Showing posts with label Federal Revenue and Spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Revenue and Spending. Show all posts

July 11, 2011

Other Than Social Security and Medicare (Funded by Separate Payroll Taxes) as Well as Medicaid, the Top Federal Expenses are the Defense and Security, Benefits for Federal Retirees and Veterans, and Interest on the National Debt

Do You Know Where Your Tax Dollars are Going?

FOX Business
November 9, 2010

Entitlement programs, the military, food stamps, federal agencies, highways…the list goes on and on, but do you really know where your federal tax dollars are going?

Are you like most Americans and just sign what seems like your life away to Uncle Sam with no questions asked?

Well, 40% of us think aid to other countries is the No. 1 federal expense, and those people couldn't be more wrong. Our federal government spends only $1 in foreign aid for every $14 it spends on Medicare alone!

The Wall Street Journal, along with the organization Third Way, laid out just where our money is being spent. The report takes a couple making $200,000 with two children and shows how much they're paying for what. They say that couple will pay nearly $43,000 this year in taxes -- and that's just federal taxes.

Entitlement programs will get the bulk of the money; more than $8,000 a year comes out of your paycheck for Social Security, the same holds true for Medicare and Medicaid. Only $367 goes to federal aid.

Here's what I thought was the most shocking number: more than $2,000 a year goes to pay off the interest on the national debt -- not the actual debt -- just the interest!

Nearly $8,000 are spent on the military -- from Iraq and Afghanistan -- to other military operations and maintenance.

The list goes on and on -- but some of the other big ticket items:
  • food stamps: $661 goes there

  • more than $500 goes to federal highways
The one good thing on this list is that only about $1.50 goes to paying the salaries of those on Capitol Hill.

All jokes aside, the list is incredibly extensive, and once again this is only federal taxes; thousands more go to state and local taxes.

With the numbers laid out, it should be obvious to everyone in Washington: this is too much and we need to stop spending so the American family can keep more of what they make --- for them!

A lot of people seem to think that Social Security payments are "handouts" by the government. Yes, the government does manage our SS funds; however, many of us have worked for years and have paid into Social Security. Between the employee and the employer, about 13 percent is paid right off the top of our wages. No, Social Security is not a freebie! Neither is Medicare! If we want decent care, we buy supplemental policies and prescription policies. Medicare pays the doctors a very low percentage of their actual fees; and most doctors/hospitals care enough about senior citizens that they accept what Medicare/supplements pays. Twenty to twenty-five years ago, we were told Social Security was going bankrupt. Do you remember why? The Federal Government was using our funds to support other programs; and now we have a stack of IOU's — if the funds were put back into the Social Security system, we would be in great shape! Don't say that those on SS/Medicare are taking government handouts! We have been ripped off! - Elizabeth Bausell, Social Security, Medicare not entitlements, HeroldDemocrat.com, May 17, 2010

Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?

 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
April 15, 2011

The federal government collects taxes in order to finance various public services. As policymakers and citizens weigh key decisions about revenues and expenditures, it is instructive to examine what the government does with the money it collects.

In fiscal year 2010, the federal government spent $3.5 trillion, amounting to 24 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). While the level of 2010 expenditures — as a share of GDP — exceeds those of recent years, the composition of the budget largely resembles the patterns of recent years. Of that $3.5 trillion, almost $2.2 trillion was financed by federal tax revenues. The remaining $1.3 trillion was financed by borrowing; this deficit will ultimately be paid for by future taxpayers. (See box for the recession’s impact on the budget.) As shown in the graph below, three major areas of spending each make up about one-fifth of the budget:
  • Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $705 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which totaled $170 billion in 2010.

  • Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $707 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,175 per month to 34.6 million retired workers in December 2010. Social Security also provided benefits to 2.9 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6.4 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 10.2 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2010.

  • Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $732 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $452 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 47 million people who are over the age of 65 or have disabilities. The remainder of this category funds Medicaid and CHIP, which in a typical month in 2010 will provide health care or long-term care to about 60 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.
Two other categories together account for another fifth of federal spending:
  • Safety net programs: About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $496 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.

    These programs include: the refundable portion of the earned-income and child tax credits, which assist low- and moderate-income working families through the tax code; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income families and individuals, including food stamps, school meals, low-income housing assistance, child-care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.

    A Center analysis shows that such programs kept approximately 15 million Americans out of poverty in 2005 and reduced the depth of poverty for another 29 million people. (Such programs likely kept even more Americans out of poverty since the recession began. For example, seven provisions of the Recovery Act enacted in February 2009 kept more than 6 million additional people out of poverty in 2009, according to a Center analysis.)

  • Interest on the national debt: The federal government must make regular interest payments on the money it has borrowed to finance past deficits — that is, on the national debt held by the public, which reached $9 trillion by the end of fiscal 2010. In 2010, these interest payments claimed $196 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.

2009 and 2010 Budget Outcomes Skewed by the Recession

Due to one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression — and the policies enacted to combat it — 2009 and 2010 tax and spending levels diverged from recent patterns. Plunging federal revenues amounted to less than 15 percent of GDP in 2009 and 2010, the lowest levels in decades. The efforts to prevent collapse of the financial system and to deal with the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the automatic expansion of programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps (which always grow during economic downturns to meet rising need), and spending from the February 2009 stimulus package together pushed federal outlays to 25 percent of GDP in 2009 and nearly 24 percent of GDP in 2010. As a result, deficits reached record levels.

It will take the economy several years to fully recover, and during that time federal revenues and expenditures will continue to differ from historical experience. However, the composition of the budget in 2010 largely resembles recent federal spending patterns.

As the graph shows, the remaining fifth of federal spending goes to support a wide variety of other public services. These include providing health care and other benefits to veterans and retirement benefits to retired federal employees, assuring safe food and drugs, protecting the environment, and investing in education, scientific and medical research, and basic infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and airports. A very small slice of this remaining 18 percent — about 1 percent of the total budget — goes to non-security programs that operate internationally, including programs that provide humanitarian aid.

While critics often decry “government spending,” it is important to look beyond the rhetoric and determine whether the actual public services that government provides are valuable. To the extent that such services are worth paying for, the only way to do so is ultimately with tax revenue. Consequently, when thinking about the costs that taxes impose, it is essential to balance those costs against the benefits the nation receives from public services.

Appendix

We based our estimates of spending in fiscal year 2010 on the most recent historical data released by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (The Federal fiscal year 2010 runs from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010.)

The broad expenditure categories presented in this paper were constructed on the basis of classifications commonly used by budget agencies. The categories are constructed by grouping related programs and activities into broad functions, which are further broken down into subfunctions. The details of how the categories used in this paper were constructed from those functions and subfunctions are described below.

Defense and security: The largest component of the “defense and security” category is the national defense function (050). In addition, this category includes the international security assistance subfunction (152) of the international affairs function.

Social Security: This category consists of all expenditures in the Social Security function (650), including benefits and administrative costs.

Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: This category consists of the Medicare function (570), including benefits, administrative costs, and premiums, as well as the “Grants to States for Medicaid” account and the “Children’s health insurance fund” account (both in 550).

Safety net programs: This category of programs includes all programs in the income security function (600) except those that fall in the following two subfunctions: federal employees’ retirement and disability (602) and general retirement and disability insurance (601). The latter contains the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and also covers programs that provide pension and disability benefits to certain small groups of private sector workers.

Interest on debt: This category contains the net interest function (900).

Everything else: This category includes all federal expenditures not included in one of the five categories defined above. The subcomponents of this category that are displayed in the graph are defined as follows:
  • Benefits for federal retirees and veterans: This subcategory combines the veterans' benefits and services function (700) and the federal employee retirement and disability subfunction (602, which is part of the income security function).

  • Education: The education subcategory combines three subfunctions of the education, training, employment, and social services function: elementary, secondary, and vocational education; higher education; and research and general educational aids (subfunctions 501, 502, and 503 respectively).

