Science Programs Hit Hard By Proposed Budget 395
BJ_Covert_Action writes "The House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations has released a list of proposed spending cuts for the US Federal Government. The proposed cuts include reductions in spending on many science organizations and funds such as NASA, NOAA, nuclear energy research, fossil fuel energy research, clean coal research, the CDC, the NIH, and numerous EPA programs. There are also quite a few cuts proposed on domestic services, such as Americorps and high speed rail research. The House Appropriations Chairman, Hal Rogers, acknowledges that the cuts go deep, and would hurt every district across the country. But they are still deemed necessary to rein in Congressional spending. Notoriously absent from the proposed budget cuts are two of the largest spending sinks in the federal budget: the Department of Defense and Social Security."
Medicare bigger than DoD, Social Security close (Score:5, Informative)
Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $715 billion, will pay for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is expected to total $172 billion in 2010.
Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $708 billion, will pay for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,117 per month to 36 million retired workers (and their eligible dependents) in December 2009. Social Security also provided survivors’ benefits to 6.4 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers and disability benefits to 9.7 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2009.
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — will together account for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $753 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $468 billion, will go to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 46 million people who are over the age of 65 or have disabilities. The remainder of this category funds Medicaid and CHIP, which in a typical month in 2010 will provide health care or long-term care to about 64 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 [cbpp.org]
Re:Is anybody really surprised? (Score:1, Informative)
No it isn't. Entitlements are (HHS, SS, Medicare, Medicaid). Not only do those nearly twice of the DoD, they aren't mandated Constitutional functions.
Re:Medicare bigger than DoD, Social Security close (Score:5, Informative)
Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget
Much as the politicians would have you think so, Social Security isn't part of "the budget". It's a separate revenue stream.
Look at the numbers on your check stub sometimes. That's whey they call it "entitlement" - you're entitled to get yours back.
Re:Is anybody really surprised? (Score:2, Informative)
No, it isn't. The Constitution does not provide authority for a standing army, and it's quite clear from the writings of the Founding Fathers that maintaining a standing army was considered outside the authority of the federal government.
Social Security is non-negotiable (Score:5, Informative)
Social Security is OUTSIDE the general fund and people need to realize it was designed to be completely separated from the rest of the system - they are only lumping it in because it is under attack and they keep trying to STEAL money from it as if it were general revenue - which is is not.
Social Security is paid for and only needs occasional rises or declines to adjust to population changes. Its almost a FLAT tax except that it exempts the rich. It is about as much of a "lock box" as we've ever had legally; politically, its been under heavy assault from day one. If you thought private health insurance was bad, just wait for them to get their hands on social security... Of course, we've had additions made to Social Security to increase its costs and we've refused to make it adapt with the times - trying to subtly sabotage the program.
Social Security is extremely popular and the PEOPLE can mandate THEIR government to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare." The constitution only really limits government, if not prohibited by law, its legal. Its not the other way around - it need not say what it CAN do only what it can not do. Elementary school basic government covered this. Basic logic also covers this, as you have an infinite set of possible actions and a finite set of prohibited actions -- you list the negative set.
Now we talk like social security are general fund welfare programs but these are things WE ALL (except rich) pay into our whole lives and for generations now and we deserve to get what we paid for / invested in! I PAID for them and I'm fucking going to get my money back when I need it!
If the government can't pay back then the situation is so bad that the currency and economy are so bad that the alternatives are not going to work either (except for an elite minority.)
Medicare and the others are general fund programs and they do not operate the same way; they have problems because of their closer connection with the political machine.
Re:Is anybody really surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
There's no way to get back to running surpluses (and therefore starting to actually pay down the debt) without massive cuts in all of the big three (social security, medicare, and defense)
Repeat after me: Social Security hasn't got anything to do with our budget deficit.
All of these are arguably Constitutionally mandated functions (providing for the common defense and the general welfare), but the Constitution doesn't say anywhere that we have to fund them to the level that we do.
IIRC, the phrase you're paraphrasing is in the Preamble rather than among the Articles of the Constitution, and therefore doesn't actually have any legal status. (Though - again IIRC - the Articles do spec out defense.)
Re:Is anybody really surprised? (Score:3, Informative)
And when they say "fair", they mean "provide they greatest benefit to the rich".
Consumption taxes are about as regressive as you can get.
Re:Is anybody really surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is anybody really surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
DoD represents 20% of the budget. That's the same as social security. Medicare and Medicaid put together add up to 23%; either one of them alone is substantially smaller than DoD. Defense spending is not by any possible standard dwarfed by those programs.
Social Security Pays for Itself (Score:5, Informative)
Social Security spending is big because it's the retirement programme for everyone in our entire big country. It pays for itself. It doesn't contribute to any deficit or debt - to the contrary, Social Security is the largest lender to our debt, which is driven by war spending (that never dips, even in "peacetime").
Social Security doesn't need any changes to accommodate retiring Baby Boomers - it was already tweaked to collect enough for them, starting back in the 1980s. There is no projected problems with Social Security until at earliest 2039, which is a lot longer than any other programme. And if we want to fix that, all we have to do is collect Social Security payments on income above $105K, which limit currently makes Social Security a regressive tax.
None of the lies they're telling you to cheat you of your guaranteed retirement plan are true. They're preying on the post-Boomer generations' innuendo that "we'll never get Social Security", because they've been trying to steal it from you your whole life. Don't let them. Make them cut the $TRILLIONS in "defense" and "intelligence" budgets that are mostly waste, corruption and investments in war instead of peace and growth.
Re:Is anybody really surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
And when they say "fair", they mean "provide they greatest benefit to the rich".
Consumption taxes are about as regressive as you can get.
Nice try, how about proving your statement with a little bit of explanation instead of just hoping that it's true. Have you actually read about the Fair Tax? Do you actually study economics and the current digrace of a tax code that we have right now? Are you really against simplifying the taxes so that they are so simple and transparent that politicians could no longer play favorites with their soup du jour special interests? Come on man, foul play! Don't defend the sucky status quo.