A Trillion here, a Trillion There -- And Soon It's All Spent
There's one fellow who doesn't fear tax day one bit. For Uncle Sam, this April 17 is more like payday, and his biggest ever at that.
By Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
April 6, 2007
Advertisement
Do you wonder what your tax dollars buy? As the deadline for filing federal income taxes rolls around again this year, you may well wonder where those hard-earned bucks you’ve forked over to Uncle Sam actually go. The answer might surprise you.
This year the federal government expects a haul of about $2.7 trillion -- give or take a couple hundred billion or so, depending on the economy, corporate profits and Wall Street and of course, how honest everyone filing a return is. In theory, at least, the White House and Congress work together -- or battle it out -- to decide how to divvy up every dollar paid to the federal government. In fact, most of it is already as good as spent.
About 70% of the annual budget pays for commitments already incurred -- everything from Social Security benefits to interest on the national debt. Neither President Bush nor Congress has much say over that.
The biggest single chunk of that so-called nondiscretionary spending -- more than 20% of the total budget -- is used to pay Social Security benefits to existing retirees. Another 15% pays the tab for Medicare health benefits. An additional 7% goes for Medicaid, 3% for veterans benefits and 1.3% for supplemental security income used to assist the aged, disabled and blind. All types of aid to the needy -- Medicaid, housing subsidies, aid to poor families with children (welfare, which accounts for about 1% of the budget), food stamps, school lunches and so on, plus unemployment benefits -- account for about 16% of the budget. In fact, all government payments to individuals amount to about 58% of the budget. That’s twice the share of the budget such payments claimed 40 years ago. And the percentage continues to climb -- giving those pushing reform of such entitlement programs a powerful argument.

Interest on the debt claims about 10% of the budget. When President Bush took office, the national debt was $5.6 trillion, but deficits have pushed that number closer to $9 trillion today. Where’s the red ink coming from? Depends on who you ask: Democrats blame Bush’s tax cuts and wasted defense spending. Republicans say that’s not so, claiming that Bush’s tax cuts boosted the economy and increased revenue. They blame increased deficits on wasteful social programs and spending necessary to fight the war on terrorism.
The military gets the biggest piece of what’s left -- the 30% of the budget called discretionary spending because it’s the part of the budget that Congress and the White House can control from year to year. About two-thirds of this spending (20% of the total budget) pays for the tanks, jets, ships, missiles, rifles and other paraphernalia of defense, not to mention the salaries of our country’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. In the next fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1, this will amount to nearly $600 billion, possibly more if costs in Iraq and Afghanistan climb higher than expected. Some big-ticket Defense Department projects, such as purchase of new combat fighter jets, Navy shipbuilding and space weapons research, may be trimmed in light of the war costs. But that would barely dent the Pentagon’s share of the overall budget, especially with more funds sure to be added to support medical and other needs of Iraq war veterans.
You might think a fifth of the federal government’s total spending is a lot to put into defense. But in comparison to some earlier periods in our country’s history, it’s actually a smaller share. During President Ronald Reagan’s defense buildup, the military claimed 26% of the budget. And at the height of the Vietnam War in 1968, 46¢ of every tax dollar Americans paid was for defense.
Of the remaining discretionary spending, the Department of Homeland Security claims about 1.5% of the budget, or $43 billion. Foreign aid spending, though it raises the ire of many taxpayers, accounts for just half of one percent and is likely to be reduced by Congress even further.
The last 8.5% of Uncle Sam’s budget pays for everything else: Transportation -- federal highways and bridges, support for Amtrak, funds to help states with other roads, bridges, railroads, airports and so on. Science and medical research. Food and drug safety. Guarding the environment. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Export promotion. Import protections. Space exploration. Air traffic controllers. The FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the rest of the Justice Department. Federal education funding. And an alphabet soup of federal agencies tasked with helping to keep Americans safe, healthy and, sad to say, honest -- from the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) to the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) to the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission).
And when all is said and done, the $2.7-trillion tax revenues aren’t enough to pay all of Uncle Sam’s bills. This year, the federal government will spend about $200 billion more than it will take in. Next year, the deficit will run about $300 billion. Coincidentally, that’s just about the same amount that the government figures it’s being stiffed by individuals and companies who don’t pay all the taxes they owe, either by intent or by error.
