Eliminating the Federal Deficit
Source: Office of Management and Budget, The Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2011:
Summary Tables, Table S-4
Historical Tables, Tables 1.3, 8.5
|
FY2011 Federal Budget (Billions of
Dollars)
|
|
TOTAL OUTLAYS
|
$3,834
|
100%
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
251
|
7%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mandatory
|
$2,168
|
57%
|
|
Social Security
|
730
|
19%
|
|
Medicare
|
491
|
13%
|
|
Medicaid
|
297
|
8%
|
|
Federal Retirement
|
123
|
3%
|
|
Unemployment
|
103
|
3%
|
|
Food & Nutrition
|
95
|
2%
|
|
Veterans Income Security
|
69
|
2%
|
|
SSI
|
49
|
1%
|
|
Earned Income Credit
|
47
|
1%
|
|
Agriculture
|
19
|
0%
|
|
Other
|
145
|
4%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discretionary
|
$1,415
|
37%
|
|
Security (Defense)
|
895
|
23%
|
|
Non-security (NASA, …)
|
520
|
14%
|
|
|
|
|
|
RECEIPTS
|
$2,567
|
67%
|
|
Individual Income
|
1121
|
29%
|
|
Corporate Income
|
297
|
8%
|
|
Social Security
|
674
|
18%
|
|
Medicare
|
192
|
5%
|
|
Unemployment
|
60
|
2%
|
|
Other retirement
|
8
|
0%
|
|
Excise (Alcohol, …)
|
74
|
2%
|
|
Other (Estate taxes, …)
|
141
|
4%
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFICIT
|
$1,267
|
33%
|
|
Ending the deficit
without a tax hike would require:
* Eliminating Security (defense) and Non-Security (rest of
government)
OR
• Reducing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by 83
percent
OR
• Reducing all “Mandatory" (entitlement) spending by 58 percent
OR
• Reducing all Mandatory and Non-security spending by 47 percent
Alternatives to
spending cuts:
• Borrowing -> bankruptcy
• Inflation -> savings, pensions lose value
• Tax hikes -> more tax hikes
Since 1980, U.S. population increased 37 percent (from 227 to
310 million) while the inflation-adjusted federal budget increased 135 percent
(from $1.4 to $3.3 trillion in FY2005 dollars)
|
Liberal and conservative approaches to government:
·
Liberals believe in wealth redistribution, since
a large percentage of the population (in Liberals’ opinion) is incapable of
generating the wealth to pay for its own food, housing, healthcare, retirement,
etc.
·
Conservatives believe in wealth generation,
since almost all of the population is capable of paying its own way, and the
small percentage that cannot could be adequately assisted by their families and
private charity.
The Liberal approach reduces wealth because a large segment of
the population receives money without having to provide goods or services in
return. Also, the Liberal
single-payer system (socialism) is prone to fraud, inflexible to innovation,
and is a monopoly that serves elected officials, not the consumer.
7/19/2010 The
Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance www.fcta.org
|
|
