RSSU.S. Government Spending 1968 - 2007
The federal budget challenges faced by the citizens of the United States of America start and end with spending. During its fiscal year that ended September 30, 2007, the federal government spent a total of $2.730 trillion. As the chart indicates, the federal government spends more money every year than it did the previous year. This should not surprise anybody. What may be surprising to many, however, is how the money is spent, and more importantly, how it will be spent in the future.
Spending did not exceed $100 billion per year until 1962. It reached $1 trillion in 1987. Fifteen years later, the number reached $2 trillion. It is estimated that spending will surpass $3 trillion in 2009.
29 Responses to “U.S. Government Spending 1968 - 2007”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 1st, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Hey Paul!
We’re not exactly certain why you’re looking for information about the Pentagon, but we have a pretty good idea.
But we don’t want you to be disappointed, so try searching for “Iraq,” “Afghanistan,” “defense,” and “military.”
This will give you a few charts to look at and articles to read.
Thanks for visiting.
September 1st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Does anyone know how to spell “Pentagon”? - Nothing seems to be coming up..
Thanks, Paul
August 18th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Several concerns about the information presented (which is, overall, very solid and helpful, and I intend to use it in my government classes this fall):
1. It is my understanding that some, if not much, military spending is not reflected in the federal budget. Has that spending been accounted for? The sources I have read indicate that it is a considerable amount, and might or might not include other military/defense-related spending that is not mentioned in the budget at all, but is certainly spent.
2. As soon as the profit incentive is removed from health care, and it returns to a focus on healing and caring, much of the health care spending will level off and probably decline. Medicare is by far the most cost-efficient health care system we have in this country, with the lowest overhead. The sooner we get a system where everyone has access to basic health care, thereby resolving health problems while they are relatively minor and comparatively inexpensive to treat, the sooner we will have a population that doesn’t require nearly as much major health care treatments that cost so much. And, again, once the major profit motive is removed, and the people who are in health care to make money rather than to take care of people get, the sooner the entire system will revert to a focus on prevention and early treatment, which are two of the most cost-efficient processes a society can create (prevention usually saves several times the amount of money invested in it). A number of my community college students have had to drop classes because they had a relatively minor health problem — an abscessed tooth, for example — but could not get it treated because they didn’t have money or access to free care. The pain distracted them from studying and interfered with work, causing them to drop classes, thus slowing or stopping their education, which then prevented them from improving their job possibilities and earning potential. Such medical problems cause people to be less productive at work, at the very least, and often to lose time from work, which at the level of my students means they don’t get paid, as they often don’t have “sick time” to take; sometimes they just get fired for missing work. This happens far too often, and doesn’t seem to be taken into account in the economic calculations — which probably means the estimates are off by more than anyone will admit.
3. Social Security and us Baby Boomers — Having been born at the apex of the Baby Boom, I’ve been putting up with the problem of too many of us all my life. I suspect your predictions on our effect on Social Security are off because many Boomers, maybe most, will NOT retire and/or draw Social Security at 65 (or 66 or 67, as the cases may be) because they plan to wait until they have to draw it so that they will get the bigger payments. This will allow more time for planning and even allocating our Soc Sec payments to Soc Sec rather than other budget items. Also, many, if not most, Boomers will continue to work even after they start drawing Soc Sec — at least, they will if companies will hire them (but that’s another issue for another day). Many of us have already figured out that there is no way we will ever “retire” — we will just change jobs/careers and keep on working until we die at our desks or wherever. Granted, a lot of Boomers have done very well financially, and will have the wherewithall to goof off and play golf for 20 or 30 years, but most of us, I suspect, won’t have that luxury. Luckily, we won’t be hanging around doing nothing but collecting Social Security payments for very many years as we work ourselves into our graves.
4. Changes in demographics — I don’t see where this is accounted for in the charts, but maybe I missed it. I suspect that the dire prediction of 2 workers per Soc Sec recipient is a bit off because the U.S. population is becoming more “minority” (or whatever you want to call it) and many so-called “minorities” actually like having families and children, so they do so. Granted, as incomes rise, people tend to have fewer children, but Europeans and white Americans have a really weird tendency to quit having kids. This is good for world population overall, since overpopulation is the real culprit behind most of the economic problems, but the ultimate result is to unpopulate the population out of existence.