For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.


Reader Comments (6)
Posted by: TAX&SPEND DEM at 04/08/2007 09:22:30 AM
As bad as former Republican supporters perceived the pre-election situation to be, it was far better than the current situation, which is sure to get worse, much worse, unless a common-sense tsunami sweeps across the country. The "New Direction" that Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed is toward defeat in Iraq, toward the largest tax increase in the history of the United States, and toward enslaving, not only America, but the rest of the world as well in the heavy chains of "global warming" bondage. Both Democratically controlled houses of Congress defy common sense by playing general and commander in chief, as they ignore the funding needs of our military. In the supplemental military appropriation bill, they try to dictate how the generals must conduct the war and announce to the enemy the date the military will cut and run. To win a very slim majority, the leadership had to add billions of dollars in pork to bribe enough Democratic votes. This is way beyond the absence of common sense; it is plain stupid. These actions certainly display the "new Congress in town," and it is embarrassing and shameful. The Democrat budget proposes to increase taxes by $400 billion over five years, nearly twice the 1993, Democrat-sponsored, largest tax increase in history, pushed to reality by Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Bruce Allen at 04/08/2007 02:16:10 PM
In regards to "a trillion here, a trillion there", we seem to be wasting time and energy looking for the elusive answer to the question of who's to blame. The Democrats and the Republicans are both to blame. If I ran my personal finances the same way our illustrious elected officials run the finances of we the people, I'd be flat broke and living in the streets. Hey America, wake up! Demand accountability from our servants in Washington and the various state legislatures.
Posted by: Richard Sammon at 04/09/2007 01:49:13 PM
Hi everyone.I'm the author of the article. Curious, what do you think that so much of the budget (70%) is hardly debated and already automatically spent on entitlements and interest. It's close to true that Congress only debates 30 cents on the dollar. -- Richard Sammon, Kiplinger.
Posted by: Darryl Hofe at 04/09/2007 03:49:19 PM
In their endless quest for power and self gratification via election and re-election; politicians will say, do and spend almost anything; irrespective of the public interest. To wit: the Social Security "Trust Fund," the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Department of Education, Medicare, Medicaid, the tax code, the Public Broadcasting System, the entire concept of earmarks, unmanaged borders/immigration and the inane sound bites that accompany it all. The CONSTITUTIONAL FLAW: The Founders saw public service as a sacrifice; they all had better things to do, so they failed to envision a rising political aristocracy. The FIX: term limits for House and Senate. PS. It would help to get some real people to serve instead of lawyers -people with mortgages, businesses, kids, jobs and trades; people who know how to get things done. These steps may not necessarily open the other 70% of the budget to more diligent review, but they may assuage the waste and restore responsibility to our government.
Posted by: Art Sauer at 04/13/2007 08:54:28 PM
Our budget problems can be summed up by a recent Harris Poll on how to reduce the deficit. Large majorities said don't raise taxes or cut the major entitlement programs. If the American public wants to know who is to blame for our budget problems all they have to do is look in the mirror. Everyone wants something but no one wants to pay for it.
Posted by: Kent at 04/16/2007 11:17:46 AM
I strongly support Darryl's comments. Elected officials have no incentive to cut spending and lots of disincentive. They are constantly running of re-election instead of fixing problems. Before LBJ's 1960;'s "war on poverty", most black children had fathers. Today about 80% of black children are born to singe moms. The welfare state has largely replaced black fathers. The problem can also be seen in the larger population as well, albeit not as dramatic as for blacks since they have a higher percentage of poor as a group. Able body people need to provide for themselves. Instead we have a large segment of society living generation to generation off of the welfare state. The government has essentially provided a strong disincentive for low wage earners to get up and go to work. The whole notion of able bodied people being entitled to the fruits of someone else's wealth is patently unfair. The truly needy (indigent, elderly, etc.) make up such a small percentage of our population, we could easily afford to provide for them. By the way, drug addicts and alcoholics are not indigent.