  • Scientific and medical research: This subcategory consists of the general science, space, and technology function (250), and the health research and training subfunction (552).

  • Transportation: This subcategory consists of the entire transportation function (400).

  • Non-security international: This subcategory consists of the international affairs function (150) except for international security assistance, which is included with defense, above.

  • All other: This subcategory consists of all other federal expenditures.
Read more here and here.

July 12, 2010

How Congress Spends Your Money

How Congress Spends Your Money

National Debt Awareness Center
August 22, 2010

The National Debt Awareness Center advocates reduction of the National Debt and replacement of federal income tax with a national retail sales tax. NDAC does not support any political party.

The National Debt is $13.3 Trillion!
U. S. Treasury Department report to Congress: U.S debt to rise to $19.6 trillion by 2015.

--- Updated 22 August 2010---

The bar chart is created using data taken directly from the Monthly Treasury Statement and from the historical tables published by the U. S. Treasury Department. Your money is spent through U. S. Senate Appropriations Bills.

The "Debt Total" box is generated from data published by the Office of Management and Budget. Download the 2011 tables. Look at Table 7.1 for a full history of the Debt.

Press Release on Tax Code and the IRS.

DEFICIT VS. DEBT

Suppose you want to spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a "budget deficit". So you borrow (i.e.; use your credit card). The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you don't have enough money to cover your spending (another deficit), you must borrow some more, and you'll still have to pay the interest on the loan. If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don't have any money left over for anything else. This situation is known as bankruptcy.

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress's appropriations. Here is historical deficits chart.

We pay interest* on that huge debt. And now the Treasury is having trouble finding lenders!

Here is an excellent graphic depicting the budget process.

Some info about the "FED". And a video.

Top Ten Budget Time Bombs.

*** Please note that Congress "deemed" the FY2011 budget (as part of the "War Supplement Bill"), meaning that the Presidential Budget Proposal for 2011 was completely thrown out by Congress, so we have no budget for 2011. What we have is essentially a "continuing resolution", meaning that Congress can continue spending without the guidelines of a budget.

As of 11 July 2010, there are indications that President Obama may actually veto this bill. [Deemed means "don't do it, but say we did".] The Congressional Budget Office reports on the Federal Debt and the Risk of a Financial Crisis in this new report.

Your money is spent through Appropriations Bills passed by The U. S. Senate and signed by the President. The Government does not have any money; it takes your money from you and borrows more, then spends that! The bailouts of 2008 and 2009 are purely deficit spending. Expect to see enormous deficits in the forseeable future, leading to much more debt; and interest payments on that debt will become the largest item in the federal budget. On C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: "We are out of money."

In 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created with the duty of preserving the dollar, one 20-dollar bill could buy one 20-dollar gold piece. Today, fifty 20-dollar bills are needed to buy one 20-dollar gold piece. Under the Fed's custody, the U.S. dollar has lost 98 percent of its value. The dollar is the storehouse of our wealth. Has the Fed faithfully safeguarded that storehouse? Was it not Thomas Jefferson who taught us,
"In questions of power let us hear no more of trust in men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution"?
The Treasury Department has the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Defense and income redistribution (The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) is higher. As the debt increases, so does the interest payment. Social spending is the largest item in our federal budget. Do you have "Compassion" for lower income earners? Then see Government Enforced Compassion (aka: Socialism).
"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite." - Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Concord Press, 1971
As of 1 August 2010, the Treasury Department spent so far this year $375 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt. Compare that to NASA at $19 Billion, Education at $53 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $73 Billion.

And here is a great example of Government efficiency in operating a project. And one more. It's going to be much worse this year!

When you buy something, all the companies involved in producing that something and delivering it, were charged a wide range of taxes, and it's part of the cost of everything you buy. The U. S. Leadership is planning to raise all corporate taxes. The price of everything you buy will go up to cover that tax cost increase. You will be paying those corporate taxes! See more on this. Energy Tax!

The "Economic Stimulus" is shifting us from an "economic crisis" to a debt crisis! Consider this; if businesses could print their own money and give it away to customers so they could buy the products, many folks would be happy for a while; but the businesses would go bankrupt. Well, that's what our government is currently doing, printing and giving away money.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget general fund. It is a separate account and has its own source of income. Social Security payments do not go into the general fund; they go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits. But....keep reading....

As of August 2010, there is less being paid into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. Social Security is now using its "surplus". Government agencies that borrowed from the trust fund now have to pay the money back. But they've spent it. Where will they get it? More bail outs (taxes) coming. And here is a "must read" about the problem.

Here is a link to the Social Security Administration's FAQ page about the Trust Fund, and their latest Report (August 2010).

Beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed.

Social Security must be fixed. Here is a debate page. And here is more information on the Root Problem with Social Security.

For more information on the federal budget, and for breaking news regarding new taxes and Social Security, go to the National Debt Awareness Center website:
http://www.federalbudget.com/

File:Deficits vs. Debt Increases - 2009.png

2010 United States Federal Budget

Source: Wikipedia

Estimated Receipts

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2010 are $2.381 trillion, an estimated decrease of 11% from 2009. Total Spending

The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures: Deficit

The total deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.42 trillion, a $960 billion increase from the 2008 deficit.

The 2009 deficit includes the cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program ($154 billion in 2009), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ($202 billion in 2009, $353 billion in 2010, and $232 billion in 2011 forward), and the 2009 Omnibus spending bill ($410 billion)—and changes due to President Obama's policy proposals.

The 2009 budget deficit would represent 12.3% of gross domestic product, the largest share since World War II.

Let Every Federal Department Justify Its Existence - Constitutionally

The 2011 federal budget for the following departments totals $1.5 trillion. Before cutting Social Security and Medicare, which are funded through dedicated payroll taxes (FICA) [not by the federal income tax], the U.S. government needs to trim the fat in each department and eliminate those functions that need only be performed at the state level (or not performed at all by the government).

By Doug Patton
July 20, 2010

The executive departments of our federal government read like an alphabet soup of bureaucracies entwining and entangling themselves into every area of our lives. The litany of "on-the-books" divisions and subdivisions does not even count the unaccountable czars, advisors and otherwise nebulous bureaucrats whose only business it is to annoy the American people and to demand of us affiliation and information to which they have no constitutional authority.

Imagine if each cabinet secretary had to come before Congress and justify, on constitutional grounds, the existence of his or her department...
  1. USDA -- Department of Agriculture (2011 Budget $25.7 Billion).

    Created under President Abraham Lincoln in 1862 to help farmers who needed good seeds and information to grow their crops. Farmers couldn't find this information any other way? And today's USDA is the only entity that can monitor the quality of our food?

  2. DOC -- Department of Commerce (2011 Budget $9.1 Billion).

    Founded in 1903 as the Department of Commerce and Labor, which later became its own department in 1913. As with so much that sounded good at the time but is later found to be a public policy mutation in need of a justification, this department most likely would not have passed muster with the Founders.

  3. DOD -- Department of Defense (2011 Budget $708.3 Billion).

    One of the few mandated and approved by the Founders. Originally created as the War Department, the name was changed after WWII. Today, we find ourselves with fewer troops under arms than many of our most dangerous enemies, including the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is one of the few departments we should not only continue funding but which should be beefed up.

  4. ED -- Department of Education (2011 Budget $68.6 Billion).

    Originally created as part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the Eisenhower fifties, Jimmy Carter carved out the federal Department of Education to make it a separate cabinet post in the late 1970s as a pay off to the teacher's unions for helping him win his one pathetic term.

    There is no constitutional justification for it, and it should be abolished.

  5. DOE -- Department of Energy (2011 Budget $28.4 Billion).

    Another Carter boondoggle, this agency was created with one ostensible goal in mind: reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.


