I write constantly (some would say incessantly and annoyingly) about entitlement spending. And I occasionally write about discretionary spending.
It’s time to address the budget in a comprehensive fashion. Let’s look at five charts to put everything in context and to show how we got into our current mess.
Our first chart (based on Table 8.2 from the Office of Management and Budget’s Historical Tables) shows what has happened to major spending categories from 1962 to 2017. And all the data is in inflation-adjusted dollars (2009 benchmark) to accurately gauge how and why the burden of federal spending has grown.
This next chart shows the actual percentage increases in the major spending categories during this time period. The two big takeaways are that 1) the defense budget is not the cause of our long-run fiscal problems (though that doesn’t mean it should be exempt from cuts), and 2) entitlement expenditures have exploded.
And if you look at the data I shared from the Congressional Budget Office’s long-run forecast, you would see that these same trends will prevail for the next three decades.
In other words, our fiscal problems start with entitlements and end with entitlements.
If you want to look at the problem with a broader lens, this next chart shows that the problem is domestic spending (i.e., the combination of entitlement and domestic discretionary outlays).
If you’re pressed for time, you can stop reading now. You have the key information already.
But if you want to get a bit wonky, here are two other charts that help explain the intricacies of how budgets work (or don’t work!) in Washington.
The first thing to realize is that there are two budget processes in Washington. There are entitlement programs, which basically operate on autopilot. For all intents and purposes, the President and Congress could go on vacation for the next three years and programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare would mechanically continue. But there is also “discretionary” spending for the Pentagon and various domestic programs, all of which is determined through an annual “appropriations” process. Whenever you read about a government shutdown, it’s because politicians can’t agree on the level of funding for the discretionary part of the budget.
Now let’s get to my favorite part, which is figuring out how to limit the size of the federal leviathan.
This last chart shows that net interest spending is genuinely untouchable (unless one wants a Greek-style or Argentine-style default). The rest of the budget, however, can be addressed. Entitlements can be changed through “reconciliation”, which is a legislative process designed to minimize procedural roadblocks (in general, tax bills also use reconciliation legislation). And discretionary programs can be changed via annual appropriations legislation.
I should add that net interest may not be directly touchable, but interest payments can be reduced by controlling spending and thus reducing red ink.
Another thing to understand is that the budget caps (yes, the ones that were weakened in 2013, 2015, and earlier this year) only apply to discretionary spending.
And the most important thing to realize is that the only solution to our budget mess is genuine entitlement reform. Which is why we need constitutional (and comprehensive) limits on total outlays. Politicians will only do what’s right if every other option is off the table.
[…] previously explained the difference between entitlement spending and discretionary […]
[…] So ask yourself a question: Do you think politicians who get lured into this oleaginous game will have any interest in controlling the overall burden of government spending? […]
[…] programs are the main reason that the burden of government spending is expanding, with so-called entitlement outlays deserving […]
[…] I can’t resist observing that the vast majority of America’s federal budget is for social welfare […]
[…] We need a government, but not a bloated, ever-expanding leviathan. […]
[…] We need a government, but not a bloated, ever-expanding leviathan. […]
[…] We need a government, but not a bloated, ever-expanding leviathan. […]
[…] Washington Post (based on Table S-8 in the budget), which summarizes how much additional “discretionary spending” Biden is […]
[…] shows what happened to domestic spending (entitlements plus discretionary) as a share of economic outputduring the Reagan years, the Clinton years, and the 2001-2010 period […]
[…] shows what happened to domestic spending (entitlements plus discretionary) as a share of economic output during the Reagan years, the Clinton years, and the 2001-2010 period […]
[…] Washington Post (based on Table S-8 in the budget), which summarizes how much additional “discretionary spending” Biden is […]
[…] Washington Post (based on Table S-8 in the budget), which summarizes how much additional “discretionary spending” Biden is […]
[…] this leaves out all the entitlement programs – which are the biggest and fastest growing part of the federal […]
[…] this leaves out all the entitlement programs – which are the biggest and fastest growing part of the federal […]
[…] A quick visit to the Office of Management and Budget’s Historical Tables is all that’s needed to debunk this nonsense. Here’s a chart, based on Table 8.2, showing the inflation-adjusted growth of entitlements and domestic discretionary programs. […]
[…] P.S. For those who want to understand the technical differences between entitlement spending and appropriated spending, click here. […]
[…] P.S. For those who want to understand the technical differences between entitlement spending and appropriated spending, click here. […]
[…] another goal is simply to make sure people understand basic facts about the […]
