I wasn't sure how to title this post nor how in depth I should go. For those with a short attention span I will begin by summarizing.
Currently there is an enormous effort being made to confuse the difference between what citizens are entitled to versus what could be considered discretionary spending. First of all entitlements are just that. It means you pay into something, therefore your entitled to it.
I will highlight this discussion to Social Security versus defense spending since they are the largest two budget items although the two are separate. Defense spending comes from a completely different budget. The budget for the defense department is not entitlement spending. While there is still an argument for spending on our defense needs being necessary, it still doesn't make it an entitlement. No one has a separate tax deduction on their paycheck to pay for it. Therefore I consider the Defense Department budget something entirely separate and consider it discretionary spending.
Social Security expenses in 2012 were $773.247 Billion . Social Security took in $837.827 Billion. In other words S.S. took in $64.58 Billion more then it spent. S.S. assets for 2011 were $ 2.653336 trillion. In 2012 it's assets were $2.717916 Trillion. In short S.S. currently has almost $3 trillion more it took in from taxpayers then what is has spent thus far. I do realize this scenario will change in the coming years, but let's confine this discussion to the current moment.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html
In short, people are making payments to Social Security which has a current surplus of nearly $3 trillion. The defense department on the other hand is draining the general budget of the United States nearly $600 billion this year. Why are we even talking about two separate budget items? One which Social Security produced a multi trillion dollar surplus. The other, the general budget which has nearly a trillion dollar deficit for 2013?
If one is looking to make cuts shouldn't it be on the budget that's dragging taxpayers down and not the one that pays for itself and even generates a surplus? How on God's green Earth can anyone call entitlements such as Social Security something that folks should feel guilt about receiving? Hence why I named this post 'Entitlement Propaganda'.
How much do we spend on defense?
It depends who you ask. The annual budget requests for defense was: However there were additional funding requests made to Congress that totaled a near $672 billion after all was said and done. Granted sequestration will require cutting $50 billion a year from the Pentagon budget for the next 10 years. However Congress can enacted special funding requests that could offset that for many years to come.
Here are a few items to consider. We currently have 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers. We're supposed to have 11. In 2015 a new class of carriers, the Gerald R. Ford class will be added to bring the fleet up to the level of 11. It and each of the Nimitz class cost about $13.5 billion each. It costs about $6.5 million per day to operate each carrier strike group. Which consists of five surface combatants, and one fast-attack submarine, plus the nearly 6,700 men and women to crew them.
Each carrier has about 90 aircraft which consist of helicopters and primarily F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and F/A-18C Hornets. Introduced in 1999 the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets cost $66.9 million apiece (about 500 were built). Introduced in 1983 the F/A-18C Hornets: cost $29–57 million (2006 figures). About 1,480 of them were built.
Each carrier is expected to be in service for 50 years. However they need to dock in port for maintenance every 6 to 11 months. They also require a complex overhaul about every 25 years which can last up to 44 months. This cost between $750 to $900 million. Recently some Congressional members have questioned, considering today's satellite and missile technology, that they may vulnerable.
Lest you think I'm singling out carriers alone when it comes to defense spending...
FINAL WORDS
Everyone should clearly see, before we even consider cuts to entitlements (things we already paid for with a surplus in advance), there are a ton of other things that could be reduced. I find it unconscionable that these items should not be considered long before we even think about reductions to our 'paid for' safety net to spend on what I consider discretionary items. While Social Security will need to be adjusted to make it work, it shouldn't be slashed to pay for things it was never intended. If someone can't see that, there's little else that can be said.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are under moderation. Meaning pending approval. If comments are disrespectful or do not address this specific topic they will not be published