    Enough said?

  6. HHS -- Department of Health and Human Services (2011 Budget $81.3 Billion).

    Again, this massive entitlement bureaucracy grew out of Ike's HEW and was given its own agency by Carter.

    The largest federal agency, it is now so huge that it would probably require a team of constitutional experts to determine whether any part of it can be justified.

  7. DHS -- Department of Homeland Security (2011 Budget $43.6 Billion).

    Although the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create new agencies, it also puts limits on what government can do.

    Created during the George W. Bush administration after 9/11, the jury is still out on whether this agency is constitutional.

  8. HUD -- Department of Housing and Urban Development (2011 Budget $43.5 Billion).

    Have you seen any of our inner cities lately?

    This department was created in 1965 and should be abolished yesterday.

  9. DOJ -- Department of Justice (2011 Budget $29.2 Billion).

    Although the post of attorney general dates back to George Washington's first cabinet, Congress did not create the Department of Justice until 1970. Since a main responsibility of the executive branch is to enforce the laws, DOJ can stay.

  10. DOL -- Department of Labor (2011 Budget $117.2 Billion).

    An excuse to promote labor unions, especially during Democrat administrations.

    Dismantle it.

  11. DOS -- Department of State (2011 Budget $52 Billion).

    Foreign policy being the constitutional province of the executive branch, the Founders saw DOS as an important part of the Republic. Of course, it would be nice if more of the bureaucratic lifers who work there were patriotic Americans.

  12. DOI -- Department of the Interior (2011 Budget $18 Billion).

    Created in 1849, I'm sure there was justification for it at the time.

    However, over the last century, it has overreached in the area of taking private property.

  13. DOT -- Department of Transportation (2011 Budget $79 Billion).

    Established in 1966 during Lyndon Johnson's Great Society years.

    It would have been hard for the Founders to imagine jet air travel in the 21st Century; still, it is difficult to make the case that federal involvement with America's transportation issues has been a plus. [TSA anyone?]

  14. VA -- Department of Veterans' Affairs (2011 Budget $125 Billion).

    One of the newer agencies, VA was created in 1989.

    If protecting the nation is job one for the federal government, then taking care of the veterans who sacrificed to preserve our freedoms should be a legitimate federal issue.
Finally, there is the Treasury Department (2010 Budget $13.4 Billion). Washington's first treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, would frown on eliminating his job. Of course, he never knew Timothy Geithner.

File:Interest - Stacked bar chart 2006 - 2007.png

Senator Rand Paul Introduces $500 Billion in Spending Cuts

"By removing programs that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as education and housing, we are cutting nearly 40 percent of our projected deficit and removing the big-government bureaucrats who stand in the way of efficiency in our federal government," said Rand Paul.

Rand Paul Press Release
January 25, 2011

In the face of an ever-expanding national debt, newly elected Senator Rand Paul is taking a bold and proactive step in protecting our national security and lowering our deficit. By introducing $500 billion in spending cuts today — to be enacted over one year — Sen. Paul is starting an important conversation with his Senate colleagues about how to fix our nation’s current economic situation.

“I am proud to introduce my own solution to the mounting debt our spendthrift, oversized government has accrued. By rolling back to 2008 levels and eliminating the most wasteful programs, we can still keep 85 percent of our government funding in place,” Sen. Paul said today.

“By removing programs that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as education and housing, we are cutting nearly 40 percent of our projected deficit and removing the big-government bureaucrats who stand in the way of efficiency in our federal government,” he continued.

Link to Bill

Link to Bill Overview

A Detailed Look at the Rand Paul Spending Bill

Washington Examiner
January 26, 2011

Want to save $500 billion this year? Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has a way to do it.

Is it realistic? Maybe not every part of it, but have a look below and judge for yourself. I don't think his total removal of rental subsidies is unreasonable -- the fact that Section 8 is a total failure doesn't justify dumping its beneficiaries into oblivion. But there's also no reason every agency has to see its budget increase every year, and a lot of these cuts really do make sense. Most of them simply represent a return to 2008 levels of spending -- remember that a 30 percent cut is less than it seems when an agency's budget been increasing by 40 percent over the last few years.

Why fund NASA at traditional levels if President Obama has scaled back its mission? Why not let Indian tribes manage their own trust funds, especially considering the federal mismanagement? Why not realign our military bases abroad, sell unused federal buildings (something Obama has already begun doing), transfer some national parks to the states, and end the wasteful corporate subsidies that come out of the Departments of Energy and Commerce?

Of course, even this bill would only cut this year's record deficit by one-third. But if you can bring discretionary spending down a notch with something like it, then cut Defense further as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wind down, you've gotten to the point where you can look Americans in the eye and tell them you've done everything you can, and it's time to do something about Social Security and Medicare to save the nation from long-term financial collapse.

I've copied down the short version of what gets cut from each agency or department, and the percentage cut. Paul offers a more complete explanation of each item here.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH...............................$1,283,000,000 (23%)
Notes: The Government Printing Office is abolished.

JUDICIAL BRANCH..................................$2,434,000,000 (32%)

AGRICULTURE.....................................$42,542,000,000 (30%)
The Agriculture Research Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Resources Conservation Service, and Foreign Agricultural Service are abolished. The Forest Service gets a $1.2 billion haircut.

COMMERCE.........................................$5,322,000,000 (54%)
National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is cut by $857,000,000.

DEFENSE.........................................$47,500,000,000 (6.5%)

EDUCATION.......................................$78,000,000,000 (83%)
Only the Pell grant program survives.

ENERGY..........................................$44,200,000,000 (100%)
The Defense Department takes over all of Energy's remaining functions (nuclear waste, for example) and about $18 billion of its budget.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.......................$26,510,000,000 (26%)
Notes: FDA is cut by $230,000,000; Indian Health Service is cut by $650 million; CDC is cut by $1.17 billion; NIH by $5.8 billion.

HOMELAND SECURITY...............................$23,765,000,000 (43%)
Notes: Coast Guard is shifted to Defense. TSA's funds are cut by $900 million.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT...................$53,100,000,000 (100%)
Notes: Completely eliminated. Veterans' housing programs are transferred to the VA.

INTERIOR........................................$10,934,000,000 (78%)
Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs are abolished.

JUSTICE..........................................$9,057,000,000 (28%)
Note: Office of Justice Programs is abolished.

LABOR............................................$2,803,000,000 (2%)
OSHA, MSHA, and the The Employment and Training Administration are spared all cuts (no cuts to unemployment benefits).

STATE...........................................$20,321,000,000 (71%)
Note: Massive foreign aid cuts. All international commissions and organizations are defunded.

TRANSPORTATION..................................$42,810,000,000 (49%)
Notes: Amtrak is completely de-funded.

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS................................No cuts

CORPS OF ENGINEERS..............................$1,854,000,000 (27%)

EPA.............................................$3,238,000,000 (29%)

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.................$1,936,000,000 (85%)

INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS..............$24,300,000,000 (100%)

NASA............................................$4,500,000,000 (25%)

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.....................$4,723,000,000 (62%)

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT..................$9,070,000,000

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION..................No cuts
Social Security is self-funded via the FICA payroll tax.



FCC.............................................$2,150,000,000 (22%)

ABOLISH.........................................$2,050,000,000 (100%)

(1) Affordable Housing Program.
(2) Commission on Fine Arts.
(3) Consumer Product Safety Commission.
(4) Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
(5) National Endowment for the Arts.
(6) National Endowment for the Humanities.
(7) State Justice Institute.