5. It is not only U.S. consumption of energy resources, particularly petroleum products, that matters, but WORLD consumption, and the Asians are probably not going to cut back their demand very soon just because a bunch of spoiled Americans are crying about $4/gallon gas. Europeans have paid much more for years; Asians probably will pay as much or more, but Asian populations will drive the demand at least as much as, if not more than, U.S. demand. We have to get used to considering the roles other societies play in these matters; we are not the only players and sometimes not even the major players any more. We have subsidized the multinational oil corporations for generations; this is the thanks we get? And eve if we drill for more oil on U.S. property, there’s no guarantee that U.S. consumers will get the oil/gas — it will go to the highest bidder, and that might not be us. Those O&G corporations are nearly all multinational, so U.S. oil/gas might just as easily go to Europe or Asia, in which case we’re left with a few more O&G jobs (temporarily), permanently damaged environment (toxic), and less of our natural resources. Wind and solar — T. Boone Pickens has it right.
6. Let the Soc Sec and Medicare taxes actually fund Soc Sec and Medicare. Let the corporation taxes fund the military/industrial complex spending — it’s for their benefit anyway. Make the individual tax structure proportional — when Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary, something is wrong with the system.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
You have to remember the reason we are in this mess is that citizens have become lazy and ignore the government after elections are over. Politicians don’t count the cost because most are looking at what will get them re-elected next term, not what is good for the nation as a whole. I cite the article about a bridge to nowhere that was in the news a while back about a bridge being built in, I believe, Alaska that went to an unpopulated island because it was a job creator for the area. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not against job creation. I think that if you really can’t find a job where you live, then you should move. Prime example: being in the 70’s Iowa job market, which was very depressed. I moved a hundred miles north and have been gainfully employed for 30 years.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:51 am
It seems that once elected, our representatives set out to find things to spend money on. I remember many years back when Ross said “I count paper clips”. That really stuck in my mind. How many of our congressman think like that? To fix these problems, it would seem that a representative would have to spend THE ENTIRE FOUR YEARS OF A TERM doing nothing but figuring out how to spend LESS money. When is that going to start to happen? Winning an election always is touted as a mandate to do something that requires spending MORE money. I’m totally frustrated watching it all happen. Each and every year they just tack on more and more spending earmarks and programs. It blows me away when I hear about the billions in waste each year on the big programs such as medicare. Why doesn’t it make sense to hire auditors in droves to find the waste, and rig the incentives to reward finding waste and rooting out the corruption until the lines cross? Why is this waste simply tolerated and never even a campaign subject? Who are they protecting? Why are those in power tolerating such a slide of our great country? Don’t they have to live here as well, or are they counting on their great retirement packages and benefits they voted themselves to insulate them from it all in some cozy spot in the mountains? It’s really shameful, and sickens me to see to see it just continue on and on.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
The data presented within this website dovetails with “The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know About America’s Economic Future” (2005) by Kotlikoff and Burns. Regardless of the path we choose, two things shall remain constant. First, we need to develop a plan and implement it immediately. Since this isn’t a topic of choice on the campaign trail, it is unlikely anything will happen soon. Second, and probably the reason for passing the buck, is that fixing this is going to be very, very hard and painful. Politicians are focused only on the next election and they use discretionary spending as a means to entice the ignorant voting public to check ‘Incumbent’ on the ballot.
It is clear to me that none of our elitist politicians want to touch the issue. What we need is a grass-roots movement to force the issue down their throats with a demand for immediate action. All efforts must be graded at the ballot box and these so-called leaders must fully comprehend that we mean business. Trust me, all it is going to take is for a couple of these guys to get unseated and the rest will get the message.
Of course, the American public has become complacent, as well as tired with the political scene. The ratings for the whole show are at historical lows. We must ignite the fire within the people to get off their lazy butts and get interested in the business at hand. Part of the reason for this attitude among the public is, as Mr. Perot states, is a lack of education. Bluntly, we have become a nation of fat, lazy, and stupid people quite content to sail merrily down the stream. Unfortunately, the stream is fixing to turn violent.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Mr Perot;
Your numbers get me going. There is another way of looking at this problem. The current structure of our economy just won’t work. G. Bush had to cut taxes not because he is a good guy, or it would stimulate the economy, rather it created liquidity in this economy that had been sucked dry by international trade and finance.
If you think I am wrong, well he did it again with his $1200 dollar per family payout.
More money was infused into the economy because the damned economic system is not sustaining itself. The Chicago economists suggest large numbers of dollars create inflation. Limited dollars reduce prices. We have limited dollars with inflation because the dollars are going abroad and we are now paying for foreign goods with devalued dollars.
Joe H
June 20th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I think regular citizens getting together to donate to pay off the debt is a well meaning, but not effective plan. That is because it doesn’t fix the problem.
My analogy would be like this:
Joe is hurt in a car accident. A large piece of glass in his arm and he is bleeding. How do you help Joe? Do you give him a blood transfusion? Or do you remove the glass and stop his bleeding?
June 20th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Mr. Perot, would you be willing to establish a grass roots campaign to start a fund for Americans to make donations to pay off the national debt?