Don't bet on it! In FY2006 just 3% of the budget went to natural resources. Before you stand up and cheer, realize that that 3% includes all of the federal dollars that go to agriculture (including subsidies). Defense spending dwarfed all other spending, consuming 57% of the FY2006 budget.
I had to check out that link. I was impressed and this is a good place to get a 'snapshot' for those interested in talking the numbers. However, I was skeptical that Defense spending consumed a whopping 57% of the near $3 trillion Fed budget, and was confirmed it did not. The refererence was to total discretionary spending, a big difference. For anyone wanting a simple 'ballpark' grasp of federal spending, it goes about like this: Defense is about a quarter, Social Security is about a quarter, medical care is about a third, and the rest is miscellaneous. Defense spending has always historically fluctuated around a quarter of total fed spending. The current excess $100 B or so will go away once we're out of the M/E quagmire. The big scary run away aspect of the budget, if anybody's interested, is medical care- medicare and medicaid. That's going to eat us up like a giant gorilla.
Posted by Carl Donohue on March 2, 2008 at 4:45 AM
Hey Mark
Have you seen any of Joseph Stiglitz' research on the cost of the war? He's a Columbia Uni Professor, and 2001 Nobel-prize winning economist. His paper, and new book, point to a real cost of $3 trillion. Check out Joseph Stiglitz, or this paper. Later remarks he's made suggest the cost could go as high as $5 trillion.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by mark miller on March 2, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Oh yes, his report just came out. What Stiglitz is talking about is the same "hidden costs' that Milton Freidman talked about- that there is more of an economic impact with policy that's hidden than just the apparent numbers. Whether it's military or non-military, the costs of government are exorbitant, beyond what meets the eye, was MF's point The news, for instance, recently released the cost of teachers' retriement benefits for New York and California, and that coincidentally is also estimated to be $3 trillion. Certainly there are affects that will last long term and influence the economy in years to come. My point is if we want to talk about the economy, then let's get the budget numbers straight. 57% of the entire national budget is not military, expensive as it is. I'd say the great bulk of our citizenry is absolutely clueless about the federal budget, but does have a lot of emotion. We can be emotional and clueless and not get anywhere, or we can be get the facts straight and be passionate.
When the Bush administration earmaked an extra $35 million (plus or minus) for Yellowstone NP, that seemed great to me. However, the money is being spent on personnell, new buildings etc, rather than being spent to acquire adjacent lands that would make great wintering habitat for the wildlife, such as the buffalo. Instead, we will slaughter the wandering grazers that leave the park.
Posted by Carl Donohue on March 2, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Hey Mark,
"My point is if we want to talk about the economy, then let's get the budget numbers straight."
It seems even the administration has a hard time doing that. Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that the whole deal in Afghanistan wasn't included in the budget for defense spending, but snuck by under the auspices of something else? :)
" I'd say the great bulk of our citizenry is absolutely clueless about the federal budget, but does have a lot of emotion"
Well, the "great bulk", as you say, are probably just clueless, not just about the federal budget. :) :) :) And I'd question that the 'great bulk' has a lot of emotion - I'd submit most people are very unemotional about such matters, and don't really care at all.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Carl Donohue on March 3, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Hey Jeremy
Of course, I can't reply to this thread without pointing to an article I just wrote on "Natural Resources".
Discussion
8 repliesCheck out: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=107
While your at it, check out the cost of the Iraq war:
http://www.costofwar.com
Jeremy
> is likely for their elimination not protection.
When the Bush administration says "natural resources," what they really mean is "asphalt."
I am dismayed at the offense budget.
Pete D.
Have you seen any of Joseph Stiglitz' research on the cost of the war? He's a Columbia Uni Professor, and 2001 Nobel-prize winning economist. His paper, and new book, point to a real cost of $3 trillion. Check out Joseph Stiglitz, or this paper. Later remarks he's made suggest the cost could go as high as $5 trillion.
Cheers
Carl
When the Bush administration earmaked an extra $35 million (plus or minus) for Yellowstone NP, that seemed great to me. However, the money is being spent on personnell, new buildings etc, rather than being spent to acquire adjacent lands that would make great wintering habitat for the wildlife, such as the buffalo. Instead, we will slaughter the wandering grazers that leave the park.
It seems even the administration has a hard time doing that. Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that the whole deal in Afghanistan wasn't included in the budget for defense spending, but snuck by under the auspices of something else? :)
Well, the "great bulk", as you say, are probably just clueless, not just about the federal budget. :) :) :) And I'd question that the 'great bulk' has a lot of emotion - I'd submit most people are very unemotional about such matters, and don't really care at all.
Cheers
Carl
Of course, I can't reply to this thread without pointing to an article I just wrote on "Natural Resources".
Cheers
Carl