MISC
Collect delinquent taxes from Federal Employees...$3,000,000,000
Freeze Federal Government employee pay............$2,000,000,000
Reduce Federal Government travel..................$7,500,000,000
Repeal Davis-Bacon............................... $6,000,000,000
Prohibit union project labor agreements...........$2,000,000,000
TARP repeal.......................................$4,481,000,000
Sell Federal Buildings...........................$19,000,000,000
Reduce Federal vehicle budget.......................$600,000,000


Rand Paul's Plan to Slash Federal Spending Gets Criticism, Praise

Wire Reports
January 27, 2011

Critics lashed out Wednesday at a proposal by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul to slash numerous federal programs, including food stamps, to save $500 billion in a single year. But Paul's supporters praised him for sticking to his campaign promise to attempt to reduce the size of the federal government.
"Some of the elements of the plan, which would remove the safety net that poor and vulnerable people need, we would find morally objectionable," said the Rev. Patrick Delahanty, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky.
But Mica Sims, a Lexington Tea Party organizer, said she was "very proud" of Paul.
"He's doing exactly what he said in last year's campaign that he would do," she said.
Paul introduced a 12-page bill in the Senate on Tuesday that would slash $42 billion from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food stamp program — a 30 percent reduction from the current funding level.

It would eliminate the Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development and most of the Department of Education. It also would eliminate international aid and numerous agricultural programs, and subsidies to Amtrak, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the U.S. Government Printing Office.

Paul said the proposal, which also would cut $16 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, would roll back federal spending to 2008 levels and eliminate what he considers the most wasteful programs.

The Kentucky Republican said he hopes his proposal, which he called the Cut Federal Spending Act of 2011, will spark a dialogue within the Senate about how to repair the nation's economy.
"I am proud to introduce my own solution to the mounting debt our spendthrift, oversized government has accrued," Paul said in a statement. "By rolling back to 2008 levels and eliminating the most wasteful programs, we can still keep 85 percent of our government funding in place."
On Fox News Wednesday, Paul said he promised the Tea Party to keep his bills "simple and readable." He said his reduction plan is "five times larger than anybody else's proposal but still attacks only one-third of the federal deficit."

Paul, a Bowling Green eye surgeon elected in November with support from Tea Party activists, centered his campaign largely on fiscal issues. He promised to press for a constitutional amendment that would require the federal budget to be balanced each year. He also said he would present a proposal early in his term to balance the budget in one to five years.
"By removing programs that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as education and housing, we are cutting nearly 40 percent of our projected deficit and removing the big-government bureaucrats who stand in the way of efficiency in our federal government," he said.
But Matt Erwin, spokesman for the Kentucky Democratic Party, said Paul's proposal goes too far.
"Rand Paul is fulfilling his campaign promise to gut funding for our children's education and the services which Kentuckians rely on," Erwin said. "Nothing about a politician introducing legislation that would harm his constituents is commendable."
Sharron Oxendine, president of the Kentucky Education Association, said Paul's bill "appears to me that he doesn't have much interest in education and the children of Kentucky."

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said he disagreed with Paul's proposal to do away with most of the Department of Education.
"I'd love to have that conversation with the senator," Duncan said during a news conference.
Duncan said the department's role should not be to pay for local public schools but to "spur innovation."

President Barack Obama announced in his State of the Union address on Tuesday the Department of Education would provide incentives to hire 100,000 teachers in math, science and technology fields. Those incentives will come in the form of troops-to-teachers programs, Pell grants and debt forgiveness for professionals to switch careers to become teachers, especially in rural areas, Duncan said.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Paul's spending reduction plan underscores the serious of the nation's mounting debt.
"I'm glad Senator Paul and many of our colleagues are taking the opportunity to put forward their ideas on how best we can help provide a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren," McConnell said.

"There is widespread interest in the Republican conference for spending cuts that pay more than lip service to reducing the debt, and I look forward to working with Senator Paul and anyone else who is interested in tackling this crisis head-on."
On Wednesday, Paul introduced legislation seeking a full audit of the Federal Reserve, the central banking system of the United States. He said it would provide answers to the American people about how their money is being spent in Washington.



Senator Rand Paul Favors Cutting U.S. Aid to Israel

The Associated Press
January 28, 2011

Tea party-backed Republican Sen. Rand Paul favors cutting U.S. aid to Israel as part of a deficit-driven effort to slash government spending by $500 billion this year, drawing criticism from Democrats and Republicans who argue the U.S. must be unwavering in its support for the longtime Mideast ally.

The freshman Kentucky lawmaker unveiled his budget proposal this week that would make significant cuts in education, housing and energy while reducing money for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by $16 billion. Paul's plan also would cut some $20 billion in overseas aid, and he said he wants to eliminate the $3 billion the United States provides to Israel annually in foreign military assistance.
"The overwhelming majority of Americans agree with Senator Paul — our current fiscal crisis makes it impossible to continue the spending policies of the past," Paul spokesman Gary Howard said in a statement responding to the criticism. "We simply cannot afford to give money away, even to our allies, with so much debt mounting on a daily basis."
The latest economic forecast puts the deficit at a record $1.5 trillion.

Paul explained his position in an interview with CNN on Wednesday, saying he respects Israel as a Democratic nation but feared funding an arms race in the Mideast. His proposal drew a swift response from Republicans and Democrats.
"We share Senator Paul's commitment to restraining the growth of federal spending, but we reject his misguided proposal to end U.S. assistance to our ally Israel," said Matthew Brooks, executive director for the Republican Jewish Coalition, in a statement Thursday. The organization counts several former senior Bush administration officials on its board of directors.
Rep. Nita Lowey of the New York, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign aid, said the United States cannot renege on its commitment to the only Democratic nation in a dangerous region.
"Using our budget deficit as a reason to abandon Israel is inexcusable," Lowey said in a statement. "It is unclear to me whether Rand Paul speaks for the tea party, the Republican Party or simply himself. I call on all those who value the U.S.-Israel relationship to make it clear that our nation will not abandon our ally Israel."
The United States has stood staunchly with Israel for decades, through various governments in Washington and Jerusalem. The United States and Israel signed a memorandum of understanding several years ago to ensure Israel's military edge in the region. Under the agreement, Israel received $2.8 billion in U.S. dollars in the last fiscal year and is slated to get $3 billion in the current year.

The agreement calls for $3.1 billion in U.S. funds to Israel over a five-year period beginning with the next budget.

Last November, Vice President Joe Biden met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and told the Jewish Federation of North America that the Obama administration "represents an unbroken chain in American leaders who have understood this critical strategic relationship.".

The steadfast support for Israel is widespread in Congress and Paul's proposal is certain to face strong opposition. In a fresh example of that support, six senior members of the House sent a letter to President Barack Obama imploring him to promise a veto of a pending U.N. resolution that condemns Israel and urging him to pressure Palestinian leaders to negotiate directly with Israel.

Signing the letter were House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.; House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.; Foreign Affairs Chairwoman Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.; the panel's top Democrat, Rep. Howard Berman of California, and the heads of the committee's subcommittee on the Middle East, Reps. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio and Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.

Rand Paul: End Aid to Israel

Reason Magazine
January 27, 2011

Pressed on CNN's Situation Room about details on his budget cut plans, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says end all foreign aid--and when pressed further says that includes to Israel.

Paul touches on the lack of wisdom of funding both sides of an arms race in the Middle East, then hat-tips to Israel's role as a fountain of peace and democracy in the Middle East, but concludes that, especially when we're borrowing all the money from China, all foreign aid has to go.

It's an interesting dance, avoiding seeming critical of Israel (which he refused to do), yet still doing the one thing that people who get upset at those who are critical of Israel want the least out of a U.S. politician: cutting off U.S. support.

In the video above, the foreign aid part starts at 4:25; the Israel part specifically starts at 5:29.

Obama Appointed Deeply-entrenched Political Elites to His Cabinet and to Head the Departments of the U.S. Government

This list was compiled by Patrick Wood, The August Review, March 9, 2009.

For details on their affiliations with the American Security Project, Aspen Institute/Aspen Study Group, Atlantic Council of the United States, Bilderberg Group, Bretton Woods Committee, Brookings Institute, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Council on Foreign Relations, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Trilateral Commission, etc., click here.

