View Full Version : Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the USG's FY 2012 budget.
The current administration has released a proposed budget for FY 2012.
The publication, in PDF format, is available here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/).
Summary tables are there (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf) for those who "just want the facts."
The president's budget message, available here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/message.pdf), will provide plenty of heat for those of you trapped in the throes of winter.:)
I notice in the future projections Discretionary spending is flat - creeps up only a tad each year - while Mandatory spending continues up at something like 150 Billion a year.
Read a letter to the Army Times today from a young SSG. He said all us old farts need to get on board and pay higher fees for our Tri Care. Sigh, so much for "Free Health Care for Life".
Peregrino
02-14-2011, 20:09
The wife and I just got notices in the mail telling us our taxes have gone up - guess that's why the retirement checks weren't as big as they had been. So much for no tax increase for anyone earning less than $250,000. Now the current budget proposal is all about 2/3rds cuts, 1/3rd taxes? Lying bastidges! November 2012 can't get here soon enough.
Buffalobob
02-15-2011, 06:57
Where is Bill Clinton when you need him? He at least knew how to balance a budget. All you need to do is find a young lady who likes to play around to keep him entertained.
It's a house of cards. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a lib or an idiot.
Well, I certainly hope the government makes good use of the extra paper clips and staples they can now purchase by using the additional $1200 annually they just notified me will be pulled from my retirement.
Richard :munchin
Well, I certainly hope the government makes good use of the extra paper clips and staples they can now purchase by using the additional $1200 annually they just notified me will be pulled from my retirement.
Richard :munchin
Yeah, but look at the bright side- we might get a big choo choo train.
mark46th
02-15-2011, 09:17
Buff- Bill Clinton had a Republican Congress with Newt Gingrich as the Speaker. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, let's see if Boehner and the Republican House can get a balanced budget...
GratefulCitizen
02-15-2011, 13:04
Re: Entitlements
The entitlement problem will never be solved by accounting gimmicks, budget changes, spending changes, or tax changes.
Money and wealth are not the same thing.
The reason is simple:
the recipients of entitlements are competing with other recipients of entitlements in a marketplace of limited goods and services.
No matter how much money is given in entitlements or taken in taxes, it won't be enough.
The providers of goods and services will sell a prices which give them a profit, or they won't produce at all.
Too many consumers, not enough providers.
There are two possible solutions:
1. Eliminate all of the entitlement programs aimed at the young, and encourage massive immigration. (increase producers)
2. Significantly raise the age at which people recieve retirement/health care benefits. (decrease consumers and mantain producers)
Not enough babies were born from 1965 to 1980.
The producers just aren't there in sufficient numbers to keep the Ponzi scheme going.
craigepo
02-15-2011, 13:48
Damnit, we need a balanced budget amendment.
When I opened the summary portion, the document was published on landscape mode. I wonder how many thousands of people, as computer-illiterate as me, tried to read through the thing with their heads turned sideways. Pretty effective way to get me to stop reading.
Ret10Echo
02-15-2011, 14:09
Damnit, we need a balanced budget amendment.
When I opened the summary portion, the document was published on landscape mode. I wonder how many thousands of people, as computer-illiterate as me, tried to read through the thing with their heads turned sideways. Pretty effective way to get me to stop reading.
Shift / Ctrl / +
:D
Currently the shell game seems to be the approach.
To get it done, it's going to sting a little (lot) or as the doc would say "Your're going to feel some pressure"
Shift / Ctrl / +
:D
Currently the shell game seems to be the approach.
To get it done, it's going to sting a little (lot) or as the doc would say "Your're going to feel some pressure"
It's virtually impossible for socialists to balance a budget. They're using other people's money that doesn't yet exist.
So I take it there's a lot of interest in divvying up the various parts of the president's budget proposal for a good old close reading over multiple cups of Starbucks Pike Place?:munchin
(I'd volunteer but for the fact that it is February sweeps.):p
Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How $3.7 Trillion is Spent
Explore every nook and cranny of President Obama's budget proposal.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/index.html
OK, summary, table S1, starting from 2011:
2,174 2,627 3,003 3,333 3,583 3,819 4,042 4,257 4,473 4,686
So in 2011, receipts are 2.174 trillion, and in 2012 they are 2.627 trillion (20% increase). Then we go up another 10% or so in 2013. As I recall, there is not a big tax increase during election year 2012.
I regard these numbers as...well...silly. The underlying assumption is robust domestic economic growth. If that's false, everything that follows is invalidated.
The numbers I see (housing prices, unemployment, spending by consumers) do not suggest a strong, sustained recovery. MOO, YMMV.
The Reaper
02-15-2011, 21:33
OK, summary, table S1, starting from 2011:
2,174 2,627 3,003 3,333 3,583 3,819 4,042 4,257 4,473 4,686
So in 2011, receipts are 2.174 trillion, and in 2012 they are 2.627 trillion (20% increase). Then we go up another 10% or so in 2013. As I recall, there is not a big tax increase during election year 2012.
