USAFacts—a new way to gather government statistics

This non-profit has been launched by Steve Ballmer and wife Connie.  Although most non-profits established by wealthy capitalists claim to be non-partisan and unbiased, we’ll have to see about that.  When Ballmer gives interviews we’ll see the clues. But since I frequently use government statistics myself in making my points about medical costs, education, immigration, sex/gender, religion, animals, housing, etc., I welcome any source which can make sense of it all, particularly the blending of federal, state and local.  Federal dollars, for instance, are only 3% of total spending on education.

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/full-interview-steve-ballmer-discusses-usafacts-new-10-k-government/

“USAFacts is a new data-driven portrait of the American population, our government’s finances, and government’s impact on society. We are a non-partisan, not-for-profit civic initiative and have no political agenda or commercial motive. We provide this information as a free public service and are committed to maintaining and expanding it in the future.

We rely exclusively on publicly available government data sources. We don’t make judgments or prescribe specific policies. Whether government money is spent wisely or not, whether our quality of life is improving or getting worse – that’s for you to decide. We hope to spur serious, reasoned, and informed debate on the purpose and functions of government. Such debate is vital to our democracy. We hope that USAFacts will make a modest contribution toward building consensus and finding solutions.”

https://usafacts.org/

  

The plan is to divide all government statistics by the four items in the Preamble’s mission statement.

“Revenue And Spending

Government revenue and expenditures are based on data from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Each is published annually, although due to collection times, state and local government data are not as current as federal data. Thus, when combining federal, state, and local revenues and expenditures, the most recent year shown is 2014, the most recent year for which all three sets of data are available. We show government spending through two different lenses:

Spending by segment: We recategorized several programs and functions to align them with four constitutional missions based on the preamble to the constitution:

• Establish Justice and Ensure Domestic Tranquility
• Provide for the Common Defense
• Promote the General Welfare
• Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity

This approach is modeled after what businesses do for their own management accountability and shareholder reporting. Public companies present their businesses in segments – a logical framework for discussing the areas in which the they operate. We do the same for government. In using this constitutional framework, we have made judgements in how we group programs. . .

Spending by function: We also show spending by functional categories such as compensation for current and past employees, capital expenditures, transfer payments to individuals, interest on the debt, and payments for goods and services. “

Spending patterns of older Americans

 

 

  By 2050, when our children are 80+ there will twice as many seniors as today. So the purpose of this study (BLS) is to figure out how do people over 65 spend money (we’re consumer units). If businesses and investor are going to plan, they need to know where the opportunities are.

 

The first thing you notice is how income, which peaks in the 50s, drops in the 70s (retirement pensions, savings, investments—which is why we need to elect capitalists). I think the food category is high, but that’s because it probably includes eating out—and we sort of tuck that into entertainment (we don't do much for entertainment). Everyone eats out much more than they need to—food is pretty reasonable, but if you’re paying someone to prepare and serve it, not so much. In 2013, Americans spent 5.6 percent of their disposable personal incomes on food at home and 4.3 percent on food away from home. 

  

I was surprised that housing costs (as percent of income) were as high as the study shows.

Contributions got lumped into “other” so that’s a pretty sloppy category. I know there are all sorts of categories we could reduce, but really don’t have the will. Clothing costs are down for older Americans.  I just love shopping for clothes at resale stores and getting brand name jeans for $1.00. I didn’t discover them til after I retired. For nice stuff, I just let my daughter do that for Christmas and birthdays. But that trend isn't good for some malls and retail stores with such a shift in demographics.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-5/spending-patterns-of-older-americans.htm

Who says we're spending too much on health care?

Both Democrats and Republicans say the ever rising cost of health care is unsustainable. Republicans want sensible cuts, less regulation, tort reform, more competition across state lines, and less graft and corruption to lower our costs; Democrats are aiming at single payer--i.e., government pays all, which will raise the cost for everyone through higher taxes, just not at the doctor's office.

But who decided we pay too much? Have you looked at what the "average" household unit pays for health care compared to other items in our budget? 5.7% or $2,853, is what the household unit of 2.5 people with a gross income of $63,091 pays for health care. That household, imaginery as it is, pays 6.9% of its spendable income on household funishings, supplies and operations. Who in the government is demanding that Obama pay for your next couch or dining room suite? That household is paying 6.5% for vehicle purchases, and 17.6% total for transportation. Except for the recent cash for clunkers, when the government paid people to take out new car loans and destroy the only cars poor people could afford, we don't hear the government demanding that Honda and Toyota lower their prices or give away their products.

We pay 12.4% of our spendable income on food--7% at home and 5.4% away from home. I doubt that Obama is going to suggest that all the employed women quit and start cooking more at home so they won't be taking the kids to restaurants--or maybe he will if it's McDonald's. And entertainment, if you toss in cigarettes and alcohol is higher than healthcare at 7%.

So the next time you hear a reporter whether CNN or Fox, or a politician, left or right, moan about the rising costs of health care, ask him about the mortgage on his house, or the loan on his car, or what restaurant she's stopping at after work.

Taxes cost us 14.8% of the average paycheck, not household unit, much more than healthcare, and it will be going up as healthcare costs get buried in every additional piece of paper and rule change the government will throw at us with PPACA.

It just could be, health care is the biggest bargain in our budget.

Consumer unit

Paycheck percentage for taxes

The Liberal’s Biggest Blind Spot: Who Really Rakes In Their Government Largesse?

"It was in late 2008, under President Bush, that a threatened financial meltdown triggered some hasty and dangerous Washington policy decisions to bail out large firms. Unfortunately, President Obama has doubled down and more on those policies, with unprecedented levels of government spending, most favoring big finance, big auto companies, big labor unions, and now big pharma and medical insurance companies."

The Liberal’s Biggest Blind Spot

From the Foundry 2010 Chart Book

Why do they think they can make automobiles?

“The waste highlighted in this report is only a fraction of the more than $385 billion the federal government throws away every year through waste, fraud and duplication. Yet, each example in this report is a snapshot that tells a larger story, just as the Bridge to Nowhere justifiably became a symbol of the corrupting nature of earmarks. The story the American people already understand is that Congress’ inability to make common sense decisions about spending priorities is putting our children’s future at risk. Until Congress abandons the short-term parochialism that gives us LobsterCams and inflatable alligators, we will never get a handle on the major economic challenges facing this country,” [Senator Tom Coburn, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Relations]. See Full Report, "2008 Worst Waste of the year."

"We could say they spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair--to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money." - Ronald Reagan on Congress