Posts in "Federal Spending"

Elliot Engstrom's picture
By Elliot Engstrom at 10:33AM

Feds looking to hire six-figure salary "invitations coordinator"

As I was going through the news this morning, I found a link to this federal government job listing, looking to hire an "invitations coordinator" for the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau.  Now, I know it can look like I'm just trying to be mad for the sake of being mad when I see one incident like that and highlight it.  But the point is that it's not just one isolated incident, it's part of a trend that has been going on for some time now.

Consider this federal workforce pay chart from USA Today for 2011.  Some of these seem completely reasonable.  For example, I have no problem with physicians making $184,395 on average, or dentists making $141,012, even if they are working for the federal government and receiving tax money as their salary.  Physicians and dentists have unique skills sets that are difficult to acquire and in very high demand.

However, consider some of these other federal jobs along with their average salaries:

  • Civil rights analyst -- $106,783
  • Public relations -- $90,560

Read more here
JohnMcKenna's picture
By John McKenna at 10:58AM

Debt Deal is Done; Horray for More Debt!

As of noon today, the long battle over the debt ceiling is at an end (at least for now). The bill passed the House of Representatives by a 269-161 margin yesterday, and cleared the Senate by a 74-26 vote earlier today.

From what you've probably heard from the avalanche of news about this deal, it won't include tax increases, will raise the debt ceiling by roughly $2.4 trillion (ensuring we won't deal with it until after the 2012 elections), and will cut that amount in taxes. At face value, you'd think this is a good deal?

Ah, but that is where they get you with the details. The cuts will be spread out over ten years, which theoretically would mean that we'd be shaving $240 billion off the deficit each year, all things being equal. However, not even that will occur, because when Washington "cuts" spending, they really mean that they're going to slow the rate of growth in spending projected by the CBO, and calling the difference between the baseline and the spending pattern a "cut."


Read more here
Don Rasmussen's picture
By Don Rasmussen at 12:33PM

Don't Cry for Government Space: The Shuttle Program was a Giant Failure

As the final shuttle flight unfolds over the next few hours or, given the weather, the next few days, politicians, pundits, and former astronauts will laud the success of the shuttle program. 

It is all hogwash.

As noted in a Boston Globe editorial, by any metric more tangible than the warm and fuzzies, the space shuttle has been a pretty typical government program...with a body count:

For all the heartfelt sentiment accompanying the end of the program, the sad reality is the space shuttle’s demise was long overdue. Its goal of providing inexpensive, fast, and reliable access to space for government and commercial cargoes never materialized. Shuttle maintenance and refurbishment were too expensive, the delays between flights too long, and the simplicity of a single reusable spacecraft was belied by the need for a new external fuel tank for each flight. The total cost of the program, estimated at about $200 billion, worked out to well over $1 billion per mission. The value of scientific research from experiments on the flight was debatable. And then, of course, there were the tragedies of Challenger and Columbia.

Read more at Boston.com...

Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 2:15PM

14 Trillion Reasons Military Spending Should not Be Sacrosanct

As the national debt continues to climb past $14 trillion, the importance of subjecting all government programs — including, or even especially, military spending — to the budgetary knife seems increasingly obvious.  However, if that figure alone isn’t persuasive, here’s an excerpt from an interesting article on our security budget:

The bloated and sacrosanct security budget – the military, domestic security and intelligence budgets –all saw rapid growth under President Bush when the DoD doubled its budget. Under President Obama the trend has continued with record military, intelligence and domestic security budgets….

President Obama has proposed the largest DoD budget since World War II, $553 billion (not including war funding and nuclear weapons funding in the Department of Energy). Much attention has been shined on Secretary of Defense Gates’ proposal to “cut” $78 billion in the Pentagon budget. Those “cuts” take place over five years with reductions taking place after the 2012 election in 2014 and 2015. And, the “cuts” do not include the cost of wars. The Afghanistan war alone could eat up projected “savings” and if the CIA’s war in Pakistan escalates that will be an even bigger budget item. Further, we have not seen what the continuing U.S. military footprint in Iraq will cost. These projected cuts are more image than reality….

To get a sense of the absurdity of protecting all military spending, the federal government spends $500 million each year for military marching bands. In comparison it spends $430 million a year on public broadcasting.

Though I don’t agree with 100% of the article, it’s most definitely worth a readHat tip to Tom Woods.

