With the recent release of President Obama’s FY 2014 budget, it is important to put the budget numbers from the various proposals into proper perspective. These charts compare the patterns of future spending projections from the Senate Democratic budget by Chairman Patty Murray, House Republican budget by Chairman Paul Ryan, Senator Rand Paul’s budget, and the president’s budget.
The Senate Democratic and House Republican budget proposals are scheduled for consideration; the former drafted by Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray, and the latter by House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan. The following charts compare and contrast key aspects of the Ryan and Murray plans. The charts use data from the Senate Democratic and House Republican FY 2014 budgets and the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent Budget and Economic Outlook.
On February 5, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its Budget and Economic Outlook for fiscal years 2013 to 2023. While the report might suggest the US economy and federal budget are on the road to recovery, such an assessment would be shortsighted.
Using the data from the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Report of the U.S. Government for fiscal 2011 and previous years, the chart below compares the year-over-year change in the United States’ end-of-year net position.
In recent weeks, politicians and pundits have often implied that reductions in defense spending would shrink the gross domestic product (GDP) and further weaken the already-weak economic recovery. Based on this week’s chart series, their concerns don’t appear to pan out. In fact, over the past 30 years, real economic growth has grown and shrunk irrespective of defense-spending levels.
As the chart shows, defense spending has almost doubled in the past year in current dollar terms and will continue to grow in spite of automatic cuts set by the BCA. Clarifying these figures reveals that sequester cuts do not warrant the fears of policymakers who warn about “savage cuts” to the defense budget.
Modest adjustments that reduce spending on entitlements do not touch the core of the issue. Real fiscal reform requires deep cuts across the board to all programs and activities that are better managed by state and local entities and by the private sector.