budget has increased in the last four years. The DoD's discretionary budget for 2001 was $303 billion. Bush has increased that to almost $402 billion. That increase alone, $99 billion, is less than the projected 2005 budget for any two departments added together (unless you add Education and HHS, which gives $125.5 billion.)

Of course, if you include "Homeland Security," a department that didn't exist in 2001, to the 2005 Defense budget then the difference between 2001 and 2005 spending is $127.3 billion, which is more than even HHS and Education together. DoD/Homeland Security's budgets for 2005 are a combined $430 billion.

Let's take a couple of my favourite programs: NASA and the National Science Foundation. Both fund science research directly. I was a NASA contractor for a couple of years, working on the Technology Transfer program. The combined 2005 budgets for these two science-heavy departments yields $21.9 billion, which costs every person in the US $94.17/year. (Compared, remember, to the $1411.20 that DoD is costing you.)

If you think about one of the arguments for high military spending, it's that DoD spending helps improve technology by leaps and bounds. This is certainly true; the fundamental technologies on which the Internet runs grew out of DoD-funded programs at ARPA.


Interest: $178 billion (every person in the US, from newborns up, will pay $598.08 in 2005, just in the interest the US government has accrued on its debts.)

In case you were wondering, the US federal government's debt is $8,111 billion, or $8.1 trillion. For each person in the US their share is $27,252.96. That's just debt, nothing else. Your personal share of this debt is $27,252.96. Your grandfather's share of the debt is $27,252.96. Your two-year-old's share of the US debt is $27,252.96. You'd have to eliminate the deficit PLUS another $178 billion in spending (or a $178 billion increase in revenue, about $600 per person) to even begin to have ONE DOLLAR to start paying down federal debt.

Does this make you angry? It should.


In 2003 Canada's federal debt was $629.6 billion. Every person here in Soviet Canuckistan has a share of the debt that is $19,349.16, or $7,903.80 less than every person in the US. Another way of looking at it is that our share of our federal debt is 71% of what your share of your federal debt is.

That amount is decreasing every year. Canada has paid down its debt every year since at least 1999. Not by much -- the debt in 1999 was $648.4 billion, so in four years they've only paid $18 billion. Buy hey, it's something. In addition to all of our spending we are paying our interest PLUS paying down debt.

Whatever else I can say about the current and previous federal Liberals, Paul Martin's fiscal policies are quite sound.



(Post a new comment)


[info]solar_angel
2004-07-19 10:37 am UTC (link)
Wow. You're thorough. And wow, I didn't know the US economy was in such bad shape. I mean, I knew it was bad, but I didn't know that it was that bad.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mizalaina
2004-07-19 04:36 pm UTC (link)
(Hi there! I've added you as a friend.)

Yeah, it's pretty disturbing. I think I knew most of it, but seeing the per-capita numbers really drove it home for me. The US is *fucked*.

You should hear our boss talk about the US economic situation and its possible solutions. Pretty disturbing stuff.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]robotnik
2004-07-19 01:06 pm UTC (link)
Yowsa. It's not news, but just seeing the numbers laid out like that is pretty scary.

Another way of looking at it is that our share of our federal debt is...

Wait a minute! Are you a Canadian now? Damn carpetbaggers, coming up to Canada, trying to claim a share in our national debt...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mizalaina
2004-07-19 04:33 pm UTC (link)
Are you a Canadian now?

Dude, I will so trade citizenships with you. I wonder if we could work that out. I mean, the US would get a professor and Canada would get... um... well, I can use my feet like hands to pick stuff up off of the floor. I think that counts as a skill.

PS: You're welcome to my share of the US debt. I'm much happier with this number, especially given that it's in Canadian dollars. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]abz6598
2004-07-20 12:04 pm UTC (link)
But doesnt Canuckistan benefit directly from US defense spending? Canadian defense spending is probably as minimal as it is because the US is the heavily-armed global superpower next door.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

"Now, now, the Canadian government has apologize for Bryan Adams on several occasions"
[info]mizalaina
2004-07-20 08:00 pm UTC (link)
Well, the thing is, I'm not sure we need any defense. No one has yet been able to build a case for a strong military in Canada because we just don't go around attacking or invading other countries, nor do we have any enemies, nor--really--any chance to develop such enemies.

Our neighbours are the US to the west and south, Greenland to the east, and a really crazy big sheet of ice to the north. As far as those bastards to the east go, I don't think we have much to worry about from a country whose entire population is about the size of North Bay's. And frankly, the US is the only country who has ever invaded Canada. You're probably not the best qualified to defend us in a repeat situation. :)

Besides, let's be honest: it's Canada. Who in the world would WANT to attack Canada? It would be like attacking Disneyland. I mean, a pot-smoking, homo-loving Disneyland where health care is covered by the cost of admission and people throw pies in the faces of public officials, but Disneyland just the same. Our chief export is comedians and our most lasting contributions to society are the telephone and hockey.

Essentially we're 32 million people standing around complaining about the weather and singing "It's a Small World After All" while being smug and patting ourselves on the backs for being so polite, tolerant and multicultural. We have no natural enemies, nor any volume of natural resources that would be worth the grief of invading us, so the military might of our neighbour is pretty much irrelevant. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

War time and tax cuts
[info]jamie_f
2004-07-24 02:53 pm UTC (link)
Any Republican can tell you that tax cuts for the rich will fix the economy (just like they didn't during Reagan's presidency, leading to GHW Bush failing to get re-elected because the economy was in the toilet), and that we're at war now so we need to overspend to Make America Safer.

What they can't tell you is where the capital of Drugs or Terrorism or Poverty are. That would be useful because in a war some government leader needs to surrender; otherwise you can't really declare victory. You can declare Mission Accomplished, but then you get a big fat stinking mess that looks more like a war than the stuff that led up to the "victory".

But that's OK. Congress didn't actually declare war on Iraq, or drugs, or poverty, or Terrorism, they just abdicated authority so they could take credit for Doing Something without being directly accountable for any failure to conquer Drugistan or Povertistan or Terroristan.

I have a guilty hope that Bush gets re-elected so that he will have to face up to the colossal failure of his bullshit policies. If Kerry wins he'll be blamed immediately for the crap that is handed to him from the Bush administration. It would do the world good to see the US fall down and skin its knees, and hopefully we as a nation would learn our lesson.

It's a sad reality of humanity: we're perpetual optimists. We don't see the train until it's right on top of us, and then we assume it'll swerve to miss us. We thought the first plane hitting the WTC was an accident, after all. This is not a US-specific problem; it's a human problem. We need a really major slap in the face to wake us up to what's really going on.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…