I regard these numbers as...well...silly. The underlying assumption is robust domestic economic growth. If that's false, everything that follows is invalidated.
The numbers I see (housing prices, unemployment, spending by consumers) do not suggest a strong, sustained recovery. MOO, YMMV.
That was my observation as well.
Spending actually goes up, almost all deficit reduction is based on additional revenues (taxes).
Where is the rollback to 2008 spending levels?
TR
1stindoor
02-16-2011, 08:43
Here's what I would recommend...
1. 10% cut of every federal agency budget. Every single one...no exceptions...no exemptions. Everything from defense to interior, Presidential staff to junior congressman office supplies. If you're drawing a dime from Uncle Sam...don't expect more than .09 cents. Find a new way to work within your budget reduction.
2. No "new" spending. Period. Don't give a crap how you wrap it up and deliver it...if it's not already budgeted...live without it.
3. Hiring freeze...sorry nobody's going to backfill Bob when he retires in 6 months...it's called picking up the slack...learn how to do it.
4. Social Security...it's time to raise the retirement age. We live longer, we work longer...we can start drawing off the till later.
5. "American" products that are outsourced overseas now receive a hefty import tax. If your corporation is getting labor for pennies outside of US borders...you'll make up the difference when you try to sell your product. If it doesn't sell because you can't afford to be competitive...relook your market strategy.
Then again, I'm just a simple knuckle dragger.
10% cut of every federal agency budget.
That's a HUGE cut - maybe try 3% across the board first to see what happens and that would still be a CHUNK of $$$ not being spent.
I've begun to think of the federal budget in terms of a decent exercise/weight loss program for somebody who hasn't dieted/exercised in a long time - if you try to do too much too fast, you wind up injured and then the program stalls or is dropped.
Maybe I've become even more of a moderate in my advancing years - go figure.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
ZonieDiver
02-16-2011, 11:58
Maybe I've become even more of a moderate in my advancing years - go figure.
You??? Naw!!!! :D
I heard on the news this a.m. that the widow of Patrick Swayze was in DC lobbying the "critters" to pass the "Pancreatic Cancer Research Bill" to increase funding for this disease that killed her husband.
It'll probably happen, too.
"They" just don't know HOW to stop... :mad:
1stindoor
02-16-2011, 13:43
It'll probably happen, too.
Please feel free to now insert your favorite Patrick Swayze cheeseball quote.
No one puts baby in the corner.
1stindoor
02-16-2011, 13:44
That's a HUGE cut - maybe try 3% across the board first to see what happens and that would still be a CHUNK of $$$ not being spent.
I've begun to think of the federal budget in terms of a decent exercise/weight loss program for somebody who hasn't dieted/exercised in a long time - if you try to do too much too fast, you wind up injured and then the program stalls or is dropped.
Maybe I've become even more of a moderate in my advancing years - go figure.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Actually that's pretty solid thinking. How'bout we bitch and throw a hissyfit demanding 10%....but later relent and say we'll settle for 3%...for now.
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2011, 14:29
I regard these numbers as...well...silly. The underlying assumption is robust domestic economic growth. If that's false, everything that follows is invalidated.
The numbers I see (housing prices, unemployment, spending by consumers) do not suggest a strong, sustained recovery. MOO, YMMV.
Enter the fed.
Numbers don't necessarily reflect reality when a fiat currency is involved.
If enough money is printed, nominal economic and tax figures may be achieved.
However, COLA, workload vs. compensation, and fringe benefits for the recipients of gov't money will not keep pace with true inflation.
This debt will be defaulted on in the same way governments have been doing it for hundreds of years.
Inflation, changing the maturity dates on bonds, changing the tax laws on bond interest, etc.
Right now, all of our inflation is being exported to China due to their pegging.
That inflation will return here eventually, and probably accelerate.
They're just kicking the can down the road.
Governments everywhere will be forced to shrink, the only question being whether they force their domestic economies shrink, too.
We're on the downslope of peak government.
craigepo
02-16-2011, 14:50
The problem with having an intelligent conversation about the budget is that the budget is so big, it is essentially incomprehensible. One can either speak in "majestic generalities" about federal spending, or spend days looking through a document the size of a Bible. Candidates hire coveys of staffers to go through the budget, in the hopes of catching an opponent's errant vote on some ridiculous spending bill.
On this point, I liked George Will's recent take on the Department of Defense portion of the bill.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will021311.php3
Buffalobob
02-16-2011, 16:56
I had read that the original idea of Social Security was most people wouldn't actually receive it. When it was first past, the average life expectancy was at most about sixty-four years, and you needed to be at elast sixty-five years-old to start receiving it. Today the average age to live is around seventy-two or something like that (?), so that would mean the age to start receiving SS should probably be raised. However, that would not sit well with voters probably.