- Vice President: Joe Biden
- Department of State: Hilary R. Clinton
- Deputy Secretary of State: James Steinberg
- Assistant Secretary of State, Asia and Pacific: Kurt M. Campbell
- State Department, Special Envoy: Richard Haass
- State Department, Special Envoy: Dennis Ross
- State Department, Special Envoy: Richard Holbrooke
- State Department, Special Envoy: George J. Mitchell
- Department of the Treasury: Timothy F. Geithner
- Department of Defense: Robert M. Gates
- Department of Energy: Steven Chu
- Department of the Interior: Ken Salazar
- Department of Education: Arne Duncan
- Department of Health and Human Services: Tom Daschle (see the note for this listing)
- Department of Agriculture: Tom Vilsack
- Department of Transportation: Ray LaHood
- Department of Labor: Hilda Solis
- Department of Housing and Urban Development: Shaun Donovan
- Department of Veterans Affairs: Eric K. Shinseki
- Department of Commerce: Judd Gregg
- Department of Homeland Security: Janet Napolitano
- Attorney General: Eric Holder
- National Security Advisory: General James L. Jones
- Deputy National Security Advisor: Tom Donilon
- Director of National Intelligence: Dennis Blair
- Director of the Central Intelligence Agency: Leon Panetta
- White House Chief of Staff: Rahm Emanuel
- White House Military Office: Louis Caldera
- Ambassador to the Untied Nations: Susan Rice
- Domestic Policy Council: Melody Barnes
- US Trade Representative: Ron Kirk
- National Economic Council: Lawrence Summers
- Council of Economic Advisors: Christina Romer
- Economic Recovery Committee: Paul Volker
- Office of Management and Budget: Peter Orszag
- Securities and Exchange Commission: Mary Schapiro
- Council on Environmental Quality: Nancy Sutley
- Environmental Protection Agency: Lisa P. Jackson
- Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change: Carol Browner
- Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnership: Joshua DuBois

May 4, 2010

We Have Become a Nation of Takers, Dependent on the Government to Care for Us, and Perfectly Primed By the Elite to Willingly Accept Their One World Order

"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or, more accurately, socialism is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite." - Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Concord Press, 1971

The government does not create a traditional sellable product and thus produces no revenue outside of what it collects from taxpayers. As of 2008, the average federal salary was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector employee. In other words, the average federal bureaucrat makes twice as much as the average working taxpayer. Add the value of benefits like health care and pensions, and the gap grows even bigger. The average federal employee’s benefits add $40,785 to his annual total compensation, whereas the average working taxpayer’s benefits increase his total compensation by only $9,881. In other words, federal workers are paid on average salaries that are twice as generous as those in the private sector, and they receive benefits that are four times greater. - Brandon Greife, The Public Sector Weight Around Taxpayers’ Necks, RedStates.com, May 4, 2010

We are Entering an America Where Government Employees Are the Elite and We Are the Little People: Under a 'One World Order,' We'll All Be Serfs Laboring for the 'State'

Gallup's Job Creation Index for April reveals significantly more hiring within the federal government than in the private sector. Both show a substantially more positive picture than state and local governments, where firing far eclipses hiring ... The federal government is a growth industry, while employment at state and local governments is shrinking. By almost a 2-to-1 margin, federal employees say their employer is hiring rather than firing ... Gallup's Job Creation Index clearly indicates that state and local governments are in the midst of significant downsizing, no doubt reflecting budgetary issues resulting from recessionary pressures on the tax (and other) revenue that funds these governments. Hiring at the federal level has apparently to date escaped these same fiscal pressures. Indeed, the federal government appears to be significantly outpacing the private sector in terms of the relative number of jobs created. [Gallup Poll, Federal Government Outpaces Private Sector in Job Creation, May 3, 2010]

Among the few sectors of the economy showing net employment growth over the past year is the federal government. The federal civil service is rapidly expanding as Obama increases the size of government, with 33,000 new positions being added in January alone. Only 9,000 of those new slots were for temporary census jobs. In other words, what we are seeing is good times for the public sector and the growing prospect of a continuing and perhaps even deepening recession for everybody else. [Recession Chugs on, Except in Government, Washington Examiner Editorial, February 8, 2010]

With about 2.0 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service, is the Nation's largest employer. About 85 percent of Federal employees work outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area... Wage and salary employment in the Federal Government is projected to increase by 10 percent over the 2008-18 period. Federal employees working in the continental United States receive locality pay. The specific amount of locality pay is determined by survey comparisons of private sector wage rates and Federal wage rates in the relevant geographic area. At its highest level, locality pay led to an increase of as much as 34 percent above the base salary in 2009. [The Federal Government is the Nation's Largest Employer, Career Guide to Industries, Federal Government Section, 2010-11 Edition]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the national median wage was only $32,390 per year in 2008. Due to the recession, that number has probably fallen 5 to 7 percent since then. [For the 50 percent of families in the middle of the scale, household income ranges from $51,000 to $123,000 for a typical four-person, two-parent family. The median is about $81,000. Median income for a single-parent, two-child family is about $25,000.] In March 2009, the average earnings for full-time Federal employees were $74,403. [How to Gauge Your Middle-Class Status, The Economic Elite vs. the People of the United States of America & The Welfare States of America]

Last year, federal, state and local governments spent a massive $4.6 trillion, according to Michael Hodges’s Grandfather Economic Report. The gross domestic product of the U.S. is only $13.1 trillion. That means 35 percent of the economy now depends on government spending. Government employment has also bloomed, vastly outstripping population growth. Federal, state and local governments now employ one out of every seven workers in the country, according to the Daily Reckoning. That is more than any other sector of the national economy. In 1946, there were 2.3 state and local government employees per 100 citizens; today there are 6.4. If government today had the same proportion of employees with respect to its population as it did in 1946, there would be 12.2 million fewer government salaries that current taxpayers would have to pay. [Robert Morley, The United Welfare States of America, October 8, 2007]

Without record levels of welfare, unemployment and other government benefits as well as tax cuts last year, the income of U.S. households would have plunged by an astonishing $723 billion... Moreover, for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government than they paid in taxes... While wages and other job-related income fell by a record $206 billion last year to $7.84 trillion, transfer payments from the government such as unemployment checks and Social Security burgeoned by $231 billion to $2.1 trillion. Meanwhile, the amount of taxes that individual Americans paid plummeted by $325 billion to $2.1 trillion as a result of middle-class tax cuts and because nearly 6 million people were thrown out of work and are no longer paying payroll taxes... While most of the government benefits — including Social Security, welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and regular unemployment benefits — are sent automatically to those who qualify, Congress is debating an extension of some benefits enacted as part of the stimulus package last year. Those include jobless benefits and health insurance subsidies for the unemployed... The massive shift into dependence on the government, while essential in promoting an economic revival last year, has postponed a reckoning for many consumers who went too far into debt to maintain their lifestyles during the boom years. [Patrice Hill, American Reliance on Government at All-Time High, The Washington Times, March 1, 2010]

United States Federal Budget, Wikipedia

Government spending merely diverts money from private projects to government projects. Governments create no wealth. They only move it around while taking a cut for their trouble. So any jobs created over here come at the expense of jobs that would have been created over there... Creating jobs is not difficult for government officials. Pharaohs created thousands of jobs by building pyramids. Our government could create jobs by paying people to dig holes and then fill them up. Would actual wealth be created? Of course not. It would be destroyed. [John Stossel, Green Jobs, September 10, 2008]

