In 1997, Federal Budget was $1.6T. Today, that's the deficit!!!

[Late2TheParty]

So what changed so much in 14 years? Let's look:
1997 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I'm using 2010 figure, since 2011 is not out yet. 2011 will be 100B more overall)

* Mandatory spending in 1997: $1.093 trillion
o $364.8 billion - Social Security
o $187.4 billion - Medicare
o $105.6 billion - Medicaid
o $103.9 billion - Means-tested entitlements
o $-4.3 billion - Deposit Insurance
o $138.1 billion - Other mandatory programs
o $-41 billion - Undistributed off-setting receipts
o $238.5 billion - Interest on National Debt

* Mandatory spending in 2010: $2.009 trillion (+$916B)
o $695 billion (+$330B) – Social Security
o $571 billion (+) – Other mandatory programs
o $453 billion (+$265.6B) – Medicare
o $290 billion (+$184B) – Medicaid
o $164 billion (-$74.5) – Interest on National Debt
o $11 billion (+$) – Potential disaster costs
o $0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
o $0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts​

Predictably, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid bulked up. Not sure what "Other Mandatory Programs" are in 2010, as it's not itemized in 1997 as such. Pretty huge at $571B.

Interestingly, we're making less interest payments now than in 1997. Must be like those "minimum payments" on a credit card - where a $600 computer ends up costing $5k in 7 years.

* Discretionary spending in 1997: $542.3 billion
o $2.4 - Legislative Branch
o $3.2 - The Judiciary
o $0.2 - Executive Office of the President
o $12.1 - Presidential Appropriated Funds
o $251.8 billion - Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
o $33.3 billion - Department of Health and Human Services
o $35.4 billion - Department of Transportation
o $19.1 billion - Department of Veterans Affairs
o $5.0 billion - Department of State and Other International Programs
o $33.2 billion - Department of Housing and Urban Development
o $25.0 billion - Department of Education
o $16.7 billion - Department of Energy
o $15.3 billion - Department of Agriculture
o $14.9 billion - Department of Justice
o $13.7 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
o $4.1 billion - Department of Commerce
o $10.2 billion - Department of Labor
o $11.3 billion - Department of the Treasury
o $7.3 billion - Department of the Interior
o $6.7 billion - Environmental Protection Agency
o $5.4 billion - Social Security Administration
o $0.8 billion - Small Business Administration
o $0.5 billion - General Services Administration
o $0.2 billion - Office of Personnel Management
o $14.0 billion - Other Agencies
o $0.5 billion - Other programs

* Discretionary spending in 2010: $1.368 trillion (+$826B)
o $663.7 billion (+$411.9B) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
o $78.7 billion (+$45.4B) – Department of Health and Human Services
o $72.5 billion (+$37B) – Department of Transportation
o $52.5 billion (+$32B) – Department of Veterans Affairs
o $51.7 billion (+$45B) – Department of State and Other International Programs
o $47.5 billion (+$14B) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
o $46.7 billion (+$22B) – Department of Education
o $42.7 billion (N/A) – Department of Homeland Security
o $26.3 billion (+$10B) – Department of Energy
o $26.0 billion (+$11B) – Department of Agriculture
o $23.9 billion (+$9B) – Department of Justice
o $18.7 billion (+$5B) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
o $13.8 billion (+$10B) – Department of Commerce
o $13.3 billion (+$2B) – Department of Labor
o $13.3 billion (+$6B) – Department of the Treasury
o $12.0 billion (+$5B) – Department of the Interior
o $10.5 billion (+$3B) – Environmental Protection Agency
o $9.7 billion (+$4B) – Social Security Administration
o $7.0 billion (N/A) – National Science Foundation
o $5.1 billion (N/A) – Corps of Engineers
o $5.0 billion (N/A) – National Infrastructure Bank
o $1.1 billion (N/A) – Corporation for National and Community Service
o $0.7 billion (-0.1B) – Small Business Administration
o $0.6 billion (+$0.1) – General Services Administration
o $19.8 billion (+$6B) – Other Agencies
o $105 billion – (+104B) Other​

Here, the Military, Veteran's Affairs, and "Other" bulked up considerably. Homeland Security as well, as it didn't exist before, but I'm not sure if I should compare it, as I don't know everything under its command.

