Starving the Beast: De-Funding the American Government 1970-Present

[Weijun]

When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990.  It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.

Why would you carve out entitlement spending?

Maybe because it tends to fluctuate due to things not connected to spending policies?  Like we have more old people now, so more spending on entitlements to the elderly, but not because we actually passed a bill increasing elderly benefits.  Just a guess.

...and how does that have any bearing on whether federal is excessive and unsustainable?  If anything, that mandatory spending is a larger portion of the federal budget makes the situation worse, not better.

[Razgovory]

When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990.  It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.

Why would you carve out entitlement spending?

Maybe because it tends to fluctuate due to things not connected to spending policies?  Like we have more old people now, so more spending on entitlements to the elderly, but not because we actually passed a bill increasing elderly benefits.  Just a guess.

...and how does that have any bearing on whether federal is excessive and unsustainable?  If anything, that mandatory spending is a larger portion of the federal budget makes the situation worse, not better.

Cause congress has little control over it.

[Weijun]

When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990.  It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.

Why would you carve out entitlement spending?

Maybe because it tends to fluctuate due to things not connected to spending policies?  Like we have more old people now, so more spending on entitlements to the elderly, but not because we actually passed a bill increasing elderly benefits.  Just a guess.

...and how does that have any bearing on whether federal is excessive and unsustainable?  If anything, that mandatory spending is a larger portion of the federal budget makes the situation worse, not better.

Cause congress has little control over it.

Congress has little political will to reform entitlements, but it certainly has the power to do so.

[Ideologue]

So really on some key items were are not spending enough.

Concur.  However:

1) the US spends more than any other peer nation on defense and security, by a very wide margin.

What is a "peer nation" in this context?  The takeaway here is not simply that we are inefficient at defense (though we are, and I have outlined a strategy to reduce defense spending by 90% or more and still maintain total military dominance ), but that America has far greater military obligations than, say, Austria.

The Arthur Bomber Harris plan, right?

Not at all.  I'm indifferent to what time of day we strike.

[Razgovory]

When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990.  It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.

Why would you carve out entitlement spending?

Maybe because it tends to fluctuate due to things not connected to spending policies?  Like we have more old people now, so more spending on entitlements to the elderly, but not because we actually passed a bill increasing elderly benefits.  Just a guess.

...and how does that have any bearing on whether federal is excessive and unsustainable?  If anything, that mandatory spending is a larger portion of the federal budget makes the situation worse, not better.

Cause congress has little control over it.

Congress has little political will to reform entitlements, but it certainly has the power to do so.

I mean, the money is essentially already spent.  It's required by law.

[Weijun]

When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990.  It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.

Why would you carve out entitlement spending?

Maybe because it tends to fluctuate due to things not connected to spending policies?  Like we have more old people now, so more spending on entitlements to the elderly, but not because we actually passed a bill increasing elderly benefits.  Just a guess.

...and how does that have any bearing on whether federal is excessive and unsustainable?  If anything, that mandatory spending is a larger portion of the federal budget makes the situation worse, not better.

Cause congress has little control over it.

Congress has little political will to reform entitlements, but it certainly has the power to do so.

I mean, the money is essentially already spent.  It's required by law.

Congress has changed the eligibility requirements and benefits promised numerous times since the 1930s.  It simply takes legislation to change it again.  Aside from lack of political will, what is stopping congress from restricting eligibility (e.g. raising the retirement age) and reducing payments (e.g. scaling back COLA, a change to SSI from the 1970s)?  Medicare Part D was in enacted in 2006 and SCHIP was expanded in 2009.  These are hardly part of the fabric of the Republic.

I understand the point that Congress much actively pass an act to curtail runaway entitlement spending.  However, that does not make entitlements separate from the issue of federal spending and the size of the government; they are central to it.

[Admiral Yi]

I mean, the money is essentially already spent.  It's required by law.

The Supreme Court ruled way back that Social Security is not a debt that can be sued for.

Like Wiejun said, Social Security pays out whatever we say it pays out and collects whatever we say it collects.

[Eddie Teach]

The Arthur Bomber Harris plan, right?

It was something wackadoodle like that.  Ide is a better lawyer than a military thinker.

Are you saying he should stick to movie reviews?