Though the plan to create 17,000 jobs in the green energy sector alone is promising, the plausibility of such a plan is puzzling. At least to some. At odds is whether Barack Obama's green jobs plan will work, if at all, against the backdrop of the country's worst recession since the 1930s. Skeptics challenged that the Obama administration is investing in green technologies unlikely to be profitable and, therefore, the investment would amount to unsustainable taxpayer-funded jobs at most. Obama late last week announced his plan to boost employment by providing 2.3 billion U.S. dollars in tax credits for the creation of green jobs. The president is also urging the Congress to approve investment of another $5 billion in over 180 green energy projects. The announcement caused a kerfuffle over figures, as arithmetic-minded critics divided the special fund into a $100,000+ annual salary for each of these 17,000 would-be job holders, way above the median annual household income in the country. [Xinhua, Will Obama's Green Jobs Plan Work?, January 18, 2010]

In 2010, the Obama administration says it intends to relieve the job shortage by creating "green jobs" in the sectors of wind and solar power and biofuels. It has announced a program that will cost $2.3 billion, costing approximately $135,000 per job. "Show me one other industry that requests and receives a nearly 30 percent taxpayer subsidy," says Thomas J. Pyle, president of the market-based Institute for Energy Research. "If the President really wants to create an environment that will foster economic growth and job creation, he need not look any further than the domestic oil, gas and coal industries." ... A large part of the administration’s $786 billion dollar stimulus bill was devoted to green or renewable energy projects, but the rate of unemployment continues to rise, the cost of gasoline and heating oil continues to rise in the face of the coldest winter on record in decades, and real jobs in energy industries are thwarted by Obama administration restrictions on the exploration and development of our national energy reserves... America, the home to centuries-worth of massive amounts of coal, has a President who has openly declared war on the coal industry that currently provides half of all the electricity used by Americans. By contrast, solar and wind provide just over one percent! When the President talks of "green jobs" he is lying to Americans who need real jobs. The stimulus bill was nothing more than a political "pork" bill and is providing no real surge in job creation. [Alan Caruba, The Lies About Green Jobs, January 10, 2010]

The welfare state, however good its intentions of creating material equality, can't help but make us dependent. That changes the psychology of society. According to the Tax Foundation, 60 percent of the population now gets more in government benefits than it pays in taxes. What does it say about a society in which more than half the people live at the expense of the rest? Worse, the dependent class is growing. The 60 percent will soon be 70 percent... If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy. [John Stossel, Do We Want a Culture of Takers or Makers?, February 10, 2010]

In 2010, before any of Obama's major policy initiatives—such as health care reform, cap and trade, and tax rate increases-are enacted, the bottom 60 percent of American families will as a group receive more in government spending than they pay in taxes. The lowest-income families will be targeted for $10.44 in spending for every dollar they pay in taxes. Remarkably, families in the middle-income group—who are the target of many Obama policies—already receive $1.15 for every dollar they pay in taxes. By contrast, the top 40 percent of families pay more in taxes as a group than they receive in government spending benefits... Obama's tax and spending policies will, as advertised, further shift the tax burden toward upper-income families and spending policies to lower- and middle-income families. Surprisingly, Obama's policies will increase the number of families who are net "receivers" of government spending (those who get more back than they pay in taxes). As a group, the bottom 70 percent of families will be net receivers of government spending under Obama policies, up from the 60 percent who are collectively net receivers under today's policies. Of course this means that the number of "givers" will collectively shrink from the top 40 percent of families to the top 30 percent. [Scott A. Hodge, Accounting for What Families Pay in Taxes and What They Receive in Government Spending, Tax Foundation, September 21, 2009]

United States Federal Budget, Wikipedia

Forty-seven percent of those filing federal income tax returns have either a zero or negative tax liability; that is, they pay nothing but still get a tax “refund.” [Bruce Bartlett, A Value-Added Tax and the Poor, Forbes, April 23, 2010]

Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem. About 47% will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability... In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax. [Nearly Half of U.S. Households Escape Federal Income Tax, Associated Press, April 7, 2010]

Federal workers owed the government more than $3 billion in back income taxes in 2008, just as federal tax revenues started to suffer from the recession. More than 276,000 federal employees and retirees owed back income taxes as of Sept. 30, 2008, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service. The $3.04 billion owed was up from $2.7 billion owed by federal employees and retirees in 2007... Most residents who owe back income taxes file returns but cannot pay the full amount at tax time, said IRS spokesman Anthony Burke. Others have their tax bills increased through audits and cannot pay the higher bill. The statistics on federal employees do not include those who are on payment plans. The IRS doesn't publicize the data, but makes it available upon request. [Federal Workers Owe More Than $3 Billion in Back Taxes, Associated Press, December 15, 2009]

For fifteen years, I owned a computer consulting and executive search firm for computer technology people. I've been published in the field and am considered rather knowledgeable. From time to time, we'd receive resumes from government employees who considered themselves to be "experts" in computer technology. Their salaries were quite high, being paid for by the private sector taxpayer. On the other hand, they virtually all considered themselves to be underpaid, having a very unrealistic view of what their equivalents made in the private sector... The question is, why should the private sector taxpayer pay big dollars and incredible pension/medical benefits to government employees who effectively can't be fired and who get raises based on longevity rather than performance. Are government employees simply parasites on the private sector taxpayer when most everything can be outsourced to private companies and government made smaller? [dublin9, Are Government Employees Overpaid Parasites?, SodaHead, March 11, 2010]

Jessica Urtubia knows that when she graduates from Rutgers University in May, she'll likely be entering the worst job market of the 21st century. That's why she was among about 1,000 people who attended Federal Jobs Career Day yesterday at Rutgers. "I always thought the government was a good place to go, considering if you have a job there, you're probably pretty secure," said Urtubia, a business administration and criminal justice major. Representatives from 48 federal agencies gathered at the Rutgers Student Center yesterday to speak to college students and graduates from throughout the state about federal employment opportunities. It was the fifth of six federal government-sponsored career days this year and the first such event to ever be held in New Jersey. [Erica Harbatkin, Students Look to Federal Government for Stable Jobs, MyCentralJersey.com, November 8, 2008]

2011 Federal GS Pay table by Grade



TSA Pay Band Minimum Maximum
A $17,083 $24,977
B $19,570 $28,546
C $22,167 $33,303
D $25,518 $38,277
E $29,302 $44,007
F $33,627 $50,494
G $39,358 $60,982
H $48,007 $74,390
I $58,495 $90,717
J $71,364 $110,612
K $85,311 $132,237
L $101,962 $155,500
M $120,236 $155,500


Click to Enlarge



More Students Seek Public Sector Work

If you’re looking for job security, benefits, and a decent salary, consider working for the federal government. President Obama’s stimulus plan will create 200,000 new jobs over the next three years. Monster has a good overview of stimulus jobs, including who's hiring, where the jobs will be, and the types of jobs available. - Alison Doyle, Stimulus Jobs: Alison's Job Searching Blog, About.com Guide to Job Searching, March 25, 2009

DailyWildcat.com
April 5, 2011

College graduates are increasingly looking for degree paths to prepare them for public sector work, but the end of federal stimulus funds is putting those positions in jeopardy.

The number of college graduates working for the federal government increased 16 percent from 2008 to 2009, according to an analysis of the American Community Survey from the U.S. Census Bureau. Employment in nonprofit organizations also increased by 11 percent during the same time period.

Brint Milward, director of the School of Government and Public Policy, said the number of students interested in majors that prepare them for positions in the public sector has risen since the school's split from the Eller College of Management in April 2009.

Milward said that the number of public administration undergraduates has increased by more than 200 in the last two years, from 305 to more than 500 today, and the number of political science majors has also increased from 900 to 1,200. The number of graduate students working toward a master's in public administration almost doubled over the same time period, from close to 50 two years ago to 96 today.

"There's no doubt that more people are asking for the major," Milward said. "Whether there are more opportunities, I don't know."

According to Bill Ruggirello, assistant director of UA Career Services, more private sector companies tend to try and reach out to students via career fairs.

