Guest
11-21-2011, 11:14 AM
During his interview on 60 Minutes last night, Grover Norquist stated that he wanted to reduce federal spending to a point that it would "fit in a bathtub". When questioned further, he stated that a federal budget amounting to 8% of GDP would be an appropriate level.
Let's just make sure we all understand Norquist's arithmetic.
Federal spending in 2010 was $3.6 trillion
U.S. GDP in 2010 was $14.582 trillion.
8% of our most current GDP would amount to $1.17 trillion.
Following the arithmetic, that would require a 68% cut in federal spending!
It's also probably instructive to again look at the make up of our federal spending. Before we begin, it should be noted that interest on our national debt amounts to 6% of our spending right now. If we assumed that we would not default on our debt, that leads to the conclusion that Norquist would have federal spending for all other purposes reduced to only $720 billion.
So lets take a closer look at where we spend our revenues...
$903 billion - Defense
$882 billion - Medicare and Medicaid
$793 billion - Social Security
$482 billion - Welfare and Unemployment Benefits
$203 billion - Interest on our national debt
$93 billion - Transportation
$61 billion - Homeland Security
$33 billion - General government
$158 billion - Miscellaneous
There's no sense debating where spending would have to be cut to meet Norquist's objective. Almost everything would have to be eliminated, certainly including Social Security, Medicare, welfare payments, unemployment benefits, etc. Whether there would be any money available to fund national defense is problematic. (Remember, Norquist's objective is to reduce federal spending to the level that existing in 1900.)
Now, after you get your arms around the arithmetic, remember that Norquist controls all the Republican members in the House and Senate with an ideological iron fist.All but a few Republican members of the House and Senate have signed the pledge to Norquist never to ever raise taxes in any way.
The pledge Norquist forces GOP candidates to sign is simple. It says, "...ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."
If this doesn't scare the bejesuz out of you, I don't know what will.
By the way, how much has your 401k or investment account gotten hit this morning as the result of the failure of the super committee to reach some compromise on trying to reduce the defict? The market is down over 300 points as I write this. Oh I forgot, Norquist won't let the Republicans on the committee compromise one whit on figuring out ways to increase revenue to the government.
Let's just make sure we all understand Norquist's arithmetic.
Federal spending in 2010 was $3.6 trillion
U.S. GDP in 2010 was $14.582 trillion.
8% of our most current GDP would amount to $1.17 trillion.
Following the arithmetic, that would require a 68% cut in federal spending!
It's also probably instructive to again look at the make up of our federal spending. Before we begin, it should be noted that interest on our national debt amounts to 6% of our spending right now. If we assumed that we would not default on our debt, that leads to the conclusion that Norquist would have federal spending for all other purposes reduced to only $720 billion.
So lets take a closer look at where we spend our revenues...
$903 billion - Defense
$882 billion - Medicare and Medicaid
$793 billion - Social Security
$482 billion - Welfare and Unemployment Benefits
$203 billion - Interest on our national debt
$93 billion - Transportation
$61 billion - Homeland Security
$33 billion - General government
$158 billion - Miscellaneous
There's no sense debating where spending would have to be cut to meet Norquist's objective. Almost everything would have to be eliminated, certainly including Social Security, Medicare, welfare payments, unemployment benefits, etc. Whether there would be any money available to fund national defense is problematic. (Remember, Norquist's objective is to reduce federal spending to the level that existing in 1900.)
Now, after you get your arms around the arithmetic, remember that Norquist controls all the Republican members in the House and Senate with an ideological iron fist.All but a few Republican members of the House and Senate have signed the pledge to Norquist never to ever raise taxes in any way.
The pledge Norquist forces GOP candidates to sign is simple. It says, "...ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."
If this doesn't scare the bejesuz out of you, I don't know what will.
By the way, how much has your 401k or investment account gotten hit this morning as the result of the failure of the super committee to reach some compromise on trying to reduce the defict? The market is down over 300 points as I write this. Oh I forgot, Norquist won't let the Republicans on the committee compromise one whit on figuring out ways to increase revenue to the government.