A new budget will be proposed this year, but I wanted to record where I gather the data and create the budget distribution pie charts. The data comes from two tables at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ — Table 5.2—Budget Authority by Agency: 1976–2025 and Table 5.4—Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency: 1976–2025
Full Budget
Discretionary Budget
Here’s the latest pie charts of how the federal government spends its money. Again, there’s discretionary spending — spending from appropriation bills and the full budget which includes spending for things like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid which vary depending on the number of recipients and how much each recipient is being paid. This doesn’t mean the non-discretionary components couldn’t be changed — there’s been discussion of means testing Social Security payments and Medicare eligibility — but these changes are generally considered politically untenable (would you vote for the guy who just reduced your SS cheque because you happened to have a pension or money saved in a retirement account?).
Here’s the full budget breakout, updated for 2019
And discretionary budget
I always wanted to run for federal office on the platform of direct representation — more a technology than a platform. Develop a system that allows constituents to log in and vote for any legislation — basically like proxy voting for shareholders. I’d deliver summary and full text content of anything in advance of the vote, and I’d cast my vote as dictated by my constituents. And constituents could see the vote totals for each piece of legislation to prove that I am voting based on real input. Obviously, this platform suffers an immense privilege problem — it’s great for a demographic with free time to read through legislation and convenient Internet access. It also suffers a civic disengagement problem — does anyone actually want to read through the text of everything that’s coming up in my committees and to floor votes? It’s quite possible that I’d be voting against the National Law Enforcement Museum Commemorative Coin Act (H.R. 1865) because five people bothered to lodge an opinion … and only to troll the entire idea behind direct representation. And none of that considers the threat of malicious actors.
Once there is a platform available for one legislator, expending it to others in the same chamber is trivial. Adding the other chamber or state legislatures is an undertaking from a content-development standpoint (what *is* on schedule for the Oregon Senate today?), but the underlying development effort is the same. Somewhat like the National Popular Vote compact is an end-run around formalizing the eradication of the Electoral College, this would be an end-run around indirect representation.
But I’ve thought, of late, that starting at the Federal level is misguided — if for no other reason than the incredible amount of money it takes to run a campaign for federal office. But also because getting the six million or so Ohio voters set up for direct representation by their state Senator would be a logistical nightmare. It seems better to begin implementation at the local level — run for school board or a Township Trustee position where you are concerned about a few thousand voters. Use local offices as small proof-of-concept experiments. Maybe it doesn’t work out — maybe no one cares enough to check what’s being discussed and vote for their position. Maybe running and supporting the platform is too expensive or time consuming. Hell, maybe no one is interested enough in direct representation for a direct representation candidate to win in the first place.
The federal budget numbers for 2019 and 2020 are, of course, estimates … but it perplexes me how persistent the myth of the “tax and spend” Democrat and the “reduce government spending” Republican is. There’s no party shrinking the federal budget. Having a huge increase and then dropping back down to where you started isn’t much of a “decrease”. And outright increasing certainly isn’t a decrease.
If the difference is “tax and spend” and “just spend” … the fiscally conservative position should always be “don’t spend money you don’t have”.
I think the wall is a completely stupid idea — based on emotion rather than statistics about the source of immigration violations, not an effective solution even if the problem were people sneaking across the border. But I am seeing a way to get this whole debacle sorted within the Executive branch (which may not be legal, because government budgeting isn’t quite the same as corporate budgeting). When we’ve got projects that are under-budget, the extra money can get moved over to some other purpose. Well, if we can shut down the government for no good reason during budget negotiations … what if the Executive branch shut down all those “non-essential” services for a while to free up money that can be transferred over to DHS? How long would the government need to be shut down?
For a five billion dollar wall (again, HA!) … since the FY2019 budget is like 4.4 trillion dollars, we spend 12 billion a day. Say 90% of that is essential. Five days of shutdown would fund the wall. Which doesn’t make the wall a good idea. Or mean Congress should just approve it to get the whole debacle over with. But it certainly says something about government spending that the wall is half of a day worth of spending. And it certainly says something about our government that it gets shut down over half a day worth of spending.
| $ 5,000,000,000.00 | The wall |
| $ 4,407,000,000,000.00 | FY2019 budget |
| $ 12,073,972,602.74 | Daily spending |
| $ 1,207,397,260.27 | 10% |
| 4.141139097 | shutdown days |
Here’s the latest pie charts of how the federal government spends its money. Again, there’s discretionary spending — spending from appropriation bills and the full budget which includes spending for things like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid which vary depending on the number of recipients and how much each recipient is being paid. This doesn’t mean the non-discretionary components couldn’t be changed — there’s been discussion of means testing Social Security payments and Medicare eligibility — but these changes are generally considered politically untenable (would you vote for the guy who just reduced your SS cheque because you happened to have a pension or money saved in a retirement account?).
Here’s the full budget breakout, updated for 2018
And discretionary budget:
Here’s the latest pie charts of how the federal government spends its money. Again, there’s discretionary spending — spending from appropriation bills and the full budget which includes spending for things like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid which vary depending on the number of recipients and how much each recipient is being paid. This doesn’t mean the non-discretionary components couldn’t be changed — there’s been discussion of means testing Social Security payments and Medicare eligibility — but these changes are generally considered politically untenable (would you vote for the guy who just reduced your SS cheque because you happened to have a pension or money saved in a retirement account?).