[…] another goal is simply to make sure people understand basic facts about the […]
[…] A quick visit to the Office of Management and Budget’s Historical Tables is all that’s needed to debunk this nonsense. Here’s a chart, based on Table 8.2, showing the inflation-adjusted growth of entitlements and domestic discretionary programs. […]
[…] A quick visit to the Office of Management and Budget’s Historical Tables is all that’s needed to debunk this nonsense. Here’s a chart, based on Table 8.2, showing the inflation-adjusted growth of entitlements and domestic discretionary programs. […]
[…] P.S. For those who want to understand the technical differences between entitlement spending and appropriated spending, click here. […]
[…] P.S. For those who want to understand the technical differences between entitlement spending and appropriated spending, click here. […]
[…] bad news is that federalism has declined in the United States as politicians in Washington have expanded the size and scope of the national […]
[…] bad news is that federalism has declined in the United States as politicians in Washington have expanded the size and scope of the national […]
[…] A quick visit to the Office of Management and Budget’s Historical Tables is all that’s needed to debunk this nonsense. Here’s a chart, based on Table 8.2, showing the inflation-adjusted growth of entitlements and domestic discretionary programs. […]
[…] A quick visit to the Office of Management and Budget’s Historical Tables is all that’s needed to debunk this nonsense. Here’s a chart, based on Table 8.2, showing the inflation-adjusted growth of entitlements and domestic discretionary programs. […]
[…] A quick visit to the Office of Management and Budget’s Historical Tables is all that’s needed to debunk this nonsense. Here’s a chart, based on Table 8.2, showing the inflation-adjusted growth of entitlements and domestic discretionary programs. […]
[…] A quick visit to the Office of Management and Budget’s Historical Tables is all that’s needed to debunk this nonsense. Here’s a chart, based on Table 8.2, showing the inflation-adjusted growth of entitlements and domestic discretionary programs. […]
[…] A quick visit to the Office of Management and Budget’s Historical Tables is all that’s needed to debunk this nonsense. Here’s a chart, based on Table 8.2, showing the inflation-adjusted growth of entitlements and domestic discretionary programs. […]
[…] A quick visit to the Office of Management and Budget’s Historical Tables is all that’s needed to debunk this nonsense. Here’s a chart, based on Table 8.2, showing the inflation-adjusted growth of entitlements and domestic discretionary programs. […]
[…] A quick visit to the Office of Management and Budget’s Historical Tables is all that’s needed to debunk this nonsense. Here’s a chart, based on Table 8.2, showing the inflation-adjusted growth of entitlements and domestic discretionary programs. […]
[…] Click here if you want background info on the different types of federal spending. But all you probably need […]
[…] these programs automatically give people money, they are not part of the annual appropriations process (the “discretionary spending” parts of the budget that are […]
[…] these programs automatically give people money, they are not part of the annual appropriations process (the “discretionary spending” parts of the budget […]
[…] depreciation” and “trade data” and my missives about issues such as “budget concepts” and “cost-benefit […]
[…] the 2020 fiscal year that was just approved (this is the “discretionary” money for the parts of the budget that are annually appropriated, so keep in mind that there’s also more than $3 trillion of […]
[…] charts show why I’m so depressed. And let’s not forget that they are only measures of discretionary spending. The outlook for entitlement spending is even […]
[…] Trump also is weak on entitlement spending, which is the biggest part of the federal spending […]
[…] to buy government debt and prop up D.C.’s fiscal profligacy. But that’s the fault of Washington spending, not […]
[…] what it’s worth, I think we’ll also get even more pork-filled appropriations spending. In other words, busting the spending caps after already busting the spending […]
[…] by DC standards of profligacy, that’s a big […]
[…] the bad news is that it only applies to “appropriations,” which are a small share of the overall federal […]
[…] By the way, there is a spending cap in Washington, though it only applies to a small portion of the budget (appropriated outlays). Sadly, that very modest example of fiscal restraint has not […]
[…] Entitlement spending is not only to blame for our future spending problems. It’s also the cause of our current spending […]
[…] about federal spending last week, I shared five charts illustrating how the process works and what’s causing America’s fiscal […]
[…] that’s what Trump did yesterday, giving his approval to a bill that funds the parts of the budget included in annual […]
[…] that’s what Trump did yesterday, giving his approval to a bill that funds the parts of the budget included in annual […]
[…] about federal spending last week, I shared five charts illustrating how the process works and what’s causing America’s fiscal […]
[…] about federal spending last week, I shared five charts illustrating how the process works and what’s causing America’s fiscal […]
[…] about federal spending last week, I shared five charts illustrating how the process works and what’s causing America’s fiscal […]
[…] about federal spending last week, I shared five charts illustrating how the process works and what’s causing America’s fiscal […]
The UBI is a federal program, replacing federal welfare support. States and charities would focus on those in need. Local support for local problems.