Matthew Malkus's picture
By Matthew Malkus at 5:57PM

Pick an Agency, Any Agency: SSA

As fiscal conservatives continue to seek avenues through which to derail the federal gravy train, it helps from time to time to take a look at the mind-numbingly long list of federal departments and agencies that are on board. Of course, this list is hardly exhaustive – just one that is publicly available – but it can certainly give us some concrete ideas on how and where to cut the spending.image

Today: The Social Security Administration (SSA) 

About: “The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. ”
FY 2010 Budget: $695 billion in benefits + $11.6 billion in administrative costs (Source)

That's right – Social Security. The gift that keeps on giving, if you consider higher taxation, retirement ages, and future entitlements to be a gift. Social Security is the elephant in the room in American politics: everyone knows it's an issue, but no one is willing to cut. Don't you care about the poor and the elderly? We can't just kick them out into the street! Anyone who proposes the end of Social Security must be a heartless monster!


Read more here
Matthew Malkus's picture
By Matthew Malkus at 5:03PM

Pick an Agency, Any Agency: FHFA

As fiscal conservatives continue to seek avenues through which to derail the federal gravy train, it helps from time to time to take a look at the mind-numbingly long list of federal departments and agencies that are on board. Of course, this list is hardly exhaustive – just one that is publicly available – but it can certainly give us some concrete ideas on how and where to cut the spending.

Today: Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)

About: “[The FHFA seeks to] provide effective supervision, regulation and housing mission oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks to promote their safety and soundness, support housing finance and affordable housing, and support a stable and liquid mortgage market. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) was created on July 30, 2008, when the President signed into law the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.”
FY 2010 Budget: $139.3 million (Source)

In response to the housing crisis in 2008, media pundits and politicians were quite convinced that there simply wasn't any regulation in the housing market.


Read more here
Matthew Malkus's picture
By Matthew Malkus at 7:51PM

Pick an Agency, Any Agency: GIPSA

As fiscal conservatives continue to seek avenues through which to derail the federal gravy train, it helps from time to time to take a look at the mind-numbingly long list of federal departments and agencies that are on board. Of course, this list is hardly exhaustive – just one that is publicly available – but it can certainly give us some concrete ideas on how and where to cut the spending.

Today: Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration

About: “The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) facilitates the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and related agricultural products, and promotes fair and competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers and American agriculture. GIPSA is part of USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs, which are working to ensure a productive and competitive global marketplace for U.S. agricultural products.”
FY 2010 Budget: $84 million (Source)

You read that correctly. The USDA essentially has a marketing department called GIPSA, established in 1994. While they speak of a “competitive global marketplace,” however, they don't deal with foreign marketing or exports; no, for that, you'd have to go down a couple floors to the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). But that's another article for another day. If GIPSA is in the business of marketing, but there's a separate agency to improve American agriculture in foreign markets, then what does that leave GIPSA tasked with?


Read more here
Matthew Malkus's picture
By Matthew Malkus at 3:59PM

Pick an Agency, Any Agency: Amtrak

As fiscal conservatives continue to seek avenues through which to derail the federal gravy train, it helps from time to time to take a look at the mind-numbingly long list of federal departments and agencies that are on board. Of course, this list is hardly exhaustive – just one that is publicly available – but it can certainly give us some concrete ideas on how and where to cut the spending.

Today: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Amtrak Logo

About: “The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak (reporting mark AMTK), is a government-owned corporation that was organized on May 1, 1971, to provide intercity passenger train service in the United States.”
FY 2010 Budget: $2.02 billion (Source)

As I recently contemplated a trip in several weeks from New York City to visit friends in Washington, DC, I considered my options. Being on a tight budget as a college student, a flight was out of the question – besides, the trip isn't so far, and I'd rather not subject myself to whatever the airport security standards happen to be in a few weeks. Fortunately, I turned to one of the many privately-run bus lines that operates on a 24/7 basis for a great deal: at only $17 round-trip, a 4-and-a-half hour bus ride would be a breeze, especially with the wireless internet.


Read more here
Matthew Malkus's picture
By Matthew Malkus at 6:37PM

Pick an Agency, Any Agency: BTS

As fiscal conservatives continue to seek avenues through which to derail the federal gravy train, it helps from time to time to take a look at the mind-numbingly long list of federal departments and agencies that are on board. Of course, this list is hardly exhaustive – just one that is publicly available – but it can certainly give us some concrete ideas on how and where to cut the spending.

Today: The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)

About: “The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) was established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. As the newest operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the BTS mission is to compile, analyze, and make accessible information about the nation’s transportation systems; collect information on intermodal transportation and other areas as needed; enhance the quality and effectiveness of the Department’s programs through research and the development of guidelines; promote improvements in data acquisition and use.”

FY 2010 Budget: $28 million (Source)


Read more here
Seth Mann's picture
By Seth Mann at 12:28PM