Here’s the full budget breakout, updated for 2017
And the discretionary budget:
In 2008, Miami-Dade enacted Ordinance 08-34 requiring cranes be able to withstand load from 140 mph winds. Construction companies objected — they’d need to spend more money ensuring public safety, and really how often are 140 mph winds ripping through Miami? Courts deemed the local regulation to cover worker safety and not public safety; the OSHA requirement, which is something like 90 mph, superseded the local government’s Ordinance (I think the 11th Circuit decision actually said it was a multi-purpose regulation … but since the requirement touched on workplace safety, OSHA wins). I wonder, as cranes come crashing into buildings in downtown Miami, if the court would revisit that decision.
I worked for a company that operated each regional area as an independent entity. Each had their own set of rules, regulations, processes … they just shared a common HR staff and all of the money rolled up to the same ledger. Their “sell” to this approach was that it allowed different regions with different requirements to make rules that met their customer’s needs. The unfortunate example that got cited, though, was a military base out in Virginia. *That* region had a policy where, upon being deployed overseas, a military family could have their account flagged as forward deployed. The the account would not be suspended for non-payment and no collections attempts would be made. Which is nice – but why weren’t military bases in other regions afforded the same courtesy? Or customers stationed at the base in Virginia who happened to retain their cell phone from their family’s home in Kansas? Essentially, I could never understand what about cellular service could need to be customized for a specific region where it was a completely unreasonable policy in other regions. There are areas where a single nation-wide regulation makes sense.
Construction regulations, on the other hand, seem very location specific. And a area where a nationwide minimum standard would be far more reasonable. I doubt there’s a lot of concern about coastal flooding in Denver. Snow load regulations for equipment in South Texas is silly, but I wouldn’t want to sleep next door to a crane in NYC that didn’t fall under some snow load reg. Builders in Maine don’t need to worry too much about tornado damage, but construction sites between OKC and Tulsa can reasonably be required to lash down their materials at the end of each day to avoid debris being flung all over the countryside. And, yeah, cities in Southern Florida can reasonably want large pieces of equipment to have higher wind load ratings than a crane in Seattle.
Furthermore — why is it “states rights” people only support the state’s rights to be *more* Republican? Why should Cali need a waiver to have stricter air quality and fuel efficiency rules? Why should Miami be unable to have higher standards for wind force? It isn’t like Washington needed a waiver to set their minimum wage above the federal set-point.
How can you be the president of the entire country if you cannot even be the president for the entire military?
The address Trump gave at the commissioning of the USS Gerald Ford may reflect the increasingly long campaign cycle or it may reflect his complete misunderstanding of government (not to mention a complete misunderstanding of how military health care works!). He encouraged (ordered? Not speaking to intent; but as the ostensible head of the military, it would behoove him to use more care in selecting what will be communicated to military personnel) those assembled to “call those senators to make sure you get health care”.
A generous interpretation would be that he isn’t letting an opportunity to push for his legislative agenda pass by – this will be televised, reported … but who stands up at a guy’s retirement party to laud himself and ignore the retiree? Or at a commencement to congratulate yourself … oh, wait. That’d be Trump too. A man seemingly incapable of participating in an event and not making it about himself. Even the generous interpretation is essentially “I’m too self-centered to let your thing be the highlight here”.
But beyond the optics of using the commissioning of a naval vessel as a campaign rally, the ACA does not have a whole lot to do with health care for the active duty military personnel to whom he was ostensibly speaking. TRICARE covers them. It qualifies as insurance under the ACA, so they’re set. Given Trump’s other outright nonsensical ramblings on health care, this in and of itself is telling. Enlisted persons have no more need to lobby for whatever ACA replacement is currently on the table than members of Congress. It’s not going to fuck up their coverage.
Worse, though, the military may report to the president like employees report to the CEO … but it isn’t like we changed out the military for a Republican one in January. They may fight to defend the country, but they are not obligated to support the legislative initiatives of the current administration. From his speech at the CIA Memorial Wall bemoaning how unfairly the press treats him — imagine a similar topic being delivered in front of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall — to this most recent address, Trump seems ignorant of the fact there are liberal government employees and military staff. There are Libertarians. Red scare McCarthyism aside, there are probably socialists too. Point being — there were people in the audience who do not want either of the current Congressional health care plans to pass (given it’s approval rating, the majority of the crowd may even feel that way!) and how insulting is it that the speaker would co-opt what was meant to be a naval celebration to rally support for something to which you object?!
Shortly after exacerbating tensions between Qatar and its neighboring countries, the US is selling twelve billion dollars worth of F15’s to Qatar and a hundred ten billion dollars in weapons to Saudi Arabia?!? Please tell me that provoking tense geopolitical relationships is not going to be a sales strategy. Great, you keep Boeing’s assembly line open … but this is too much like privatized prisons needing a constant increase in incarcerations to increase their profits.