So, where's the f-in' money?

The Federal Government is hugemongous. I mean it's monstrously large. John Holmes on Viagra large (for those of you who are visual learners). But, how did it get so big?

Are the pinheads in Washington putting in one program after another in efforts to bring home the bacon? Are politicians literally going spending crazy? Are tax-and-spend liberals engaging in wealth distribution? Have neo-conservatives hawks war-mongered us into financial ruin?

Thanks to our friends at the Federal Government, the budget documents are archived at gpoaccess.gov. We can explore past and current expenditures. For this discussion, I have collected and summarized the data for FY2000, FY2005 and FY2010. Let's explore:

The first thing that really stands out is that over a 10-year period we have gone from a $236 Billion surplus to a $1258.4 Billion deficit while tax revenues have increased. Let me say that again - "WHILE TAX REVENUES HAVE INCREASED". Everyone who wants to blame large deficits on tax cuts can GO TO BED - we're going to have adult time now.

The second interesting thing is that spending in every category has grown. A lot. Revenues have increased by 14.7%, population has increased by 9% and spending has increased by 100%. Spending doubled in 10 years! Each category (except interest paid) increased by a minimum of 66%, with the biggest spending increase coming in the "Other Gov't Spending" category. Congratulations you money sucking whores.

So there you have it, right? Has discretionary spending bankrupted us? Are we approaching financial ruin because some Senator approved funding in an earmark for earthworm research at his Alma Mater. Not exactly... Though it's a whopping percentage increase, it amounts to $145.2 Billion. That's a ton of money, but not so much when compared to a $Trillion debt.

Back to the real question, "So where's the f-in' money?".

The largest components of the federal budget are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense. So, let's look there for a minute...

If we returned those categories to FY2000 levels, guess what happens to our deficit? It goes from $1.2584Trillion to $45.2Billion. Hmmmmmmmmm.

At this point I need to take a break from writing this post, find a 68-year-old retiree and beg him/her for lunch money.

[...]

I'm back. One would think that a 68-year-old would be frailer. But he jumped over the net at mid-court and came after me with his racket when I asked him for money. Come to think of it, if he's in that good of enough health, why is he retired? Oh well.

The final thing I would like to point out is this: the deficit cannot be reduced without reducing Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense. There are not enough No-Child-Left-Behind-Other-Government-Handouts-That-Amount-To-Wasteful-Spending programs that will add up to $1.2Trillion. On the other hand, if we ONLY fund Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense at the current levels and nothing else (nothing, notta - no national parks, no centers for disease control, no earthworm research, no Pell grants, no free/reduced school lunches, no Freddie, no Fannie, no FBI, no SEC, no courts, no legislative branch, no executive branch - I mean NOTHING else), we'd still have a $150Billion deficit.

It turns out letting healthy people who are going to live to 90 retire at 65 was about as good of an idea as engaging in 2 full-scale, simultaneous wars. Whoops.