"We have a couple of government types that come (to career fairs), but it in no way compares to the private groups," he said.

Ruggirello does not know yet if this trend continued this year. The annual career services survey to determine where students received employment will occur two weeks before graduation for students and about a month or two after graduation for employers.

He said that the job market has tightened in both the public and private sectors during the last couple of years, a factor Milward also addressed.

"The numbers sound right," he said in reference to the survey. "But it is important to note that, that is looking backward, not forward."

Out of the top five employers in Southern Arizona, four either are public sector companies or private companies that derive revenue from public funds. Raytheon is Southern Arizona's largest employer, followed by three public sector companies: the University of Arizona, the state of Arizona and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.

The college class of 2011 is going into a job market with a starting salary higher than its recent predecessors, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit that connects career service departments to employers,.

"The Southern Arizona economy is dominated by the public sector," Milward said. "Would I rather work for the parks departments or work at Dillard's? I don't know. I've worked in universities and government and I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I think it depends on that individual."

Milward said federal stimulus funds, which allowed local governments to retain workers in the last two years, will soon end and that will affect whether or not those same public sector opportunities will still be available.

"It's really striking to see how the public sector employs Arizonans," he said, "but demand in the market going forward, that's a little hard to predict."

Communism in America — Alive & Kicking!

The ten planks of the communist manifesto and how to apply them

By Larry Warrick
September 26, 2008

The Communist Manifesto was created by a man named Moses Mordecai Levi under the alias Karl Marx. There are ten planks to the Communist party platform, each covering distinct areas of government and society and providing for a self-perpetuating, mindless system whereby no other possible alternatives are considered or tolerated.

In this essay, I intend to show that though the cold war is indeed over, and with the United States of America still expending trillions of dollars a year to maintain its military industrial complex, Communism is still alive and well in the United States and is indeed thriving in the gradual implementation of the Ten Planks of Communism through Federal and State governments' social and industrial programs disguised as necessary or essential checks, balances and "fixes" on our "capitalist" society.

From the first steps toward the abolition of land ownership to the assumption of the parental responsibility of educating our children, this manifesto is being implemented before our very eyes, and the State-educated populace, through no fault of their own, is blind to these changes and in many cases, unwittingly accepts their political leaders' assurances as being righteous and necessary.

Let's consider each plank of this manifesto and consider how the designs of Communism are being achieved in the United States today.

First plank: "Abolition of all property and land ownership and the application of all rents for public purposes."

Property tax. The property owner has an equity position in real property (land) but is required to pay "rent" to the State or be forcibly deprived of the property in question by invocation of the fourth plank described later. Under this system, a person never really owns the property as he is required to pay the State to allow him to keep possession of it every year, thus implying that the State owns the property and allows the real owner to retain its utility upon payment of a yearly fee. This fee is then added to the general treasury funds and redistributed by government fiat to pay for other social, government and welfare* programs that the hapless property owner never sees and has no need or want of, including (this is not a misprint) the collection and enforcement of property taxes.

*Note that the word welfare, as used in this document, does not just refer to recipients of government welfare checks, but includes government funding of corporate welfare projects and enforcement of monopoly privilege or industry-specific restrictions (usually designed to eliminate open competition) used to repay political supporters, including the multi-trillion dollar military industrial complex.

Second plank: "Heavy progressive income tax."

Internal Revenue Service. The federal government and many States require each adult to fill out a personal income tax form and remit a considerable portion of their earnings each year, based on their success in profiting from their efforts. Failure to do so will invoke sanctions under the fourth plank described later.

Approximately 40% of the Federal Treasury income is derived from direct income taxation. These funds are then added to the general treasury and redistributed by government fiat to pay for Federal government enforcement ranging from social and welfare programs to maintaining an overseas empire, that the hapless taxpayer never sees and has no need or want of, including the collection and enforcement of direct income taxes (am I being redundant?). Interestingly enough, if the entire direct income system of taxation were abolished, Federal government receipts would still equal 1995 levels.

In the first two planks, we see that each property owning, working individual is required to pay taxes in order to retain ownership of personal property, as in the case of property taxes and maintain his personal liberty, as in the case of income taxes. Under this system, it is obvious that the State or Federal governments assume ownership of persons and their property, albeit on a partial basis. The average taxpayer works for approximately six months of the year in order to pay all of the required taxes and tariffs imposed by all branches of government, local and Federal. In other words, government assumes ownership of all that a person produces or owns and allows him to retain a government-designated portion of his property by fiat. Under a generous definition, we may call this theft; it is more properly described as slavery.

Third plank: "Abolition of all rights of inheritance."

Under the probate court system, the State assumes ownership of the estate, not the rightful heirs. A person who dies intestate (leaving no will or trust) effectively leaves his worldly possessions to be disposed by the State, which happily liquidates the assets and absorbs this income. The rightful heirs are then required to sue the State for possession of their rightful property, paying all fees and charges that in many cases are more than the value of the estate in question. If a person does leave a will, the State taxes the heirs based on the value of the estate before allowing transfer of assets. Once again, the State assumes ownership and allows transfer of a portion of rightfully owned property by fiat. In many cases, the heir is forced to sell off portions of the estate to pay the taxes.

Fourth plank: "Confiscation of property of all immigrants and rebels."

Tax rebels are routinely and methodically stripped of all rightful assets and deprived of their constitutional rights and personal liberty through the prison system. Those who challenge this system of taxation and imprisonment are subjected to lengthy and invasive inquiries and costly legal proceedings whereby they are given the impossible task of proving a negative, i.e., that they are guilty until proven otherwise. The proceeds are then added to the general treasury and used to fund, amongst many other things, (you guessed it) IRS actions against tax rebels.

Fifth plank: "Centralization of credit by the creation of a national bank."

The Federal Reserve System. Since the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, debts of all descriptions are not paid in specie (gold or silver). The only legal tender is a fiat currency issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. Under this system, monetary policy is set by a cartel of central banking monopolists and implemented by government fiat. Money as we know it is simply created out of thin air by the use of the printing press or electronic transfer and the supply is then further inflated by a cartel of fractional reserve banks who create multiple simultaneous loans of the same funds and charge interest on money that they do not own and do not even have in their possession!

In this way, a single dollar created by the Federal Reserve is used to pyramid loans to the tune of ten thousand dollars in the marketplace (once again, not a misprint). Besides having a destabilizing effect on the market through mal-investments (entrepreneurs borrow based on artificially low interest rates) thus causing needless bankruptcies, monetary inflation causes a chronic rise in the general pricing structure (more money chasing the same amount of goods causes prices to rise over time).

Rising prices cause consumers to spend their earnings more quickly before the prices rise again, suppressing savings and artificially raising demand. In this way, through the central banking cartel, government controls and manipulates markets to its own ends and those of its political contributors, often to the detriment of the consumer, who is left with static wages and spiraling prices.

Sixth plank: "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."

US Department of Transportation and State equivalents. Haulage trucks are routinely forced to drive in and out of DOT scales to provide proof that they are not carrying more goods than the government allows and that they are carrying goods approved of by the government. Failure to stop at a designated weigh station and submit to search results in sanctions under the fourth plank above (rebellious behavior will not be tolerated). Sanctions are brought against any trucker or trucking company found to be in violation of any of the literally thousands of DOT laws and arbitrary standards. The added expense to ensure DOT compliance for industry is incalculable but runs into the billions or trillions of dollars every year. This added cost is passed to the consumer in the form of higher prices in the marketplace.

Private vehicles are tagged with unique identifiers bearing the yearly rental fee sticker (car tax). A vehicle owner who refuses to pay the fee is deprived of his property (vehicle is towed) and disallowed from using the transportation system by having his license suspended until the tax is paid and all accompanying fees are satisfied, such as the towing and storage fee and license reinstatement fee. These taxes and fees are purportedly used for road maintenance and improvements, in practice, they are applied to the general treasury to await government fiat. Once again, honest people are burdened with a system of taxation that is to their detriment.