Now, I know it's fashionable to hate on Obama for all of this and underplay Bush's role, but his last submitted budget was the 2009 budget. It forecast $2.7T revenue and the government really got $600B less. At the same time, expenditures exceeded expectations.

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, Bush's last deficit was $1.4T

What I see here is an utter failure on both sides, with Government having grown steadily under Bush and growing moreso under Obama, coupled with mandatory entitlement spending stemming back decades.

 

[waltky]

Granny says go ahead an' get it over with...

When to cut the deficit: Sooner or later?
March 22, 2011 -- The debate among economists is not whether to reduce the more than $14 trillion of federal debt. It's when.

As Congress debates budget cuts and spending limits, economists are also torn about whether to reduce debt now or delay painful spending cuts until the economy is in better shape. Of the 22 economists surveyed by CNNMoney, 10 think significant cuts in spending should be made immediately. But more than half want to wait. And those who would rather wait are split evenly between when to cut: 2012 or 2013 at the earliest. The economy is still too fragile to start cutting now, according to Sal Guatieri, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets. He thinks Congress should wait until "next year, once the expansion is more durable and the unemployment rate is lower."

But others think that 2012 is too soon to act, given how long most expect high unemployment to dog the recovery. "With the economy still operating below potential, this short-term deficit reduction may impair the recovery in what remains a vulnerable, demand-deficient economy," said Neil Dutta, economist with Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, who wants to wait until 2013.

Still, nearly half of the economists surveyed believe that federal deficits are a serious problem, and the economy has recovered enough, that cutting sooner rather than later is justified. "The risk that deficit reductions will stifle the economic recovery is an acceptable one, even if painful," said Kevin Giddis, managing partner at Morgan Keegan. "By contrast, the challenges resulting from an economy operating at unsustainable deficits are potentially unfixable -- at least, not without a great deal of pain."

Kurt Karl, chief U.S. economist for Swiss Re, said he doesn't expect to see the long-term deficits in Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid solved anytime soon. But he would like to see Congress start making substantial cuts, perhaps $25 billion to $50 billion in the current fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, and $100 billion to $200 billion in the upcoming fiscal year. "It doesn't have to be huge," he said. "There are some risks out there, but it's time to get moving."

Source

 

[waltky]

Obama gonna fix it...

Obama turns next to cutting deficit
10 Apr.`11 WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to outline a fresh multiyear plan to cut the federal deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy and limiting government health benefits for the poor and elderly in what the White House says will be a major speech to the nation Wednesday.

"Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at," White House senior adviser David Plouffe told CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, two days after Obama and congressional leaders struck a down-to-the-wire deal over spending cuts for the remainder of this budget year, which ends in September. That agreement, which averted a partial government shutdown, would cut $38.5 billion. Many of those cuts involve money that was allocated but had not yet been spent. More details are expected to be released today as Congress prepares to vote on the agreement later this week.

With that budget drama largely behind him, Obama is preparing for a new set of showdowns. In a series of talk-show appearances on Sunday, Plouffe gave a broad outline of Obama's proposal. He said the president favors increasing taxes for top earners and limiting benefits in Medicare and Medicaid. Plouffe said the White House does not believe Social Security is contributing to the short-term deficit. He said deficit-reduction will not be done by "putting all the burden on seniors."

Republicans said Obama lacks credibility on the deficit. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said Obama's new plan follows the release in February of a fiscal 2012 budget proposal that was "the most irresponsible spending plan any president has ever put forward."

That $3.7 trillion plan would cut $1.1 trillion from the deficit over 10 years. In December, Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission voted 11-7 on a plan that recommended $3.9 trillion in reductions over a decade. House Republicans are aiming for even more dramatic cuts. In a blueprint issued last week, Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin called for $5 trillion in cuts over the next decade. Sessions said it "will not be sufficient for the president to simply make a speech" Wednesday. Instead, he said Obama must submit a new budget to Congress.

MORE