Discretionary Spending

Much is made of the limits imposed on the Federal government’s discretionary spending by such “mandatory” spending items as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and interest on the national debt.  Indeed, after mandatory items—these three major items and a few others—discretionary spending amounts to only 33% of total Federal spending as of 2015.

This dichotomy, though, isn’t only misleading, it’s entirely wrong.  The fact is, nearly all of Federal spending is discretionary: Congress sets the spending levels everywhere, and it decides the things on which to spend nearly everywhere.  There are only three categories of spending that our Constitution requires of Congress: to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.  Even in these three mandatory areas, though, the amounts to be spent are left to the discretion of Congress, even if the requirement to pay the Debts implies a requirement to spend at least enough to keep the debts current if not actually to move the size toward zero, and even if the requirement to provide for the common Defence implies a requirement to spend at least enough to keep our defense establishment superior to all threats.  Even the requirement to spend for the general Welfare is limited to the 16 items enumerated in Article I, Section 8; here, too, the amounts actually to be spent are left to Congress’ discretion.

There is, then, no requirement for Congress to spend Federal monies—citizens’ tax money—on Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid.  And no Federal money should be spent on these items, which as of 2015, comprised 49%, or $1.8 trillion of the total $3.7 trillion in Federal spending.

Think about the uses to which that money could be put were Social Security and Medicare privatized and Americans allowed to be responsible for their own health and futures, rather than being required to spend their money on others’ current retirement and health costs.  Think about the effects of block granting Medicaid payments to the individual States and then annually reducing the size of those grants to zero, so that the States would be allowed to be responsible for their own budgets and their citizens could spend that money on themselves.

Think about how $1.8 trillion could be redirected: lower tax rates and less government spending, so that Americans could keep more of their own money to spend on their own imperatives, needs, and wants, and the effect of their being able to spend in a market in which the Federal government isn’t crowding out private enterprises, private buyers and sellers with government competition for the same goods and services.

Think about other redirections of those $1.8 trillion: keeping lowered spending less than lowered tax revenues and so eliminating Federal deficits: budget surpluses and a significant fraction of those $1.8 trillion could be redirected toward paying down our nation’s exploding debt.  Another significant fraction of those $1.8 trillion could be redirected toward rebuilding and then vastly improving our national defense establishment, so that we can, not merely match, but exceed and defeat the threats against us, defeat our enemies and friends’ and allies’ enemies acting on those threats.

Congress has the discretion to do all of these things; its spending decisions—its revenue decisions generally—are not limited to those $1.2 trillion misnamed “discretionary.”

Unfortunately, the present Government doesn’t trust its employers, We the People, collectively and individually, to see to our own needs and wants; Government insists on determining these for us.  This Government, too, doesn’t believe we need a very large defense establishment at all.  It prefers, instead, to retreat from the world stage, to talk to Russia about its aggressions in eastern Europe and the Middle East, to talk to the People’s Republic of China about its aggressions in the East and South China Seas.  This Government doesn’t even recognize the Islamic terrorist threat and their war actively being prosecuted against us.

This needs to change.  Every single bit of it.

Another Thought on Clinton’s Death Tax

This one by Brad Anderson, ex-Best Buy CEO.

This is a devastatingly stupid idea…. I worked for a guy who was a high school graduate, created a company—it didn’t make money for 20-years. And after 20 years it finally starts to build up. He has a dream that he’s trying to build, that includes passing some of it along to his family and if you take that away, why does he pay the price?

And why does that man’s family pay an even bigger price?

Enterprises that are left to heirs with value above Clinton’s death tax threshold very often have insufficient cash from the nature of the business—a farm, for example, or a physical plant-heavy enterprise—to pay up.  As a result, the heirs must sell their inherited business to raise the money for her vig.  And so the heirs are left without their inheritance—and so too often destitute.

Never mind this insult added to that injury: this wealth has already been taxed in real time, and often several times, as it was being created, earned, and distributed.

It’s Not the Family’s Money

It’s the Government’s.  Never mind that Government didn’t build and earn that wealth, the family did, along with their associates.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would impose a 65% tax on the largest estates and make it harder for wealthy households to pass appreciated assets to their heirs without paying taxes, according to an updated version of her tax plan released Thursday.

This is the Progressive view of property rights and property ownership.