At least 50% of the people will lie and cheat you if they can.
A contract was made and I paid my agreed upon money into social security and still do. Now somebody like you suddenly wishes to cite ' changed conditions" and cheat me. Got no use for dishonesty. A person or entity should stand behind their commitments.
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2011, 17:28
At least 50% of the people will lie and cheat you if they can.
A contract was made and I paid my agreed upon money into social security and still do. Now somebody like you suddenly wishes to cite ' changed conditions" and cheat me. Got no use for dishonesty. A person or entity should stand behind their commitments.
The problem is in the nature of the contract.
In many cases, what is being promised is the labor of someone else's children.
How do you force someone else's children to labor when they won't see a profit from their efforts?
The only answers are deception or despotism.
It does indeed take 50% of the people for lying and cheating to prevail over rule of law and property rights.
We call it an election.
The problem is in the nature of the contract.
In many cases, what is being promised is the labor of someone else's children.
Ahh, but what is a bond but a promise for future payment - in essence, the labor of someone else's children?
So if we're going to default, let's do it right. Let's refuse to pay the foreign bond-holders.
Dishonorable and dishonest? Perhaps. But is it any more disreputable than failure to conform to a contract created by a duly elected government with its people?
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2011, 17:43
Ahh, but what is a bond but a promise for future payment - in essence, the labor of someone else's children?
So if we're going to default, let's do it right. Let's refuse to pay the foreign bond-holders.
Dishonorable and dishonest? Perhaps. But is it any more disreputable than failure to conform to a contract created by a duly elected government with its people?
Like this? :D
http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/US_default_021120111
<snip>
If the government decides to take any of these approaches to a deniable default, it would be politically more advantageous to stiff foreigners rather than US investors. That would require getting most of the outstanding Treasury securities into the hands of foreigners. It could be done.
The US imposes withholding at a rate of 30% on dividends and other types of investment income paid to non-US investors. But there is a very broad exemption for interest payments. So under current rules, foreigners can invest in most types of bonds issued in the US without losing anything to withholding.
A simple way to stick foreigners with the pain of a default would be to extend the withholding system to cover corporate bonds but not Treasury bonds. Non-US investors would then have a compelling motive to replace their holdings of US corporate bonds with Treasury bonds. T-bonds would flow out of the US and corporate bonds would flow in. Most of the portfolio adjusting would be done within a year or so. Then the government would change the rules again. Withholding would be extended to Treasury bonds, at 30%, or at some higher rate, say 40%.
Most of the value (and most of the debt burden) represented by a long-term bond is in the interest payments, not in the principal. Imposing withholding on the interest at a rate of 40% comes close to a 40% default on the debt. It would be done in the name of balancing the budget (everyone's for that) and as a counterattack on tax havens (where devious rich people hide their money), and it would be done to foreigners (many of whom are Chinese exporters that have been taking advantage of the US for far too long). A political triple play.
The Reaper
02-16-2011, 19:22
I have paid in for more than 35 years, would gladly accept the later retirement to save the nation's financial security and to keep my kids from having to pay even more taxes to support my retirement.
Of course, there are a lot of people drawing SS Disability income and sitting on their asses at home with nothing really wrong.
Anyone who has not seen this train wreck coming for at least 20 years has had their heads in the sand. It is a Ponzi scheme guaranteed to fail, based on the actuarial tables. The trust fund is gone and a box of bad IOUs is all that is left. Anyone who could have, but who has not made alternate plans via a company retirement, savings, or 401K is stupid.
Anyone who has a contract for SS benefits, I would like to see it.
TR
Good point about contracts - but even those in writing with lots of embossed seals are subject to default. When do the various representations - print-outs showing how much one can draw at various ages - become a contract? I don't know. But I believe it's safe to say that a lot of voters believe that a solemn promise was made.
As to the nation's financial security...please understand that I say this with all due respect...I believe we passed the point where any level of sacrifice can avoid a financial and political train wreck years ago. Perhaps decades ago. I don't believe we can make sufficient cuts - due to the political realities - to avoid a massive default in which almost everyone winds up with pennies on the dollar. After that event, the next two (or more) generations will pay lots of taxes and get little in return.
We speak of private retirement plans - the 401k, IRAs, and so forth. But will they help? Or will our government simply take them for the greater good? It has been done by Hungary. LINK (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article24828.html)
And company retirements? Those are vulnerable to market action - and insured by the PBGC...which is underfunded...and is not really an obligation of Government.
We have unfunded liabilities of about 100 trillion dollars LINK (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662) . And revenue of about one-thirtieth of that. We simply can't pay the bill.
However...our leaders like to kick the can down the road and defer the consequences. Maybe that's about the best we can do.