BCT Editorial – 4/20/07

This page was last updated on April 22, 2007.

Perception and reality; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 20, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“One thing that makes it so tough to deal with federal spending is that many Americans’ perception of how their money is being spent does not reflect reality.

“The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think tank, has come up with a way to put federal spending into perspective.

“The foundation reports that the federal government will spend $24,106 per household in 2007, the highest total since World War II and an inflation-adjusted $4,000 more than in 2001. (So much for the myth of fiscally conservative Republicans.)”

[RWC] There’s no argument from me on this. At least the editorial didn’t identify the Republicans as conservatives.

“The federal government will spend $8,301 of that $24,106 on Social Security and Medicare. It will shell out another $4,951 for defense, $3,550 on anti-poverty programs, $2,071 on interest on the national debt and $907 for federal employees retirement benefits, including the military.

“Social Security and Medicare account for 34.4 percent of spending; defense, 20.5 percent; anti-poverty programs, 14.7 percent; interest on the national debt, 8.6 percent; and federal retirement benefits, 3.7 percent.

“Those five categories account for 81.9 percent of all federal spending.

“As entitlements, Social Security and Medicare spending is pretty much on cruise control and cutting defense spending while the country is fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is impractical. Interest on the debt must be paid to keep our creditors happy and to make sure they will keep lending us money. The government can’t stiff its civilian and military retirees.

“The spending on anti-poverty programs is slightly deceptive. The Heritage Foundation noted that nearly half of this spending subsidizes state Medicaid programs to poor families. What many people might not realize is that the bulk of that spending - about 75 percent - goes for nursing home care for the elderly.

“Here’s how the rest of federal spending breaks down: health research/regulation, $664, 2.7 percent; veterans’ benefits, $627, 2.6 percent; education, $584, 2.4 percent; highways/mass transit, $418, 1.7 percent; justice administration, $392, 1.6 percent; natural resources/environment, $305, 1.3 percent; international affairs, $304, 1.2 percent; unemployment benefits, $299, 1.2 percent; community and regional development, $282, 1.1 percent; and miscellaneous (farm subsidies, social services, space explorations, air transportation and energy), $451, 1.9 percent.

“Like the Medicaid spending, the 1.2 percent of federal spending that goes for international affairs comes with a caveat. Much of the foreign aid that the United States doles out requires the countries that receive that money to use it to buy American-made goods, often in the form of military equipment.

“Keep these numbers in mind whenever anyone starts talking about cutting federal spending.

“Unless they are willing to go after the top five, especially Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, they’re blowing smoke.”

[RWC] Did you notice the editorial didn’t note which of “the top five” are responsibilities as spelled out by the Constitution? Here’s a hint. Medicare, Socialist Security, and “anti-poverty programs” are extraconstitutional. A big chunk of the remaining spending is also extraconstitutional.

Finally, while I agree we need to tackle the big-ticket extraconstitutional items, we can’t ignore the smaller items. This is true for all government levels. Remember, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”