In Massachusetts, a single woman with 2 children receives +$50,000 in welfare benefits, when federal, state, and charitable sources are combined. If federal support in cash is $18,000, the national Federal Poverty Level, Massachusetts and charities can make up the difference or add more if they wish to from their own funding sources. No children will starve.
Your argument might be true in a true democracy, but we are a republic. Those in Congress and their financial supporters are all in the top 5%. They will make the argument that generous benefits should come from the state not the federal UBI program.
Replace welfare with UBI?
Are you really going to withhold food from starving children whose parents spent their UBI on parties, trips, cars, houses etc.? The most likely outcome is UBI as a new redistribution plus welfare on top. Even in the fantastical scenario where UBI manages to temporarily replace all welfare, as soon as some UBIs are misspent, and children start starving, welfare will return. Then good luck putting the UBI toothpaste back into the tube.
UBI itself will also spin out of control.
At least now the benefits of budget increases are a little more vague and indirect for voters ( yet the electorate still votes for budget increases hand over fist!)
Once everyone gets a direct dollar for dollar benefit through UBI then a supermajority will keep voting for UBI increases until there’s a US sovereign debt crisis — probably faster than on our current trajectory. Even if UBI limits were built into a constitutional amendment, soon there would be public outcry about The People not being able to vote their democratic will. The constitution only provides moderate inertia and resistance against a persistent majority. Just look at how the constitution is pushed aside on America’s trajectory towards socialized medicine.
John:
Good points. The biggest change will be attitudinal. The shift from dependent to responsible individual will be an eye-opener. This will end the “nanny” state.
I don’t think loss of current welfare will be a problem as long as the cash allows them to purchase those same requirements but they get to allocate the cash. Because everyone receives the same amount, they are no longer “on the dole”. There will be no possibility of losing benefits by taking a job.
For the very wealthy, UBI cash will not make up for current deductions, but the flat tax should be at a lower marginal rate and the economy should boom, befitting them the most.
For those in the middle, examples are the best. A family of 4 would get a UBI of $24,000 [the Federal Poverty Level]. Would they rather have that or a tax deduction of $20,000 for home mortgage payments and a deduction of $12,000 [through their employer] for healthcare?
I anticipate that 1,000,000 bureaucrats will no longer be needed [welfare and IRS]. They would have to move to the private sector, and would probably take a pay cut, but their government salaries would be returned to the public sector, either through the UBI or tax cuts. [I would be happy to provide 6 months severance to see that happen.]
I envision federal welfare being eliminated, along with dollar-for-dollar reductions in ACA, unemployment, disability, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. States and charities will be free to define who needs extra support over the UBI base. These legacy programs will continue, but they will no longer be reduced by means-testing. The only tax will be a flat tax.
There are those that would layer a UBI on top of everything else, with no changes to safety-net programs or the tax code. That’s certainly a non-starter.
“Politicians will only do what’s right if every other option is off the table.”
so how do we do that? as far as I know… there are two national movements focusing on reforming the federal government… one is tea party style… and is structured to replace incompetent and corrupt politicians using the current system… replacing bad actors one-at-a-time… until… at some point in the distant future… the congress [on it’s own] will enact TERM LIMITS… and impose a SPENDING CAP on the federal government… and possibly reform the commerce clause… under the current system… that MIGHT happen… some day………………. over the rainbow…
the other option is to convene a convention of states under article v… sad to say… but the forces for technological evil have already started blocking access to information on the article v option… they fear that at some point… enough un-indoctrinated voters will get fed up… and nuke the system with a COS… we have the authority to do that under the constitution… of course there are risks… but in a few years… desperate times will cry out for desperate measures…
do we have any other options?
the flow of disinformation and outright propaganda is overwhelming to most low information voters… the young… and illegal aliens in particular… are vulnerable to the socialist drivel spewed out by the likes of Bernie Sanders and his ilk… since the 1960’s the media… the educational system and the entertainment industries have all promoted soft socialism… over capitalism and economic freedom… opportunity and prosperity are being undermined by political leaders who are eager to feed the collective… use tax money to get themselves reelected and maintain power and privilege… their political party is irrelevant… their main concern is redistributing wealth to assure their longevity in the current system… left to their own devices… they won’t change a thing…. and deep down… we all know it…
Ned,
You may well be right about the technical aspects of a UBI plan. I have not thought through all the details or ramifications, but I could see it being technically workable.
