Posted on 10/18/2012 6:45:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Total annual spending on federal means-tested welfare programs has hit $1 trillion. The Congressional Research Service is out with a new memorandum on spending on these programs. Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate budget committee who requested the memo, has crunched the numbers and come up with the astonishing figure of $1 trillion in annual total spending on these programs as of fiscal year 2011, nearly $750 billion in federal dollars and another roughly $250 billion in state funding. Senator Sessions explains:
Ranking Member Sessions and the minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee requested from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) an overview of cumulative means-tested federal welfare spending in the United States in the most recent year for which data is available (fiscal year 2011). The results are staggering. CRS identified 83 overlapping federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits. They exclude entitlement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and Medicare).
CRS estimates that exclusively federal spending on these federal programs equaled approximately $746 billion, and further emphasizes that there is a substantial amount of state spending—mostly required as a condition of states’ participation—on these same federal programs (primarily Medicaid and CHIP). Based on data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance, Budget Committee staff calculated at least an additional $283 billion in state contributions to those same federal programs,1 for a total annual expenditure of $1.03 trillion. By comparison, in 2011, the annual budget expenditure for Social Security was $725 billion, Medicare was $480 billion, and non-war defense was $540 billion.
The exclusively federal share of spending on these federal programs is up 32 percent since 2008, and now comprises 21 percent of federal outlays (this share too is more than Social Security, Medicare, or defense).
As a historical comparison, spending on the 10 largest of the 83 programs (which account for the bulk of federal welfare spending) has doubled as a share of the federal budget over just the last 30 years. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the amount expended on these 10 programs has increased by 378 percent over that time.
Many factors have contributed to the growth in federal welfare spending, causing it to rise during times of both high and low unemployment. Persistently weak GDP growth over the last several years is unquestionably a factor in the record amount of money now being spent. But understanding the growth in federal welfare expenditures must also be understood in the context of a federal policy that has explicitly encouraged growth in welfare enrollment—combined with a weakening of welfare standards and rules.
Social programs and interest on the debt account for EVERY dollar of tax revenue taken in by the government. Everything else is borrowed.
...what about “Cut”?
RE: Everything else is borrowed.
Mostly from China, Japan and the Middle East.
The problem is -— Even THAT is not enough to cover the spending. So, who else to borrow the money from? ANSWER — OUR OWN FEDERAL RESERVE, who has been PRINTING MONEY for this purpose.
This madness will end badly.
No, there is only one - print. There is not enough wealth for taxing to make a dent in the deficit. Borrowing won’t work. No one in their right mind would lend that kind of money to a gov’t this profligate. The Fed will lend that kind of money but that counts the same as printing.
In a tight spot, I am not going on vacation, not replacing my car, not doing necessary home repairs/maintenance, not going out to eat or to the movies, not getting a new coat or boots, etc....
If I know how to ‘retrench’ why can’t the Government figure it out?
You could tax 100% of the income of everyone making over 200,000 a year and we’d still be running a deficit for the year. And of course, the following year there wouldn’t be any income to tax.
RE: , I am not going on vacation, not replacing my car, not doing necessary home repairs/maintenance, not going out to eat or to the movies, not getting a new coat or boots, etc....
The thing that is worrying is this — IF MOST AMERICANS ARE DOING WHAT YOU’RE DOING, how’s this going to affect the economy?
RE: ...what about “Cut”?
HA, trying doing that and see what happens to our cities. Europe has been trying that and look at the riots in Greece and the rest of the PIIGS...
Cut? Heck, we can’t even cut half a billion dollars for Public Television without people whining about Killing Big Bird.
Tax? Harvesting the total net assets of the Forbes 400 richest Americans would barely cover the Federal deficit for one year. (This is harvesting every cent they have in total assets, not some namby-pamby "tax all income over $250,000 at 100%). The next year, that source is gone. The new "400 richest" don't have nearly as much money.
Leaving only ... Print.
And that leads to...
If I’m doing the math right (and I’m pretty sure I am), $1 trillion per year averages out to $3000 PER CAPITA per year.
Average three thousand dollars in direct payments from Uncle Sugar for every man, woman, and child in the US.
Where the hell is it all going??!?
You’re right about one thing for sure — this MUST end badly if it is not brought under control NOW.
>> Willing creditors to Uncle Sam are growing few and far between.
Ben Bernanke is a highly willing lender of last resort. ;-)
Ben Bernanke is a highly willing lender of last resort
There’s no other game in town.
Well, let's assume that 90% of that $3,000 is absorbed in "administration costs and fees", that leaves [an average of] $300/yr for every person... that's a more believable number. (IOW, we're only being given one portion of the equation: the money-input... we're not told the money-output because then that would let us calculate the "friction coefficient" that is government.)
You’re right about one thing for sure — this MUST end badly if it is not brought under control NOW.
Like I said: cut.
It's going into Obama's "Fundamental Transformation" project.
The steady rise in welfare spending, which covers more than 80 programs primarily designed to help low-income Americans, got a big boost from the 2009 stimulus and has grown, albeit somewhat more slowly, in 2010 and 2011. One reason is that more people are qualifying in the weak economy, but the federal government also has broadened eligibility so that more people qualify for programs.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/18/welfare-spending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/
Yep.
Lending money “hot off the press”. ;-)
Regardless of the time and place the government must get the money it spends somewhere. The way the government gets money is by taxing people, printing money or borrowing it from the market IF the market will lend to them.
>> Like I said: cut.
Yes, that’s the only way out.
Will we as a nation make those cuts voluntarily?
OR will we have them forced on us when we go bankrupt?
We’ll see. But deep spending cuts **WILL** happen, one way or the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.