Where am I? This feels funny.
This is all your fault Matt. I had merrily kept my blinders on so far, only looking at the proposed budget areas that are in my little realm of interest. But you had to post the whole budget and I couldn't resist giving it a review.
I'm still trying to figure out a few areas. Looks like they have changed the way they calculate interest payments and costs. The numbers, even the historical ones, don't match with my previous charts. Not surprisingly, the change appears to make the deficit and interest costs much lower than they were before. Hopefully there is a simple explanation. I'll keep checking.
On a positive note, according to the White House, our GDP grew at a 6.6% rate last year. That's higher than other government statements and would represent a very robust economy. Let's hope that we can continue and hit their targets of 5%+ GDP growth through the projected future.
Unfortunately, even with the robust GDP growth rate, payments on interest (using the old numbers until I can figure out the changes) continues to rise. For 2004, interest on the existing debt chewed up the equivalent of 36% of discretionary government spending. That is projected to rise to 56% of discretionary spending by 2009. Right now, interest on the debt also consumes the equivalent of 40% of all income tax receipts. Can anyone guess where I'm going with this? Yes, deficit spending is useful at times. But paying this much in interest due to over spending is just ridiculous. Want to cut your tax rate? Here's an idea; if we pay down the debt we cut our interest payments and can cut our taxes. Put in generic terms, if you are in a household with four people you are responsible for $5,000 in payments just to interest on the existing debt. Want to cut $5,000 out of your taxes? There's one way to do it.
Back to GDP growth. Yup. 2004 was a pretty good year, regardless of which government agency is producing the growth rate figures. Unfortunately, increased government spending has been a major component of GDP growth over the last few years. About a third of the GDP growth is due to the rapid growth in government spending. And, as we see from the interest payment paragraph, that is merely borrowing money from future generations.
I really wish that either Kerry had won with the Republican Congress or that Bush had won and Congress went to Democrats. With no checks in government, spending is just out of control. With mixed government in the 1990s we had -2% to 3% discretionary spending growth. With single party control of government, our discretionary spending has grown 13%, 12%, 8% and 8% over the last four years. Raise your hand if you are falling for the projection that discretionary spending will decline by 2% next year. That would be laughable if it didn't involve such serious money.
Who is for big government? During Clinton's terms, non-military federal government employment went down by 23%. Since then, we have grown non-military government employment by more than 10%, with projections for more growth. Note: I voted against Clinton every opportunity I had.
Now for another link. Note that the White House is projecting 5%+ growth rates for as far as they are willing to forecast. Yet, with Social Security, they say the growth rate will be 1.9% during those years. SS reform might be the way to go, but if we use White House projects for growth rates, the break-even date on SS goes out to around 2040 and the trust fund is not extinguished until around 2080 or later. Just fodder for the water cooler.
I'm confused about something. Bush has admitted to struggling with an alcohol problem. In fact, for many of us it shows his human side and his personal strength in overcoming something that many are not able to beat. He has successfully used this as a tool and a lesson to others not to do what he has done. But when it comes to drugs, his philosophy is to not admit to anything because he doesn't want anyone to do what he has done. He gets to have it both ways. Now that's a masterful politician. Kudos.
OK. I know what you're thinking. This guy actually went through the federal budget! He needs to get a life, exercise more, get some friends, or something. Know what? You're right. For good or bad though, this helps with my job. But I still need to get a life.
Regards
Fatmouse
This is all your fault Matt. I had merrily kept my blinders on so far, only looking at the proposed budget areas that are in my little realm of interest. But you had to post the whole budget and I couldn't resist giving it a review.
I'm still trying to figure out a few areas. Looks like they have changed the way they calculate interest payments and costs. The numbers, even the historical ones, don't match with my previous charts. Not surprisingly, the change appears to make the deficit and interest costs much lower than they were before. Hopefully there is a simple explanation. I'll keep checking.
On a positive note, according to the White House, our GDP grew at a 6.6% rate last year. That's higher than other government statements and would represent a very robust economy. Let's hope that we can continue and hit their targets of 5%+ GDP growth through the projected future.
Unfortunately, even with the robust GDP growth rate, payments on interest (using the old numbers until I can figure out the changes) continues to rise. For 2004, interest on the existing debt chewed up the equivalent of 36% of discretionary government spending. That is projected to rise to 56% of discretionary spending by 2009. Right now, interest on the debt also consumes the equivalent of 40% of all income tax receipts. Can anyone guess where I'm going with this? Yes, deficit spending is useful at times. But paying this much in interest due to over spending is just ridiculous. Want to cut your tax rate? Here's an idea; if we pay down the debt we cut our interest payments and can cut our taxes. Put in generic terms, if you are in a household with four people you are responsible for $5,000 in payments just to interest on the existing debt. Want to cut $5,000 out of your taxes? There's one way to do it.
Back to GDP growth. Yup. 2004 was a pretty good year, regardless of which government agency is producing the growth rate figures. Unfortunately, increased government spending has been a major component of GDP growth over the last few years. About a third of the GDP growth is due to the rapid growth in government spending. And, as we see from the interest payment paragraph, that is merely borrowing money from future generations.
I really wish that either Kerry had won with the Republican Congress or that Bush had won and Congress went to Democrats. With no checks in government, spending is just out of control. With mixed government in the 1990s we had -2% to 3% discretionary spending growth. With single party control of government, our discretionary spending has grown 13%, 12%, 8% and 8% over the last four years. Raise your hand if you are falling for the projection that discretionary spending will decline by 2% next year. That would be laughable if it didn't involve such serious money.
Who is for big government? During Clinton's terms, non-military federal government employment went down by 23%. Since then, we have grown non-military government employment by more than 10%, with projections for more growth. Note: I voted against Clinton every opportunity I had.
Now for another link. Note that the White House is projecting 5%+ growth rates for as far as they are willing to forecast. Yet, with Social Security, they say the growth rate will be 1.9% during those years. SS reform might be the way to go, but if we use White House projects for growth rates, the break-even date on SS goes out to around 2040 and the trust fund is not extinguished until around 2080 or later. Just fodder for the water cooler.
I'm confused about something. Bush has admitted to struggling with an alcohol problem. In fact, for many of us it shows his human side and his personal strength in overcoming something that many are not able to beat. He has successfully used this as a tool and a lesson to others not to do what he has done. But when it comes to drugs, his philosophy is to not admit to anything because he doesn't want anyone to do what he has done. He gets to have it both ways. Now that's a masterful politician. Kudos.
OK. I know what you're thinking. This guy actually went through the federal budget! He needs to get a life, exercise more, get some friends, or something. Know what? You're right. For good or bad though, this helps with my job. But I still need to get a life.
Regards
Fatmouse