Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: defense

The Congress and the Fiscal Cliff

There might be 2 ways to look at the fiscal cliff.

Specifically, we can focus on tax increases and spending cuts:

Tax Increases

  1. Bush era tax cuts: expire
  2. 2010-2011 2% payroll tax cut: expire
  3. Affordable Care Act taxes: kick in

 

Spending Cuts

  1. Emergency unemployment benefits: expire
  2. Budget sequester (cuts) from Super Committee failure: kick in
  3. Previously legislated budget cuts: kick in
  4. Defense cuts from Iran/Afghanistan reductions: kick in
  5. Medicare payment rates for physicians: reduced

 

More broadly, we can take a step backward and look at the bigger problems that really have to be solved:

  1. 63% of the 2011 federal budget was on “autopilot.” Debating cuts, the Congress only looked at 37% of spending.
  2. 1 of 4 budget dollars is spent on healthcare. Looking back 50 years ago, less than 10% of all spending was healthcare, and looking forward, we are heading toward 33%.
  3. Slicing federal employees and agencies would save money but not nearly enough. Even if we fired the entire federal payroll, the deficit would dip by less than one third.
  4. Defense spending is massive. We spent 1 out of every 5 dollars on defense in 2011.
  5. We now borrow close to 36 cents for every dollar we spend. And yet still, the more affluent are paying a larger proportion in taxes and the middle of the middle class (as expressed in the video) is paying a lower proportion.

 

Where does this leave us? Defined as taxing, spending and borrowing, US fiscal policy is the real fiscal cliff.

Sources and Resources: The specifics of the fiscal cliff are from a past econlife post while the summary of the big issues is from the David Wessel/WSJ video that follows. For even more detail, this Tax Foundation description of the fiscal cliff is good.



Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

The Congress and the Deficit

All the talk about Big Bird and federal funding is really about 2 much bigger issues.

1. Discretionary Spending

With proposed spending in the Obama 2013 budget at 3.7 trillion dollars, a tiny proportion–between 1 and 2 percent, goes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In fact, add to CPB money, the EPA, the entire judicial brach of government, homeland security, education, transportation, agriculture, foreign policy, NASA, and other discretionary categories (except defense) and you approach 15 percent of all federal spending.

The other 85%?

  • Social Security
  • Health and Human Services (primarily Medicare and Medicaid)
  • the Interest on the Debt
  • Defense

 

You can see that for real deficit reduction, we need to focus on 3 mandatory (required by law) budget components and defense–not Big Bird and not discretionary spending.

2. Lighthouses

Would Big Bird pass the lighthouse test? Economists like to point out that when we try to decide what government should pay for, we can start with a lighthouse. Used by anyone, depleted by no one, and a necessity, a lighthouse would be tough to fund privately. So government should step in.

The lighthouse test is a handy start for deciding what should be covered by federal funds.

Sources and Resources: This NY Times interactive graphic is a superb shortcut for illustrating and understanding the federal budget. Also very well done, the NPR Planet Money podcast on public goods was fascinating.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment