Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Much of this has been covered before. I've never thought of the spending in such stark terms, however.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23kristof.html?ref=opinion
Grrrr... You keep harping on "Social Spending". Break it down please. What "Social Spending" would you include in this figure?
Paying of Military pensions? (shouldn't this really be part of the military budget?)
Paying of Social Security or Medicare? (both paid into by the recipients)
If you are talking about actual aid to the poor, you are talking about practically nothing.
Grrrr... You keep harping on "Social Spending". Break it down please. What "Social Spending" would you include in this figure?
Paying of Military pensions? (shouldn't this really be part of the military budget?)
Paying of Social Security or Medicare? (both paid into by the recipients)
If you are talking about actual aid to the poor, you are talking about practically nothing.
Grrrr... You keep harping on "Social Spending". Break it down please. What "Social Spending" would you include in this figure?
Paying of Military pensions? (shouldn't this really be part of the military budget?)
Paying of Social Security or Medicare? (both paid into by the recipients)
If you are talking about actual aid to the poor, you are talking about practically nothing.
You are aware the Government takes all SS payments and spends them EVERY year on other things? The great fix in the 80's was twisted into a new source of money to spend by the Congress. All that is in the coffers each year are IOU's from the same Congress that spends the money.
There would be NO threat to SS at all if in fact the taxes we pay were only used for SS purposes and the rest invested for future need.
Military pensions are not social spending, that is payments made for employees of the Government that have retired. Just as Federal retirees get their pensions and that also is not "social" spending. Both of those payments are legal and authorized in the powers the Constitution grants to the Government. SS is illegal and unconstitutional. And it is stolen as fast as it is paid in.
Well of course. [playing devil's advocate] But the argument could be made that this is done to free up money to be spent on other things... such as the military.
Agreed. But the issue is the fact that these items fall under the "Entitlements" section of the Fed. budget, and thus are confused with Welfare type spending. When you remove these items from the Entitlements allocation, what is left is rather... small. People like Jreeves are easily confused by the ultra right wing talking head loons on Fox News and the radio concerning the extent of Federal welfare spending.
680 billion dollars for the Dept. of Health and Human Services is pratically nothing oh ok....
US Department of Health and Human Services
For the Years Ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 (In Millions)
Responsibility Segments 2007 2006
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Gross Cost $612,411 $574,245
Exchange Revenue (50,304) (49,847)
CMS Net Cost of Operations 562,107 524,398
Other Segments:
Administration for Children & Families (ACF) $47,336 $47,123
Administration on Aging (AoA) 1,373 1,388
Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) 131 15
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) 8,105 6,555
Food & Drug Administration (FDA) 1,913 1,906
Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) 6,897 6,205
Indian Health Service (IHS) 4,250 4,093
National Institutes of Health (NIH) 28,489 28,147
Office of the Secretary (OS) 2,169 2,598
Program Support Center (PSC) 1,414 872
Subst. Abuse & Mental Hlth Services Admin.(SAMHSA) 3,320 3,343
Other Segments Gross Cost of Operations 105,397 102,245
Exchange Revenue (2,905) (2,706)
Other Segments Net Cost of Operations 102,492 99,539
Net Cost of Operations $664,599 $623,937
ACF fy2006 BUDGET SUMMARY
PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR FOSTER CARE & ADOPTION ASSISTANCE:
Foster Care................................................ 4,475,000,000
Independent Living......................................... 140,000,000
Adoption Assistance........................................ 2,027,000,000
Total, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance, B.A............ 6,642,000,000
SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
B.A........................................................ 1,700,000,000
PROMOTING SAFE & STABLE FAMILIES
B.A........................................................ 345,000,000
State Court Improvement Program Pre-Appropriated in
Reconciliation Bill........................................ 20,000,000
Total, Promoting Safe and Stable Families, Program Level... 365,000,000
Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF):
State Family Assistance Grant.............................. 16,488,667,000
Territories -- Family Assistance Grants.................... 77,875,000
Matching Grants to Territories............................. 15,000,000
Supplemental Grants for Population Increases............... 319,450,000
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood ............... 150,000,000
Contingency Fund, Balances Forward......................... [1,792,915,000]
Tribal Works Programs 7,633,000 7,633,000 7,633,000
Total, TANF, B.A........................................... 17,058,625,000
CHILDREN'S RESEARCH & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:
Training & Technical Assistance............................ 12,318,000
Federal Parent Locator Service............................. 24,635,000
Child Welfare Study........................................ 6,000,000
Welfare Research........................................... 15,000,000
Total, Children's Research & Technical Assistance, B.A..... 57,953,000
CHILD CARE ENTITLEMENT
Mandatory.................................................. 1,177,524,781
Matching................................................... 1,673,842,719
Training & Technical Assistance............................ 7,292,500
Tribal Mandatory Funds..................................... 58,340,000
Total, Child Care Entitlement, B.A......................... 2,917,000,000
TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS, B.A......................... 13,838,668,107
TOTAL, MANDATORY PROGRAMS, B.A 2/.......................... 33,189,682,000
TOTAL, B.A................................................. 47,028,350,107
PHS EVALUATION FUNDS, PROGRAM LEVEL........................ 10,500,000
TOTAL, PROGRAM LEVEL....................................... 47,038,850,107jreeves said:Democrats would like you...
jreeves said:... to believe that Soical Security is paid strictly by recipients but it's not. Hello, have you ever heard of inflation? What percent of return do you get by paying money to the government? Plus on top of that, the theives have stolen 1.8 trillion dollars from your sacred Social Security trust fund and gave us IOU's. Yep no social spending going on in this country.
jreeves said:Medicare, have you noticed that the price of health care has been going through the roof in this country? How does that translate, say my dad put in 50 dollars a month when he was working do you actually expect that to cover his medical expenses today?
What would be interesting, is to see the breakdown of social spending per second. Considering it is about two to one in the amount spent in a fiscal budget.
Didn't say that. The real figure is $664.6 billion (as of the fiscal years ending on Sept. 30th). Here's the breakdown:
from HSS Budget SummaryCode:US Department of Health and Human Services For the Years Ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 (In Millions) Responsibility Segments 2007 2006 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Gross Cost $612,411 $574,245 Exchange Revenue (50,304) (49,847) CMS Net Cost of Operations 562,107 524,398 Other Segments: Administration for Children & Families (ACF) $47,336 $47,123 Administration on Aging (AoA) 1,373 1,388 Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) 131 15 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) 8,105 6,555 Food & Drug Administration (FDA) 1,913 1,906 Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) 6,897 6,205 Indian Health Service (IHS) 4,250 4,093 National Institutes of Health (NIH) 28,489 28,147 Office of the Secretary (OS) 2,169 2,598 Program Support Center (PSC) 1,414 872 Subst. Abuse & Mental Hlth Services Admin.(SAMHSA) 3,320 3,343 Other Segments Gross Cost of Operations 105,397 102,245 Exchange Revenue (2,905) (2,706) Other Segments Net Cost of Operations 102,492 99,539 Net Cost of Operations $664,599 $623,937
Of the gross costs of Medicare/Medicate it breaks down like this: $41.6 billion was spent on Medicare (including: Medicare itself plus the Medicare Prescription Drug program - $3.7B, Retiree Prescription Drug program - $2.9B, Medicare for undocumented aliens - $ 0.16B, SCHIP - $0.29B), and $19.4 billion was spent on Medicaid, $0.74 billion on Katrina relief waivers, and another $0.45 billion on misc. items.
Here's a pie-chart to make it easier to visualize:
There is also approx. $8.3 billion in Federal Employee and Veterans benefits which are not covered by budgetary resources,
(compiled from the ACF website)Code:ACF fy2006 BUDGET SUMMARY PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR FOSTER CARE & ADOPTION ASSISTANCE: Foster Care................................................ 4,475,000,000 Independent Living......................................... 140,000,000 Adoption Assistance........................................ 2,027,000,000 Total, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance, B.A............ 6,642,000,000 SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT B.A........................................................ 1,700,000,000 PROMOTING SAFE & STABLE FAMILIES B.A........................................................ 345,000,000 State Court Improvement Program Pre-Appropriated in Reconciliation Bill........................................ 20,000,000 Total, Promoting Safe and Stable Families, Program Level... 365,000,000 Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF): State Family Assistance Grant.............................. 16,488,667,000 Territories -- Family Assistance Grants.................... 77,875,000 Matching Grants to Territories............................. 15,000,000 Supplemental Grants for Population Increases............... 319,450,000 Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood ............... 150,000,000 Contingency Fund, Balances Forward......................... [1,792,915,000] Tribal Works Programs 7,633,000 7,633,000 7,633,000 Total, TANF, B.A........................................... 17,058,625,000 CHILDREN'S RESEARCH & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: Training & Technical Assistance............................ 12,318,000 Federal Parent Locator Service............................. 24,635,000 Child Welfare Study........................................ 6,000,000 Welfare Research........................................... 15,000,000 Total, Children's Research & Technical Assistance, B.A..... 57,953,000 CHILD CARE ENTITLEMENT Mandatory.................................................. 1,177,524,781 Matching................................................... 1,673,842,719 Training & Technical Assistance............................ 7,292,500 Tribal Mandatory Funds..................................... 58,340,000 Total, Child Care Entitlement, B.A......................... 2,917,000,000 TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS, B.A......................... 13,838,668,107 TOTAL, MANDATORY PROGRAMS, B.A 2/.......................... 33,189,682,000 TOTAL, B.A................................................. 47,028,350,107 PHS EVALUATION FUNDS, PROGRAM LEVEL........................ 10,500,000 TOTAL, PROGRAM LEVEL....................................... 47,038,850,107
The Federal Budget for 2007 was $2,798 billion. Even if we consider the entire ACF budget to be unneeded welfare, it only amounts to about 1.6% of the Federal budget. Adding in unnecessary programs such as the substance abuse program, Indian Health services, the AoA, and of course Medicaid, we come up with a total of about $76 billion of expendable programs, we reach a wopping 2.7% of the Federal Budget!
Is 2.7% really significant enough for all the belly aching about the US Welfare State you keep harping on?
First of all, I am no Democrat. That is laughable. Please understand I'll argue either side of an issue like this. I believe the reasonable position lies somewhere in the middle, not to the far right or far left of such topics. To reach that point of reasonability both sides must be well argued. If I were arguing your side, it would not be that too much is spent on social programs but rather that the quality and effectiveness of those programs leaves much to be desired.
I'm a confirmed Independent - I think both parties are full of shit!
You're inflation argument is bunk. If the SS fund were properly managed it would earn interest and, assuming the US economy is reasonably healthy (which has generally been the case for the last 50+ years), it would earn at least a little more than the rate of inflation. This was how the program was supposed to work. The problem is that the coverage provided by SS has been expanded over the years without appropriate increases in the payments and the cut-off income level ($97,500 for 2007) is too low (personally I think there should be no cut-off and then the rate could be lowered from 12.8% to something more reasonable, between 5-8%). If you're going to expand the coverage (such as to orphans and disabled) you need to increase the premium right?
As to the mis-spending of the SS trust fund, who's to blame for that? It seems to me the worst offenders have been.... THE REPUBICANS! (Couldn't resist - to be sure the Democrats are also guilty - which is part of why I think both parties are shit).
When you raid the SS trust fund this frees up money in the budget to be spent elsewhere. Where has it been spent? It's been spent on Corporate, Bank, and S&L bail-outs, various forms of Corporate welfare. And of course, when other programs are so funded, it makes it easier to spend on the Miltary right? (not saying we should not spend on the military, just that this does make it easier).
Consider the S&L bailout of 1990, which is now estimated to have topped the $200 billion mark (we pay about $35 billion a year to service this debt) and is expected to run over $325-500 billion when it is finally paid off and of course until all debt is paid off this really has to be considered a continuing liability (since other debt was not satisfied in order to satisfy this debt). This bailout alone amounts to half of the "Welfare" figure you keep griping about - and this was all to keep greedy largely upper income investors from suffering a loss.
Now we are looking at another bailout, something on the order of $60-80 billion according to the White House, and more likely $200-300 billion or more according to most economists and God knows how much the long term cost will really be (a trillion $ ?). What is this but welfare for the rich? Who is being helped? The rich! Only those with investments in these banks exceeding $100,000 (the FDIC limit) stand to loose. Generally speaking, people with incomes of less than $500,000/yr do not have such investments. These investors took the risk and were all to happy to receive the high interest rate returns, but now that their principal is at risk they need to be bailed out (again)? Notice that while Bush is up for bailing out the Banks he is not up for bailing out the home buyers (mostly lower income people who foolishly took bad loans they didn't understand).
It will be another 13 or so years to pay off the S&L debt. Adding in this latest mortgage bailout, the total yearly cost will about equal the "welfare" figures I gave before. And this is just two such bailouts for the rich, there are plenty more to be added into the figures.
Before we end welfare for the poor, lets end it for the rich okay? I don't need it - I invest my money carefully. If I got greedy and put my money on a high risk investment and it went bad I'd expect to loose my money.
Well, this is all according to the Nixon plan. Read the transcripts or listen to the tapes yourself. The American health care is doing exactly what its REPUBLICAN instigator intended - maximizing profits for the stockholders while minimizing the provided healthcare.
What we need is to re-vamp how medical care is provided in this country. I'd like to see a limited form of socialized medicine introduced to provide basic care. To make this work the government should offer merit based med-school loans, and require the recipient doctors to pay these off by providing some number of years of service (let's say 8) working at a reasonable figure (based upon the median income).
What we need to realize is that well over 90% of the typical persons health care expenses occur within the last year of life. We need to stop trying to so hard to save the old from the inevitable and accept that when you get old and your health is poor when you have a heart attack or get cancer you probably die. I'm not saying no efforts should be made but there should be a reasonable cut off - if you want more extraordinary efforts to be made to keep you alive another 6 months when you're 80 you should have to provide for that yourself! The problem is that the doctors and hospitals act like vultures, allowing people to run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses for things like bi-pass surgery after a 75 year old man has a heart attack when they know the odds of 2 years survival are minimal, and most likely the patient will have a horrible quality of life during that time. But this is really a topic for another discussion...
One thing is abundantly clear. The "(Social) Welfare is dragging this countries economy down" argument is bunk. In reality, if we were to make the cuts listed above, the results would be pestilence, crime, and general social decay which would far exceed the miniscule savings in the overall budget. Certainly this money could be spent more effectively, but the argument that we are spending too much on "social welfare" is just ignorant.
Didn't say that. The real figure is $664.6 billion (as of the fiscal years ending on Sept. 30th). Here's the breakdown:
from HSS Budget SummaryCode:US Department of Health and Human Services For the Years Ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 (In Millions) Responsibility Segments 2007 2006 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Gross Cost $612,411 $574,245 Exchange Revenue (50,304) (49,847) CMS Net Cost of Operations 562,107 524,398 Other Segments: Administration for Children & Families (ACF) $47,336 $47,123 Administration on Aging (AoA) 1,373 1,388 Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) 131 15 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) 8,105 6,555 Food & Drug Administration (FDA) 1,913 1,906 Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) 6,897 6,205 Indian Health Service (IHS) 4,250 4,093 National Institutes of Health (NIH) 28,489 28,147 Office of the Secretary (OS) 2,169 2,598 Program Support Center (PSC) 1,414 872 Subst. Abuse & Mental Hlth Services Admin.(SAMHSA) 3,320 3,343 Other Segments Gross Cost of Operations 105,397 102,245 Exchange Revenue (2,905) (2,706) Other Segments Net Cost of Operations 102,492 99,539 Net Cost of Operations $664,599 $623,937
Of the gross costs of Medicare/Medicate it breaks down like this: $41.6 billion was spent on Medicare (including: Medicare itself plus the Medicare Prescription Drug program - $3.7B, Retiree Prescription Drug program - $2.9B, Medicare for undocumented aliens - $ 0.16B, SCHIP - $0.29B), and $19.4 billion was spent on Medicaid, $0.74 billion on Katrina relief waivers, and another $0.45 billion on misc. items.
Here's a pie-chart to make it easier to visualize:
There is also approx. $8.3 billion in Federal Employee and Veterans benefits which are not covered by budgetary resources,
(compiled from the ACF website)Code:ACF fy2006 BUDGET SUMMARY PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR FOSTER CARE & ADOPTION ASSISTANCE: Foster Care................................................ 4,475,000,000 Independent Living......................................... 140,000,000 Adoption Assistance........................................ 2,027,000,000 Total, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance, B.A............ 6,642,000,000 SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT B.A........................................................ 1,700,000,000 PROMOTING SAFE & STABLE FAMILIES B.A........................................................ 345,000,000 State Court Improvement Program Pre-Appropriated in Reconciliation Bill........................................ 20,000,000 Total, Promoting Safe and Stable Families, Program Level... 365,000,000 Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF): State Family Assistance Grant.............................. 16,488,667,000 Territories -- Family Assistance Grants.................... 77,875,000 Matching Grants to Territories............................. 15,000,000 Supplemental Grants for Population Increases............... 319,450,000 Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood ............... 150,000,000 Contingency Fund, Balances Forward......................... [1,792,915,000] Tribal Works Programs 7,633,000 7,633,000 7,633,000 Total, TANF, B.A........................................... 17,058,625,000 CHILDREN'S RESEARCH & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: Training & Technical Assistance............................ 12,318,000 Federal Parent Locator Service............................. 24,635,000 Child Welfare Study........................................ 6,000,000 Welfare Research........................................... 15,000,000 Total, Children's Research & Technical Assistance, B.A..... 57,953,000 CHILD CARE ENTITLEMENT Mandatory.................................................. 1,177,524,781 Matching................................................... 1,673,842,719 Training & Technical Assistance............................ 7,292,500 Tribal Mandatory Funds..................................... 58,340,000 Total, Child Care Entitlement, B.A......................... 2,917,000,000 TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS, B.A......................... 13,838,668,107 TOTAL, MANDATORY PROGRAMS, B.A 2/.......................... 33,189,682,000 TOTAL, B.A................................................. 47,028,350,107 PHS EVALUATION FUNDS, PROGRAM LEVEL........................ 10,500,000 TOTAL, PROGRAM LEVEL....................................... 47,038,850,107
The Federal Budget for 2007 was $2,798 billion. Even if we consider the entire ACF budget to be unneeded welfare, it only amounts to about 1.6% of the Federal budget. Adding in unnecessary programs such as the substance abuse program, Indian Health services, the AoA, and of course Medicaid, we come up with a total of about $76 billion of expendable programs, we reach a wopping 2.7% of the Federal Budget!
Is 2.7% really significant enough for all the belly aching about the US Welfare State you keep harping on?
First of all, I am no Democrat. That is laughable. Please understand I'll argue either side of an issue like this. I believe the reasonable position lies somewhere in the middle, not to the far right or far left of such topics. To reach that point of reasonability both sides must be well argued. If I were arguing your side, it would not be that too much is spent on social programs but rather that the quality and effectiveness of those programs leaves much to be desired.
I'm a confirmed Independent - I think both parties are full of shit!
You're inflation argument is bunk. If the SS fund were properly managed it would earn interest and, assuming the US economy is reasonably healthy (which has generally been the case for the last 50+ years), it would earn at least a little more than the rate of inflation. This was how the program was supposed to work. The problem is that the coverage provided by SS has been expanded over the years without appropriate increases in the payments and the cut-off income level ($97,500 for 2007) is too low (personally I think there should be no cut-off and then the rate could be lowered from 12.8% to something more reasonable, between 5-8%). If you're going to expand the coverage (such as to orphans and disabled) you need to increase the premium right?
As to the mis-spending of the SS trust fund, who's to blame for that? It seems to me the worst offenders have been.... THE REPUBICANS! (Couldn't resist - to be sure the Democrats are also guilty - which is part of why I think both parties are shit).
When you raid the SS trust fund this frees up money in the budget to be spent elsewhere. Where has it been spent? It's been spent on Corporate, Bank, and S&L bail-outs, various forms of Corporate welfare. And of course, when other programs are so funded, it makes it easier to spend on the Miltary right? (not saying we should not spend on the military, just that this does make it easier).
Consider the S&L bailout of 1990, which is now estimated to have topped the $200 billion mark (we pay about $35 billion a year to service this debt) and is expected to run over $325-500 billion when it is finally paid off and of course until all debt is paid off this really has to be considered a continuing liability (since other debt was not satisfied in order to satisfy this debt). This bailout alone amounts to half of the "Welfare" figure you keep griping about - and this was all to keep greedy largely upper income investors from suffering a loss.
Now we are looking at another bailout, something on the order of $60-80 billion according to the White House, and more likely $200-300 billion or more according to most economists and God knows how much the long term cost will really be (a trillion $ ?). What is this but welfare for the rich? Who is being helped? The rich! Only those with investments in these banks exceeding $100,000 (the FDIC limit) stand to loose. Generally speaking, people with incomes of less than $500,000/yr do not have such investments. These investors took the risk and were all to happy to receive the high interest rate returns, but now that their principal is at risk they need to be bailed out (again)? Notice that while Bush is up for bailing out the Banks he is not up for bailing out the home buyers (mostly lower income people who foolishly took bad loans they didn't understand).
It will be another 13 or so years to pay off the S&L debt. Adding in this latest mortgage bailout, the total yearly cost will about equal the "welfare" figures I gave before. And this is just two such bailouts for the rich, there are plenty more to be added into the figures.
Before we end welfare for the poor, lets end it for the rich okay? I don't need it - I invest my money carefully. If I got greedy and put my money on a high risk investment and it went bad I'd expect to loose my money.
Well, this is all according to the Nixon plan. Read the transcripts or listen to the tapes yourself. The American health care is doing exactly what its REPUBLICAN instigator intended - maximizing profits for the stockholders while minimizing the provided healthcare.
What we need is to re-vamp how medical care is provided in this country. I'd like to see a limited form of socialized medicine introduced to provide basic care. To make this work the government should offer merit based med-school loans, and require the recipient doctors to pay these off by providing some number of years of service (let's say 8) working at a reasonable figure (based upon the median income).
What we need to realize is that well over 90% of the typical persons health care expenses occur within the last year of life. We need to stop trying to so hard to save the old from the inevitable and accept that when you get old and your health is poor when you have a heart attack or get cancer you probably die. I'm not saying no efforts should be made but there should be a reasonable cut off - if you want more extraordinary efforts to be made to keep you alive another 6 months when you're 80 you should have to provide for that yourself! The problem is that the doctors and hospitals act like vultures, allowing people to run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses for things like bi-pass surgery after a 75 year old man has a heart attack when they know the odds of 2 years survival are minimal, and most likely the patient will have a horrible quality of life during that time. But this is really a topic for another discussion...
One thing is abundantly clear. The "(Social) Welfare is dragging this countries economy down" argument is bunk. In reality, if we were to make the cuts listed above, the results would be pestilence, crime, and general social decay which would far exceed the miniscule savings in the overall budget. Certainly this money could be spent more effectively, but the argument that we are spending too much on "social welfare" is just ignorant.
I take it you want to cut public spending on americans, and keep spending more and more on iraqis.
Good luck with that.
Didn't say that. The real figure is $664.6 billion (as of the fiscal years ending on Sept. 30th). Here's the breakdown:
from HSS Budget SummaryCode:US Department of Health and Human Services For the Years Ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 (In Millions) Responsibility Segments 2007 2006 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Gross Cost $612,411 $574,245 Exchange Revenue (50,304) (49,847) CMS Net Cost of Operations 562,107 524,398 Other Segments: Administration for Children & Families (ACF) $47,336 $47,123 Administration on Aging (AoA) 1,373 1,388 Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) 131 15 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) 8,105 6,555 Food & Drug Administration (FDA) 1,913 1,906 Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) 6,897 6,205 Indian Health Service (IHS) 4,250 4,093 National Institutes of Health (NIH) 28,489 28,147 Office of the Secretary (OS) 2,169 2,598 Program Support Center (PSC) 1,414 872 Subst. Abuse & Mental Hlth Services Admin.(SAMHSA) 3,320 3,343 Other Segments Gross Cost of Operations 105,397 102,245 Exchange Revenue (2,905) (2,706) Other Segments Net Cost of Operations 102,492 99,539 Net Cost of Operations $664,599 $623,937
Of the gross costs of Medicare/Medicate it breaks down like this: $41.6 billion was spent on Medicare (including: Medicare itself plus the Medicare Prescription Drug program - $3.7B, Retiree Prescription Drug program - $2.9B, Medicare for undocumented aliens - $ 0.16B, SCHIP - $0.29B), and $19.4 billion was spent on Medicaid, $0.74 billion on Katrina relief waivers, and another $0.45 billion on misc. items.
Here's a pie-chart to make it easier to visualize:
There is also approx. $8.3 billion in Federal Employee and Veterans benefits which are not covered by budgetary resources,
(compiled from the ACF website)Code:ACF fy2006 BUDGET SUMMARY PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR FOSTER CARE & ADOPTION ASSISTANCE: Foster Care................................................ 4,475,000,000 Independent Living......................................... 140,000,000 Adoption Assistance........................................ 2,027,000,000 Total, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance, B.A............ 6,642,000,000 SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT B.A........................................................ 1,700,000,000 PROMOTING SAFE & STABLE FAMILIES B.A........................................................ 345,000,000 State Court Improvement Program Pre-Appropriated in Reconciliation Bill........................................ 20,000,000 Total, Promoting Safe and Stable Families, Program Level... 365,000,000 Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF): State Family Assistance Grant.............................. 16,488,667,000 Territories -- Family Assistance Grants.................... 77,875,000 Matching Grants to Territories............................. 15,000,000 Supplemental Grants for Population Increases............... 319,450,000 Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood ............... 150,000,000 Contingency Fund, Balances Forward......................... [1,792,915,000] Tribal Works Programs 7,633,000 7,633,000 7,633,000 Total, TANF, B.A........................................... 17,058,625,000 CHILDREN'S RESEARCH & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: Training & Technical Assistance............................ 12,318,000 Federal Parent Locator Service............................. 24,635,000 Child Welfare Study........................................ 6,000,000 Welfare Research........................................... 15,000,000 Total, Children's Research & Technical Assistance, B.A..... 57,953,000 CHILD CARE ENTITLEMENT Mandatory.................................................. 1,177,524,781 Matching................................................... 1,673,842,719 Training & Technical Assistance............................ 7,292,500 Tribal Mandatory Funds..................................... 58,340,000 Total, Child Care Entitlement, B.A......................... 2,917,000,000 TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS, B.A......................... 13,838,668,107 TOTAL, MANDATORY PROGRAMS, B.A 2/.......................... 33,189,682,000 TOTAL, B.A................................................. 47,028,350,107 PHS EVALUATION FUNDS, PROGRAM LEVEL........................ 10,500,000 TOTAL, PROGRAM LEVEL....................................... 47,038,850,107
The Federal Budget for 2007 was $2,798 billion. Even if we consider the entire ACF budget to be unneeded welfare, it only amounts to about 1.6% of the Federal budget. Adding in unnecessary programs such as the substance abuse program, Indian Health services, the AoA, and of course Medicaid, we come up with a total of about $76 billion of expendable programs, we reach a wopping 2.7% of the Federal Budget!
Is 2.7% really significant enough for all the belly aching about the US Welfare State you keep harping on?
First of all, I am no Democrat. That is laughable. Please understand I'll argue either side of an issue like this. I believe the reasonable position lies somewhere in the middle, not to the far right or far left of such topics. To reach that point of reasonability both sides must be well argued. If I were arguing your side, it would not be that too much is spent on social programs but rather that the quality and effectiveness of those programs leaves much to be desired.
I'm a confirmed Independent - I think both parties are full of shit!
You're inflation argument is bunk. If the SS fund were properly managed it would earn interest and, assuming the US economy is reasonably healthy (which has generally been the case for the last 50+ years), it would earn at least a little more than the rate of inflation. This was how the program was supposed to work. The problem is that the coverage provided by SS has been expanded over the years without appropriate increases in the payments and the cut-off income level ($97,500 for 2007) is too low (personally I think there should be no cut-off and then the rate could be lowered from 12.8% to something more reasonable, between 5-8%). If you're going to expand the coverage (such as to orphans and disabled) you need to increase the premium right?
As to the mis-spending of the SS trust fund, who's to blame for that? It seems to me the worst offenders have been.... THE REPUBICANS! (Couldn't resist - to be sure the Democrats are also guilty - which is part of why I think both parties are shit).
When you raid the SS trust fund this frees up money in the budget to be spent elsewhere. Where has it been spent? It's been spent on Corporate, Bank, and S&L bail-outs, various forms of Corporate welfare. And of course, when other programs are so funded, it makes it easier to spend on the Miltary right? (not saying we should not spend on the military, just that this does make it easier).
Consider the S&L bailout of 1990, which is now estimated to have topped the $200 billion mark (we pay about $35 billion a year to service this debt) and is expected to run over $325-500 billion when it is finally paid off and of course until all debt is paid off this really has to be considered a continuing liability (since other debt was not satisfied in order to satisfy this debt). This bailout alone amounts to half of the "Welfare" figure you keep griping about - and this was all to keep greedy largely upper income investors from suffering a loss.
Now we are looking at another bailout, something on the order of $60-80 billion according to the White House, and more likely $200-300 billion or more according to most economists and God knows how much the long term cost will really be (a trillion $ ?). What is this but welfare for the rich? Who is being helped? The rich! Only those with investments in these banks exceeding $100,000 (the FDIC limit) stand to loose. Generally speaking, people with incomes of less than $500,000/yr do not have such investments. These investors took the risk and were all to happy to receive the high interest rate returns, but now that their principal is at risk they need to be bailed out (again)? Notice that while Bush is up for bailing out the Banks he is not up for bailing out the home buyers (mostly lower income people who foolishly took bad loans they didn't understand).
It will be another 13 or so years to pay off the S&L debt. Adding in this latest mortgage bailout, the total yearly cost will about equal the "welfare" figures I gave before. And this is just two such bailouts for the rich, there are plenty more to be added into the figures.
Before we end welfare for the poor, lets end it for the rich okay? I don't need it - I invest my money carefully. If I got greedy and put my money on a high risk investment and it went bad I'd expect to loose my money.
Well, this is all according to the Nixon plan. Read the transcripts or listen to the tapes yourself. The American health care is doing exactly what its REPUBLICAN instigator intended - maximizing profits for the stockholders while minimizing the provided healthcare.
What we need is to re-vamp how medical care is provided in this country. I'd like to see a limited form of socialized medicine introduced to provide basic care. To make this work the government should offer merit based med-school loans, and require the recipient doctors to pay these off by providing some number of years of service (let's say 8) working at a reasonable figure (based upon the median income).
What we need to realize is that well over 90% of the typical persons health care expenses occur within the last year of life. We need to stop trying to so hard to save the old from the inevitable and accept that when you get old and your health is poor when you have a heart attack or get cancer you probably die. I'm not saying no efforts should be made but there should be a reasonable cut off - if you want more extraordinary efforts to be made to keep you alive another 6 months when you're 80 you should have to provide for that yourself! The problem is that the doctors and hospitals act like vultures, allowing people to run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses for things like bi-pass surgery after a 75 year old man has a heart attack when they know the odds of 2 years survival are minimal, and most likely the patient will have a horrible quality of life during that time. But this is really a topic for another discussion...
One thing is abundantly clear. The "(Social) Welfare is dragging this countries economy down" argument is bunk. In reality, if we were to make the cuts listed above, the results would be pestilence, crime, and general social decay which would far exceed the miniscule savings in the overall budget. Certainly this money could be spent more effectively, but the argument that we are spending too much on "social welfare" is just ignorant.
jreeves you just got your ass handed to you right here.
This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the state of Americas entitlement
programs and the effect of the future growth of those programs on the economy.
In fiscal year 2007, spending by the federal government will amount to $2.7 trillion,
or one-fifth of the nations economic output, the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) projects. The three major federal entitlement programs------Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security------will account for about 45 percent of those outlays,
or about 9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). If policymakers leave current
laws unchanged, federal outlays will claim a sharply increasing share of the nations
output over coming decades, driven primarily by growth in the health-related
entitlement programs.1
Many observers have noted that the aging of the population increases spending in
all three major entitlement programs. Today, for every person age 65 or older,
there are five people 20 to 64 years old. That figure is projected to fall to below
three by 2030. Even after the retirement of the baby-boom generation, the
population will continue to age, demographers project, as life expectancy
continues to increase and fertility rates remain low by historical standards.
The aging of the population is not the primary factor affecting the growth of
entitlement programs, however. Instead, the most important cause is the projected
increase in health care costs. Federal health spending, mostly in the Medicare and
Medicaid programs, has been consuming a growing share of the nations
economic output for several decades. Costs per beneficiary, even after adjusting
for changes in the population, have, on average, increased about 2.5 percentage
points faster than has average per capita GDP.2 The rate of growth in health costs
is unusually difficult to project, but even if growth falls well below historical
levels, spending on Medicare and Medicaid will continue to grow faster than the
economy and faster than other major government programs.
1. See Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008
to 2017 (January 2007) and The Long-Term Budget Outlook (December 2005).
2. See The Growth of Health Care Costs, Box 1-3 in CBOs The Long-Term Budget
Outlook.
Those projections, and particularly those for the health programs, raise fundamental
questions of economic sustainability.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7851/03-08-Long-Term Spending.pdf
The CBO tends to disagree with you, entitlement spending could bring down this country into bankruptcy.
As far as inflation and Soical Security;
For instance, federal law mandates that Social Security checks increase thanks to "cost-of-living adjustments," or COLAs, that are supposed to compensate for inflation.
So, higher inflation numbers cost the federal government millions more in increased Social Security payments.
But when the Bureau of Labor Statistics intentionally rigs the Consumer Price Index calculations to low-ball the inflation rate, Social Security entitlement payments are kept level.
As a result, retirees quietly lose billions of dollars that should have been paid out, had the cost of living numbers been reported honestly. But the government saves the expense.
How does the federal government manipulate inflation numbers?
The Consumer Price Index, or CPI, is the central statistic the federal government uses to calculate inflation.
The CPI is a complex government statistic that was introduced in the 1920s to track the market cost of a "basket of goods and services."
Beginning during the Carter administration, federal economists cleverly redefined the CPI, with the goal of removing from the index expensive items, including food and energy, that would push the CPI higher.
Today, the Federal Reserve when setting interest rates focuses on a variation of the CPI that measures "core inflation."
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59409
Your depiction that we should just let the old die and start saving those billions of dollars is Kevorkian at best. So let me get this right we should institute huge social network for everybody and effect everyone's quality of healthcare? That is insane. Let the old people who have paid taxes including medicare taxes all their life die, without trying to prolong their lives.
Didn't say that. The real figure is $664.6 billion (as of the fiscal years ending on Sept. 30th). Here's the breakdown:
The Federal Budget for 2007 was $2,798 billion. Even if we consider the entire ACF budget to be unneeded welfare, it only amounts to about 1.6% of the Federal budget. Adding in unnecessary programs such as the substance abuse program, Indian Health services, the AoA, and of course Medicaid, we come up with a total of about $76 billion of expendable programs, we reach a wopping 2.7% of the Federal Budget!
Is 2.7% really significant enough for all the belly aching about the US Welfare State you keep harping on?
I don't believe I did, over half of his post was personal opinion and the remaining was cherry picked information.
664.6 of 2,798 is hardly equal to 2.7 percent. What part of social security and medicare are NOT constitutional don't you get? What part of they are social programs don't you understand?
And your numbers are leaving something out since the percentage is over 40 percent not under 30.
That's BS. Some of my post was personal opinion, but there was no "cherry picked" information. I spent a couple of hours and hunted down the details of the HSS budget. I then discussed what could and could not be considered tax payer "welfare" type projects - after all, both Medicare and SS are insurance programs where the money being paid out was paid in outside the Federal Income Tax system. The fact that politicians keep dipping into these funds is a different topic, but to date these projects do not consume tax monies.
I then went even further and took the entire HSS budget not counting Medicare and SS (since these are not paid by Fed. income taxes) and showed that even when looking at this we are still only looking at about 2.7% of the budget.
----------------------------
And as for my Kovorkian approach to care for the elderly, I'm just being realistic. This is where by far the biggest hunk of the health care budget crisis occurs and it is the least productive. If you were to take the time to investigate it you'd see that well over 3/4ths of the health care costs occur in the last year or so of life and that usually the recipients have no quality of life during most or all of this period. Mostly what's happening is that heart-surgeons, radiologists, oncologists and hospitals are making a fortune. If there truly is a shortage of health care (which under a market economy is the only explanation for the rising cost) then it is foolish to utilize what there is so inefficiently.
And I never said to "just let the elderly die", just that some realism must be applied to what extraordinary measures should be taken when the probability of a good outcome is so small. I believe that if people want such extraordinary measures to be taken they should provide for this themselves.
---------------------------
Now Jreeves, since you've accused me of "Cherry Picking", I want you to point out where this has been done.
That's BS. Some of my post was personal opinion, but there was no "cherry picked" information. I spent a couple of hours and hunted down the details of the HSS budget. I then discussed what could and could not be considered tax payer "welfare" type projects - after all, both Medicare and SS are insurance programs where the money being paid out was paid in outside the Federal Income Tax system. The fact that politicians keep dipping into these funds is a different topic, but to date these projects do not consume tax monies.
I then went even further and took the entire HSS budget not counting Medicare and SS (since these are not paid by Fed. income taxes) and showed that even when looking at this we are still only looking at about 2.7% of the budget.
----------------------------
And as for my Kovorkian approach to care for the elderly, I'm just being realistic. This is where by far the biggest hunk of the health care budget crisis occurs and it is the least productive. If you were to take the time to investigate it you'd see that well over 3/4ths of the health care costs occur in the last year or so of life and that usually the recipients have no quality of life during most or all of this period. Mostly what's happening is that heart-surgeons, radiologists, oncologists and hospitals are making a fortune. If there truly is a shortage of health care (which under a market economy is the only explanation for the rising cost) then it is foolish to utilize what there is so inefficiently.
And I never said to "just let the elderly die", just that some realism must be applied to what extraordinary measures should be taken when the probability of a good outcome is so small. I believe that if people want such extraordinary measures to be taken they should provide for this themselves.
---------------------------
Now Jreeves, since you've accused me of "Cherry Picking", I want you to point out where this has been done.