My concern is the human side. How easily will people give up all the existing government programs that a UBI is supposed to replace? Same for the changes in tax deductions? Same for the many, many people employed by or emotionally invested in the government anti-poverty infrastructure? Or will UBI be added on top of some existing ‘infrastructure’ that stubbornly remains? How likely is a flat tax and UBI going to be accepted by those obsessed with inequality?
It’s the political or human side that gives me doubts about UBI.
Top-GUN
I do believe a UBI is constitutional, under a broad interpretation of the XVI Amendment.
Married to a flat tax, the UBI adds a progressive feature. No citizen would live in financial poverty. The effective tax rate for every citizen would be based solely on the amount of income earned. Everyone would be taxed at the flat rate, with no “benefit cliffs”. Everyone would receive a UBI (based on family composition) and pay the same flat rate on income earned.
Instead of subsidies to corporations, the UBI would instead subsidize individuals. The free market could then operate without centrally planned tinkering. While the free market requires that uncompetitive businesses fail, to be replaced by something new, it is not in the public interest to have individuals fail. They cannot be reconstituted the way the assets of a failed company can be reallocated. Charities have been so displaced by government, they could not handle the entire burden. With the federal government creating baseline support for all, charities can focus on those with special needs.
The UBI would act only as a partial substitute for current safety-net programs [$0.9T of $2.0T]. Legacy programs would continue to provide support, so current social spending would not decrease. However, going forward social spending would decrease in cost relative to economic growth.
Yes, you would assume that this is a general issue of welfare legislation – expansion is almost natural, while reducing social spending would come with major political backlash.
Do you beleive that the US would function better as a society if it reduced its welfare state?
How do you make sense of European economies that often feature significantly more extensive welfare states, yet are at least funtional?
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
[…] Authored by Dan Mitchell via DanielJMitchell.com, […]
for nedlandp and all of the rest of you including Dan,,, this is very easy,,, all that Entitlement spending is UnConstitutional… not a single one of you case site Constitutional authorization for entitlement spending,, so,, it’s easy,, just stop all that entitlement spending,,
And while you’re at it stop other UnConstitutional actions, CAFE standards, sugar quotas and subsidies, farm subsidies,,, federal spending on education, foreign aid, Amtrak subsidies,, (not PO, it is specifically authorized in the Constitution) ,, everyone feel free to jump in and add to the list,,
Obviously, we are not going to eliminate Entitlements. That being the case, redistribution of some sort has been universally accepted as a given.
How to limit growth is the real challenge.
Current welfare cannot be capped. Are you going to refuse food stamps “to starving children?”
The alternative is to replace it with something far more efficient that eliminates “welfare benefit cliffs”. A UBI for citizens creates its own cap, since population growth is currently 0.9%. Once set at the poverty line, the UBI should be adjusted for inflation. With “real” GDP growth running at +2% we will grow our way out of deficits.
There is a fear that legislators will open Pandora’s box and increase the UBI beyond inflationary adjustments. However, it will be difficult to make significant increases without blowing the budget sky-high.
A poverty level UBI can be funded through a dollar-for-dollar reduction in current programs [$0.9T out of $2.0T]. And elimination of all tax deductions [$1.4T]. If combined with a flat tax, the UBI makes the effective tax rate progressive, in a smooth upward curve. For those earning income, the UBI replaces current tax deductions, but that replacement is capped for the very wealthy.
The UBI will be a federal program focused on poverty, whereas states and charities can focus on individual needs. This will allow states to try a variety of approaches. Blue states can fund generous programs, while red states might elect to have charities transition into a dominant role, thereby minimizing state taxes.
Very interesting and well presentated as usual. Would it be possible to add two more variables. Percentage of gdp and population growth. Thanks
To my knowledge, few US entitlement program are EVER reduced. Maybe the 1990s welfare reform. Maybe minor tinkering, like the 1980s increase in the age of eligibility for Social Security. Nothing major or long-lasting.
On the other hand, we have MANY examples of entitlement programs that expanded over time, with higher tax rates, higher benefits, and expanded pools of beneficiaries. In fact, that has been reality for most government programs.
Are there any historical examples of major reductions in paid entitlements?
I would imagine that reducing public spending on welfare is incredibly difficult politically.