There Are Charities, and There Are Charities

The Daily Caller has some numbers on the Clinton Foundation, which is pleased to refer to itself as a charity.  The Clinton Foundation spent, according to its 2014 Form 990 (the latest available)

  • a hair under $91.3 million in 2014
  • $34.8 million on salaries, compensation, and employee benefits.
  • Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses”

And

Despite taking in an additional $30 million in 2014, the Clinton Foundation spent 40% less on charitable grants in 2014 than in 2013. Even as it slashed charitable spending, the foundation increased the amount spent on salaries, employee benefits and compensation by $5 million in 2014.

Here are those 2014 vs 2013 numbers, taken from lines 8-19 of the Foundation’s 990 (rounded, in dollars):

Item 2013 2014 Change
Contributions and grants 142,900,000 172,600,000 +29,700,000
Grants and similar amounts paid 8,900,000 5,200,000 -3,700,000
Salaries, compensation, employee benefits 29,900,000 34,800,000 +4,900,000
Other expenses 45,300,000 50,400,000 +5,100,000

“Other expenses” include things like “legal” and “accounting” (small amounts); “occupancy,” “travel,” and “conferences” ($25 million); “other program expenses” (nearly $3 million), and so on.

Wait, what did the Clinton Foundation spend on actual charity?  Those “grants and similar…”: $5.2 million, down 42% from 2013, despite a 21% increase in revenue (those “contributions and grants”) over 2013.

Of the total Foundation spending of some $91.3 million (I’ve omitted some minor spending in my table above), the Foundation only spent those $5.2 million on “grants and similar….”  That works out to less than 6% of the money spent going to actual charities.  The rest went to the Foundation’s and Foundation personnel’s personal benefit.

There’s also this curious datum from the Clinton Foundation’s 990:

Under Liabilities (Part X, Line 18): “Grants payable” is $0.00 for both 2013 and 2014.  It’s an unusually efficient “charity” that has all of its charitable commitments fully paid by the end of every year.

TDC says that a well run charity spends only about 25% on administrative costs.  Take that with a grain of salt; I’ve seen numbers as low as 10% on admin, and numbers above 30%.  In any event, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t even come close to a decent or proper charity to expense ratio.

As Rick Moran, of PJMedia, put it in his description of these data,

If there’s a better definition of “pay for play,” I have yet to hear it.

The Clinton Foundation tax return can be seen here or here.

Union Greed

It isn’t enough that unions demand the “right” to raid honest citizens’ pocketbooks for union dues—demanding that non-union members pay up as a condition of being allowed to work.  Unions also are demanding the “right” to raid honest citizens’ pocketbooks for tax money with which to plus up union “pensions.”

See, for instance, the United Mine Workers of America and their pet Democratic Party Senator, Joe Manchin (whom we had thought was more honest than this).

The Miners Protection Act of 2015—sponsored by Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) and co-sponsored by eight Republicans—would bail out the underfunded pension plan of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA).

This potential for legalizing theft also has the unfortunate support of eight allegedly Republican Senators and the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Orrin Hatch (R, UT), who most assuredly should know better.

This bill would raid a mine reclamation fund to the tune of $490 million for the sole purpose of feeding the union maw.  Never mind that the unreclaimed mines would remain uncleaned up (which, by the way, Democrats, having successfully defunded mine reclamation, will rend and wail about those same unreclaimed mines for their personal political gain).

Manchin is disingenuously arguing that the Federal government has an obligation to bail out the union and its funds.  It’s a familiar refrain: Government has to do this, Government has to bail that out, because private enterprise—of which the UMWA is one, make no mistake about that—cannot be trusted to see to its own affairs.

Manchin is disingenuous in another way: as Diana Furchtgott-Roth (lately Labor Department Chief Economist and currently a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute) pointed out in her piece at the above link,

UMWA knows how to fund a pension plan.

The UNWA needs no government help in this.

And

Required filings with the Labor Department show that the pension plan for the officers of the UMWA—the president, vice presidents and treasurer—is solvent.

UMWA leadership has been careful to take care of themselves.  It’s on them—not honest American citizens—to take care of their membership, too.  Again, no government involvement is needed or appropriate here.

No, this whole sordid affair is just another Progressive effort to take money from honest Americans and redistribute it to their cronies.