Seventh plank: "Government control of factories and the instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan."

The Bureau of Land Management, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, their individual State equivalents and many other government bureaus, agencies and authorities are all part of the ideology that government is responsible for approving the placement of factories, operation of mines, quantity and quality of production from agriculture, declaration and operation of National Parks, etc, etc, etc.

The list of examples of government interference in private enterprise under this plank is practically endless. For instance, the Department of Agriculture routinely pays farmers NOT to plant certain crops or even to leave the fields fallow in order to manipulate the commodities markets. More recently is the refusal of the United States Congress to allow oil exploration in the ANWAR region of Alaska because such activity may disturb a few moose!

By interfering in the sovereign right of individuals to dispose of their possessions (including land) as they see fit, government distorts the marketplace and damages the interests of both producers and consumers.

Eighth plank: "Equal obligation of all to work, establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."

By implementing the first two planks of the Communist Manifesto, government takes great strides to ensuring that this eighth plank is implemented.

The requirement that taxes be paid on income, automobiles and real property each year has the effect of forcing many to work (if even part-time) simply to keep what they already own.

Under the fifth plank, steady inflation of the money supply causes the (now familiar and almost un-remarked) chronic rise in prices, forcing yet more to work simply to maintain their present standard of living as the value of their fixed income is systematically eroded. Since this plank was written, agricultural technology has improved to the extent that a single operator is capable of achieving the work of many hundreds of manual workers of the nineteenth century. However, with the implementation of agricultural mechanization, we have seen the gradual decline of the family run farm so typical of the American way of life in favor of huge corporate farming interests with enormous presence in the Congressional lobby. Through farming subsidies in the amount of billions of dollars and protective tariffs, these industrial farming interests manipulate markets to their own advantage and to the detriment of consumers.

Ninth plank: "A combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over the country."

The Federal Emergency Management Agency assumes the risk associated with living in less desirable, or more dangerous, regions of the country. Those parts of the country prone to natural disasters (such as wind, flood, earthquake, landslide, or other natural or man-made disaster) would be prohibitive to live in economically except that the federal government, through FEMA, assumes the risk for these natural occurrences, a function traditionally carried out by private insurance.

The existence of FEMA gives previously untenable, disaster-prone land the illusion of viability, thus redistributing the population more evenly over the entire country. Under these conditions, natural phenomena such as hurricane Katrina, that a hundred years ago would have only impacted the lives of several thousand people and caused limited collateral damage, today has impacted the lives of hundreds of thousands and cost billions of dollars in collateral damage.

It boggles the mind that after such an experience, the Federal government would not only provide financial and material support for those affected (a function much better left to private charity organizations), but encourages residents to rebuild on a hurricane-prone river delta that is slowly sinking further below sea level each year.

Tenth plank: "Free education for all children in public schools, abolition of children's factory labor in its present form and conform education to industrial productions."

On average, 75% of property taxes in any given State go to support the public school system. Parents are forced by law to tithe their children to the State education system or risk having them forcibly removed from the home by the State and placed in State-run foster homes, possibly never to be seen by their parents again!

Children who are home-schooled are required to take State designated tests at given intervals and those who fail to meet the State-specified standard are forced into the public school system, once again, against the parents' wishes. This system forces homeowners (who may or may not even have any school-aged children) to subsidize the State educational requirements of their neighbors, and even that of people they have never even met and likely don't know exist!

More and more, State education provides more emphasis on industry-driven content and less on the practical ability to solve issues of a moral or discerning nature. Ask any 5-year-old if it is wrong to steal and the majority will respond in the affirmative. Follow up and ask "why" and the waters get a little murkier. Some may say because Mommy or Daddy doesn't like it; some because the deprived party will get mad about it; some because the policeman will come and take you away; rarely will you hear that it is morally wrong to deprive someone of their rightful ownership and utility (natural law of property ownership).

Some may blame the parent for this lapse: Bear in mind that the school-aged child spends half of his waking life in the public school system, where the moral responsibilities of natural law are not on the curriculum.

Thus we see that the ten planks of the communist Manifesto are alive and doing well in the United States of America. The latest round of Congressional hand-wringing over whether the Federal government should provide in excess (and believe me, it will be well in excess) of one trillion dollars to bail out a financial system that, driven by pure greed, made trillions of dollars in bad loans (and a fat profit along the way) is a testament to the further growth and entrenchment of Communism in our political and economic system.

Under the supreme laws of our constitutional republic, each elected representative has sworn an oath to do nothing to help these greedy fools in any way. The founders who, in their benevolent wisdom, drafted, fought for and handed down our constitution are likely spinning in their graves to know that our elected representatives have even considered such a course.

NOTE: No Communists were killed or maimed in the production of this essay, though many in government are probably very pissed off now that their cover is blown

How Many People Work for the UK Government?

By Wat Tyler, Burning Our Money
November 25, 2009

Prompted by a comment on a recent BOM post, we've taken another look at how many are employed by the government.


We start with the official count published by the Office for National Statistics. It says that as of Q2 2009, public sector employment totalled 6.039 million, up from the 5.182 million Labour inherited in 1997 -- an increase of 17%* (and see here for some interesting longer-term material).

However, big though it is, that total excludes a number of groups who are not counted as being employed in the public sector, but who depend on the public sector for the vast bulk of their earnings:

  • Higher and further education -- for arcane historical reasons, H&FE colleges are defined as being in the private sector, even though most of their funding comes from the taxpayer. When last sighted, they were employing some 530,000 staff.


  • GPs -- they are counted as part of the NHS by the Department of Health, but most are excluded from the ONS count because they're technically private contractors. There are currently some 40,000 of them in the UK.


  • Network Rail -- as we've blogged before, Network Rail is nationalised in all but name, but under an extraordinarily convoluted definitional fudge it's counted as part of the private sector. It currently employs 33,000.

Adding these groups back in takes the public sector employment total up to 6.7 million.

And then of course, there are all the people whose jobs have been privatised over the years, but who still work pretty well exclusively for the public sector -- i.e. hospital cleaners, dustmen, IT staff, etc etc. How many? We have no idea, but our guess is at least another quarter million, taking our public sector employment total up to around 7 million.

So, of the 28.9 million people currently in employment (see here), around one-quarter of them are employed by the government (aka the taxpayer).

And of course, there's another huge group of people who, while not employed by the government, are still dependent on taxpayers for their incomes.

To start with, there are now 5.8 million people of working age who are entirely dependent on welfare (see here), including 1.4m on Job Seeker's Allowance, 2.6m on incapacity benefits, and 0.7m on lone parent benefits. Actually those figures relate to May, and with increased unemployment, the overall total is now probably 6 million.

Adding them in as well, gives us an overall total of 13 million people dependent on taxpayers for their incomes.

And remember, these are people of working age. If we add in the 12.5 million older people now drawing state pensions, we get to a grand total of 25.5 million - 25.5 million people who are dependent on the taxpayer for most or all of their incomes.

Which is somewhat alarming. Because, on our calculation, we've only got 22 million people who are generating income from sources other than the taxpayer (i.e. 28.9m in employment less the 7m employed by the public sector). So each one of them has to earn the income to support him/herself plus 1.2 other adults... kind of idea.

Does that sound like it's sustainable?

Or is it time to dust off those dog-eared copies of Bacon and Eltis? (Britain’s Economic Problem: Too Few Producers by Bacon and Eltis (1976) is not online, but for quick flavour, see here, section 3.1).

*Footnote — although the ONS public sector employment numbers exclude college lecturers and GPs etc, they do now include the 235,000 staff employed by our nationalised banks — i.e. RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock, and Bradford & Bingley.

Go to The Lamb Slain Home Page